25-07-2002 09:11									#151
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

CyberGnu your opinion is noted but it is an opinion, unless you would like to prove what you say is fact?

If you want to have true facts you can not lump all cusualities into one group. You have to break it down which is what they did. I will dig up more reports of casuality break down stats if you like. The UN has a good one. They did disclose their sources and in this conflict you have to have those breakdowns. It is very clear though that the majority of Israelis killed are non combatants and a awful lot of women and teenagers.

I also find it amazing thier is far less rage when a bomb goes off in a market square in Israel killing innocents and many of them.

The bombing was wrong but so is the bombing of a bus of innocents, or a market square or any other place where there are innocent people.

	25-07-2002 09:16									#152
	Remove this text

There are only 2 (from what I've seen) people here who condone the indiscriminate killing of civilians as practiced by certain Palestinian nationalist organisations. There are far more who think that it's okay to do stuff like what happened a day and a half ago. We don't post stuff complaining every time a palestinian nutjob sets off a bomb on a bus because there's nobody to argue with. It's like asking why we don't post stuff complaining about homicidal maniacs every time somebody goes on a shooting spree in the US; we post stuff either arguing for or against gun control...

	25-07-2002 11:58									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Morning has come, and after a good night's sleep I've managed to find some additional info and facts for you all:

* The report handed over to govt. and mi. officials detailed the expected damage to nearby population as "scratches and shock wounds" only. I guess that settles it for any claims that anyone in the high ranks had any idea of the magnitude of the collateral damage and still authorized the operation, or that Sharon approved it intentionally to terrorize Palestinians or several other ridiculous claims I've heard.

* The total number of those killed is now up to 17 (including Shhada and two of his associates), dunno if that's because people have died of their wounds or rather because more bodies were recovered.
AFAIK noone who wasn't in the particular house that was attacked or in the nearby improvised housings was killed. This confirms my thoughts that the intelligence agency simply did not alert the other bodies of the army that there are homeless people living in improvised housings (tents etc') in the spaces between Shhada's house and nearby apt. buildings, which were supported by the walls of Shhada's house. They were killed as rubble came down on them.
Had the army known of their presence, they wouldn't have authorized the attack.
Had there not been so many people sleeping in such housings there would have been 13 less casualties.

* Shhada's wife and daughter were not there during the attack. The fact that Israel was so quick to admit that they might have been there during the attack is because the intelligence efforts were so sloppy that the house was observed by intelligence several hours before the attack, and the report that concluded they were not there was only valid for that time, not the time of the attack.

* I haven't heard of any other casualties which lived in other floors of the building that was attacked. I wouldn't be surprised if the other two apartments in the building turn out to have been empty, as this apt. building was not a regular apt. building where people's homes were but has been used by the Hamas as a hideout and a meeting place.

	25-07-2002 21:40									#154
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Please continue your propaganda.

Since when is professional historical research to be dismissed as propaganda?
Your remark rather suggests you have run out of arguments and are too lazy to check source references or read some literature on a subject formerly unknown to you.

I am still grateful for your recommendation of the study by M.Tessler, but have not yet succeeded to get hold of the book.

You also confuse anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
When you would truly study the subject you would discover that Zionists were(are) the most anti-Semitic of Jews.
While Orthodox Jews, liberals and socialists cooperated to set free Dreyfus, the Zionists did nothing.
They gloated at anti-Semitism because this force would drive the obstinate Jews to Palestine!

Since I prefer not to throw away my academic reputation, I will back up my opinion with a quotation:

"In March 1942 Chaim Greenberg, then the editor of New York's Labour Zionist organ, Jewish Frontier, painfully admitted that indeed, there had been:

[*]a time when it used to be fashionable for Zionist speakers (including the writer) to declare from the platform that 'To be a good Zionist one must be somewhat of an anti-Semite' ... To this day Labor Zionist circles are under the influence of the idea that the Return to Zion involved a process of purification from our economic uncleanliness. Whosoever doesn't engage in so-called 'productive' manual labor is believed to be a sinner against Israel and against mankind.[14]"

(source: L.Brenner: 'Zionism in the Age of the Dictators',1983)

[14] Chaim Greenberg, 'The Myth of Jewish Parasitism', Jewish Frontiers (March 1942), p. 20
[*] like the author I use another type to indicate that those were Greenberg's own words

note for Sirotnikov: "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators' is not identical to 'How Israel Was Won' by B.Thomas; it was written by another author and has a different title; nor was it published by Neturei Karta

Or perhaps this is also just 'anti-Jewish/Israel propaganda, this time enunciated by a Zionist himself?

For someone who actually studied History you have remarkably little respect for your colleagues.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

	25-07-2002 22:32									#155
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Shiber Wow S. Kroeze, I have to admit that I'm way out of your league. I don't know enough of history to even understand most of your arguments or how they relate to the current topic. I am merely a 17 yr. old who likes to hang around in forums (), while you seem to be more learned as well as older than me. When it comes to debating, you are obviously more than just my match. All I can do is group any of the arguments I could think of to answer back to your arguments in this message. Perhaps the bigger fish, e.g. Siro and others can answer you better.

Dear Shiber,

In my view your are a far more intelligent debater than Sirotnikov. His favourite tactics are insulting and discrediting of professional historical research.
I have asked about a dozen times to recommend a recent professional study that supports his view but he has consistently declined to do so.

My time is limited so I will not react in detail to your arguments. And I agree this discussion does not belong in this thread, but I couldn't resist reacting to your historical survey.
In my view one can only understand the present conflict from a long-term view. It is essentially a colonial war and I believe that in the end the coloniser will lose.

Discussing Zionist ideology is very important to this issue because it shows that it was never a 'nice' doctrine, but essentially a racist theory that thought/thinks that one race has superior rights to some other race. What do you think would happen when ALL people would migrate to that part of the earth where presumably some of their ancestors lived 2,000 years ago?

It is no accident that people like Strangelove will ignore legitimate questions like
Did Zionists ever try to combat anti-Semitism, Fascism, Nazism?
because the sad answer is: NO.
Of course after the Holocaust they tried to hide their shame!

In my view a Jew should be defined by his religion, not by race or ethnicity. I hope you do not subscibe to the concept of 'racial purity'.
There is freedom of religion in the entire Western world. Nor do I think it is agreeable to live in a country -mostly desert- that is at perpetual war.

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

	25-07-2002 22:40									#156
	Support Apolyton

Does Israel have a laser-guided bombs other than the 2000 pound bomb dropped. The critizism is that the bomb was much too large for the location - a residential neighborhood.

	25-07-2002 22:46									#157
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Frogger There are only 2 (from what I've seen) people here who condone the indiscriminate killing of civilians as practiced by certain Palestinian nationalist organisations.

CyberGnu and...? Imran? Kroeze? WarVoid?

	25-07-2002 23:08									#158
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

S. Kroeze, I don't think the issues between the Jews and Palestinians are "racial. I think they are religious. The Arabs, not just the PALs, have long been trying to evict the Jews from Palestine, or force them to live in an Islamic state, because this is Muslim land. In as sense, their crusade or jihad against the Jewish state is the same as the Latin crusades 900 years ago - motivated entirely by religious purposes, both when the West conquered and the muslims re-conquered.

As support for this argument, I cite Iran, an non Arab, but Islamic state.

Race has very little to do with the "Palestinian" side of the issue.

	25-07-2002 23:19									#159
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Everybody say tjat Israel is cruel. But leader of palest terrorist used childeren as a live shield, isn't it? Please think about terracts that were avoided by killing terrorist leader.

	26-07-2002 00:54									#160
	Tired of ads?

Shiver, I got swamped at work, I'll try to get back to you. (btw, remember one of my first remarks to you? Well, the accusation of anti-semitism took a few pages to appear, but appear it did nonetheless.... It always does. )

BlackIce, define 'opinion'. I pointed out that the report you posted cann't be considered research, and is thus an propaganda piece.

muxec, think about the terracts that would be avoided by killing Sharon.

Oerdin, you do realize that you thus deflate the main justification for stealing land in palestine: that jews need a nation of their own?

I agree comepletely that jews should have a nation of their own. But refusing an offer of one because it isn;t good enough (like the zionist movement did with Uganda) takes the argument from 'we need on because we are persecuted' to 'we want one because we're greedy'.

You also seem to have selective perception. After every major palestinian bombing in israel Eli, Siro or Natan usually start a thread within hours. Just do a search in the archives and you'll see that there is at least parity if not more.

	26-07-2002 01:18									#161
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

OK, have a few minutes to spare:

quote: What diplomatic techniques were they using that you'd consider wrong?

It is not the diplomatic techniques par se, it is the goal. Using diplomacy to unlawfully gain something is still immoral.

quote: Had the conditions in Israel were better and more Jews were inclined to migrate to Israel and 75% of the pop. would have been Jewish, what would you say? That we deserved 75% of the land? The Zionists wanted a national home for generations to come, not a state for that 25% of the population.

No, I don't think they had legal or moral right to any of the land, but that wasn't the issue here. I merely expressed my loathing for a group that after managing to steal a substantial chunk of land cried out because they didn't get more... Especially when even disregarding the moral and legal issues, the size of the land is STILL twice as big as it should have been...

quote: Perhaps, but the Germans have a national home. The Americans have a national home. The Jews don't. Every nation strives to gain an independent state in a region which that nation relates to historically, religiously or culturally, it being Israel for the Jewish nationl.

Shiber, there were no jews in palestine for 500 years. Then a small contigent moved to Jerusalem, and has stayed every since. Clearly, it was possible to move and live there. Furthermore, as Kreuze pointed out, persecution of jews was less in arab lands than in Europe.

Yet no other jews moved back. If Israel was so important, why did they elect to stay in europe?

Basically, the jewish people gave up their claim on Israel a long time ago. Just mumbling a 'next year in jerusalem' on holidays does not impart an ownership of land that other people have toiled for hundreds of years.

quote: We could have shared. There was plenty of room (if over than 6 Mil. people can live in Israel today (this including Israeli arabs) then couldn't the Jews and the Palestinians have lived together then?

That is what the arabs wanted. The palestinians fought the Ottomans because of a british promise for independance in a democratic state. But after the Balfour declaration it was clear that the zionist movement intended to have their own, jewish, state.


I think your next comment is covered above.

quote: I happen to know which paper you're talking about and it was referring to jobs. The Brits worried that if more Jews migrated to Israel there wouldn't be enough jobs for everyone and people would resort to violent protest. I'm simply not buying these claims of "lack of room". Millions lived in New York at that time and I don't hear the New York authorities complaining about lack of room (though they may be complaining about it today). Besides, at that time there were areas of Israel who haven't been settled by humans for hundreds of years. There was certainly "room".

The white paper (I think it is from 1928-29, but I might be wrong. I could try to dig it up again) says the arable land will not support more people without displacing arabs. It doesn't mention jobs.

Kroeze covered the 'room' issue.

Ahh, time to go again....

	26-07-2002 01:34									#162
	Put an end to popups!

CyberGnu, I am aware of the British statements to Hussein and to the Jews. They are not inconsistent. I am aware of no statements to any Palestinians concerning and "independent and democratic state." This would be flatout inconsistent with all prior British practice at that time to install monarchies with their Arab shiek pals as Kings. It is also inconsistent with events that occurred in early 1919 in Paris. Faisal negotiated with Weimann over Jewish immigration into Palestine. Faisal, as King of Syria, thought he was the King of this area as well, because then it was part of Syria. Weizmann also thought Faisal was the ruler.

Where did you get this?

	26-07-2002 01:56									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ned S. Kroeze, I don't think the issues between the Jews and Palestinians are "racial. I think they are religious. The Arabs, not just the PALs, have long been trying to evict the Jews from Palestine, or force them to live in an Islamic state, because this is Muslim land. In as sense, their crusade or jihad against the Jewish state is the same as the Latin crusades 900 years ago - motivated entirely by religious purposes, both when the West conquered and the muslims re-conquered. Race has very little to do with the "Palestinian" side of the issue.

Dear Ned,

I agree that on the 'Palestinian/Arab' side race is not the issue. These Arabs (Muslims and Christians) have lost their land and hope to win it back.

But how much Zionist literature did you read?
When you would have read my posts carefully you would acknowledge that the Zionists define a Jew not by religion, but by origin.

"Several Supreme Court decisions, however, forced Israeli policymakers to redefine the Law of Return on March 10, 1970. Accordingly, rights of citizenship could now be awarded to 'a child or a grandchild of a Jew, to his or her spouse and to the spouse of a child and grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who was Jewish and willingly converted to another religion.' The 'Jew', according to this redefined law, need not be alive and was not required to have had any connection to Israel. Moreover, if he or she was born to a Jewish mother or had been converted to Judaism by any rabbi and was not a member of another religion, then he or she was legally Jewish. To obtain citizenship, non-Jews who did not qualify according to Jewish religious law (halacha) could be naturalized."

(source: D.Peretz and G.Doron: 'The Government and Politics of Israel',1997)

note for Sirotnikov: 'The Government and Politics of Israel' is not identical to 'How Israel Was Won' by B.Thomas; it was written by another author and has a different title; nor was it published by Neturei Karta

What strikes me, is how easy it is with these law to become considered a Jew. Only for religious Christians and Muslims is it actually impossible to become a true citizen. So the 'natives' are kept out!

Religion defines 'Jewishness' in Israel only in a negative way: to become a Jewish citizen one should not profess some other religion. Yet an apostate or atheist is still considered a Jew.
Nor do I think -but I am uncertain about it- that someone born in Israel as a Jew will lose his Jewish identity for the law by conversion to some other religion.

So it is not accidental that the Orthodox -and the ultra-Orthodox do still today- opposed Zionism.
This is strange because only for someone believing in the 'Torah' as the word of a Supreme Being, does it make sense to migrate to the Holy Land.
Hardly any of the founders of Zionism was religious at all. Originally Herzl didn't care where a Zionist state was created.

When you would read more of pre-Holocaust Zionist literature I guess you would be truly appalled by its racist character. It is often both highly anti-Semitic AND anti-Arab. 'Racial purity' is generally considered a desirable quality.

And when 'race' wouldn't be an issue at all, why is there so much systematic discrimination against Israeli Arabs?

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

	26-07-2002 02:28									#164
	Increase Your PM Length

Cybergnu,

I'm curious (not an attempted troll - I'm serious) about something.

quote: I agree comepletely that jews should have a nation of their own. But refusing an offer of one because it isn;t good enough (like the zionist movement did with Uganda) takes the argument from 'we need on because we are persecuted' to 'we want one because we're greedy'.

Are you saying you think they should have accepted the offer of Uganda? What about the native Ugandans?

Though I think debating the creation of Israel in 1948 is a useless exercise in the context of trying to bring about a peaceful resolution to the bloody mess that is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (it's there now, and it ain't goin' anywhere), I do wonder what would have happened if we'd somehow managed to give them Montana instead. Or New Jersey... I wouldn't miss it.

-Arrian

	26-07-2002 02:31									#165
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Are you saying you think they should have accepted the offer of Uganda? What about the native Ugandans?

At the time, the section of Uganda they had been offered was virtually unpopulated.

	26-07-2002 02:33									#166
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Mass Aliyah to Uganda would've never happened.

	26-07-2002 02:34									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Why did you edit my post? The edit is the deletion of the reference to Iran.

This is a Islamic jihad against Israel. On the whole, this is not about the Palestinians getting back their land. It is about the Infidel governing muslim land.

From the Israeli point of view, Israel exists. Regardless of whether Zionism was in part racial - although I have a hard time with that since both the Jews and the Arabs are Semites - to insist that Israel is a colonialist racial conquest that deserves a short and painful deal is to be racist as well.

	26-07-2002 02:53									#168
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze Dear Shiber, In my view your are a far more intelligent debater than Sirotnikov. His favourite tactics are insulting and discrediting of professional historical research. I have asked about a dozen times to recommend a recent professional study that supports his view but he has consistently declined to do so. My time is limited so I will not react in detail to your arguments. And I agree this discussion does not belong in this thread, but I couldn't resist reacting to your historical survey. In my view one can only understand the present conflict from a long-term view. It is essentially a colonial war and I believe that in the end the coloniser will lose. Discussing Zionist ideology is very important to this issue because it shows that it was never a 'nice' doctrine, but essentially a racist theory that thought/thinks that one race has superior rights to some other race. What do you think would happen when ALL people would migrate to that part of the earth where presumably some of their ancestors lived 2,000 years ago? It is no accident that people like Strangelove will ignore legitimate questions like Did Zionists ever try to combat anti-Semitism, Fascism, Nazism? because the sad answer is: NO. Of course after the Holocaust they tried to hide their shame! In my view a Jew should be defined by his religion, not by race or ethnicity. I hope you do not subscibe to the concept of 'racial purity'. There is freedom of religion in the entire Western world. Nor do I think it is agreeable to live in a country -mostly desert- that is at perpetual war. Sincere regards, S.Kroeze

Dear S. Kroeze,
You seem to know a lot about the Zionist movement and its history, but not even once have you mentioned that there were factions within Zionism.
There were Zionists that said that Jews must make friends with their arab neighbors by bringing them the word of modernism and helping develop an infrastructure and raise the level of living in Palestine, and there were Zionists that said that Israel should be conquered by force and that Jews and Palestinians absolutely cannot live together.
There were Zionists who insisted on a Jewish state in Israel and there were Zionists for who would compromise, as to them it was more important to create a safe haven for persecuted Jews around the world than to colonize Israel with Jews.
There were Zionists who were helping European Jews as well rather than forcing them to migrate to Israel and there were Zionists who would rather see them die in the hands of the Nazis so they could use them to score points in their political battles.

Many people define themselves as Zionists, but surely you don't think this means that they all share the same ideas and opinions. I'd bet not once you gave your vote to a party even though you objected some of the proposals made by the party's leader or didn't want to see a certain party member become the foreign minister but voted for that party anyway so a different party member which you relate to can become the minister of finance.

People who declare themselves as Zionists have the right to choose what parts of Zionism they like. A person who declares himself as a Zionist cannot be blamed for holding the same opinions as another person who also declares himself as a Zionist. Same goes with Socialism (e.g. in Israel there are several socialist parties, all of which have completely different ways and agendas), as well as Fascism and other movements and ideologies.

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze What do you think would happen when ALL people would migrate to that part of the earth where presumably some of their ancestors lived 2,000 years ago?

This is a ridiculous statement. No Zionist leader has ever even dreamed that one day every Jew would live in Israel. Some wanted as many Jews as possible to come to Israel, others had different views.
According to my views there should be a Jewish state that is is mostly inhabited by Jews, which will serve as a national and a cultural home for the Jewish nation and perhaps a safe haven in case history repeats itself. Not all Jews are expected to live there, just like some Belgians live in Belgium and some live in Holland, etc'. This state does not have to be located in Israel, though I believe the Jewish nation has the rights to claim some of this land.

Btw Siro is spending the weekend in Turkey so he won't be able to answer you soon. He'll probably miss this entire discussion unless you'll contact him directly whe he returns and ask him to tune in.

	26-07-2002 03:25									#169
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Shiver, I got swamped at work, I'll try to get back to you. (btw, remember one of my first remarks to you? Well, the accusation of anti-semitism took a few pages to appear, but appear it did nonetheless.... It always does. )

Feminists are quick to blame others for being shovinists. This is just the same IMHO. (no hard feelings about feminists btw)
90% of all people are often quick to judge others. Why would you expect Jews to be the same?

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu muxec, think about the terracts that would be avoided by killing Sharon.

I can say the exact same about Arafat, you know.

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu I agree comepletely that jews should have a nation of their own. But refusing an offer of one because it isn;t good enough (like the zionist movement did with Uganda) takes the argument from 'we need on because we are persecuted' to 'we want one because we're greedy'.

It is obvious that if the Zionist movement ever accepted the Uganda proposal the Jews would never have had a chance to reestablish their religious, historical and cultural home in Israel. Doing so was one of the goals of the Zionist movement and they didn't want to give it up completely.

	26-07-2002 03:40									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Shiber, there were no jews in palestine for 500 years. Then a small contigent moved to Jerusalem, and has stayed every since. Clearly, it was possible to move and live there. Furthermore, as Kreuze pointed out, persecution of jews was less in arab lands than in Europe. Yet no other jews moved back. If Israel was so important, why did they elect to stay in europe? Basically, the jewish people gave up their claim on Israel a long time ago. Just mumbling a 'next year in jerusalem' on holidays does not impart an ownership of land that other people have toiled for hundreds of years.

Most Jews still elect to live outside Israel, e.g. in North America and Europe since the standards of living are higher there and it's much more dangerous to live in Israel than in N. America or Europe.
However, I'd like to remind you that there were times when Jews weren't free to wander. Even when the Zionist movement was established and Europe was relatively liberal (considering its past attitude towards Jews), the movement still had to work hard to persuade many countries to allow the movement to set up training camps and to send Jews to Israel.
As for the part about "mumbling" 'next year in Jerusalem', I'd like to point out that you actually misquoted the original saying, and the way you referred to it shows a complete misunderstanding of this Jewish tradition.
It was actually started after the 2nd temple was destroyed and Jews were once again thrown by force from their home land. I won't explain the tradition or what it means because this isn't really of any relevance, but my point is that you should not speak of what you don't understand.

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu That is what the arabs wanted.

Oh really, they did? Was that why armed attacks were constantly made against Jewish settlements (much before any declarations of intentions for granting independent states).

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu The palestinians fought the Ottomans because of a british promise for independance in a democratic state. But after the Balfour declaration it was clear that the zionist movement intended to have their own, jewish, state.

Both declarations were released by the British minister Balfour at the same time.

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu The white paper (I think it is from 1928-29, but I might be wrong. I could try to dig it up again) says the arable land will not support more people without displacing arabs. It doesn't mention jobs.

Yes it did. This was the main reason the Brits limited Jewish immigration: lack of available jobs. Perhaps you should read the paper before you quote it. I have.

	26-07-2002 03:41									#171
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ned, I think you are right. The British offer to the sherif of Mecca was a reinstatement of the caliphate. I confused it with a statement by the Mufti of jerusalem from 1915, where he envisioned a palestine ruled by palestinians, whether they be muslims, christians and jews.

It is sometimes used to illustrate how zionism created the mess that was palestine 1920-??, as this muft was one of the strongest proponents of allowing jews to settle in palestine until the Balfour declaration, after which he instead became one of the most outspoken anti-zionists.

(BTW, who is 'you' in 'why did you edit my post'?)

Last edited by CyberGnu on 26-07-2002 at 03:47

	26-07-2002 03:46									#172
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Shiber,

quote: Why would you expect Jews to be the same?

Is this supposed to read 'why would you expect Jews to be different'?

quote: I can say the exact same about Arafat, you know.

Well, since my response was in direct response to musex, it wouldn't make much sense...

quote: It is obvious that if the Zionist movement ever accepted the Uganda proposal the Jews would never have had a chance to reestablish their religious, historical and cultural home in Israel. Doing so was one of the goals of the Zionist movement and they didn't want to give it up completely.

and I refer to the following posts.

	26-07-2002 04:03									#173
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze Dear Ned, I agree that on the 'Palestinian/Arab' side race is not the issue. These Arabs (Muslims and Christians) have lost their land and hope to win it back. But how much Zionist literature did you read? When you would have read my posts carefully you would acknowledge that the Zionists define a Jew not by religion, but by origin. "Several Supreme Court decisions, however, forced Israeli policymakers to redefine the Law of Return on March 10, 1970. Accordingly, rights of citizenship could now be awarded to 'a child or a grandchild of a Jew, to his or her spouse and to the spouse of a child and grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who was Jewish and willingly converted to another religion.' The 'Jew', according to this redefined law, need not be alive and was not required to have had any connection to Israel. Moreover, if he or she was born to a Jewish mother or had been converted to Judaism by any rabbi and was not a member of another religion, then he or she was legally Jewish. To obtain citizenship, non-Jews who did not qualify according to Jewish religious law (halacha) could be naturalized." (source: D.Peretz and G.Doron: 'The Government and Politics of Israel',1997) note for Sirotnikov: 'The Government and Politics of Israel' is not identical to 'How Israel Was Won' by B.Thomas; it was written by another author and has a different title; nor was it published by Neturei Karta What strikes me, is how easy it is with these law to become considered a Jew. Only for religious Christians and Muslims is it actually impossible to become a true citizen. So the 'natives' are kept out! Religion defines 'Jewishness' in Israel only in a negative way: to become a Jewish citizen one should not profess some other religion. Yet an apostate or atheist is still considered a Jew. Nor do I think -but I am uncertain about it- that someone born in Israel as a Jew will lose his Jewish identity for the law by conversion to some other religion. So it is not accidental that the Orthodox -and the ultra-Orthodox do still today- opposed Zionism. This is strange because only for someone believing in the 'Torah' as the word of a Supreme Being, does it make sense to migrate to the Holy Land. Hardly any of the founders of Zionism was religious at all. Originally Herzl didn't care where a Zionist state was created. When you would read more of pre-Holocaust Zionist literature I guess you would be truly appalled by its racist character. It is often both highly anti-Semitic AND anti-Arab. 'Racial purity' is generally considered a desirable quality. And when 'race' wouldn't be an issue at all, why is there so much systematic discrimination against Israeli Arabs? Sincerely, S.Kroeze

Dear S. Kroeze,
Perhaps all the academic articles you've read have made you over confident, which is what made you post something that was riddled with mistakes.

First of all, the _religious_ definition of a Jew is one whose mother is Jewish. According to this Jews are essentially judged by origin, but this goes hand in hand with the bible which says Jews are the chosen people who have come from the sperm of Abraham, Yitzhak and Jaacov, the three fathers of the Jewish nation.

Moving on:

Do you think it's easy becoming a Jew and getting rights to migrate to Israel? You have to study for years, and then you Rabbi still has to decide whether you can become a Jew or not.
According to Halacha, one who expresses will to become a Jew shall undergo a long and often tiring process to determine his seriousness, as well as for other reasons. I'm not going to add to this subject since I've run across some trouble translating several Halacha texts and excerpts. You could ask a Rabbi who is a native speaker of the English language and he could fill in the blanks for you.

As for the law of return, I'm afraid religion often gets mixed with politics in Israel. This is all really a very complicated subject, which you can't even begin to understand as you'll need to either read hundreds of papers out of the thousands that were written on this topic just in Israel, as well as live in Israel for a long period of time and understand Israeli politics.
In other words, drop the topic. You only think you understand any of this, while you obviously don't judging by several remarks you've made. I'd rather not explain to you why you are wrong, as this would take me several hours of sitting in front of my computer and typing and I'd rather go outside, so please take my word for it and drop the subject.

Regarding the issue of the Orthodox people abolishing the state of Israel: haven't you been listening to what I'm saying? The Orthodox abolish the state of Israel because in their opinion, it is wrong for man to create a Jewish state because one may only be given by god in the 'Aharit Hayamim' when the Messiah will come and the 3rd temple of Jerusalem will be built.

P.S. There are many other reasons for a Jew, even an atheist Jew, to want to migrate to Israel, mostly cultural, but you wouldn't understand as I take it according to this remark that you haven't read much Jewish literature other than texts about history and Zionist manifests and suchlikes.

Regarding: "When you would read more of pre-Holocaust Zionist literature I guess you would be truly appalled by its racist character. It is often both highly anti-Semitic AND anti-Arab. 'Racial purity' is generally considered a desirable quality."

Some is, some isn't. No movement is free of hatred. Refer to my other post about factions within the Zionist movement.

Regarding: "And when 'race' wouldn't be an issue at all, why is there so much systematic discrimination against Israeli Arabs?"

The fact that they many Israeli arabs were actively collaborating with Jordan and Syria (aiding them in breaching the border and espionage etc') greatly contributed to this.
Until this very day Pal suicide bombers are often aided by Israeli arabs with intelligence or transportation.

	26-07-2002 04:07									#174
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Shiber, Is this supposed to read 'why would you expect Jews to be different'?

Yeah, 'twas a typo.

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Well, since my response was in direct response to musex, it wouldn't make much sense...

I only realized you were talking to him after I posted that.

	26-07-2002 04:15									#175
	Increase Your PM Length

Dear S. Kroeze,
I have to note that I am not surprised you read so many so-called academic texts which contain so many blunt mistakes or holes.
Many self-proclaimed researchers rely heavily on Hebrew texts and/or quotes from various Jewish figures that were put out of cultural and/or religious context by the translator, the researcher's source(s) or the researcher himself (though often unintentionally).
Since you do not come from a cultural or religious Jewish background, I advise you to double-check your facts and conclusions with those who do before you bring them here.

	26-07-2002 04:16									#176
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Most Jews still elect to live outside Israel, e.g. in North America and Europe since the standards of living are higher there and it's much more dangerous to live in Israel than in N. America or Europe. However, I'd like to remind you that there were times when Jews weren't free to wander. Even when the Zionist movement was established and Europe was relatively liberal (considering its past attitude towards Jews), the movement still had to work hard to persuade many countries to allow the movement to set up training camps and to send Jews to Israel.

When was it that jews weren't free to wander? All of the years 600-1900AD?

Look, the point is that leaving the land for almost 2000 years effectively kills all claims you had to it, even though you managed to keep some traditions regarding it. Whether 'next year in jerusalem' is a new or old custom is not the issue (and quite reminiscent of Siro's style of arguing... Avoiding the actual issue while refuting a minor detail).

As several people have pointed as regarding Uganda, however, it is apparently a question of standard of living, which turns it inot a questoin of greed.

quote: Oh really, they did? Was that why armed attacks were constantly made against Jewish settlements (much before any declarations of intentions for granting independent states).

Could you be more specific? What time periods are you referring to?

quote: Yes it did. This was the main reason the Brits limited Jewish immigration: lack of available jobs. Perhaps you should read the paper before you quote it. I have.

The actual passage:
The Administration of Palestine is required, under Article 6 of the Mandate, "while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced," to encourage "close settlement by Jews on the land," and no restriction has been imposed hitherto on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews. The Reports of several expert Commissions have indictaed that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created.


I'm guessing you are referring to the 1922 white paper where immigration was limited to 'what the economic capacity can handle'.

Perhaps you should read more carefully before you oppose a quote... I did

	26-07-2002 04:18									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Shiber No, because they are politicians, not militants. They may make horrible racists remarks but after all, it's a free country.

No, it's not.

	26-07-2002 04:21									#178
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

CyberGnu:

1. I was relating to that minor detail because it is important to me. I am somewhat sensitive about misunderstandings of Jewish traditions (I can't quite explain to myself why... nevermind, drop the subject).

2. Regarding: "..however, it is apparently a question of standard of living, which turns it inot a questoin of greed.".
Oh, would you have liked to be a hard-working pioneer and live in a swamp with a very good chance of dying out of Anopheles? Or would you rather have lived in Europe or N. America?

It's getting very late. I'll address the rest of your arguments tomorrow.

	26-07-2002 04:24									#179
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by orange No, it's not.

I was referring to Israel and Israeli politicians. I was saying that some Israeli politicians, especially right-wing extremists make racist remarks but that doesn't make them viable targets for assassination as Israel is a free and democratic society which promotes free speech.

	26-07-2002 04:27									#180
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Shiber
1) OK, I can undertand that. You understood my point though, that is all that matters.

2) And that is exactly what I'm saying. I'd rather live in Europe than in the ME, but if I take the easy choice I can't claim the other land back at a later date. It now belongs to the people who DID make the tougher choice (even though it might not have been a choice for them at all).