Thread: Rethinking the state of Israel

The main reason that the Jews have trouble is that they refuse to fit in with locals:- they are gods people,they do not, as a rule,interbreed with the locals and 'disappear'as a race.Nearly all other countries are a mix of all different races and over the centuries,individual stock gets all mixed up.UK has Saxons,Norse,French,Vikings,Irish,and all sorts of others,but the Jews kept apart and refuse to assimilate.

Originally Posted by crippen

The main reason that the Jews have trouble is that they refuse to fit in with locals:- they are gods people,they do not, as a rule,interbreed with the locals and 'disappear'as a race.Nearly all other countries are a mix of all different races and over the centuries,individual stock gets all mixed up.UK has Saxons,Norse,French,Vikings,Irish,and all sorts of others,but the Jews kept apart and refuse to assimilate.

,,they did before WW2 and that sent shock waves through the jewish hierarchy .All sorts of CRAZY stories went around that hitler was paid to exterminate as many jews as possible for the greater good. Yes, before WW2 jews and christians got married. there were many crazy stories about jews and there still are. That they are God's chosen people !!!!. That really is jing jing crazy.

Jews are not a race, only an ethnic group.

Israeli racism, at least when I was there in the 70s, is not restricted to the indigenous Arabs, it is just a clearer distinction. Actually, the lighter skinned European Jews who immigrated to the area, the Ashkenazi, held superior "racist" attitudes realative to the Sephardic Jews indigenous to the area.

^And you get this "impression" from what source?

If you look at the history of pogroms in Europe, say from the middle of the 19thC to the early 30s of the 20th, they tend to increase in violence and frequency in relation to the degree of "assimilation" of local Jews. Intermarriage rates tended to be high in these areas as well. Jews in the German-speaking areas of Europe were the most assimilated and the most intermarried, hence the careful definitions of what constituted a Jew once the Nazis got going on their project to rid Europe of its Jews.

But don't let a little thing like historical reality get in the way of your theorizing; it just makes thinking so much harder for those not really equipped for it anyway.

Israelis are racist kunts, no better than the Gestapo they have now replaced

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Israelis are racist kunts, no better than the Gestapo they have now replaced

Don't encourage that thought...even if it is true.

From the Desk of Jeff King: Bound for nowhere

"Bound for Nowhere".

Contains some interesting facts about the plight of WW2 era Jewish refugees in being turned away from almost every country they tried to escape to.

If Israel had been established then I am certain Hitler would have gladly shipped them all off to there.

Originally Posted by Panda

From the Desk of Jeff King: Bound for nowhere

"Bound for Nowhere".

Contains some interesting facts about the plight of WW2 era Jewish refugees in being turned away from almost every country they tried to escape to.

If Israel had been established then I am certain Hitler would have gladly shipped them all off to there.

How about Salt Lake City? Don't the Mormons consider themselves as the true Zion descendants and direct ancestors to the Lost Tribe of Israel?

^ You do understand that you are being an apologist for Hitler and the nazis, right?

Originally Posted by longway

^ You do understand that you are being an apologist for Hitler and the nazis, right?

No, not right at all.
Merely stating historical facts.
Unfortunately, the popular history we are fed in the media is not always the truth.

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by longway

^ You do understand that you are being an apologist for Hitler and the nazis, right?

No, not right at all.
Merely stating historical facts.
Unfortunately, the popular history we are fed in the media is not always the truth.

So you dont know. Thats fine, carry on. I was just curious.

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by longway

^ You do understand that you are being an apologist for Hitler and the nazis, right?

No, not right at all.
Merely stating historical facts.
Unfortunately, the popular history we are fed in the media is not always the truth.

So you dont know. Thats fine, carry on. I was just curious.

Read my answer again. What part of "NO", dont you understand.

it's a disgrace that no country was there to assist actively the jews to escape from the Nazi,

I guess that's why the Israelis are making us pay for it now,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

it's a disgrace that no country was there to assist actively the jews to escape from the Nazi, I guess that's why the Israelis are making us pay for it now,

Not correct, many emigrated in the 1930s , esp England and USA


How are they making us pay for it?

^This sort of thing constitutes "stating historical facts" in your view?

After WW2, since no country really wanted too many Jews in their country it was decided to create a new country for them. Returning the Jews to their promised land of Israel was the wests own final solution.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

^This sort of thing constitutes "stating historical facts" in your view?

After WW2, since no country really wanted too many Jews in their country it was decided to create a new country for them. Returning the Jews to their promised land of Israel was the wests own final solution.

Mate, if you want to discuss/debate the issue at hand please do by putting up some facts of your own for a change. Your personal attacks and snide remarks are getting boring.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Don't the Mormons consider themselves as the true Zion descendants and direct ancestors to the Lost Tribe of Israel?

Where did you read that, mormons base their ideology on the New Testament

The Jewish reclamation of what is now Israel started back in the 1800s with "outsider Zionist Jews" from other countries setting up fortified outposts on Palestinian land. There were many armed conflicts over these illegal outposts over the next several decades.

Interestingly there has always been a resident Jewish population in Palestine peacefully coexisting with the Muslims. Not unlike Iran today.
The trouble only really started when the more radical foreign Zionists started killing Palestinians and stealing their land. (not unlike the illegal Jewish settlements of today, I might add!)

After WW2, the newly formed UN decided to create an official homeland for the Jews since no country really wanted to be overwhelmed by them. Palestine was the natural choice as it was under British military control at the time and so the Palestinian people there really didn't have any choice in the matter.

The influx of Jews into Palestine caused some conflict with the Zionist immigrants reclaiming their "god given" right to land owned by Palestinians for many centuries. There were many bloody battles of which the Jews were predominantly victorious. Although in many cases the new Jewish immigrants did in fact legitimately purchase some land from the Palestinians. The British rulers tried to step in and keep the peace, but the Zionists turned against them using terrorist tactics (bombs) and British retreated since there was nothing but pain it it for them, leaving the place in the mess it is today.

The Zionist terror tactics employed to oust the British peacekeepers back then are regarded by many as the foundation and inspiration for modern international terrorism.

Its all there in the history books for anyone who wants to take the time to read it.

^In one sense, I'd love to be able to do so; it's just that what you think of as a "historical fact", I see as a "skewed interpretation". For another example of your "historical facts":

Mass extermination of the Jews was never Hitlers first priority, he just wanted the lot of them out of his domain.

Also, what you take as a personal attack, I see as a simple fact.

So, why bother really?

On the other hand, I don't give a shit about all this historical justification. Israel is what it is and where it is and that is that. It is a democratic state with many liberal features and I reckon it should defend itself against people like Hamas in whatever way it sees fit. You apparently prefer to support the Palestinians on the basis of their more recent "victimization". Good for you. Have at it.

I say give Kansas back to the Crow, Australia back to the Aborigine, and Thailand back to the Mon. England might best be given to people who differentiate between the Vikings, the Norse and the "French" in celebrating its "diversity". That way we can all have a laugh. A Norman by any other name...

Originally Posted by mao say dung

^In one sense, I'd love to be able to do so; it's just that what you think of as a "historical fact", I see as a "skewed interpretation". For another example of your "historical facts":

Mass extermination of the Jews was never Hitlers first priority, he just wanted the lot of them out of his domain.

Also, what you take as a personal attack, I see as a simple fact.

So, why bother really?

On the other hand, I don't give a shit about all this historical justification. Israel is what it is and where it is and that is that. It is a democratic state with many liberal features and I reckon it should defend itself against people like Hamas in whatever way it sees fit. You apparently prefer to support the Palestinians on the basis of their more recent "victimization". Good for you. Have at it.

I say give Kansas back to the Crow, Australia back to the Aborigine, and Thailand back to the Mon. England might best be given to people who differentiate between the Vikings, the Norse and the "French" in celebrating its "diversity". That way we can all have a laugh. A Norman by any other name...

Well there you go Mao. If you got nothing useful to say, why even bother?

This debate has been going on for decades. Even a high-school kid could come up with some form of rebuttal with a little bit of research. I am sure you can do better than the above bit of emotive vitriol.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

A Norman by any other name...

The Welsh might disagree

^And well they might. Although, why they would bother is another question altogether.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

It is a democratic state with many liberal features and I reckon it should defend itself against people like Hamas in whatever way it sees fit.

being a democratic state doesn't give you the right to persecute and kill innocent civilians,

Hamas has the right to defend itself,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by mao say dung

It is a democratic state with many liberal features and I reckon it should defend itself against people like Hamas in whatever way it sees fit.

being a democratic state doesn't give you the right to persecute and kill innocent civilians,

never said it did...

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Hamas has the right to defend itself,

Of course. And given that Hamas is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, I'd say the Israelis are unlikely to ease up on them any time soon. War is hell, and it's particularly bad for the losers.