Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/16/10 04:07 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/16/10 03:45 PM, JackOfShadows wrote: This led to the Zionist way of thinking. It simply states that Jews have no way of being accepted in Europe, or anywhere else. They have to establish their own country to defend themselves from aggression and antisemitism.

The point is that they chose Jerusalem specifically for religious reasons.
And they don't try to hide it.

Who doesn't try to hide it? Palestine was chosen not solely for religious reasons, as most of the people who started the Zionist movement were secular and wanted to create a secular state. The religious were against the movement from the beginning. Palestine was an obvious choice for secular Jews because of the historical and cultural connections they had to the land.

At 3/16/10 03:54 PM, poxpower wrote:

It's not the "cultural" part that makes them go there.
Secular Jews stay the fuck out of Israel.

The first Zionists were all secular. The religious Jews wanted to sit around and wait for the Messiah. Heck, there are still Jewish fundamentalists living is Israel that don't recognize the state of Israel, burn flags on Independence day and so on.

I'm saying that the people who moved there thought of themselves as refugees, as homeless and then made Israel their home because culturally that was the only option they had.

No, RELIGIOUSLY.

Where else could the Jews have gone to establish a Jewish state? Where else could they have any kind of claim?

No that's bullshit, they integrated just fine everywhere else they are except for instances where they'd mesh with other radical religious groups who read the bible and went "hey wait a minute, you guys killed Jesus! Slay the unbelievers!".

Dreyfus affair.
A classic example of a secular Jew persecuted by antisemitists.
The antisemitism and injustice revealed in France by the conviction of Alfred Dreyfus had a radicalizing effect on Herzl, demonstrating to him that Jews, despite the Enlightenment and Jewish assimilation, could never hope for fair treatment in European society.

If they had dispersed around the world and just moved to whereever, no one would have given a shit. There's a large Jewish community in Montreal for instance, no one cares. What they did was gather by the tens of thousands in a place with a competing radical religion and refused to assimilate. That's stupid and we see where that got them.

The refusal to assimilate is what kept the Jews as an ethnic group in existence. You can't seriously expect them to just marry their way into becoming Arabs.

Jews weren't some poor refugees when they moved to Palestine in the 20s, 30s and 40s. In fact they were better off than the arabs.

Right, because they worked hard to work their way up in the society. Note that many Jews gave up their social status, money and careers to come to Israel to build a state where they could openly be Jews, without fear of prosecution.

The only reason Jews were better than the Arabs is that they did their best to turn this piece of desert habitable. The Arabs didn't lift a finger to undo the ecological devastation left by the Turks.

At 3/16/10 05:41 PM, poxpower wrote:

Well how far back do you want to go? Because there were people there before the Jews ever existed too.

As soon as the early Canaanites come along, they should get the land?

And the earliest mentions of Jews there all stem from the bible as far as I know, there's no actual evidence otherwise :o

Israelites as early as 9th century BC.

From what we ACTUALLY know, Persians, Babylonians, Greeks and even Romans.

Yes, they controlled the land and the Jews who lived upon it. So, Jews were here long before the Arabs crawled out of their peninsula.

Jews came about there as a kingdom in 140 AFTER Christ.

First off, Judea was a tributary kingdom of the Roman empire since 1st century BC. Second, what does it matter if they had their own kingdom or not? Jews settled in Judea centuries before the Islam unified Arabs and sweeped the Middle East.

Anything before that starts with "according to the Jewish scriptures...".

Right. Never mind the geological findings dating centuries before Christ.

And even in that time, the Romans controlled the place, then the Byzantines and THEN the muslims and THEN Christians, then Turks and finally, the Brits.

So, if it's about who controlled the place last, right now it's the Jews. The Brits are a close second place. If it's about who came here first, then it goes to the Jews.

Jews have as much of an historical claim to that city or the area surrounding it as my left testicle.

Did your left testicle build two temples in Jerusalem?

At 3/16/10 07:06 PM, JackOfShadows wrote:

At 3/16/10 03:54 PM, poxpower wrote: No that's bullshit, they integrated just fine everywhere else they are except for instances where they'd mesh with other radical religious groups who read the bible and went "hey wait a minute, you guys killed Jesus! Slay the unbelievers!".

If they had dispersed around the world and just moved to whereever, no one would have given a shit. There's a large Jewish community in Montreal for instance, no one cares. What they did was gather by the tens of thousands in a place with a competing radical religion and refused to assimilate. That's stupid and we see where that got them.

The refusal to assimilate is what kept the Jews as an ethnic group in existence. You can't seriously expect them to just marry their way into becoming Arabs.

Wow poxpower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitis m

Yeah they were welcome everywhere they went!!!

At 3/16/10 07:06 PM, JackOfShadows wrote:

The religious Jews wanted to sit around and wait for the Messiah.

Jews were already established in Israel before the Zionist movement.
And if they weren't? Then why go there in the first place?

Where else could the Jews have gone to establish a Jewish state? Where else could they have any kind of claim?

Why do they need a Jewish state? And how do they have any claim to Israel? At the start of the mass immigration, there were as many Jews there as Christians and way more Arabs.

Again: their religion says that's their land.

Dreyfus affair.
A classic example of a secular Jew persecuted by antisemitists.

Ok I get what you're saying but here's what they were told when asked if they could have Palestine: ""if one day the Islamic State falls apart then you can have Palestine for free, but as long as I am alive I would rather have my flesh be cut up than cut out Palestine from the Muslim land.""
- The Sultan of Turkey

Here's my suggestion for where they could have gone: not a muslim country.
Australia maybe? That's pretty big.

The refusal to assimilate is what kept the Jews as an ethnic group in existence.

Which was a pretty good thing for them throughout history as we know.

You can't seriously expect them to just marry their way into becoming Arabs.

If you move to an Arab country, you learn to speak their language and to follow their customs.
If you don't want to do that, stay out. That goes for any immigrant who goes anywhere.

The Arabs didn't lift a finger to undo the ecological devastation left by the Turks.

Well that's their problem. They didn't ask for 400 000 Jews to come into their country to fix shit. If I go to your house and fix the toilet, I don't get to say "well you weren't taking care of it anyway so I'll just shit here from now on".

And the earliest mentions of Jews there all stem from the bible as far as I know, there's no actual evidence otherwise :o

Israelites as early as 9th century BC.

Yeah, and what's the source? The bible.
Seems pretty much up in the air as to who was actually there at this point and how they ruled the place and how many were there etc.

Yes, they controlled the land and the Jews who lived upon it.

No, Jews were exiled and lived there in minority.
Jews own that place like Cubans own Florida.

Second, what does it matter if they had their own kingdom or not?

They claim they own the place. How can they have owned anything if they never ruled over anything? I don't own my apartment, I rent it.

Right. Never mind the geological findings dating centuries before Christ.

They find things, but it doesn't necessarily match the texts.

So, if it's about who controlled the place last, right now it's the Jews.

No one questions who owns it, they question how they go to own it.

then it goes to the Jews.

No, they weren't there first. There were ancient people living in the area before the canaaites and those guys certainly weren't Jewish themselves as they predate the oldest Jewish texts by centuries. I'm pretty sure it's only when they wrote their texts that they made up the story about how those guys were actually the first Jews, which is probably bullshit like the story of Moses and Abraham are.

If you read a brief history of the place, you'll find no mention of Jews, only mention of words associated with them NOW. The original Canaanites were NOT Jewish, they had a different religion and practiced polytheism.

Modern monotheistic Judaism is probably no older then 2500 years.

Jews have as much of an historical claim to that city or the area surrounding it as my left testicle.

Did your left testicle build two temples in Jerusalem?

Oh we're going by the number of buildings now?

At 3/16/10 07:06 PM, JackOfShadows wrote: Where else could the Jews have gone to establish a Jewish state? Where else could they have any kind of claim?

Here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Auto nomous_Oblast

At 3/16/10 03:54 PM, poxpower wrote: Your point was that it's fair anyway since the Arabs took it from someone else who took it from someone else etc.

No, that wasn't my point. I never claimed anything was fair. Nothing about this situation will ever be fair to everyone. Everyone is going to be fucked over by this situation no matter what happens.

The point was that, as I said, its impossible for anyone to own the land and arguments about emigration only go so far. This is one of the most conquered pieces of land in the history of the world. This is yet another stage of that happening.

But there's no "arabs". The people who took the land were long dead when Jews started their mass exodus into Palestine.

And a lot of the Jews who settled Israel are dead as well. So the point is moot. People have been born there and lived all their lives there. They have as much right as anyone else to call it home. And they will do it too.

Yeah pretty much, there's no reason why they would have flocked massively there. Everything that happened afterward was a consequence of this.

It wasn't because of religion, it was because they had been told it was their home all their life by their parents and because, after years of discrimination, they went to the only place they had left. Sure, for many god was involved and religion to. And the religion may have been a focal lense for that emigration, but you miss the point. Wherever people see the land of milk and honey, opportunity, freedom they go to. Its why America draws so many immigrants. This case isn't unique, just the reason for calling it home.

It's not the "cultural" part that makes them go there.
Secular Jews stay the fuck out of Israel.

That's not really true. Being one, I'd know. And it is the cultural part. At this point, most people go there because the people are similar and welcoming. Their culture has a home. Its like, if you're a geek and you want to hang out on a Friday night, you're more likely to go to the group playing D & D than to the bar with the hot chicks (even if you really want to bang the hot chicks).

No, RELIGIOUSLY.
A "holy city" is not secular culture, it's RELIGION. Maple syrup is a culture, holy maple syrup is a religion.

They aren't mutually exclusive, and I guarantee the culture has more bearing.

No that's bullshit, they integrated just fine everywhere else they are except for instances where they'd mesh with other radical religious groups who read the bible and went "hey wait a minute, you guys killed Jesus! Slay the unbelievers!".

I'd give you the timeline of antisemitic happenings over the last few hundred years that might lead a Jew to believe this, because its the belief and not the reality that mattered in this case, but it would be too long. Suffice to say that every country in Europe exiled the jews at some point in the last 2000 years. The U.S. had the KKK and plenty of other antisemites, Harold Ford for instance. No matter how you spin it, the Jews at the time had been conditioned to believe there was no place left for them to go and be themselves and be safe, so they went back to the one place in their cultural memory that made sense. Now, there were plenty of non-zionist jews who went other places. My ancestors came here. But that does not change condition of the zionist mind that led 300,000+ people to Israel.

If they had dispersed around the world and just moved to whereever, no one would have given a shit. There's a large Jewish community in Montreal for instance, no one cares. What they did was gather by the tens of thousands in a place with a competing radical religion and refused to assimilate. That's stupid and we see where that got them.

You're talking about the group of people who tried to assimilate in Europe & Russia. It didn't work out well in either of those places. It didn't matter if your were secular Jew, HItler still wanted you dead. It didn't matter much in Russia either. The pogroms (prevalent throughout the 1800s and early 1900s) instigated much of the "exodus" as you call it. France, also was hugely antisemetic in various political fields. And yes, there are places in Canada & the U.S. & other countries where it did work out, but these are people who had done exactly what you are suggesting and which did not work out.

Yeah because they don't assimilate and they go there illegally.

Not all of them. I know many who have assimilated. Its xenophobia pure and simple. Hatred of someone not like you.

Jews weren't some poor refugees when they moved to Palestine in the 20s, 30s and 40s. In fact they were better off than the arabs.

Some were and some weren't. And when I say homeless I don't mean in the sense of poverty, I literally mean a group of people who felt they did not have a place to go and be safe, someplace they belonged.

At 3/17/10 09:14 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

The point was that, as I said, its impossible for anyone to own the land

If you can't own land, you can't own anything.

It wasn't because of religion, it was because they had been told it was their home all their life by their parents

And why did the parents think that? Because it was true or maybe because it was written in a certain book?

and because, after years of discrimination,

Antisemitism in Europe was driven by Christianity, that's a pretty well-known fact. Any way you slice it, they left for religious reasons. Religion has everything to do with this.

they went to the only place they had left.

Israel wasn't theirs.
And Jews were established in New York as soon as the 17th century. Don't give me any of that tear-jerking "but they had nowhere else to go " bullshit.

Wherever people see the land of milk and honey, opportunity, freedom they go to.

They should have gone to the USA then because the Arabs sure as shit didn't want them there and they didn't hide that fact. It's even in their religious texts. They no likey jews and any demagogue who wants to get rid of them could just point to the Quran.

That's not really true. Being one, I'd know. And it is the cultural part.

Now you're talking about current-day tourism.

so they went back to the one place in their cultural memory that made sense.

Again, it's their book. The book says "Jerusalem is your holy city, Israel is your land'. That's why. The Muslims didn't want them there and they don't have a historical claim to the area any more than dozens of other people.

stop with your lies, israel always was and be a jewish land.

At 3/17/10 10:24 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/17/10 09:14 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

The point was that, as I said, its impossible for anyone to own the land

If you can't own land, you can't own anything.

Of course.

And why did the parents think that? Because it was true or maybe because it was written in a certain book?

Home and truth aren't necessarily reconcilable concepts. You can feel at home in a place that doesn't belong to you and it goes beyond any religion. Yes, the book reinforced the idea and perhaps prolonged the existence of the idea, but it was the idea's existence to begin with that caused this. Had it not been a religious book, but still be well read and passed on the outcome would have been the same or similar.

Antisemitism in Europe was driven by Christianity, that's a pretty well-known fact. Any way you slice it, they left for religious reasons. Religion has everything to do with this.

No, it was driven by xenophobic people. P.E.O.P.L.E.

And it was cultural as well as religious. I can't divorce religion out of it, but it isn't the cause. You said it yourself that Jews live in Montreal virtually unmolested. Its because of the culture. Are there Christians in Montreal?

Israel wasn't theirs.
And Jews were established in New York as soon as the 17th century. Don't give me any of that tear-jerking "but they had nowhere else to go " bullshit.

In their minds, they didn't. New York still isn't advertised as "the home of the Jews"

They should have gone to the USA then because the Arabs sure as shit didn't want them there and they didn't hide that fact. It's even in their religious texts. They no likey jews and any demagogue who wants to get rid of them could just point to the Quran.

The Americans didn't want them either, not more than so many of them. There were quotas so they really didn't have that choice. Many did, though.

Now you're talking about current-day tourism.

The only problem that exists currently is the current one, but this goes beyond tourism. Face it Pox, you don't really know much about Israel or Jews or the people that go there, you're assuming things that fit your world view.

Again, it's their book. The book says "Jerusalem is your holy city, Israel is your land'. That's why. The Muslims didn't want them there and they don't have a historical claim to the area any more than dozens of other people.

If no one has a historical claim then it shouldn't matter. Your argument is hypocritical. Many Muslims actually didn't and still don't mind the Jews being there, they just aren't as vocal because they don't give much of a shit.

At 3/17/10 11:18 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

If you can't own land, you can't own anything.

Of course.

Then go back to the woods hippie.

but it was the idea's existence to begin with that caused this.

The book didn't come from the idea, the idea came from the book. And that's especially true for modern Judaism.

No, it was driven by xenophobic people. P.E.O.P.L.E.

No, people are the same all over the globe.
Christianity was used again and again as the backbone of Jewish persecution for hundreds and hundreds of years in Europe.

Are there Christians in Montreal?

Montreal is not a theocratic regime fueled by Christianity like Europe was at the time of Jewish persecution for centuries.

In their minds, they didn't.

And how does this oppose my "they had no business there" claim exactly?

The Americans didn't want them either

Based on what?

not more than so many of them. There were quotas

Quotas where?
The Brits had to impose some in Israel because so many Jews moved there. They had to turn some back to Europe DURING the war because of this mass exodus to the same spot.

The only problem that exists currently is the current one

Yeah and we're talking about whether or not it was a religiously generated conflict when it happened.

If no one has a historical claim then it shouldn't matter.

Yeah it does because the reason Jews moved there was because they said that was "their land". There were 80 000 jews in Palestine before the zionist movement. By comparison, there were 250 000 of them in the USA by 1880. and a lot of them moved there because of the european persecutions. By the 20s, 2 million jews were in the USA.

Not welcome there? Bullshit.

Your argument is hypocritical. Many Muslims actually didn't and still don't mind the Jews being there, they just aren't as vocal because they don't give much of a shit.

Well they didn't mind either before 400 000 jews moved to Israel, that's when the antisemitism and violence escalated, because, again, instead of moving into the place and integrating, they FLOODED the area demanding their own rights and countries. What do you think would happen? It's not "xenophobia" or even antisemitism, that's bullshit. They basically planned a nonviolent takeover of half the area.

Again, picture 500 000 Russians moving into Texas in the 60s and then declaring "hey fuck you guys, this half of the state is RUSSIAN now!".

The Jews were WRONG to go there and they wouldn't have gone them if it wasn't in their religious texts.

At 3/17/10 12:15 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/17/10 11:18 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

If you can't own land, you can't own anything.

Of course.

Then go back to the woods hippie.

What? You can't even refute it, you've resorted to insulting me as your ONLY response, not that I feel particular resentment to anything you've said.

How do you own anything? There is no physical scientific connection between an object & the person who claims to be his owner. Ownership under the laws of physics does not exist. End of story. Its something we assign arbitrarily to the person who got there first or the person who got there second and was strong enough to hold onto it. But if there's an apple that two people discover at the same time assigning ownership isn't cut and dry. Culturally we believe because something is already owned that it ever was owned, but that's a logical failing on our part.

I will agree possession exists, and feelings of ownership. But a right to property is something we assume exists. Its as mythological as religion. You believe it because some other guy, probably your parents told you so.

The book didn't come from the idea, the idea came from the book. And that's especially true for modern Judaism.

Who wrote the book? A man with ideas? OH.

So ideas formed the book. How can you prove where the idea came from? Its the idea. The book is merely a recording of it.

No, people are the same all over the globe.

I've never heard anything so silly in my life. Not all men are created equal, even if we'd like them to be, even if the most just governments must assume they are. Ever met someone insanely stupid?

Christianity was used again and again as the backbone of Jewish persecution for hundreds and hundreds of years in Europe.

Yes, Christianity was used, and by who? Why? People, as a justification for their crimes, crimes they were only too willing to commit of their own volition inspired by fear and hate and desire.

Are there Christians in Montreal?

Montreal is not a theocratic regime fueled by Christianity like Europe was at the time of Jewish persecution for centuries.

Exactly, so Christianity can't be responsible, theocracies and bad governors are and people who live with a certain culture which is not defined by religion alone.

In their minds, they didn't.

And how does this oppose my "they had no business there" claim exactly?

They had business there. They believed they did. That's generally all that matters for a person to do anything. People are autonomous. They have feelings and desires and they act on them. A man who feels he has only place in the world to be at home will go there regardless of other opportunities especially ones he does not recognize. The point is simply that they believed Israel was where they needed to go to be home and be themselves.

The Americans didn't want them either

Based on what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration _Act_of_1924

I know you quoted down below from wikipedia, but you then ignored the response to a great influx of Jews from Russia.

Quotas where?

See above.

Yeah and we're talking about whether or not it was a religiously generated conflict when it happened.

You've said it yourself. The problem was not religion, it was the large influx of population caused by several extenuating factors, most of which are Jews trying to escape Russian Pogroms to wherevery they could and not far off from them Germany.

"In the years before and during World War II the United States Congress, the Roosevelt Administration, and public opinion expressed concern about the fate of Jews in Europe but consistently refused to permit large-scale immigration of Jewish refugees.
In a report issued by the State Department, Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat noted that the United States accepted only 21,000 refugees from Europe and did not significantly raise or even fill its restrictive quotas, accepting far fewer Jews per capita than many of the neutral European countries and fewer in absolute terms than Switzerland."

You might also look up "SS St. Louis"

Yeah it does because the reason Jews moved there was because they said that was "their land". There were 80 000 jews in Palestine before the zionist movement. By comparison, there were 250 000 of them in the USA by 1880. and a lot of them moved there because of the european persecutions. By the 20s, 2 million jews were in the USA.

Not welcome there? Bullshit.

See above.

Your argument is hypocritical. Many Muslims actually didn't and still don't mind the Jews being there, they just aren't as vocal because they don't give much of a shit.

Well they didn't mind either before 400 000 jews moved to Israel, that's when the antisemitism and violence escalated, because, again, instead of moving into the place and integrating, they FLOODED the area demanding their own rights and countries. What do you think would happen? It's not "xenophobia" or even antisemitism, that's bullshit. They basically planned a nonviolent takeover of half the area.

So the issue wasn't religion, but emigration.

Again, picture 500 000 Russians moving into Texas in the 60s and then declaring "hey fuck you guys, this half of the state is RUSSIAN now!".

The Jews were WRONG to go there and they wouldn't have gone them if it wasn't in their religious texts.

I never argued it was the right thing to do, I argued that it happened for different reasons than what you said. In a perfect world Jews wouldn't have been persecuted in Europe & Asia and they would have never felt the need to leave their houses to go to Israel.

There was no right thing to do. You can't seem to grasp that.

ok cutting it short now...

At 3/17/10 01:24 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 3/17/10 12:15 PM, poxpower wrote:

I will agree possession exists, and feelings of ownership. But a right to property is something we assume exists.

It's part of society, it's how the world works, don't like it? Then giiiiiiet out. Until the day you invent a replicator machine that runs on optimism, that's the way it's gonna be.

Yes, Christianity was used, and by who? Why? People, as a justification for their crimes, crimes they were only too willing to commit of their own volition inspired by fear and hate and desire.

Yeah sure, religiously motivated crimes are actually just "excuses" to commit the crime in the first place.
Get real.

I know you quoted down below from wikipedia, but you then ignored the response to a great influx of Jews from Russia.

The quotas weren't aimed specifically at the Jews.

You've said it yourself. The problem was not religion, it was the large influx of population

- They wouldn't have moved there if it weren't for their religion
- The muslims wouldn't have so many reasons to hate them if it weren't for their religion
- The jews wouldn't have had to move in the first place if it weren't for Christianity and centuries of persecution stemming from bible-justified antisemitism.

Religion is never the only factor in anything, but in this case it's an EXTREMELY strong one.

There was no right thing to do. You can't seem to grasp that.

Who knows, I'm not a historian. I can't tell you they could have avoided the Holocaust or what countries they would have thrived in or who would have let them where or if it was really a completely impossible solution.

All I'm saying is that:

1. The move to Israel and the current situation is largely the result of religious influence
2. Moving to Palestine doesn't seem like it was the smartest thing to do

For instance: move to Australia or South America.

There weren't more welcomed to Palestine than anywhere else before the war, seems to me that they picked that place for pretty bad reasons.

At 3/16/10 05:20 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: yeah Morefng the thing is judaism has been around and in israel for over 4000 years islam has for 1400 years it belongs to the jews.

;;;;
PErhaps so.
It isn't a concern ,how long the jews or the muslim faith has been around.

Abraham was promised that this chosen land was to be his.
HE had 2 sons
one from a Jewish wife
one from an Arab wife.
HE supposedly led his family (which has children from both peoples to the 'Promise Land'
But they couldn't get along then or now.

I see it to be they are BOTH right.
They are BOTH entitled.
They can't get along & are too stupid to realise they could be much better off cooperating.
So I don't see it as my problem, they want to continue killing each other , fine I'll watch & enjoy the stupidity !

At 3/17/10 03:27 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Abraham was promised that this chosen land was to be his.
HE had 2 sons
one from a Jewish wife
one from an Arab wife.
HE supposedly led his family (which has children from both peoples to the 'Promise Land'
But they couldn't get along then or now.

why do you think he had this son from an arab wife? hagar was ancient egyptian handmaid. ancient egyptians slave us and eventually destroyed.

At 3/17/10 01:24 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 3/17/10 12:15 PM, poxpower wrote:

I will agree possession exists, and feelings of ownership. But a right to property is something we assume exists.

It's part of society, it's how the world works, don't like it? Then giiiiiiet out. Until the day you invent a replicator machine that runs on optimism, that's the way it's gonna be.

The concept of ownership is going to exist. I'm not disagreeing, but the initial inception of ownership not being based on any universal truth is not something rigid that will always be followed or that even could always be followed. It is far more naive to believe property is protected under ownership in all circumstances. It doesn't work that way. I'm not arguing free love right now or sharing or anything like that.

There is no universal truth of ownership of property, this Includes territory and is directly applicable to Israel. So long as a body can establish dominion and control over the territory and hold out long enough they will be considered the owners eventually, if not by others than at least by themselves. We are well beyond halfway there with Israeli's believing this about Israel. They, those who have been born there now believe they are owners and the only thing you have to say about that is that 75 years ago that wasn't the case, which I"m claiming is no irrelevant to the current situation which is that two bodies of people equally believe they have ownership of the land and hence the conflict.

Yeah sure, religiously motivated crimes are actually just "excuses" to commit the crime in the first place.
Get real.

I'm arguing that not all crimes committed by jews, arabs, and christians are religously motivated even if there is context for them to be. Some may be, but not all. You're the one using blanket generalizations here.

The quotas weren't aimed specifically at the Jews.

That doesn't look at the context. No, they weren't aimed specifically at Jews, but there created in part in response do to the mass immigration. Your argument that Jews were welcome in this country doesn't fly because not enough of them were to stem the influx into other nations. 2 million Jews moved into the united states, and then it sharply dropped to 20,000 while it increased in Jerusalem.

- They wouldn't have moved there if it weren't for their religion

We've already shown they believed they had very few places to go besides Israel, but they tried anyway.

- The muslims wouldn't have so many reasons to hate them if it weren't for their religion

I don't follow this one. If it had been an influx of atheists that may have been worse, culturally. On some level Jews & Muslims respect each other simply because they both believe in the Abrahamic god.

Sure if the Jews had been Muslim it might have been better, but even that argument can be flipped. Most neighboring countries didn't want the extra Muslims from Palestine after the war. It was the excess of people that was the main problem.

- The jews wouldn't have had to move in the first place if it weren't for Christianity and centuries of persecution stemming from bible-justified antisemitism.

But they had to and there were few places to go, and not all antisemitism was directly related to Christianity, even if a lot of it was.

There was no right thing to do. You can't seem to grasp that.

Who knows, I'm not a historian. I can't tell you they could have avoided the Holocaust or what countries they would have thrived in or who would have let them where or if it was really a completely impossible solution.

All I'm saying is that:

1. The move to Israel and the current situation is largely the result of religious influence
2. Moving to Palestine doesn't seem like it was the smartest thing to do

In response to 2, that necessitates there being other alternatives.

For instance: move to Australia or South America.

Some did, but I imagine that a trip to Australia has monetary costs much higher than a trip , as did probably South America, geographically.

From Europe and Russia (specifically easetern europe/russia) it was much easier to go across the mediteranian.

Also, Jews did go to South America during this time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_
the_Jews_in_Latin_America

There weren't more welcomed to Palestine than anywhere else before the war, seems to me that they picked that place for pretty bad reasons.

Oh well, they are there now. You can't exactly kick them out and relocate them all.

At 3/17/10 03:39 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

So long as a body can establish dominion and control over the territory and hold out long enough they will be considered the owners eventually,

Yeah we call that squatting and it's looked down upon.

I'm arguing that not all crimes committed by jews, arabs, and christians are religously motivated

No one said they were.
Trying to pass off antisemitism that permeated Europe for centuries and was reinforced routinely by church edicts as "not religiously motivated" is pretty bold.

That doesn't look at the context. No, they weren't aimed specifically at Jews, but there created in part in response do to the mass immigration.

Everyone was coming to America at that time, not just jews.

Your argument that Jews were welcome in this country doesn't fly

They were as welcomed as anyone else from Europe.

- The muslims wouldn't have so many reasons to hate them if it weren't for their religion

I don't follow this one.

It's in the Quran and the Hadith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_a ntisemitism

It's easy to strengthen any antisemitic feelings using these texts.

It was the excess of people that was the main problem.

I know, I'm saying they moved there specifically because their religion said to.

and not all antisemitism was directly related to Christianity, even if a lot of it was.

Most of it

For instance: move to Australia or South America.

Some did, but I imagine that a trip to Australia has monetary costs much higher than a trip , as did probably South America, geographically.

Probably.

At 3/17/10 01:24 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

How do you own anything? There is no physical scientific connection between an object & the person who claims to be his owner. Ownership under the laws of physics does not exist. End of story.

Hey Gum. Based on what you said above, would you care if I came to your house one day and pissed and shat on your lawn?

At 3/17/10 04:30 PM, Mareak wrote:

At 3/17/10 01:24 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

How do you own anything? There is no physical scientific connection between an object & the person who claims to be his owner. Ownership under the laws of physics does not exist. End of story.

Hey Gum. Based on what you said above, would you care if I came to your house one day and pissed and shat on your lawn?

Of course I would care. I never denied people felt they owned things. But ownership is not something that last forever or that is rigid or that even exists. Slavery in america. End of story. We can all agree to respect ownership, but when two people believe they own the same thing we end up with problems like this. And by now, with generations dying off you can't clearly draw the line anymore.

At 3/17/10 03:33 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 3/17/10 03:27 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Abraham was promised that this chosen land was to be his.
HE had 2 sons

why do you think he had this son from an arab wife? hagar was ancient egyptian handmaid. ancient egyptians slave us and eventually destroyed.

;;;
Jewish writings & scholars seem to believe Issac was the true heir of Abraham.
The Qur'an spaeks of Ishmael as an Islamic Prophet.

I don't really "think" one way or another.
I just see it as fucked up. But seeing as history says they are half brothers & the Jews & the Muslims each have decided to pick one over the other, it IMO shows the issue is really a family feud.

I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Go look into the Blessings of Issac, & the Blessings of Ishmeal.
There's a bunch of stuff in Genisis & the internets full of info.

There is strong disagreement from both sides to which son was actually to be sacrificed by Abraham to God ...Jews say Issac, Muslims say Ishmael.

At 3/18/10 04:13 PM, morefngdbs wrote: But seeing as history says they are half brothers

Not history. Scripture. Mythology. Any self-respecting historian would acknowledge that there is as much historical evidence for the existence of Abraham and Isaac as there is for Odysseus or King Arthur. A legend based on real people? Maybe, at best.

Maybe.

this might be of some interest

Personally, I side with the Isralies. It's the Palestinians that cause they havock by blowing themselves up and killing innocent people. Then they complain because they're treated badly. Go figure.

I don't know much about the subject... but from where I'm sitting, the palestinians live in a hell they created through unneccessary violence.

At 3/18/10 01:58 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Of course I would care.

Just as I thought. Hypocrite.

At 3/18/10 04:13 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Jewish writings & scholars seem to believe Issac was the true heir of Abraham.
The Qur'an spaeks of Ishmael as an Islamic Prophet.

so?

I don't really "think" one way or another.
I just see it as fucked up. But seeing as history says they are half brothers & the Jews & the Muslims each have decided to pick one over the other, it IMO shows the issue is really a family feud.

muslims are pagans conveted bt mohammed, jews are sons of ex-pagan.

I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Go look into the Blessings of Issac, & the Blessings of Ishmeal.
There's a bunch of stuff in Genisis & the internets full of info.

"And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him"

There is strong disagreement from both sides to which son was actually to be sacrificed by Abraham to God ...Jews say Issac, Muslims say Ishmael.

i say none.

At 3/16/10 09:26 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/16/10 12:27 AM, LarrytheViking wrote: Palestine should be returned to Israel,

Hwaaat?
Israel was taken FROM Palestine.

your wrong here

palestine befroe 1948,before the jewish settlements.

At 3/19/10 02:33 AM, assassin1337 wrote:

At 3/16/10 09:26 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/16/10 12:27 AM, LarrytheViking wrote: Palestine should be returned to Israel,

Hwaaat?
Israel was taken FROM Palestine.

your wrong here

palestine befroe 1948,before the jewish settlements.

palestine before -1100? Joshua son of Nun?

At 3/19/10 01:26 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 3/19/10 02:33 AM, assassin1337 wrote:

At 3/16/10 09:26 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/16/10 12:27 AM, LarrytheViking wrote: Palestine should be returned to Israel,

Hwaaat?
Israel was taken FROM Palestine.

your wrong here

palestine befroe 1948,before the jewish settlements.

palestine before -1100? Joshua son of Nun?

It's written in my history book that five thousand years ago, before Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any of the Greeks and Romans, that city was called Yaboos, created by ancient Arab tribes. It was then given the name Jerusalem (City of Peace) by another ancient Arab tribe, afterwards, it was taken by the Jews. Then came the Romans that took the city. Followed by a lot of struggling by many over the land, finally ending with the British after the world war, which they then gave to the Jews.

So as you can see here, it states that the land is of Arab origins, I'm not sure if that is according to religious scriptures only. But I haven't heard this story before taking it in school, and there's very little I can gather of it on the internet.

Regardless, I pretty much agree with everything Pox said, he said everything I was trying to say, just better.