Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Imagine if someone came into your house, and they told you that someone you've never even met (and died before you were born) stole this house from them, so you are obviously also guilty of stealing *his* house.

Now imagine he subjectigates you to a small corner of your own house and makes you go through a checkpoint everytime you go to take a shit.

That's Israel.

---

At 8/27/11 11:50 AM, homor wrote: Imagine if someone came into your house, and they told you that someone you've never even met (and died before you were born) stole this house from them, so you are obviously also guilty of stealing *his* house.

Now imagine he subjectigates you to a small corner of your own house and makes you go through a checkpoint everytime you go to take a shit.

That's Israel.

well its not a simple issue to deal with. Ending their little Apartheid would mean more hate crimes and terrorist attacks.

There is really no "humane" way to deal with this, keep going on the track they are going on and they will be committing genocide. I personally think they should just say "okay you know what? you are free to go as you please everyone is now a 1st class citizen.", Issue an apology, and subject all people guilty of any violence to the same punishments as everybody else. There is no way to fix the problem without a bunch of people getting killed either way, got to get it over with sooner or later.

---

At 8/21/11 10:45 AM, Jizzlebang wrote: Get it?

the only legitimate human settlement on earth is the Rift Valley in Africa!

hold the phones; apparently we victimized non-sapiens homos out of there too, ergo nothing is legitimate. end thread?

---

At 8/27/11 08:07 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

the only legitimate human settlement on earth is the Rift Valley in Africa!

hold the phones; apparently we victimized non-sapiens homos out of there too, ergo nothing is legitimate. end thread?

Reductio Ad Absurdum. Back to /b/. Or are you going to say that if that's a logical fallacy that makes everything a fallicious statement since nothing is perfect? No, I hope not, because that's a fucking dumb train of thought.

This is silly, as like every thread the arguement follows this sort of framework: The "who had it first" arguement begins, because Jews lay original claim. Then theres the counter arguement that Arabic people of that area have always lived there, then the further counter arguement is that Palestinians are not a society of people like Jews. Then it goes to denying that Jews are bigoted towards the Palestinians and the inevtible accusation of anti-semitism. It'll end with a comparison that the duhumanization of Palestinians in Israeli media is similar to WW II propoganda, that will be strictly denied and the whole time the pro-Israel side will have used the word "Terrorist" as if there's nothing fucking scary about the IDF knocking your house down.

Then it becomes Ad Hominems, sarcasm and a citation war...where is Satanbrain, anyway?

---

At 8/27/11 08:22 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Then it becomes Ad Hominems, sarcasm and a citation war...where is Satanbrain, anyway?

Don't encourage him.

---

but if the question is legitimacy, we have to define how we find something to be legitimate. as has been pointed out before, most nations agree to Israel's right (inherent legitimacy) to exist as a nation. for some reason we like to think that matters, and our systems of government (the countries everyone likes) are defined by it.
so certainly it is fair to examine this right by other means; what were the factors in its creation, how was it created, what were the lasting effects of its creation, etc, etc, ... and most answers, beyond the creation of a stable democratic state (we like knowing others can count, i guess), aren't pleasant or particularly positive. so, should we weigh the legitimacy and righteousness of Israel's history, and by that measure accept or deny modern Israel's right to exist as a nation?
if not, how do you resolve the displacement of thousands generations ago? whether its Jerusalem or Paha Sapa, how do you deal with the children and grandchildren of those displacers, who took no part in the actions that brought them there and have grown-up as Israelis or Americans? do we do the same as was done to whoever else's forefather, force them off their land and destroy their nation? though i doubt that's what you hope to achieve, it is the only easy solution to land right claims.
another pertinent question in both the case of, Israel and the US, is according to whose claims do we reestablish borders/resettlement/land rights? Native American nations weren't a permanent patchwork of peace-loving territories, and numerous significant wars had reshaped many territories hardly a generation or two prior to American expansion. if you still think this is nothing but ridicule, you've missed the point that arbitrary decisions and structures define our world. undermining the legitimacy of Israel or the US (different from questioning action and policy), whether or not one seeks to destroy it, does damage to those who see themselves as Israeli, American, etc..., more certainly than it does to it's government.

the question was how can i hold Israel as legitimate and not demand a Native American America? because it would be impossible to achieve as things are today. in my opinion it is something that should be addressed in the same manner as the current state of the Palestinian people. whether or not they achieve independent nation/statehood immediately, or even in the near future is putting the cart before the horse.

we know who the Iroquois are, we know their lands (what we left them anyhow), but we're baffled when they identify as such...

At 8/28/11 12:08 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Don't encourage him.

oh ye of little faith.

---

At 8/27/11 03:49 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: 1. I don't recall ever claiming that.

You claimed israel committed these crimes, who executed the reigme's decision at the time if not the IDF?

2. That is deflectio from my asking you to prove the claim you made here and now, which proves to me that you can't back it up, so you deflect.

you have yet backed up your initial claim we ever committed war crimes in this war.

3. This topic was clearly stated as NOT being about Israeli policy, but about the legitimacy of the establishment of Israel. The IDF's policies and alleged war crimes are NOT relevant to that.

You have alleged the IDF did evicted palestinians, do you withdraw this accusation?

Those of arabic descent? Prior tribes, groups, or other now extinct states I'm not personally aware of?

Prove it.

But that's not a genetic thing. Show me where a bedouin is genetically dissimilar to everyone else. That is a social and cultural identity they apply to themselves. Genetics are not what is making them Bedouin.

Even if they lived exactly the same as palestinans? While both groups knew they weren't the same?

Genetically? Very very similar. But this is my whole point, you worry about ethnicity in terms of race and genetics.

That is what makes an ethnicity, common ancestry and most genetic resemblance.

You use that as the only way you define nation and my whole point is that nation can be defined by that...but there are also many other definitions, and when you talk about groups linked by common beliefs and history, you are dealing with nation being bonded by something different then genes.

History of common ancestors, which is related

Black people are genetically similar,

All of them are equally share the same genetic resemblance?

Genetics in the end do almost nothing to bond a group as a nation in the modern age.

They do, Pan-Arabism failed because of that, although many different arab nations share a lot in common.

And non-jews get it too. What are you trying to refute?

Refute the notion it is only a religious term.

I didn't say Jew is only a religious term. I said Judaism is a religion, thus I think you're harping on ethnic or genetic Jews is exclusatory and prejudice against those who are Jewish, and devoutly so, but do not have the genetic characteristics of the original Israelites.

Irrelevant, they do not have a right on this land. Believing in someting doesn't change your heritage.

Because they have a genetic similarity.

With each other, as i argued before, because they are an ethnic nation.

I have genetic similarities to my relatives who are German, but I do not consider myself German because I do not speak the language, know the customs, or even have a strong desire to visit the land.

"Also just because somebody raises their hand and identifies themselves as something, doesn't automatically mean they are that thing.", it is also applicable to lack identification.

Because culture has no bearing on genes?

But it is based on the history of our ancestors, not on global history.

I share genes with my German relatives but we have a completely different cultural and historical experience.

Cultural or historical experience doesn't alter your ethnicity.

I don't think you've ever "proved" anything because usually whatever evidence you use actually says something different then what you think it says.

I'll link to another study: "The shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City, Dr. Atzmon said. "

But you're not different nations because of genes dope. You're different nations because you broke off into different groups

And become other nations.

The history and culture makes you different, not the genes.

The history and culture which were those of our ancestors, which are different because of our genes.

But Zionism comes from that cultural identity,

Jews in different parts of the world haven't the exact the same rituals, which represent culture, yet zionism speaks of all the jews in the world.

of which the religion is a big part and a major unifying factor.

There still were jewish atheists, it doesn't contradict.

Why are Jews and Arabs exclusive terms? I have seen no evidence of why they have to classify differently.

If you wish to classify every middle eastern nation as arab then all jews are arabs, "arab" describes the arabs tribes who came from the arabian peninsula.

Sure, that could happen. Why someone would lie about something like that I don't get...\

Because he want to proves being part of the jewish nation is not ethnic but solely cultural.

How about cultural and societal traits?

Culture and society changes, genes remains.

Studies prove the Jews as a group tend to be very closed off, but Palestinians share enough similarities to be considered a distant "cousin".

They may be, but again, if we or they splited from one nation we are different nations, since one of us gave up his previous nationality and created another.

This is a policy question again that I really shouldn't have let you go so far along with. This belongs in the other thread, or your welcome to PM me and we'll continue the discussion that way.

You can retreat the notion Israel evited palesitnans if you do not want to answer that.

You'd be dead...so you wouldn't care about jack shit. I'm saying without support, and nobody wanting to help or aid Israel in their struggles, Israel's hostile neighbors most likely would have overrun your borders and eliminated all of you.

But you claimed we committed massacres in a certain period, and it is known we were aided before, during and after this period, so why have we "stopped" one type of war crimes if these other "war crimes" had no affect on our allies?

Other nations talk a lot about human rights, not liking dictators, etc etc. Yet they turn a blind eye when it's convenient to them. If you think world leaders always tell the truth, and are always doing what they say...well, I have bridge in London you might like to buy also.

It doesn't answer why, logically, they would stop aid us to halt our eviction of palestinians but do not care about our massacres. If it is as you claim, they should have stopped aid us until we stopped all of our "war crimes", or do not care about either.

---

At 8/28/11 12:08 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/27/11 08:22 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Then it becomes Ad Hominems, sarcasm and a citation war...where is Satanbrain, anyway?

Don't encourage him.

Too late!

---

must apologize for confusing who comments are directed at, and seeming silly.

---

At 8/29/11 12:31 PM, SolInvictus wrote: must apologize for confusing who comments are directed at, and seeming silly.

I would also like to point that you spent a very large part of your last arguement paralleling a land and people that were colonized hundreds of years ago to one that happened within the last centuary and is an ongoing process. You can't compare a did that's done to a deed in the doing - it's not too late to stop Palestians becoming a lost people.

Israel would be impossible I remove as a nation, I agree, but it's legitimacy as a state is undermined with its inherent disatsifaction with its current form - it's expansionist, and I can't really respect any state that feels it deserves more land than its got. This land from the borders is not a "buffer" zone as..well, why would anyone build settlements or even allow illegal settlements to happen in a buffer zone? I beleive the current disuputed territories are claimed to be occupied to proect Israeli people but is truly taken out of greed and a wish to culturaly dominate the Palestinian people through diluting their majority in a given area and by supressing current customs and identity.

And let's not call Israel a democracy or any of that "Shining beacon of the Middle East" stuff. I feel as bad for some of the Israeli people as the Palestinians, their government is horribly oppresive. They live in a police state.

I'd also like to add to your definition of a state that we also use the concept of government. That is that we associate the abstract "State" with the physical one. For instance there are many deserts that are said to be parts of a state - despite the fact that there's no people! So then it would stand that the legitimacy of the state existing in an area is at least partly , if not purely, down to the state's ability to enforce its legitimacy? ie: No one can sucessfuly dispute the area.

So then we can see any state is a transient thing - state's exist, are undone and are born on the same land with the same people often enough. Libya is no longer governed by any real government, for the meantime, and a "new" Libya will be born. Gaza, The West Bank and such are not really governed by the Palestinian Authority so their default ownership should be Israel..except there's a body disputing that (And it's not really the PA, sadly). America isn't disputed by the indians to any real degree, nor Canada. Norther Ireland was and is no longer seriously contested. Ossetia became a new state just a few years ago because it decided to.

So is a state just an abstract thing? An enforced collective agreement? And surely then, if the power exists, can't any state be undone? It's just the ugly truism that "might makes right" to me, it's legitimate because it's enforced. It's enforced because no one fights it. A state is not a thing.

---

At 8/29/11 01:24 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Israel would be impossible I remove as a nation, I agree, but it's legitimacy as a state is undermined with its inherent disatsifaction with its current form - it's expansionist, and I can't really respect any state that feels it deserves more land than its got.

while it might not have been overly clear, the intention in my original post (the one termed a reduction to the absurd) was an attempt to establish that our concepts of the nation-state and land rights are in and of themselves absurd.

not to mention that time is as arbitrary a means of discerning what should and shouldn't be fretted over as is majority rule; certainly some things have occurred centuries prior, but this does not cause nations (peoples) to disappear, nor their claims.

---

At 8/29/11 12:58 AM, satanbrain wrote: You claimed israel committed these crimes, who executed the reigme's decision at the time if not the IDF?

I don't remember doing so. Also this thread is not about policy or war crimes. It's about the legitimacy of Israel as a state. Discuss that or go back to the other thread.

you have yet backed up your initial claim we ever committed war crimes in this war.

I've offered evidence in the other thread, as have others. I'm not doing it again here because it would be inappropriate to the topic. Not to mention if you want people to actually answer you, it's helpful to answer them instead of ignoring them and making a completely irrelevant counter claim.

You have alleged the IDF did evicted palestinians, do you withdraw this accusation?

I didn't make that accusation ever. I've only ever talked in the other thread, where it is RELEVANT that there are parties in Israel that want Palestinians to move out of neighborhoods so it can be repopulated with Jews. Represent my claims accurately for once please. Also address this in the other thread or you will be banned for going off topic.

Prove it.

It's been proven to you time and again. You never accept the proof. How do I prove something when you'll just make up some conspiracy theory to dismiss it?

Even if they lived exactly the same as palestinans?

Yes, if you think they are genetically dissimilar, show me some proof that they are.

While both groups knew they weren't the same?

Define "weren't the same" do you mean genetically, or culturally? Because the crux of what I'm saying is that two groups can have genetic similarities, but vastly different identities culturally. Again though, we are going amazingly off topic. Please refer this debate to PM with me, or into the other thread. This thread is about Israel's legitimacy.

That is what makes an ethnicity, common ancestry and most genetic resemblance.

Except you're forgetting some other details. Let's define the word again: Ethnic. Just look at the first definition and it shows you are clearly omitting.

History of common ancestors, which is related

That's still genetics, this is not always the same as culture. Look at America which is a nation of people of many cultures and ancestors, many of them having NO commonality. That is why our motto is "E Pluribus Unum".

All of them are equally share the same genetic resemblance?

You really want to try and split hairs this badly? Why don't we start doing that with the Jews.

They do, Pan-Arabism failed because of that, although many different arab nations share a lot in common.

But there are nations formed that have nothing to do with genetic commonality. Western nations do this in the main.

Refute the notion it is only a religious term.

I know it's not only a religious term. But it's not only a genetic term either as you seem to say. If someone converts to Judaism with no prior genetic linkage to the Israelites, are they somehow "less" Jewish?

Irrelevant, they do not have a right on this land.

Why?

Believing in someting doesn't change your heritage.

Believing in something is PART of heritage. Stop misusing the term!
Heritage

With each other, as i argued before, because they are an ethnic nation.

With Jews as well, which was the whole point of bringing that up. Also as we pointed out "ethnic nation" is not always genetic. You're not using the term properly.

"Also just because somebody raises their hand and identifies themselves as something, doesn't automatically mean they are that thing.", it is also applicable to lack identification.

Is it? Because while my genetic heritage may be german, there is nothing in my cultural heritage that is german. We didn't continue those traditions or celebrate those roots.

But it is based on the history of our ancestors, not on global history.

So you're contention is that your people have NEVER been influenced by another people in any way? Bullshit.

Cultural or historical experience doesn't alter your ethnicity.

It doesn't change my genes, but ethnicity is not solely defined by genes. We just proved that.

I'll link to another study:

"Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also carries genes from other sources - usually the country in which it lives. " First paragraph, your article. So much for exclusive genetic purity.

And become other nations.

Mmm hmm. Became members of other nations, and thus are identifiable as part of them. Because...nations commonly do not divide themselves along genetic lines because nobody is purely one genetic heritage.

The history and culture which were those of our ancestors, which are different because of our genes.

No, they are different because your ancestors created it for themselves. Your genes show that you are mixed as much as anybody else.

Jews in different parts of the world haven't the exact the same rituals, which represent culture, yet zionism speaks of all the jews in the world.

Which is part of the cultural "Jewish" identity. You can have slightly different variations, but you essentially are of the same faith and people from a cultural perspective and that is what Zionism speaks to. The same as Muslims and Muslim Extremists want their message to reach all of their group.

There still were jewish atheists, it doesn't contradict.

Way back 3,0000 years ago? You can prove that? Also I'm not saying a Jewish atheist contradicts, just that a shared religion is a major welding factor to creating a group.

If you wish to classify every middle eastern nation as arab then all jews are arabs, "arab" describes the arabs tribes who came from the arabian peninsula.

Who apparently then mixed with the Jews. I think it's more helpful to classify in the way the average anthropologist does, vs. the way you do.

Because he want to proves being part of the jewish nation is not ethnic but solely cultural.

Stop saying ethnic when you mean genetic. Also culture would absolutely be a factor in any nation.

Culture and society changes, genes remains.

Except they really don't change very much for groups. Genes also get muddied.

They may be, but again, if we or they splited from one nation we are different nations, since one of us gave up his previous nationality and created another.

Huh? You've all given up your prior nationalities to some degree, that's what immigration does...start using words to their fullest definitions please.

You can retreat the notion Israel evited palesitnans if you do not want to answer that.

I'm not wanting to answer it because this is an inappropriate thread to answer it in. Also I've been clarifying my points elsewhere.

But you claimed we committed massacres in a certain period, and it is known we were aided before, during and after this period, so why have we "stopped" one type of war crimes if these other "war crimes" had no affect on our allies?

I didn't claim massacres, you've put words in my mouth. Also this whole line of inquiry is irrelevant to this thread and again I ask that you take it elsewhere or I will take action to remove you from this thread.

It doesn't answer why, logically, they would stop aid us to halt our eviction of palestinians but do not care about our massacres. If it is as you claim, they should have stopped aid us until we stopped all of our "war crimes", or do not care about either.

This is built on so many false assumptions that it's not even worth discussing. It's also off topic and therefore should not be answered.

Stay on topic or get removed SB. If you don't know what's on topic and what isn't, I'm happy to go over it with you via PM.

---

At 8/29/11 01:24 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Israel would be impossible I remove as a nation, I agree, but it's legitimacy as a state is undermined with its inherent disatsifaction with its current form - it's expansionist, and I can't really respect any state that feels it deserves more land than its got.

We got all the land we have, we have no wish to expand to egypt, syria or lebanon.

This land from the borders is not a "buffer" zone as..well, why would anyone build settlements or even allow illegal settlements to happen in a buffer zone?

Because it is part of our land, not a buffer zone.

I beleive the current disuputed territories are claimed to be occupied to proect Israeli people but is truly taken out of greed and a wish to culturaly dominate the Palestinian people through diluting their majority in a given area and by supressing current customs and identity.

Is not letting terrorists pass freely and kill us suppressing?

And let's not call Israel a democracy or any of that "Shining beacon of the Middle East" stuff. I feel as bad for some of the Israeli people as the Palestinians, their government is horribly oppresive. They live in a police state.

Do we? Can you prove it? Can you prove the communist protesters in Tel-Aviv are oppressed?

So is a state just an abstract thing? An enforced collective agreement? And surely then, if the power exists, can't any state be undone? It's just the ugly truism that "might makes right"

But the empires who occupied this land no longer exist, UK left willingly. These empire's might eventually collapsed and we were able to reclaim israel.

At 8/29/11 02:46 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I've offered evidence in the other thread, as have others.

Not any real evidence, and none of them were researches.

I didn't make that accusation ever.

"We have forced not one arab one, some of the palestinans have chosen run away by themselves."
"This has been proven time and again to be incorrect when one studies policies that Israel has, or currently pursues."

It's been proven to you time and again. You never accept the proof.

I do not accept the lack of proof, what groups do they belong to? Are there any studies to confirm it?

How do I prove something when you'll just make up some conspiracy theory to dismiss it?

At least link to something that proves it so it could be debatable, you argue palestinans isn't an ethnic thing, while not disproving the fact they are an ethnic nation.

Define "weren't the same" do you mean genetically, or culturally?

Both, bedouin tribes are large families who seperated from another tribe.

Except you're forgetting some other details. Let's define the word again: Ethnic. Just look at the first definition and it shows you are clearly omitting.

Really? Let's look at it again: Ethnic - "a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background".

Look at America which is a nation of people of many cultures and ancestors, many of them having NO commonality. That is why our motto is "E Pluribus Unum".

America is not an ethnic nation. Can you prove any nation except us is not ethnic?

You really want to try and split hairs this badly? Why don't we start doing that with the Jews.

Disprove genetic researches first.

But there are nations formed that have nothing to do with genetic commonality. Western nations do this in the main.

I already proved poland is not doing it, dictatorial regimes which control different nations and were formed fundamentally by the same western nations are examples that nationality which is not ethnic cannot always work.

I know it's not only a religious term. But it's not only a genetic term either as you seem to say. If someone converts to Judaism with no prior genetic linkage to the Israelites, are they somehow "less" Jewish?

No, they are not ethnically jewish.

Why?

Because we are the earliest nation alive to own it, we have never given it up but were exiled, unless you think that our ancestors chose to become slaves in the roman empires, our land was occupied many times by different empires until we returned, the UK left, and we were able to relcaim it.

Believing in something is PART of heritage. Stop misusing the term!
Heritage

something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth,how is that part of your belief?

With Jews as well, which was the whole point of bringing that up. Also as we pointed out "ethnic nation" is not always genetic. You're not using the term properly.

The definition i found for this is indeed genetic.

Is it?

You are the one who used this argument.

Because while my genetic heritage may be german, there is nothing in my cultural heritage that is german. We didn't continue those traditions or celebrate those roots.

Irrelevant, you are still part of the nation.

So you're contention is that your people have NEVER been influenced by another people in any way? Bullshit.

Our ancestral history, the on we learn and remember, is the one of our nation. I didn't argue the rituals haven't been influenced, but that our history haven't.

It doesn't change my genes, but ethnicity is not solely defined by genes. We just proved that.

Not by the definition i found for it.

"Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also carries genes from other sources - usually the country in which it lives. " First paragraph, your article. So much for exclusive genetic purity.

"also carries" doesn't mean "completly different", there was assimilation but not enough to change our nation, we still most resemble to each other.

Mmm hmm. Became members of other nations, and thus are identifiable as part of them.

At first they are ununited, then they intermarry within their own group and throughout the centuries have their own identity.

Because...nations commonly do not divide themselves along genetic lines because nobody is purely one genetic heritage.

Again, I never claimed that purely genetic heritage is required to be part of a nation, if you most resemble to one nation you are part of it.

No, they are different because your ancestors created it for themselves.

Did they create a global culture and history?

Your genes show that you are mixed as much as anybody else.

The articles show we still most resembe to each other.

Which is part of the cultural "Jewish" identity. You can have slightly different variations, but you essentially are of the same faith

There are jews who are atheist, we are not all of the same faith.

Way back 3,0000 years ago? You can prove that?

3000 years ago there were pagans, which priests, those who weren't pagan themselves, unsuccessfully tried to convert. That assuming the bible didn't invent there were pagans to justify historical occurrences. Based on the fact that ahab was described as a sinner although he, in a coalition of 12 kings, defeated shalmaneser, which should've given him a label of a pious follower if the bible would've done the oppotsite.

Who apparently then mixed with the Jews. I think it's more helpful to classify in the way the average anthropologist does, vs. the way you do.

But we are different nations, similarly, you could say that every person is african.

Huh? You've all given up your prior nationalities to some degree, that's what immigration does...

No it doesn't, we have retained our belief that we are all jews and all having one homeland.

This is built on so many false assumptions that it's not even worth discussing. It's also off topic and therefore should not be answered.

If it is off-topic, do you agree it cannot be debated to illegitimize israel?

---

At 8/30/11 01:09 AM, satanbrain wrote: "We have forced not one arab one, some of the palestinans have chosen run away by themselves."

it seems strange to admit that war, or fear of war, forced people off their land, yet because they did it of their own "volition" they no longer have a right to the land.

Really? Let's look at it again: Ethnic - "a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background".

i know this doesn't add much to the topic, but i can't help it; lololololololol.

---

At 8/30/11 01:09 AM, satanbrain wrote: Not any real evidence, and none of them were researches.

And this is why there's no real arguing with you. Because you always move the goal posts, or make up some excuse as to why it doesn't count (even when I use your own evidence to prove you wrong) and Israel is the victim. You don't play fair, and none of that is on topic anyway, so let's move on.

"We have forced not one arab one, some of the palestinans have chosen run away by themselves."
"This has been proven time and again to be incorrect when one studies policies that Israel has, or currently pursues."

Touche. Off topic though, and I apologize for starting that fight up again. Let us table that for this thread and either move it back to the other thread, or to PM please.

I do not accept the lack of proof, what groups do they belong to? Are there any studies to confirm it?

You've been shown the studies and the proof. You always deny it. See my first statement about how you're dishonest and impossible to argue with. Go hit up google and I'll bet you find lots of evidence if you ever learn how to read articles in total vs. just the parts that seem to agree with you.

At least link to something that proves it so it could be debatable,

I do that all the time. So do others. You then change what we're debating by refusing to use words and concepts properly and honestly.

you argue palestinans isn't an ethnic thing, while not disproving the fact they are an ethnic nation.

I argue they aren't an ethnic nation in the way you use the term ethnic. Or at least they are not exclusively such. I also wonder if it would be fair to call them an ethnic nation since they have no state which would allow me to judge how they'd govern immigration and such.

Both, bedouin tribes are large families who seperated from another tribe.

But that isn't purely because of genetics. They may still have kin within that tribe, but have developed an identity as bedouins within that culture that now separates them. Just like not all Jews who share similar genes will think or identify in the same way.

Really? Let's look at it again: Ethnic - "a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background".

Uh huh. That's what I mean. You continue to harp on genes, and that only genes matter.

America is not an ethnic nation. Can you prove any nation except us is not ethnic?

England, France, Germany, Italy...do I need to keep going? Any multi-cultural or multi-ethnic nation classifies.

Disprove genetic researches first.

The wiki you linked to says not all Jewish groups share genetic traits. You disproved your own claim already.

I already proved poland is not doing it,

You didn't actually.

dictatorial regimes which control different nations and were formed fundamentally by the same western nations are examples that nationality which is not ethnic cannot always work.

But states like America prove multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nations can work.

No, they are not ethnically jewish.

"a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background" They classify on common religious origin and background. So actually it looks like they are. Stop omitting for your own benefit.

Because we are the earliest nation alive to own it...

This tired argument has been proven irrelevant over and over. Chris-V2 did a wonderful job of hacking it up once again yesterday.

something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth,how is that part of your belief?

You're being narrow on the term again and only using the definition you think benefits you. Which it in fact does not because the concept of inheritance requires an extant governing body of that state with a general consensus of it's people to make it binding. You can't make claims of inheritance when there is a break in continuity of such.

The definition i found for this is indeed genetic.

Really? Because you linked a definition that shows other standards for the term other then purely genetic. You yourself did that. So either you're very stupid, or you're a liar and hope I'm very stupid.

You are the one who used this argument.

I think you're moving those goal posts again. The only thing that links me to my German ancestry is an ancestor I never met. Perhaps for you that's enough to make me German, but I'd say it really isn't.

Irrelevant, you are still part of the nation.

Not the nation state though. Just sharing a quantity of blood and relation with my relatives still over there. That's what I really want us to be clear about and point out how these distinctions are not as black and white as you want them to be and can actually be a bit complex.

Our ancestral history, the on we learn and remember, is the one of our nation.

How does your history somehow exist in a vaccuum? It doesn't. Your history is influenced by the deeds you do, and the deeds done to you. By the interactions positive and negative with others. That's why I call bullshit.

Not by the definition i found for it.

Except your definition is the same as the definition I got from dictionary.com. You're lying.

"also carries" doesn't mean "completly different", there was assimilation but not enough to change our nation, we still most resemble to each other.

But what I'm saying is there's other genes and ancestry in there other then Jewish. What about a person who is 50% Jewish, and 50% something else. Are you going to argue somehow that the Jewish percentage is superior? That's my whole point, nobody is solely one thing, and to act like they are, is just flat out not true.

At first they are ununited, then they intermarry within their own group and throughout the centuries have their own identity.

Groups and states form identities all the time. Individuals have their own identities and roots, then they have their identities within their given state. Which is my point. One can be a Jew, but not feel very strongly Jewish, and can certainly be Jewish but not Israeli.

Again, I never claimed that purely genetic heritage is required to be part of a nation,

You actually have been arguing that forever.

if you most resemble to one nation you are part of it.

What if you're heritage splits 50/50?

Did they create a global culture and history?

Yes, because they moved all across the globe, expanding the culture and history.

The articles show we still most resembe to each other.

The one you mentioned didn't. It actually pointed out two groups that seem to actually most resemble their host country.

There are jews who are atheist, we are not all of the same faith.

But the faith can make one Jewish without any quantity of blood or genes, wouldn't you agree?

3000 years ago there were pagans, which priests, those who weren't pagan themselves, unsuccessfully tried to convert.

Pagan is a very vague catch all term that has been used to classify a multitude of non-judeo christian religions.

That assuming the bible didn't invent there were pagans to justify historical occurrences....

The Bible invented a lot of crap. But did not invent pagans because "pagans" are not a religion, but a catch all term for every religion that isn't Judeo-Christian.

But we are different nations, similarly, you could say that every person is african.

Ok...I think we somehow switched places here...because it seems like you seem to be agreeing with me that multiple groups or "nations" can be part of an individual or group.

No it doesn't, we have retained our belief that we are all jews and all having one homeland.

Every Jew feels that way? How can you be absolutely sure? Especially since not every Jew is living in Israel.

If it is off-topic, do you agree it cannot be debated to illegitimize israel?

It's off-topic thus it should not be debated in a thread about Israeli legitimacy.

---

Sorry for the double post, but I actually think I screwed up somewhat on the last line of my post. I think what you specifically were discussing SB is off-topic, but the question you asked out of it is more on topic. Legitimacy does come from recognition. If the major world powers are presented with a newly formed state and they say "I believe this state has a right to exist, I recognize it's government and will have relations either hostile or friendly with said government" then the state exists. It has gained recognition and some measure of legitimacy through that recognition. This however may not expunge the circumstances by which the nation came into being.

This is why I have a hard time with folks who want to reach back into history to justify modern claims, because the idea of stable borders, independent states, etc. Independent of larger powers, and free from constant invasion or war is a very very new concept. Hell even stability within organizations like the Catholic Church is modern, and hard won. When you start talking in terms of what happened thousands or even a few hundred years back you have to look at a completely different socio-political dynamic and realize that things we would consider abhorrent, and unacceptable today in terms of custom, nation building, what have you, were very much the norm and were just the way things got done.

---

At 8/31/11 02:36 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: And this is why there's no real arguing with you. Because you always move the goal posts, or make up some excuse as to why it doesn't count (even when I use your own evidence to prove you wrong) and Israel is the victim. You don't play fair, and none of that is on topic anyway, so let's move on.

You have linked to none of them, mentioned none of them. If you don't want to debate it do not expect me to do the same while you are using these accusations as proven facts.

You've been shown the studies and the proof.

Which are? If they exist you surely can link to them again.

Go hit up google and I'll bet you find lots of evidence if you ever learn how to read articles in total vs. just the parts that seem to agree with you.

I am not trying to prove israel committed war crimes, to prove it you need to find them, not me.

I do that all the time. So do others.

If you do it all the time, you shouldn't have any problem doing it again.

I argue they aren't an ethnic nation in the way you use the term ethnic. Or at least they are not exclusively such.

If all the members of their group are ethnically palesitnan, they are an ethnic nation. There are palestinians living in many arabian countries, in the last 60 years, do you know for certain their culture is exactly the same?

I also wonder if it would be fair to call them an ethnic nation since they have no state which would allow me to judge how they'd govern immigration and such.

Stateless ethnic nations are nations nonetheless.

But that isn't purely because of genetics.

If bedioun marry only another bedouin how could it not be genetic?

They may still have kin within that tribe, but have developed an identity as bedouins within that culture that now separates them.

And after hundredsof year they still have a slight kinship, but they most resemble to their own tribe.

Just like not all Jews who share similar genes will think or identify in the same way.

Not religiously jewish, but if they cannot deny being ethnically jewish.

Uh huh. That's what I mean. You continue to harp on genes, and that only genes matter.

The ethnicity is formed because of the genes, the ethnic nation then develop it's own culture. Didn't you say the first definition is the most important?

England, France, Germany, Italy...do I need to keep going?

To prove every nation except us is? There is a long list ahead.

You didn't actually.

I did. "Children born in Poland to foreign parents do not acquire Polish citizenship unless they would otherwise be stateless".

But states like America prove multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nations can work.

Sure they can, but that doesn't prove all nations should.

"a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background" They classify on common religious origin and background.

But not national or tribal.

This tired argument has been proven irrelevant over and over. Chris-V2 did a wonderful job of hacking it up once again yesterday.

No he didn't, he failed to disprove my arguments in "israel is a terrorist country" thread.

You can't make claims of inheritance when there is a break in continuity of such.

There isn't, heritage is not something you can change.

You yourself did that. So either you're very stupid, or you're a liar and hope I'm very stupid.

Is there only one definition to ethnicity? Can't an ethnicity be purely genetic? Like a nation could be purely non-ethnic?

The only thing that links me to my German ancestry is an ancestor I never met. Perhaps for you that's enough to make me German, but I'd say it really isn't.

It doesn't matter, if you renounce your ethnicity it is your choice but you can't expect everyone to do the same.

Not the nation state though. Just sharing a quantity of blood and relation with my relatives still over there.

If you most resemble to this nation, you are part of them, but the fact they decided to share it with everyone annul it's meaning.

That's what I really want us to be clear about and point out how these distinctions are not as black and white as you want them to be and can actually be a bit complex.

If all the nations in the world were political these would've been true, but not every nation have chosen to share it's land with everyone who want to join it, and you cannot enforce this sharing.

How does your history somehow exist in a vaccuum? It doesn't.

It exist in the past, which has already happened.

Your history is influenced by the deeds you do, and the deeds done to you. By the interactions positive and negative with others.

My history is something that already happened, philosophy of history is not history.

Except your definition is the same as the definition I got from dictionary.com. You're lying.

Does it ignore the genetic aspect of ethnicity? Is there only one or "better" form of ethnicity?

But what I'm saying is there's other genes and ancestry in there other then Jewish. What about a person who is 50% Jewish, and 50% something else.

You have asked that i and i have answered them, he then belongs to two nations. If it would've been four different ancestries of 25% he belong to four, and so on.

Groups and states form identities all the time. Individuals have their own identities and roots, then they have their identities within their given state.

But what you are trying to do is force identification as multinational on ethnic nations, you cannot force ethnic nations to identify themselves as a nation of all the individuals living, or want to, live in it.

What if you're heritage splits 50/50?

Answered above, belongs to both.

Yes,

Really? Did they create a global history before finding out what continents the world was made of?

because they moved all across the globe, expanding the culture and history.

Not all the nations moved from their own homeland, or completly abandoned it.

But the faith can make one Jewish without any quantity of blood or genes, wouldn't you agree?

Not ethnically jewish.

Pagan is a very vague catch all term that has been used to classify a multitude of non-judeo christian religions.

Right, and they weren't religiously jewish, but they were still part of the jewish nation.

The Bible invented a lot of crap.

I linked to an evidence that proved this part wasn't "crap".

But did not invent pagans because "pagans" are not a religion, but a catch all term for every religion that isn't Judeo-Christian.

Which still proved one can be ethnically jewish without being religiously jewish.

Ok...I think we somehow switched places here...because it seems like you seem to be agreeing with me that multiple groups or "nations" can be part of an individual or group.

Similarly to your wrong assumptions is what i meant to say, although humanity originates in africa not every human is african.

Every Jew feels that way? How can you be absolutely sure? Especially since not every Jew is living in Israel.

We who live in israel, whose leaders signed the israeli declaration of independence which says exatly that.

At 8/31/11 02:41 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: When you start talking in terms of what happened thousands or even a few hundred years back you have to look at a completely different socio-political dynamic and realize that things we would consider abhorrent, and unacceptable today in terms of custom, nation building, what have you, were very much the norm and were just the way things got done.

What you practically say is that the truth, whatever it may be, is irrelevant and only what other countries think matter.

---

At 8/31/11 08:33 AM, satanbrain wrote: You have linked to none of them, mentioned none of them. If you don't want to debate it do not expect me to do the same while you are using these accusations as proven facts.

I don't want to debate it in this thread because it's not on topic. I offered and linked to things in the other thread where this is on topic. Last warning, drop anything not related to the legitimacy of Israel or be dropped. In an effort to play fair, I am replying to nothing else you have said other then what you replied to me that IS on topic, that I will respond to. The other stuff we can discuss elsewhere where it is relevant. If you don't want to abide by this, you can peaceably leave the thread. Thank you.

What you practically say is that the truth, whatever it may be, is irrelevant and only what other countries think matter.

I'm saying the "truth" in territorial squabbles is a highly malleable and debatable thing. We've actually discussed this a lot. He who comes into a territory, can take control of it, and hold it, and gain support and allies to strengthen his hold and governance, winds up owner of that territory. "Might makes right" isn't an attractive option, nor is it something I'm personally a gigantic fan of...but history and the way borders have been carved up over time shows us this tends to be the way that we wind up with the states we have now, and the world powers we have now. Somebody sure, can say "I own this" or "I am now the ruler of this" but unless he's got the force of arms to back that up and force his rivals into submission...he's probably not going to be in charge very wrong.

---

At 9/1/11 02:19 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm saying the "truth" in territorial squabbles is a highly malleable and debatable thing.

So defending other human rights, what is the purpose of trying to change governments' decisions that harm human rights if it's all "malleable and debateable"? Why should anyone try to alter it?

We've actually discussed this a lot. He who comes into a territory, can take control of it, and hold it, and gain support and allies to strengthen his hold and governance, winds up owner of that territory.

So does the thief who comes to a territory, take control of the victims by intimidation and hold it, gain support by his crime organization and accomplices to strenghten his hold and avoid the police.

"Might makes right" isn't an attractive option, nor is it something I'm personally a gigantic fan of...

Then why should anyone try to defend human rights? Why should anyone try to abolish slavery if justice isn't a factor in decisions?

but history and the way borders have been carved up over time shows us this tends to be the way that we wind up with the states we have now,

Many borders have been perceived to be in a certain way, because the power holding them was stronger than the one who really owns them.

and the world powers we have now. Somebody sure, can say "I own this" or "I am now the ruler of this" but unless he's got the force of arms to back that up and force his rivals into submission...he's probably not going to be in charge very wrong.

That doesn't mean it is right to steal other's territory, you argue about the pragmatic aspect of the act of reclaming land, i am talking about it's rightness. I do not argue occupying powers want to uphold the current situation, but that they have no right to.

---

At 9/2/11 01:04 AM, satanbrain wrote: So defending other human rights,

Where are your human rights violated? Show me please.

what is the purpose of trying to change governments' decisions that harm human rights if it's all "malleable and debateable"?

what governments are harming your human rights at this point? What do human rights have to do with the legitimacy of Israel at this point? This looks like we're treading back into the same off topic ground again...

So does the thief who comes to a territory, take control of the victims by intimidation and hold it, gain support by his crime organization and accomplices to strenghten his hold and avoid the police.

That's the worst analogy ever. Because in this case there's nothing you could honestly call "police" since police are a function of government. It is true there are governments who may send a force in to oust a foreign power from taking a territory for multiple reasons (perceived threat to themselves, perceived threat to resources they got from the old government, etc. etc.) Also conquerors are not always perceived to be evil usurpers that a populace will dislike. King Cyrus of Persia is always leaping to mind when the idea of a benevolent conqueror pops up.

Then why should anyone try to defend human rights? Why should anyone try to abolish slavery if justice isn't a factor in decisions?

Why should anyone appeal to emotion? It's a logical fallacy. It's not an actual tactic of debate. It doesn't answer anybody. Stop appealing to emotion and let's stick to facts shall we.

Many borders have been perceived to be in a certain way, because the power holding them was stronger than the one who really owns them.

If the power who holds it is stronger then the former owner...well...that's why the former owner is a "former" owner then. I know, this conflicts with the cloak of righteousness you've crafted for your arguments...but that's the problem when you make shit up, vs. dealing with concepts and facts that can be defended.

That doesn't mean it is right to steal other's territory,

It doesn't necessarily make it "right" but what I'm fundamentally saying is "right" isn't always the determining factor in these sorts of proceedings.

you argue about the pragmatic aspect of the act of reclaming land, i am talking about it's rightness.

Appealing to emotion along the way...logical fallacies are fun! I'm not also just talking about what's pragmatic, I'm talking about the historical way in which territory changes hands throughout history. It is unfortunately a usually bloody and horrible affair for at least some group that occupied it.

I do not argue occupying powers want to uphold the current situation, but that they have no right to.

Who decides rights? You? The concepts you talk about are still quite new, they have only been around in the last 50 or so years. What I'm talking about is the totality of human history...hell, even the concepts of the last 50 years have been played fast and loose when it suited somebody. Also you argue for the rights of your particular group, and ignore the rights, claims, and privileges of another. So I fail to see how in any way you can appeal to emotion and claim some sort of righteous indignation that you're only arguing for "what's right". It's more then a little disgusting actually.

---

At 8/21/11 07:28 AM, Jizzlebang wrote: I'm going to start off by listing concievable arguements for the creation of Israel:

1. Creation of Israel was a product given to the Jewish people following the horrors of WW2
2. Jews are the chosen people and Jerusalem is the chosen land (Bullshit arguement, can't base international policies and faith, can we..)
3. It's their homeland, as they lived there before.

In all honesty, none of these are really legitmate arguements. Because no matter which it is, it still lead to the forced moving of another people. It's important to discuss this because there are plenty other group of people who have suffered the same fate as the Jewish, without being given their own country. Prime example: Indigenous Americans. Having faced mass extermination, mass indoctrination, culture eradication and deliberate contraction of illnesses, I would argue that You cannot support the creation of Israel without supporting the creation of a seperate Indiginous American state for one or more tribes, right in the heartland of America.

I honestly don't understand what's the point of making up arguments that don't neccesserily have anything to do with the truth, and then debunking them. How can you put words into one's mouth and then they he's wrong? Pure paradox...

---

At 9/2/11 03:25 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Where are your human rights violated? Show me please.

By stealing our land.

what governments are harming your human rights at this point? What do human rights have to do with the legitimacy of Israel at this point? This looks like we're treading back into the same off topic ground again...

No we are not, you argue that our right on this land can be annuled solely by the decisions of others, that is validating the possible violation.

That's the worst analogy ever. Because in this case there's nothing you could honestly call "police" since police are a function of government.

Even if the crime organization is tronger than the police?

It is true there are governments who may send a force in to oust a foreign power from taking a territory for multiple reasons (perceived threat to themselves, perceived threat to resources they got from the old government, etc. etc.) Also conquerors are not always perceived to be evil usurpers that a populace will dislike.

Irrelevant, the thief may not be perceived as harmful if he decive them but eventually, they realize they were tricked.

King Cyrus of Persia is always leaping to mind when the idea of a benevolent conqueror pops up.

Benevolent but still violating the rights of nations on their lands.

Why should anyone appeal to emotion? It's a logical fallacy. It's not an actual tactic of debate. It doesn't answer anybody. Stop appealing to emotion and let's stick to facts shall we.

You argue that we shouldn't try to protect our land because others want us not to, you argue that our rights do not matter as long as governments say it doesn't. It is not emotion, simply a conclusion.

If the power who holds it is stronger then the former owner...well...that's why the former owner is a "former" owner then.

I didn't say he is former, he is still the rightful owner of the land. If the power who enslave you is stroner than you, should you not even try to free yourself?

I know, this conflicts with the cloak of righteousness you've crafted for your arguments...but that's the problem when you make shit up, vs. dealing with concepts and facts that can be defended.

Can you defend the abolishment of slavery without regarding human rights? Why it should've been abolished if there were slaves who didn't rebel?

It doesn't necessarily make it "right" but what I'm fundamentally saying is "right" isn't always the determining factor in these sorts of proceedings.

Such as in the proceedings of other human rights violations, such as enslavement.

Appealing to emotion along the way...logical fallacies are fun!

I am appealing to nothing, only arguing that the moral rights remains even if it cannot be defended.

I'm not also just talking about what's pragmatic, I'm talking about the historical way in which territory changes hands throughout history.

In pragmatic way, you argue that because nations couldn't defend their land from occupiers they have no right on it.

Who decides rights? You?

Those who decide what human rights are.

What I'm talking about is the totality of human history...

Enslavement was part of the human history, why should this part of history be ignored?

hell, even the concepts of the last 50 years have been played fast and loose when it suited somebody. Also you argue for the rights of your particular group, and ignore the rights, claims, and privileges of another.

Since "another" have "another" rights,claims and privileges in his own land.

So I fail to see how in any way you can appeal to emotion and claim some sort of righteous indignation that you're only arguing for "what's right". It's more then a little disgusting actually.

More disgusting than selectively fight against human rights violations?

---

At 9/2/11 07:18 AM, satanbrain wrote: By stealing our land.

You were conquered, and those who left, left. Some stayed and decided to accept the new situation. Some returned later. Let's stop with this whole idea of "theft" because in the time periods we're talking about, kingdoms were set up and deposed with a regularity that would make our heads spin today. Right up until almost modern times this sort of thing was happening. It's a bunk argument...I feel like I've said this before, oh right, I did...

No we are not, you argue that our right on this land can be annuled solely by the decisions of others, that is validating the possible violation.

No, I'm mostly saying that because at the time the Kingdom you ascribe as owner was deposed, that the deposed didn't come back with an armed force, accepted their lot, and let successive forces and rulers own and occupy, and trade, and fight over that patch of land and most importantly (as far as the Christian Crusades in that region were concerned) the city of Jerusalem, says that guess what? The claim is null. That was the world then, you can't apply 21st century rules to a set of centuries and a way of life that has absolutely no conception or use for them. The world has stabilized tremendously in the last few hundred years. But back at the times where you want to say this "theft" occurred? Utterly different rules, morals, etc. As I said, am I a fan of "Might Makes Right"? Hell no! But that was the credo that by and large ruled the day back then, and even today it's still the biggest factor, it's just that we call it by other names.

Even if the crime organization is tronger than the police?

You're ignoring my essential argument: There is nothing in this situation that could be called police. You had two armies fight for the territory, one army beat the other. Winner got the land. Then they got in a fight with another army...etc. etc...then we come to the early 20th century and England and the establishment of modern Israel.

Irrelevant,

It's only "irrelevant" to you cause it deflates your argument.

the thief may not be perceived as harmful if he decive them but eventually, they realize they were tricked.

Is that why every territory conquered by Alexander or Cyrus remained theirs during their lifetime? Is that why empires like Rome existed for centuries and fell to OUTSIDE invaders vs. factions from within expressing discontent? You're argument flies in the face of established history. That's why IT is irrelevant.

Benevolent but still violating the rights of nations on their lands.

In what way? Are you familiar with King Cyrus and how he governed? If not I'm sure I can find an article or a million for you. Just let me know.

You argue that we shouldn't try to protect our land because others want us not to, you argue that our rights do not matter as long as governments say it doesn't. It is not emotion, simply a conclusion.

No, the way you phrased everything in the argument I replied to was a textbook appeal to emotion. It's not based on facts, it's not based on history, it's nothing but trying to tug at the heart strings and the heart strings are just not something you can play on in a logical debate.

I didn't say he is former, he is still the rightful owner of the land.

I know you didn't say that. That would be amazingly silly of you considering your argument. I'm saying he's former. Because he is. That's what history, the law, everything in the history of ever in these situations says. You though, seem to like righteous fairy tales that either you concocted yourself, or that somebody fed to you and you choose to believe.

If the power who enslave you is stroner than you, should you not even try to free yourself?

Appeal to emotion again? Really? Also not all conquerors are enslavers. King Cyrus of Persia again. So appeal to emotion, and flat out bullshit. Two strikes.

Can you defend the abolishment of slavery without regarding human rights?

What does slavery have to do with conquest and a people either leaving a conquered area, or choosing to remain and be governed by the conquerors?

Such as in the proceedings of other human rights violations, such as enslavement.

What does enslavement have to do with the history of the land that is today known as Israel? Is this more of that false idea you have that a conqueror is automatically a force of enslavement?

I am appealing to nothing, only arguing that the moral rights remains even if it cannot be defended.

Which is fun until you realize that most morals are subjective, while a "decent" or "civilized" people will have certain core values in common...some things you see as "moral" I may not. Also the problem is your argument is based solely on your morals, and your perceptions...backed it seems by a hell of a lot of historical and legal ignorance. You totally appeal to emotion with most of your arguments...just because you're ignorant of that fact doesn't make it any less true.

In pragmatic way, you argue that because nations couldn't defend their land from occupiers they have no right on it.

Well...yeah. If you can't defend it and hold it, historically that means you don't get to hang onto it. With more stabilized world powers and a global police force developing in the form of the UN in the 20th century (those guys you hate, remember?) this situation has changed tremendously and global politics and territorial claims have changed and become much smoother vs. the way they were in say, the 11th century. When it was more about a King raising an army, charging into a territory, taking physical hold, then trying to appeal to the other existing powers to codify and legitimize his hold and formalize the conquest.

Those who decide what human rights are.

Who are they?

Enslavement was part of the human history, why should this part of history be ignored?

I'm not ignoring it. But you have yet to prove how enslavement holds any weight or relevance in this situation. Other then it's a really neat word to use because nobody who has even a shred of morality will defend slavery. But again, conquest does not always lead to enslavement. That's demonstrably untrue...like Appeal to Emotion is a demonstrable fallacy.

Since "another" have "another" rights,claims and privileges in his own land.

Never mind that you're talking "ancestral" vs. "homeland". But I can understand why you would do this since clearly you place more importance on one being in the land of their ancestors, whether they were born there or not, vs. the land and national banner they actually were born under. I have never understood why the two sides in this case can't learn the lesson I learned as a small child: sharing is caring.

More disgusting than selectively fight against human rights violations?

Well, that is something you advocate...

---

At 9/3/11 01:14 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: You were conquered, and those who left, left.

Those who were exiled, they didn't leave willingly.

Some stayed and decided to accept the new situation.

Some were enslaved and remained to serve their masters.

Some returned later. Let's stop with this whole idea of "theft" because in the time periods we're talking about, kingdoms were set up and deposed with a regularity that would make our heads spin today. Right up until almost modern times this sort of thing was happening. It's a bunk argument...I feel like I've said this before, oh right, I did...

Let's stop with this whole idea of "human rights" "because in the time periods we're talking about, kingdoms were set up and deposed with a regularity that would make our heads spin today. Right up until almost modern times this sort of thing was happening.".

No, I'm mostly saying that because at the time the Kingdom you ascribe as owner was deposed,

that the deposed didn't come back with an armed force, accepted their lot,
Prove they accepted the situation.

and let successive forces and rulers own and occupy,

Only occupy, no one can owns a land that is not given while the owner still live.

and trade, and fight over that patch of land and most importantly (as far as the Christian Crusades in that region were concerned) the city of Jerusalem, says that guess what? The claim is null.

The claim is ours, it is not null.

That was the world then, you can't apply 21st century rules to a set of centuries and a way of life that has absolutely no conception or use for them.

Why can you apply them if it concerns slavery?

The world has stabilized tremendously in the last few hundred years. But back at the times where you want to say this "theft" occurred? Utterly different rules, morals, etc. As I said, am I a fan of "Might Makes Right"? Hell no! But that was the credo that by and large ruled the day back then, and even today it's still the biggest factor, it's just that we call it by other names.

There is slavery nowadays, do you argue it should not be abolished because it was "stabilized" and governments of countries do not stop it?

You're ignoring my essential argument: There is nothing in this situation that could be called police.

There is an army which protects the land and army that tries to occupy it, one protect his rights while the other violate it.

You had two armies fight for the territory, one army beat the other. Winner got the land.

You got one slaver and one slave fight for freedom, one slaver beat the slave. Winnder got the hold.

Is that why every territory conquered by Alexander or Cyrus remained theirs during their lifetime?

It was never "theirs", it was occupied and they maintained this occupation.

Is that why empires like Rome existed for centuries

Slavery exited for centuries. Do you claim the arguments validating slavery still hold?

In what way?

He didn't grant them sovereignty.

Are you familiar with King Cyrus and how he governed?

Yes, building temples so people wouldn't care about being occupied, better than other kings but occupier nontheless.

It's not based on facts, it's not based on history,

It is, slavery was accepted and was not considered illegal by the slavers.

I'm saying he's former. Because he is. That's what history, the law, everything in the history of ever in these situations says.

By your logic, the slave is also his freedom's "former" holder, since this is "what history, the law, everything in the history of ever in these situations says. ".

Also not all conquerors are enslavers. King Cyrus of Persia again.

Nehemiah and ezra were subordinates of Cyrus, not sovereign rulers.

What does slavery have to do with conquest and a people either leaving a conquered area,

Being exiled, again, not leaving out of freewill.

or choosing to remain and be governed by the conquerors?

They occupiers vioalted your right of property on the land, thus violating one of the human rights.

What does enslavement have to do with the history of the land that is today known as Israel?

The great Roman Empire, whose claims on lands you accept, also have a history of enslavement, why do you not accept the same enslavementnowdays?

Is this more of that false idea you have that a conqueror is automatically a force of enslavement?

The occupier steals yours land and in a way limit your freedom to do as you wish with it.

Which is fun until you realize that most morals are subjective, while a "decent" or "civilized" people will have certain core values in common...

Right, so can a "decent" and "civilized" people decide slavery is completely moral.

Well...yeah. If you can't defend it and hold it, historically that means you don't get to hang onto it.

So is your freedom, "If you can't defend it and hold it, historically that means you don't get to hang onto it. ".

With more stabilized world powers and a global police force developing in the form of the UN in the 20th century (those guys you hate, remember?)

Those guys who owe nothing actually.

this situation has changed tremendously and global politics and territorial claims have changed

Territorial false claims have erupted, following territorial claims of nations who are sick of empires occupying their land.

and become much smoother vs. the way they were in say, the 11th century.

The fact there may be less bloodshed doesn't make the occupation lega.

When it was more about a King raising an army, charging into a territory, taking physical hold, then trying to appeal to the other existing powers to codify and legitimize his hold and formalize the conquest.

Now you don't even need to raise your own army. That what has changed.

Who are they?

Those who wrote the Human Rights Declaration and supposed to respect it.

I'm not ignoring it. But you have yet to prove how enslavement holds any weight or relevance in this situation.

Well, empires held slaves, slavery was legal, slavery was legitimized, slavery exist in modern era, slavery is not always stopped in modern era. By your argument as to why occupation turned into ownership, slavery is legal.

I have never understood why the two sides in this case can't learn the lesson I learned as a small child: sharing is caring.

We don't want to, it is solely ours and no one else. Why are people holding any private property and not sharing everything? Why haven't nations shared their natural resources with everyone and insisted on selling it? Why have governments insisted on defendable borders althouth they singed peace treaties? Because " mutual caring" is very fragile and can be broken any moment.

---

meh, all this overly complicated "is it legit?" debate and the answer is actually quite simple.

"might makes right".. well, legit anyway.

What right gives any country to rule over anything? military might.

Why were the native Americans displaced? lack of military might. Why did the Irish end up being ruled by England? lack of military might. Why did Japan lose WW2? lack of military might, by time we dropped the Atom Bombs on them, they couldn't even defend themselves against a few bombers and their fighter escorts. Why did Japan attack pearl harbor and not mount a land invasion? Lack of military might. Japan would have had to battle not only the military in the US, but also citizen militias that would have cropped up.

How did Israel win the 6 day war? abundance of military might. They move quickly and decisively to take cripple the enemy air force and gain air superiority and beat down a much larger, more powerful enemy, that being Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and some Iraqi units.

Is Israel a legitimate country? as long as their alliances and military strength allow them to survive, then yes.

---

At 9/3/11 02:17 PM, Korriken wrote:

"might makes right".. well, legit anyway.

Using that logic, the Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition is legit!

---

At 9/4/11 04:57 AM, MattDogg wrote:

Using that logic, the Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition is legit!

those were not conquests as much as genocide. there's a difference.

---

At 9/4/11 08:04 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/4/11 04:57 AM, MattDogg wrote:

Using that logic, the Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition is legit!

those were not conquests as much as genocide. there's a difference.

MattDogg is right, but I still agree with you.

Might makes right, but it also decides wrong. The fact that Germany was beaten and Spain's catholic regime lost power, followed by groups with strength who disagreed with their actions made those actions wrong. Had the strength of the world agreed with the holocaust it wouldn't be thought of as wrong.

It's the same thing as legitimacy. If the strong country and other strong countries recognize it, it is legitimate. If the strong countries don't recognize it, it isn't legitmate.

---

At 9/3/11 07:59 AM, satanbrain wrote: Those who were exiled, they didn't leave willingly.

They were exiled, but many scholars would have us believe that the communal narrative exagerrates the severity somewhat. They also were immediately welcomed in other kingdoms and as times changed some came back, some did not. So let's not misrepresent history and act like they were kicked out with no way to return if they wished.

Some were enslaved and remained to serve their masters.

Prove it.

Let's stop with this whole idea of "human rights" "because in the time periods we're talking about, kingdoms were set up and deposed with a regularity that would make our heads spin today. Right up until almost modern times this sort of thing was happening.".

Funny you keep bringing up human rights when you yourself admit Israel was established when the Jews conquered the land and slaughtered the Caninites. Ancient Israel was founded through human rights violations...or is the argument for you going to be that genocide is ok so long as it's successful and you wipe out those that would have pressed charges? You are such a hypocrite.

Prove they accepted the situation.

They moved and took the offers of sanctuary from other kingdoms like Persia and never returned to try and retake the land. Sounds like acceptance to me :)

Only occupy, no one can owns a land that is not given while the owner still live.

Yeah, they can. I've mentioned squatter's rights, we've talked about conquest, we've also talked about trying to apply modern ideals to ancient situations. TLDR: You're wrong.

The claim is ours, it is not null.

Nah, it was nullified. Just because you insist it wasn't out of your own bias and self-righteous needs doesn't change facts. The only claim now, is the claims the modern state was set up with.

Why can you apply them if it concerns slavery?

Show me where slavery has any part in a conversation about land claims.

There is slavery nowadays...

Let's stick to the facts of what we're talking about instead of treading non-sequitors if you please. Slavery is not germane to a discussion about the idea that Jews have a continuous claim on the land known as Israel.

There is an army which protects the land and army that tries to occupy it,

Correct. The two armies fight. If the army that seeks to occupy smashes the army defending, topples their government, and establishes their own government, conquest has occurred and the invader has successfully taken the territory. If nobody, be it the original holder, or some other force, then comes along to depose them, the world settles into the idea that the conquest is legitimate and the land has now transferred ownership and administration.

You got one slaver and one slave fight for freedom, one slaver beat the slave. Winnder got the hold.

I know you think you proved something clever here...but really, it's just nonsense. Please try to produce a true rebuttal next time.

It was never "theirs", it was occupied and they maintained this occupation.

It actually was. Just like how the Jews conquered Israel to found their kingdom. Cyrus and Alexander did the same.

Slavery exited for centuries. Do you claim the arguments validating slavery still hold?

Slavery has nothing to do with arguments about land grants. Nothing. If you can't refute the point, just admit it and move on.

He didn't grant them sovereignty.

Who didn't grant who sovereignty? We just jumped from the general to the specific here.

Yes, building temples so people wouldn't care about being occupied, better than other kings but occupier nontheless.

How about leaving cultures and established systems in place. Cyrus was amazingly tolerant and the only change in people's lives was paying some taxes to Persia. That's a way better deal then empires like Rome gave out to people. This idea that all occupiers are monsters you posit is false on the face of it.

It is, slavery was accepted and was not considered illegal by the slavers.

Slavery has no part of why you're argument is a fallacious appeal to emotion. Guess slavery is your new catch all word now huh?

By your logic...

My logic has nothing do with slavery. Slavery is irrelevant. Argue what's relevant or piss off. Final warning.

Nehemiah and ezra were subordinates of Cyrus, not sovereign rulers.

Yes, but they weren't slavers or overly cruel now were they? They weren't that much different then state governors are in the US today.

Being exiled, again, not leaving out of freewill.

But the exile did not result in 100% slavery. You're asserting a false outcome.

The great Roman Empire, whose claims on lands you accept, also have a history of enslavement, why do you not accept the same enslavementnowdays?

Their history of enslavement is a separate issue from the claim on the land that was Israel. You can be a bastard and mistreat your people and still be the legitimate government and territory holder.

The occupier steals yours land and in a way limit your freedom to do as you wish with it.

All governments limit what you can do with the property you live on. All governments limit your freedom. The question is are the limits acceptable to the populace or not.

Right, so can a "decent" and "civilized" people decide slavery is completely moral.

In my opinion no. But just because they aren't "decent" or "civilized" doesn't mean they can't be a legitimate government. Nice try :)

So is your freedom, "If you can't defend it and hold it, historically that means you don't get to hang onto it. ".

That is also a true statement...is there a point in there somewhere?

Those guys who owe nothing actually.

I don't think you meant to say "owe". What was it you did mean to say?

Territorial false claims have erupted, following territorial claims of nations who are sick of empires occupying their land.

How many empires even exist anymore? A quick glance shows that gaining independence and sovereignty is easier now then ever before.

The fact there may be less bloodshed doesn't make the occupation lega.

You do realize the word "occupation" has very specific parameters and meanings that what you're talking about doesn't meet right? No, of course you don't.

Now you don't even need to raise your own army. That what has changed.

Indeed. You can get your allies to help you...or just get the US to come in and do the fighting for you...but that's a different subject, lol.

Those who wrote the Human Rights Declaration and supposed to respect it.

Which in some cases they do not. But here's the other thorny issue too, not every state has agreed to be bound by those rules.

Well, empires held slaves, slavery was legal, slavery was legitimized, slavery exist in modern era, slavery is not always stopped in modern era. By your argument as to why occupation turned into ownership, slavery is legal.

This is the falsest false dilemma I've ever heard of! I don't know whether to sit here agape in shock, or laugh my ass off at how ridiculous this is. I think I'll do both and split the difference.

We don't want to, it is solely ours and no one else.

Well, you guys are real dicks then. Because those other people have been there just as long and have just as much history there now as you. Just my opinion though.

Why are people holding any private property and not sharing everything?

False dilemma.

Why haven't nations shared their natural resources with everyone and insisted on selling it?

Irrelevant to this situation. But I'd love for people to be able to do that, unfortunately ours is a very selfish species and we work against each other.

Because " mutual caring" is very fragile and can be broken any moment.

Right, because people fundamentally suck and can't understand that if we work together and don't sweat the small stuff the world can be great for all.

---

At 9/5/11 12:42 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: They were exiled, but many scholars would have us believe that the communal narrative exagerrates the severity somewhat.

What does it exagerrates? That isn't mentioned here.

They also were immediately welcomed

Slavers welcoming their new slaves. Such a warm reception.

in other kingdoms and as times changed some came back, some did not. So let's not misrepresent history and act like they were kicked out with no way to return if they wished.

They were kicked out, after the 7th century they virtually couldn't enter israel.

Funny you keep bringing up human rights when you yourself admit Israel was established when the Jews conquered the land and slaughtered the Caninites.

Find the canaanites, they are those who should be recompensed for their slaughter.

Ancient Israel was founded through human rights violations...

Is that why we should let others violate, now ours, right on israel?

or is the argument for you going to be that genocide is ok so long as it's successful and you wipe out those that would have pressed charges? You are such a hypocrite.

Why should we be punished for our ancestors' crimes? I thought crimes weren't hereditary.

They moved and took the offers of sanctuary from other kingdoms like Persia and never returned to try and retake the land.

Many moved into jeruslam as soon as they could, as soon as cyrus allowed it.

we've also talked about trying to apply modern ideals to ancient situations.

Like applying abolishment of slavery into modern ideals?

Nah, it was nullified.

When? When did the jewish leaders announced we are giving up our land?

Show me where slavery has any part in a conversation about land claims.

You claim possesion can be acquired despite the holder's objection, why can't freedom?

Slavery is not germane to a discussion about the idea that Jews have a continuous claim on the land known as Israel.

Why do humans have continuous right for freedom?

Correct. The two armies fight. If the army that seeks to occupy smashes the army defending, topples their government, and establishes their own government, conquest has occurred and the invader has successfully taken the territory.

Two people fight, if the slaver that seeks to enslave smashes the resistance of the wouldbe-slave, topple his will, and establish his own oppressing reign, slavery has occured and the enlsaver has successfully taken the freedom of the slave.

If nobody, be it the original holder, or some other force, then comes along to depose them, the world settles into the idea that the conquest is legitimate and the land has now transferred ownership and administration.

If nobody, be it the orignal salve, or some other force, then comes along to depose him, the enslaving world settles into the idea that the enslavement is legitimate and the freedom has now transferred ownership and administration.

It actually was. Just like how the Jews conquered Israel to found their kingdom.

The nations in canaan extincted, whether by our slaughter or giving up their national identity, since the land was unreclaimed then, we claimed it.

Cyrus and Alexander did the same.

No they didn't. we still live to claim israel, they couldn't own it while we still our claim.

Who didn't grant who sovereignty?

Cyrus to ezra/nehemiah. And surely other pashas, officials nominated by cyrus.

How about leaving cultures and established systems in place.

So they wouldn't care about his occupation.

Cyrus was amazingly tolerant and the only change in people's lives was paying some taxes to Persia.

And being occupied, they hadn't sovereignties anymore.

This idea that all occupiers are monsters you posit is false on the face of it.

I don't care how "benevolent" an occupier is, He holds something that isn't his.

Slavery has no part of why you're argument is a fallacious appeal to emotion.

You claimed that occupation is accepted and therefore valid, I argue that so was slavery.

Yes, but they weren't slavers or overly cruel now were they?

Define "cruel", the fact they couldn't rule as the hasmonean kingdom ruled prove he wasn't sovereign,

They weren't that much different then state governors are in the US today.

Are state governors people of your nation who serve an occupying force?

But the exile did not result in 100% slavery. You're asserting a false outcome.

If all their property was razed and almost everyone of their community annihilated, their situation couldn't have been much better.

Their history of enslavement is a separate issue from the claim on the land that was Israel.

Why? Their were an empire, "accepted "and "legitimate" at their times, why isn't their slavery accepted?

All governments limit what you can do with the property you live on.

An occupier is not your own government.

All governments limit your freedom. The question is are the limits acceptable to the populace or not.

Then if people are oppressed in their own country, would it be legitimate to occupy them and slave them since they were always enslaved?

That is also a true statement...is there a point in there somewhere?

If you cannot defend your freedom and hold it, you lose it. Unless you think human rights negates that.

How many empires even exist anymore?

Existed, the empires which existed and occupied lands, which are now owned by their owners. Or initially were meant to be owned by their owners and now owned by dictators.

You do realize the word "occupation" has very specific parameters and meanings that what you're talking about doesn't meet right? No, of course you don't.

Occupation- "the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force", the military force is foreign since it is not of the nation who owns the land.

Which in some cases they do not. But here's the other thorny issue too, not every state has agreed to be bound by those rules.

Does that mean every individual of these countries should not be bound by these rules? Does that mean these rules have no relevance while discussing ownership?

This is the falsest false dilemma I've ever heard of!

Illustrate the falsity, my argument followerd your logic about possession through occupation.

Well, you guys are real dicks then.

Why aren't the palestinans are? Will they demand recognition, as a nonstate, for "all it's citizens" country or palestinans country?

Because those other people have been there just as long

They weren't here while israel and judea kingdoms were, they came afterwards.

False dilemma.

I will rephrase, why don't people follow the noble ideals of their country and let people who have no right over their property to own it?

Irrelevant to this situation. But I'd love for people to be able to do that, unfortunately ours is a very selfish species and we work against each other.

We keep our resources to ourselbes because they are ours, and we solely have the right to enjoy their export's incomes.

Right, because people fundamentally suck and can't understand that if we work together and don't sweat the small stuff the world can be great for all.

Or that our trust will be taken advantage of by others, and we will be harmed. When people are united as a nation, it is much harder.