Another Double-Standard Story; Tears for Rachel Corrie,

[Black Dog]

When have I ever castigated another democratic state with an ethno-religious component? Personally, I don't care whether or not other countries define their national identities with an ethnic or religious component. I don't need to point to other examples to justify Jewish independence. If the entire world except Israel was one massive entity of atheists, it wouldn't matter. I don't need parallel examples outside of Israel for legitimacy.

You're missing the point of course. Israel can choose to be a Jewish state or a democratic state. I doubt it can reconcile both. It's clear which you prefer.

Of course, in today's context you're completely wrong, as there are more than enough states out there with a strong ethnic and/or religious component to their identities. And they certainly are not ever castigated, let alone even known about - as your post illustrates.

I'm not talking about recognition of a historically dominant national culture or religion for primarily ceremonial purposes, but material discrimination by the ostensibly democratic state in favour of members of a certain group.

You're trying to accuse me of practising double-standards, and you'll be hard-pressed to find any of this type of inconsistency from me.

True in a sense: you are consistent in your sociopathic behaviour.

Ironically, your post reveals the very double-standard you accuse me of holding, in the sense that I'd wager that you've never made even one post in here criticizing the national identity of any country other than Israel's that was based on an ethnicity or religion.

Sure have. Why, it's right under my username!

<--------------------------------------------

[GostHacked]

Is that what you're hoping for? They need to be given more autonomy in order to more effectively wage their hostilities against us and further their aims towards the destruction of Israel as the Jewish state?

So by that I am going to guess you do not support a two-state solution?

[Black Dog]

Is that what you're hoping for? They need to be given more autonomy in order to more effectively wage their hostilities against us and further their aims towards the destruction of Israel as the Jewish state?

I think this post proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're not here for real discussion on this.

[Bob]

You're missing the point of course. Israel can choose to be a Jewish state or a democratic state. I doubt it can reconcile both. It's clear which you prefer.

There is no question that there is a balancing act between a pure democratic character and a pure Jewish character in Israel. I do not hide from this issue - if there is ever a risk to the Jewish character of Israel, all priorities become secondary. In my mind, and I can assure you that a strong majority of Jews worldwide agree with me, that the Jewish character of Israel is of the utmost importance. So far, it hasn't been a disaster.

It could be a big problem, however, in the future. Let's assume that the Jewish proportion of the Israeli begins to diminish. Right now, Israel is about 80% Jewish. Imagine in twenty years that this decreases to 70%. Further along, it goes down to 50%, and so on... do you think the Jewish people will allow the function of democracy to destroy our independence and self-determination? So of course, I support a Jewish state over a democratic state if these two values come into direct conflict with one another. So far, Israel's done a good job balancing these issues.

Furthermore, I'm not sure I would be opposed to Israel revoking political freedoms for non-Jews. I can easily see the arguments for such a move, and would support it if it was a necessary move towards preserving Jewish national rights in Israel.

I'm not talking about recognition of a historically dominant national culture or religion for primarily ceremonial purposes, but material discrimination by the ostensibly democratic state in favour of members of a certain group.

You're wrong on two things. First, you're wrong in assumption that Israel practises "material discrimination in favour of members of a certain group". Israel doesn't really do this. You're also wrong in assuming and that other states do not practise such discrimination. If you want to provide examples of this discrimination in Israel, please feel free to share.

[Bob]

So by that I am going to guess you do not support a two-state solution?

It depends on the details of such a proposal. Still, I'm sure I'm not the only one that can read between the lines in your posts - you want the Arabs to be better armed in order to be more effective in asserting their "resistance" through violence. You should be more honest in your posts, because most of us can feel out your views despite your attempts at being evasive.

Don't bother answering the question, it was rhetorical.

[bud]

If you want to provide examples of this discrimination in Israel, please feel free to share.

law of return is a discriminatory law.

immigration laws in regards to spousal sponsorships are also discriminatory.

there is more, but i'll let you clumsily deny those two first.

[Bob]

law of return is a discriminatory law.

immigration laws in regards to spousal sponsorships are also discriminatory.

there is more, but i'll let you clumsily deny those two first.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere. If the Law of Return is a discriminatory law, as you're saying it is, should it be abolished in the name of justice? After all, if it is discriminatory, then it is it immoral - correct?

I don't need to deny anything, the Law of Return is an inextricable part of the fabric of this country. It is indispensable as it codifies the birthright of all Jewish people to our land. It's one of the most important laws of this country. It's a source of pride.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Bob

[bud]

Alright, now we're getting somewhere. If the Law of Return is a discriminatory law, as you're saying it is, should it be abolished in the name of justice? After all, if it is discriminatory, then it is it immoral - correct?

I don't need to deny anything, the Law of Return is an inextricable part of the fabric of this country. It is indispensable as it codifies the birthright of all Jewish people to our land.

okay, now we're getting somewhere. so you admit that you were wrong and israel does have discriminatory laws and you're going to take back what you said earlier:

First, you're wrong in assumption that Israel practises "material discrimination in favour of members of a certain group". Israel doesn't really do this.

so that's 1 discriminatory law that you cannot deny that exists.

next, land laws. can you tell me how the land laws are not discriminatory?

Edited April 29, 2011 by bud

[Bob]

okay, now we're getting somewhere. so you admit that you were wrong and israel does have discriminatory laws and you're going to take back what you said earlier:

so that's 1 discriminatory law that you cannot deny that exists.

next, land laws. can you tell me how the land laws are not discriminatory?

You said it was discriminatory. Not I. And you're not answering the question, as usual. Should the Law of Return be abolished in the interests of justice? After all, if it is a discriminatory law as you claim, then it is unjust. Correct? Answer the question.

[bud]

You said it was discriminatory. Not I.

because you want to clumsily deny that it is discriminatory. the law of return, in every sense is discriminatory. just in case you've forgotten the meaning of discrimination, here it is:

discrimination n. unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex, or sexual orientation.

And you're not answering the question, as usual. Should the Law of Return be abolished in the interests of justice? After all, if it is a discriminatory law as you claim, then it is unjust. Correct? Answer the question.

if you want to announce israel to be a non-discriminatory state, then yes, it should be abolished. if you're okay with israel having a law that discriminates against another group, then the status quo should continue.

are you ready for the next discriminatory law in israel or do you want to continue denying what the meaning of discrimination is?

[GostHacked]

It depends on the details of such a proposal. Still, I'm sure I'm not the only one that can read between the lines in your posts - you want the Arabs to be better armed in order to be more effective in asserting their "resistance" through violence. You should be more honest in your posts, because most of us can feel out your views despite your attempts at being evasive.

Don't bother answering the question, it was rhetorical.

Rhetorical? Thanks for assuming and making up my mind for me. However, you, like others assume to much. And I've been brutaly honest in past threads. I am alone on this board in the fact that I personally do not recognize Israel, not that it makes much of a difference to the discussion, because Israel DOES in fact exist. Nothing I say will make a difference on that. You can call me an anti-semite if you want. But that would be wrong. I like Jews, I don't like Israel.

You are personally for wiping out the Palestinians for the Jewish 'homeland', I'll admit you don't make any bones about that, and do not have a problem in saying so. Also, invoking a right to return law that is contingent on Israel existing in the first place seems like the cart before the horse situation.

You are for destroying homes and buildings along the borders, for security of the Isreali troops.

You are for displacing Palestinans for security of Israel and as you say, because without Israel, Jews would not exist.

You are definately NOT supporting a two state solution. That is clear by your words.

You question anyone who has anything to say that conflicts with your world view, without questioning it yourself.

You are in fact your own double standard Bob.

[Black Dog]

There is no question that there is a balancing act between a pure democratic character and a pure Jewish character in Israel. I do not hide from this issue - if there is ever a risk to the Jewish character of Israel, all priorities become secondary. In my mind, and I can assure you that a strong majority of Jews worldwide agree with me, that the Jewish character of Israel is of the utmost importance. So far, it hasn't been a disaster.

It could be a big problem, however, in the future. Let's assume that the Jewish proportion of the Israeli begins to diminish. Right now, Israel is about 80% Jewish. Imagine in twenty years that this decreases to 70%. Further along, it goes down to 50%, and so on... do you think the Jewish people will allow the function of democracy to destroy our independence and self-determination? So of course, I support a Jewish state over a democratic state if these two values come into direct conflict with one another. So far, Israel's done a good job balancing these issues.

Furthermore, I'm not sure I would be opposed to Israel revoking political freedoms for non-Jews. I can easily see the arguments for such a move, and would support it if it was a necessary move towards preserving Jewish national rights in Israel.

I guess you should be commended for your honesty, even if your views are reprehensible. Fanatics are usually the most unwavering in their beliefs and steadfast in their cause. How did you come to internalize the attitudes of those groups who used to oppress you?

You're wrong on two things. First, you're wrong in assumption that Israel practises "material discrimination in favour of members of a certain group". Israel doesn't really do this. You're also wrong in assuming and that other states do not practise such discrimination. If you want to provide examples of this discrimination in Israel, please feel free to share.

I really doubt you have the self awareness to recognize just how risible this bit is. It'd be one thing to deny that Israel practices material discrimination (which it certainly does in matters such as marriage and property). But by attempting to minimize the practice by claiming that others do it as well (which no one denied), you implicitly concede the point.

Still, I'm sure I'm not the only one that can read between the lines in your posts - you want the Arabs to be better armed in order to be more effective in asserting their "resistance" through violence. You should be more honest in your posts, because most of us can feel out your views despite your attempts at being evasive.

You're either willfully obtuse or just despicable.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Black Dog

[jbg]

Is that what you're hoping for? They need to be given more autonomy in order to more effectively wage their hostilities against us and further their aims towards the destruction of Israel as the Jewish state?

I think this post proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're not here for real discussion on this.

How about making part of the "real discussion" the economic activity and viability of a new state. Without such a discussion it sure seems that the purpose of a new state is a springboard for further aggression against Israel.

[Bob]

I guess that's as close to a straight answer as we're gonna get from you on this subject. So now let's logically follow what your opposition to the Law of Return actually means - you're opposed to Jewish independence. Either the Jewish people are entitled to a homeland or we aren't. If we are, then we are obviously obligated to open our homeland to all of our nation )with some exceptions, of course). If you oppose the Law of Return, then you oppose Jewish national rights, self-determination, independence, and all other related concepts.

I stated earlier that I support a Jewish state above all other interests, should they come into conflict. For instance, Israel's declaration of independence states that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state, which can seem contradictory in some instances. So, in the name of balancing Jewish needs and principles of democracy, there are some laws that people like you will refer to as discriminatory - such as the Law of Return.

Regardless, opposition to the Law of Return, which you can barely bring yourself to state, is inseparable from an opposition to the Jewish character of Israel. This position of yours shouldn't surprise anyone, and it certainly doesn't surprise me. It's entirely compatible and expected given your posting history. I can read between the lines, and despite how you try to evade many questions that I've asked you, your animosity towards the very concept of Israel as the Jewish state is clear. As this exchange between us illustrates, when pressed on core issues for straight answers, you reveal yourself more clearly.

You're a lot like GostHacked, by the way, in the sense that you're very afraid to state clearly your opinions. You dodge and evade, which is quite funny, because all of us know exactly what you think before you make your posts. Don't you get that? You don't need to hide, we know who you are and you're all about.

One last thing, and this is a related subject to "discriminatory" laws in Israel, is that the Jewish people are an ultra-minority and at at particular risk of dying if left to the devices of the rest of the world. Whether is be genocide or assimilation, most of us think the best tool available to us for national survival is statehood. And since we are a democracy, we need special measures to ensure that the mechanisms of democracy do not destroy the Jewish character of this state. I gave a hypothetical future scenario just a few posts earlier where the Jewish character of the state could come into conflict with democratic principles. Do you think we will allow these mechanisms to destroy us and everything that's been built by those who came before us?

Edited April 29, 2011 by Bob

[Black Dog]

How about making part of the "real discussion" the economic activity and viability of a new state. Without such a discussion it sure seems that the purpose of a new state is a springboard for further aggression against Israel.

I'm speaking only about Bob's hamfisted distortion of GH's post. The rest is another topic altogether.

[bud]

I guess that's as close to a straight answer as we're gonna get from you on this subject. So now let's logically follow what your opposition to the Law of Return actually means

you've gone into babbling mode again bob.

the question is whether or not israel practices discriminatory laws. it's not about 'my opposition' to it.

the law of return is a discriminatory law because it discriminates against other groups.

by the way, i love this bit from blackdog:

Fanatics are usually the most unwavering in their beliefs and steadfast in their cause. How did you come to internalize the attitudes of those groups who used to oppress you?

[Bob]

I guess you should be commended for your honesty, even if your views are reprehensible. Fanatics are usually the most unwavering in their beliefs and steadfast in their cause. How did you come to internalize the attitudes of those groups who used to oppress you?

Answer this question, please: Assuming that the Jewish proportion of Israel's population begins to decline over time and stays on that track, would the democratic character of Israel override the Jewish character? In this hypothetical scenario, if Israel eventually becomes a state with a Jewish minority, would the non-Jewish majority be entitled to remove the Jewish character of the state? For example, to change the flag, the change the national anthem, to abolish the Law of Return, to disassemble all Jewish special-interests sponsored by the state (education, arts centres, the Rabbinical Authority, Kosher certifications, national holidays, etc)? If you think it's moral to allow democratic mechanisms to destroy Jewish national rights, and I'm quite certain that that is your perspective, it is your views that are reprehensible, not mine.

It's also quite typical, and pathetic, for you to make an underhanded accusation that I am somehow like a Nazi. Indeed, it is your position that invariably puts Jewish survival at risk. To advocate for the dissolution of Jewish statehood, which you clearly oppose, condemns us to live under the rule of others. We haven't had good experiences with that. We're not about to accept an about-face from the rest of the world, "Don't worry, Jews... you can trust us this time". No thanks. In essence, this is what your position boils down to. You've openly stated your opposition to statehood associated with ethnicity and religion, which necessarily means your opposed to Jewish statehood. Why debate the nuances when your basest suppositions and perspectives are abhorrent and rejected by the majority of the Jewish people, myself included? There's really no need for you and I to have any more dialogue on this matter.

I really doubt you have the self awareness to recognize just how risible this bit is. It'd be one thing to deny that Israel practices material discrimination (which it certainly does in matters such as marriage and property). But by attempting to minimize the practice by claiming that others do it as well (which no one denied), you implicitly concede the point.

You're either willfully obtuse or just despicable.

I clearly stated that I don't care what any other country does. The entire world could be one big atheist country, and it wouldn't matter to me. We don't derive legitimacy because of what other countries do or have done. We are a unique and distinct people, and we are entitled to independence and self-determination in our homeland. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

I'm speaking only about Bob's hamfisted distortion of GH's post. The rest is another topic altogether.

There was no distortion at all. GostHacked clearly desires a more independent Palestinian entity in order to facilitate a strengthening of their capabilities to wage violence for their "resistance". He clearly laments the military superiority of Israel and the advantages this provides. He also didn't answer my question, and deflected.

[Bob]

you've gone into babbling mode again bob.

the question is whether or not israel practices discriminatory laws. it's not about 'my opposition' to it.

the law of return is a discriminatory law because it discriminates against other groups.

by the way, i love this bit from blackdog:

Fanatics are usually the most unwavering in their beliefs and steadfast in their cause. How did you come to internalize the attitudes of those groups who used to oppress you?

You're being evasive, again. You're trying to make a point here, you're trying to portray Israel as a state that practises discrimination. You're doing this specifically to portray Israel in a negative light, which is the reason for your existence on this forum. Now, if the Law of Return is discriminatory, then it should be abolished in the interests of morality and justice, correct? Because if one doesn't oppose the Law of Return, according to your logic, then one isn't opposing discrimination? Considering that you like to portray yourself as an advocate for justice and morality and fairness, don't you necessarily have to oppose the Law of Return based on your own self-stated principles?

Answer the question clearly. Then we can proceed clearly.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Bob

[Black Dog]

There was no distortion at all. GostHacked clearly desires a more independent Palestinian entity in order to facilitate a strengthening of their capabilities to wage violence for their "resistance". He clearly laments the military superiority of Israel and the advantages this provides. He also didn't answer my question, and deflected.

You're delusional.

jbg:

Israel does its fighting through armies, not faceless, nameless, anonymous murderers.

GostHacked:

When the occupied territories becomes an independant nation state. Then they can build a military to fight with. Untill that time all you are going to get is faceless, nameless anonymous murderers.

In other words: "what else do you expect, given the disparity between the two?" Nowhere does GH express the actual desire for such an outcome. In its original context, the intent is obvious to anyone who is not a total fucking psycho.

[jbg]

You're missing the point of course. Israel can choose to be a Jewish state or a democratic state. I doubt it can reconcile both. It's clear which you prefer.

Not really. If it were not a Jewish state, given the nature of the surrounding states, I doubt it would be overly democratic either.

[bud]

You're being evasive, again.

i'm not being evasive. the question was whether israel discriminates and you challenged blackdog to show you how israel discriminates. i gave you one of the discriminatory laws that israel has.

when i replied to your challenge and showed you how israel discriminates, you decided to show your anti-semite card again.

you fail.

[Black Dog]

Answer this question, please: Assuming that the Jewish proportion of Israel's population begins to decline over time and stays on that track, would the democratic character of Israel override the Jewish character? In this hypothetical scenario, if Israel eventually becomes a state with a Jewish minority, would the non-Jewish majority be entitled to remove the Jewish character of the state? For example, to change the flag, the change the national anthem, to abolish the Law of Return, to disassemble all Jewish special-interests sponsored by the state (education, arts centres, the Rabbinical Authority, Kosher certifications, national holidays, etc)? If you think it's moral to allow democratic mechanisms to destroy Jewish national rights, and I'm quite certain that that is your perspective, it is your views that are reprehensible, not mine.

You know, with just a few changes to the names of the groups involved, this could come straight from an apologist for South African apartheid during the 1980s.

To answer your question of would the democratic character of Israel override the Jewish character: yes, that's a possibility. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. Democracy is the enemy if you believe, as you obviously do, that Jews can only preserve their national rights and character by maintaining themselves as a separate and privileged class within their own nation state. It seems you have no faith in "the other" (who you clearly feel is only interested in destroying Israel and the Jews by means fair or foul) and very little in the Jewish people's ability to protect, maintain and celebrate their character without the coercive and discriminatory power of the state (which you simultaneously deny and celebrate). Of course, the final irony here is that the policies - say, the ban on intermarriage - designed to uphold the Jewish character of Israel (the ones you actually deny exist) are the ones that would need to be overcome if Israel were to become a healthy functioning, pluralistic democracy like, well, all the others.

It's also quite typical, and pathetic, for you to make an underhanded accusation that I am somehow like a Nazi.

If the Marschstiefel fits...

Indeed, it is your position that invariably puts Jewish survival at risk. To advocate for the dissolution of Jewish statehood, which you clearly oppose, condemns us to live under the rule of others. We haven't had good experiences with that.

I would argue the Jews have had positive experiences living under liberal democracies. Unless you consider enjoying the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities as any other member of the state a crushing yoke that must be overthrown.

We're not about to accept an about-face from the rest of the world, "Don't worry, Jews... you can trust us this time". No thanks. In essence, this is what your position boils down to. You've openly stated your opposition to statehood associated with ethnicity and religion, which necessarily means your opposed to Jewish statehood.

Statehood predicated upon ethnicity and religion is counter to the principles of democracy I've been raised to value.

Why debate the nuances when your basest suppositions and perspectives are abhorrent and rejected by the majority of the Jewish people, myself included? There's really no need for you and I to have any more dialogue on this matter.

I don't accept you as spokesman for the Jewish people or a genuine representative thereof.

[Bob]

You know, with just a few changes to the names of the groups involved, this could come straight from an apologist for South African apartheid during the 1980s.

Well, the Jewish people don't define our identity on the colour of our skin. Some nationalities are artificial and superficial, such as "white identity" or "Palestinian identity". There's nothing to preserve or endure. More importantly, there is no apartheid here, nor am I advocating for apartheid. So, one is left wondering why you would try to draw such a ridiculous parallel between my statements and the "apologist for South African apartheid during the 1980s".

To answer your question of would the democratic character of Israel override the Jewish character: yes, that's a possibility. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. Democracy is the enemy if you believe, as you obviously do, that Jews can only preserve their national rights and character by maintaining themselves as a separate and privileged class within their own nation state. It seems you have no faith in "the other" (who you clearly feel is only interested in destroying Israel and the Jews by means fair or foul) and very little in the Jewish people's ability to protect, maintain and celebrate their character without the coercive and discriminatory power of the state (which you simultaneously deny and celebrate). Of course, the final irony here is that the policies - say, the ban on intermarriage - designed to uphold the Jewish character of Israel (the ones you actually deny exist) are the ones that would need to be overcome if Israel were to become a healthy functioning, pluralistic democracy like, well, all the others.

Well, we're not a privileged class in our own state. All peoples have the same freedoms. So, I'm not sure what you're going on about. If democratic principles come into conflict with the Jewish character of the state, however, they must be overridden. It's a balancing act, but it's done quite well in Israel. As I've said, the fundamentals of Israel are that it is the vehicle through which we actualize our national rights. Our national rights cease to exist when we become minorities in a country whose destiny is determined by our majority masters. One more thing, being Jewish in Israel in many ways is harder than being non-Jewish. Primarily, Jews have much higher rates of military services than do non-Jews. That's three years for men, and two years for women, while the Arabs (and some other groups) don't fulfill this duty. Are you concerned about that "discrimination"?

You talk about the "coercive and discriminatory power of the state". What exactly are you referring to? Are you opposed to national holidays being Jewish holidays and infringing on the freedoms of non-Jews? Are you opposed to the national anthem referring to the "Jewish soul" and excluding non-Jews from mention? Are you opposed to public funds, drawn from Jews and Gentiles alike, that fund Jewish interests like Yad Vashem?

And no, I certainly have no faith in non-Jews to control our destiny. As do many Jews. The track record of the world towards us isn't good. We're unique and distinct, and we have a right to determine our future independently from others. We do no need to accept having our destinies determined by others as we live as minorities among them. We refuse to be victimized again. I guess you have a problem with that.

As far as "intermarriage", that applies to all religions in Israel. It is not a specifically Jewish law. Different denominations of Christianity, for example, are entrusted with setting their own respective marriage laws. In other words, various religious authorities are charged with managing marriage in Israel. If two people want to get married outside of the regulations of these institutions, there are ways they can do so. If a Jew wants to marry a Gentile, they will do so.

And why should Israel be like all other liberal democracies? We define pluralism in our own way. We have a large non-Jewish minority in Israel (who are mostly Arabs with little pluralism), and a great deal of pluralism within ourselves. Israel is healthy and functioning, thank you very much. This is the Jewish state, if we were going to be like other liberal democracies, we wouldn't be Israel, now would we? Did you ever consider the fact that we don't want to be like you, or that we're different enough to have a different country with a different culture and different way of life?

I would argue the Jews have had positive experiences living under liberal democracies. Unless you consider enjoying the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities as any other member of the state a crushing yoke that must be overthrown.

Certainly this is true in some contexts, but it's also been horrible in other contexts. You're ignoring everything what I've said. As minorities in countries we are always at risk of being oppressed again. Our rights, as minorities, will always be subject to the acceptance of the majority. The context in which we live our lives are still defined by a majority of people who are non-Jewish, which runs contrary to us carving out or own collective future. I'll assume you're ignorant of Jewish history and have only learned superficially about the Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition, and think these are the only two examples of mass persecution against Jews in history. There are many, many, many more examples. Each one of them yet another reason why we need independence - because "the other" simply cannot be trusted to treat us as equals. Although anti-Semitism isn't the only reason for Israel's existence as the Jewish state, it is one of the most resilient. Still, even if all the Gentiles in the world with Judeophilic, Israel would still be needed, just for one less reason.

Statehood predicated upon ethnicity and religion is counter to the principles of democracy I've been raised to value.

In Israel, these values are balanced. As I said, however, Jewish national needs will trump democratic processes if they come into conflict with one another. Jewish statehood will not allow itself to be destroyed, as you wish, because of a democratic value system. They'll be balanced as much as is reasonably possible.

I don't accept you as spokesman for the Jewish people or a genuine representative thereof.

I never claimed to be. With respect to Israel as the Jewish homeland, however, I can assure you that my views are widely held. If my views were fringe, then Israel wouldn't be the Jewish state. I may have some uncommon perspectives, but the majority of what I'm saying in here is mainstream Jewish opinion.

You're a perfect example of why Israel is needed, by the way. Your complete obliviousness to Jewish history and Jewishness is evident in every sentence you make. You don't know anything about Judaism or the Jewish people or what it's like to be Jewish, that's why it's so easy for you to talk about us as just another "ethno-religious" group. Like any other culture, we depend on one another to persist and thrive. You can't really be Jewish and be isolated, it takes a community to really have a fulfilling Jewish life. And as we take that to the next level, it evolves to statehood. And unfortunately, history has given us the need to also be armed for self-defense from those that wish us harm - which is another component of statehood.

Anyways, at least we've gotten the basics out of the way. You're openly opposed to Jewish statehood, which you are unwilling to admit puts the Jewish people at risk of harm (including destruction) through genocide or assimilation. Why should we continue talking about anything else? You're opposed to the very foundation and fabric of Israel. There's no need for us to discuss smaller issues (for instance, the Law of Return) when you are opposed to the core values held by the majority of Jewish people.

[Bob]

double post.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Bob