Israel's war crimes in Gaza

[Scott Mayers]

Drivel. Everyone in the middle east is abusing everyone else in one way, shape or form. Sow what?

It is certainly a highly biased media source, much as RT or FOX are. Most western media sources are not nearly so biased.

Western media exists in a region of the world less hostile to ethnic, political, and economic differences. We just have more variation and relative peace by contrast. The Israeli media is even worse. Check out http://www.jewishpress.com/multimedia/land-of-israel/ari-and-jeremy/why-does-obama-call-isis-isil-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-israel/2015/12/17/ and look at their requirements for feedback allowed. There they define this press and its site as absolutely intolerant to any non-Jewish defenses and particularly favor Judaism without an allowance for opinion remotely in question of them. And...

Your purpose is to disqualify ANY dissenting view by dismissing that media as a whole with severe prejudice.

No, it was to dismiss the story as absurdly one-sided, which it was.

False. You didn't declare any specific view about the article and only spoke of its media source as a whole to be questionable. If you have sincere concern to that particular article, I challenge you to re-read it and point out specifically how their rhetoric was biased.

Your fixation on the origins of the state of Israel is absurd. The area was a minor province of the Ottoman Empire and was then being administered by the UN. Why Jews lived there or moved there is irrelevant. The UN divided up the territory between an Arab nation and a Jewish one. Had it not been for the military intervention of hostile Arab nations there would have been no real violence. Why did Egypt invade the new state of Israel? Why did Jordan? Why did Syria?

The U.N. sanctioned it? The problem here is that Palestinians were not of this organ, were not even recognized as having political justice since they didn't even have the time to organize upon the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. This act is exploitive of their present disadvantage at the time in contrast to the Zionists AND no one remotely considered them even as justified 'victims' of the Ottoman regime. Also, why is the U.N. given recognized 'authority' when in favors the Zionists but later ignored when it disfavors them? If the U.N. is an arbitrary means to selectively choose when or where their authority matters, it makes this body with respect to the Zionists insignificant except as a convenient tool.

The U.N. divided the state? Why? Why do you think they SEGREGATED the population rather than set up or sanction a common DEMOCRATIC state so that the people could all participate in what happens there?

That is a noxious comparison. Selling a deed to a Jew is not comparable to gassing people in ovens for BEING Jews.

False and misleading comparison. My argument is that you cannot accept that the Jews legitimately bought land to a system considered illegitimate. If you knew a friend who was a Mafia character who promised you some other people's land based on their 'authority' by means of their power to enforce such a contract contrary to those the land belongs to, you are as much criminal if you don't give that land back when it was realized (if not already known) the friend who legitimized such a contract IS a criminal. Compare: if I even buy something from someone only to discover that the person selling me this product had stole it, I am obliged (at least morally, if not legally), to give the property back and either absorb the losses or sue the criminal who sold me the property deceptively.

You also can't assert comparative crime differences that make one crime somehow more 'fair' by contrast to another in such a case. The Germans also BEGAN in the same kind of illegitimate land seizures of the Jews prior to the escalation that lead to the Holocaust. In fact, had Hitler's successes been not as waning as it was, even the Holocaust may possibly have not happened. But history proved the escalation to more extremes can and DOES matter. So, my comparison to the hypocrisy of the Jews to purchase ANY land is suspect. They also KNEW they were taking advantage of the Palestinians there by merely internalizing that the Palestinians there had no 'claim' or prior ownership to those lands on official record.

A lot of the Jews were FROM that area. Others had moved their years or decades earlier. A lot of Muslims were also relative newcomers, the population having doubled during the decades the British were in charge, many having fled from other places.for a variety of reasons. Do the Muslims who fled Egypt or Bosnia-Herzegovena in the '20s and '30s have more right to the land than the Jews who fled Europe in the '30s and '40s? Why? This was not a country of any sort, and the term "Palestinian" had no ethnic, legal, religious, nationalist or racial significance. They were not a 'people' but a collection of peoples who had arrived from elsewhere, and the area had never been self-governing, nor wanted to be.

I happened to look up the demographics of the territories comparing Arab, Christian, and Jew. At ALL times up to 1948, the Palestinians had a drastic majority. And the Jews were at most half of the Palestinians and were mostly of a significant minority for most of the pre-established State of Israel.

But notice what I underlined above. You specifically pointed out what I was concerned about. If the Palestinians were NOT a country, is this not because of the recent fall of the Ottoman Empire? Did anyone not think, let's ask the Palestinians there if they'd like to now form a country? Did anyone ask if the Palestinians there would be welcome to a democratic state? No, the decision external to their DEMOCRATIC interest was to forcefully stage a coup for the land and to favor the political dominance of the Jews OVER the Muslims there.

[Scott Mayers]

Mr. Mayers, you again tell someone how they think.

Your again create a stereotype of what you think someone believes and project it upon them as if its fact.

In do doing you again demonstrate your narcissistic defect, your inability to differentiate your own thoughts from those of others and think they are one and the same.

If you support Team A over Team B, other than some particular favor you might have for the letter A over the letter B, unless there is no other qualifying distinction you have to judge from, it suggests you are biased for SOME reason at least. I argued the invalidity of the excuse to qualify one team as any more 'right' over the other because both are 'wrong'. Thus, any support remaining of one team over the other MUST be of ones' personal bias, and not of one logically consistent to some moral high ground position.

Note my assertion is a hypothetical too. AND...it goes without saying, my opinion otherwise (if it weren't miraculously logical enough).

[Rue]

Wait a second. You still miss the logic. I don't support any "Nationalism" where such is defined on some specific ethnicity, regardless of whether it is from Muslims or not. Palestine was NOT a political state of the Jews prior to their relatively recent takeover of this region. As such, if the Jews had this land, even still disagreeing with their ethnocentric racism, in a reversed condition such that the Muslims had forced a state instead, I'd disagree with those Muslims for overtaking the Jews who would have been there before.

So it is NOT about which Nationalism is better or worse because BOTH forms are racist and unworthy of supporting (Unless those like you have a belief in your own 'race' and simply agree to such Nationalism). The point of the matter is that those who ARE Zionists ("Jewish Zionists" is redundant here) used their racism to redefine Palestine in disrespect of the political STATE of those there before them. It wouldn't matter if the people living in Palestine for the last two thousand years were German Nazis. To simply say that those people are evil does not justify replacing them just with another form of Nazism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

So we have to look to the logic of the secondary conditions as outsiders looking in on these different peoples OBJECTIVELY. This is like if we had to judge two inmates of some prison who are both violent criminals to determine whether one is acting in ways that are relatively more unjust than the other. That is, we still don't think it appropriate for one criminal inmate to kill another inmate. We don't excuse the fact that one of them did some other heinous crime as justification to allow the lessor of the two evils to have carte blanche justice to offend the other. Note, I DO get that many peole DO think this type of behavior is alright. If one is a child predator while the other is simply a predator of an adult, one may interpret the offender against adults as "justified" in murdering the child predator in prison. But for that matter, outsiders may simply interpret both as equally deserving whatever evolves in those prisons regardless of who is more or less abusive. So, if you think Israel earns their right because of might in light that both are evil but you think Israel's crimes are lessor than the Palestinians before them, why not close off your concern for BOTH sides? Why support even Israel's existence at all even if you think they were simply "lessor" of the evils? Shouldn't you just stay out of the issue altogether? Should WE, the rest of the World, ignore problems altogether in the Middle East?

If you still think the Israeli side should be supported, I then have to question whether you yourself have some personal Nationalistic belief too. While you do NOT have to be a Jew to support Israel, if you support their 'right' over the Palestinians, it indicates you have some other personal belief in your own form of Nationalism and only side with Israel out of a better affinity to their culture over the Palestinians. It would be like favoring one violent gang over another simply because you might prefer the appearance of one over the other. You treat the dispute like a sports event in which you are entertained by the competition but happen to have loyalty to one side simply because they have uniforms with colors you like (that is, relate to).

In the above Mayer uses many words to unilaterally state three subjective opinions:

1-Zionism is racist and another form of Nazism

2-Jewish nationalism is more evil than Palestinian nationalism because its the equivalent of child molesting while Palestinian nationalism is the equivalent of adult molesting.

The then poses his stating of the above as logical and objective:

"So we have to look to the logic of the secondary conditions as outsiders looking in on these different peoples OBJECTIVELY."

Then he restates his formula of logic and objectivity as:

"This is like if we had to judge two inmates (Jewish nationalism and Israelis, Palestinians and Palestinian nationalism) of some prison who are both violent criminals to determine whether one is acting in ways that are relatively more unjust than the other."

He then states Israelis and Jewish nationalism is the equivalent of child molestation but Palestinian nationalism and Palestinians on the other had are just adult molesters:

"If one is a child predator while the other is simply a predator of an adult."

Now the question is again, where was his objective methodology used to objectively determine Israelis are child molestors and not adult molestors and therefore more evil enabling him to use a different standard to negate their nationalism than Palestinians and their nationalism?

Well of course it does not exist just like his basis for concluding Palestinian and Jewish nationalism are racist.

Its what he does, continually state his subjective opinions with no objective basis for their determination and pose them now as both logical and objective.

Now that's interesting, claiming to be logical and objective but having no reasoning process to conclude one's statements.

Once again, Mayer thinks because he states a subjective opinion, its logical and objective. He doesn't need to prove it, he can just state it.

Hey now, since when is it logical to assume something is without it being proven to be that what it is claimed to be? Hmmm?

What is this magic that has Mayer believe his thoughts, his stereotypes, his assumptions, just magically become logical let alone objective just because he utters them? Hmmmm? What magic process is this? Hey now, its called narcissism.

I would contend that in fact a logical person would not find his biases and reframing Zionism as child molestation as not logical but quite irrational.

In fact I would describe it this way:

"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism."

"If you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may feel a sense of entitlement — and when you don't receive special treatment, you may become impatient or angry. You may insist on having "the best" of everything — for instance, the best car, athletic club or medical care.

At the same time, you have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation. To feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make yourself appear superior. Or you may feel depressed and moody because you fall short of perfection."

'Many experts use the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association, to diagnose mental conditions. This manual is also used by insurance companies to reimburse for treatment.

DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

•Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance

•Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it

•Exaggerating your achievements and talents

Requiring constant admiration

•Having a sense of entitlement

-Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others

-Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner"

Now I bring the above up because fair is fair. If Mayer can constantly make assumptions as to the beliefs of Jews and Israelis and for that matter anyone who responds to him, I can do the same in reverse to theorize on why he says what he says.

He opened that window, I now close it.

source: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568

[Rue]

If you support Team A over Team B, other than some particular favor you might have for the letter A over the letter B, unless there is no other qualifying distinction you have to judge from, it suggests you are biased for SOME reason at least. I argued the invalidity of the excuse to qualify one team as any more 'right' over the other because both are 'wrong'. Thus, any support remaining of one team over the other MUST be of ones' personal bias, and not of one logically consistent to some moral high ground position.

Note my assertion is a hypothetical too. AND...it goes without saying, my opinion otherwise (if it weren't miraculously logical enough).

If you support Team A over Team B, other than some particular favor you might have for the letter A over the letter B, unless there is no other qualifying distinction you have to judge from, it suggests you are biased for SOME reason at least. I argued the invalidity of the excuse to qualify one team as any more 'right' over the other because both are 'wrong'. Thus, any support remaining of one team over the other MUST be of ones' personal bias, and not of one logically consistent to some moral high ground position.

Note my assertion is a hypothetical too. AND...it goes without saying, my opinion otherwise (if it weren't miraculously logical enough).

You stated to Dog on the Porch and I quote:

"You treat the dispute like a sports event in which you are entertained by the competition but happen to have loyalty to one side simply because they have uniforms with colors you like (that is, relate to)."

You then state the above only not as an assertion but to stereotype his response or mine or anyone else's you don't agree with.

You project on anyone who disagrees with the above stereotype.

No Mayer your opinions are not miraculous or logical. That's just your exaggerated sense of self.

I would say this-if someone, anyone uses their beliefs whether individually or collectively to hurt others, to define them as inferiors not worthy of dignity then yes its questionable behaviour.

I have never come on this board and said everything Israel does is moral. Israel has in the past implemented policies, laws, engaged in reactions to terrorism, conflict, uprisings, ethnic disagreements in negative ways. Of course it has. It also has a vibrant Knesset, an explosive media, over 125 human rights organizations, a legal system, questioning and challenging what it is doing. Its not and can never be perfect but you have tried to justify smeering all Israelis, all Zionists, and all Jews with stereotypes accusing them of being immoral, evil, and now child molesters.

You have blanket generalized terrorists as being innocent and not culpable for their actions calling them poor and in so doing insulting millions of impoverished people who reject terrorism and overcome with hard work and positive belief in life not violence and anger.

You don't get something very basis. I argue what I do not just on behalf of Israelis but exactly for the same reasons on behalf of Palestinians because I lived with both and see them unlike you at all times as equals.

You don't get that when a bomb goes off, a Jew, a Muslim, a Palestinian, an Israeli, they blow up the same way. They blow up and become steamy mush the exact same way. You don't get it. You don't get to see the body parts in bags I have and regret every day until you die you couldn't do more to bring about peace. You don't. You just pose-you pose from an artificial world where you assume you know what is right and wrong and you dismiss both Palestinians and Israelis as "wrong" for wanting to be master's of their own futures.

Neither is evil both have equal amounts of good and bad people and want the same things-they want their children to have the same things,

Edited March 13, 2016 by Rue

[Scott Mayers]

In the above Mayer uses many words to unilaterally state three subjective opinions:

1-Zionism is racist and another form of Nazism

Yes, I agree with this. Perhaps this is the first thing (other than to actually spell my last name correctly in the last post to me....thank you at least for that, btw).

I demonstrated Zionism is racist because it is no different that asserting one is an "Aryanist". When you define yourself based significantly on ethnic grounds, this cannot logically be interpreted as anything else because the Zionist, like the Aryanist, bases themselves on establishing some specific nationality based foremost on their genetic ancestral relationships. You even admitted before that a 'Jew' doesn't require being one who believes in Judaism but to their genetic relationship. Because this also implies the State in mind to be created is to be DOMINATED of genetically-related Jews, this proves Zionism is "racist". "Race" is just a subgroup of one species often presumed to be sufficiently assumed to be believed as standing apart from others of the same species. So if you favor Jews based on ancestral connection, this is appropriately understood as "racist".

If this wasn't the case, then Israel wouldn't be defined as a "Jewish" state other than by some possible accident, just as some define Canada or America as "Christian" since they represent the majority by accident. But unlike Israel, the rest of the 'democratic' world favors no specific ethnicity.

2-Jewish nationalism is more evil than Palestinian nationalism because its the equivalent of child molesting while Palestinian nationalism is the equivalent of adult molesting.

I clearly stated that both are equally wrong for their actions but that Israel is the initiator of the present conflict as they came to Palestine; the Palestinians did not go to Palestine as they were already there! I did NOT use the comparison of child molesting of a criminal versus one with some lessor relative crime as any one-to-one mapping of either the Israelis or the Palestinians because each is relatively perceived as one by the other. And it was an indirect comparison to demonstrate how it is NOT appropriate to assert that one prison inmate for such comparative crimes is MORE justified for their behavior over the other REGARDLESS of which one is the pedophile or not.

That is, just because you or others may attempt to argue that Palestinians are somehow most terroristic in comparison to the Israelis [the Palestinians are the assumed Pedophile relative to this example pretending agreement with the Israeli view of them], this does not justify Israel to offend with more force against the Palestinians nor makes the Israelis 'innocent' of criminal behavior. Your perception is skewed and how you responded here just shows how you jumping to conclusions of me is more about your own inability to interpret the logic here. And, I'm guessing that had you actually interpreted the opposite, that I was somehow accusing the Palestinians of being "Pedophiles", you'd not have said a word!

I see that for what else you wrote (besides the Ad Hominem) is dependent upon your clear misunderstanding (or is this just you playing dumb again so that you can accuse me with purpose?). So those further comments by you don't follow.

Note that you may be verging on behavior that may be potentially in violation of this forum. If you want to maintain credibility to your accusations, do it non-anonymously or volunteer more caution. At least, if I said something here, I'm not here anonymous and could be held ACCOUNTABLE publicly for such abuses. You lack credibility if you opt to be more risky with your words.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[Big Guy]

So the Israeli air force has managed to kill two more Palestinian terrorists.

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN0WE09Y

The girl, 6 year old Israa Abu Khosa, died in hospital on Saturday afternoon having succumbed to critical injuries sustained during the attack. Her brother Yassin, aged 10 years old died earlier. That will teach those young two terrorists a lesson. You can bet they won't be shooting wonky rockets at their Israeli captives!

When are we going to get those Zionists into the world court for war crimes!

Edited March 13, 2016 by Big Guy

[Scott Mayers]

You stated to Dog on the Porch and I quote:

"You treat the dispute like a sports event in which you are entertained by the competition but happen to have loyalty to one side simply because they have uniforms with colors you like (that is, relate to)."

You then state the above only not as an assertion but to stereotype his response or mine or anyone else's you don't agree with.

You project on anyone who disagrees with the above stereotype.

I think these are all your own PROJECTIONS of me based on your own way of thinking, not mine. I argue this issue without any discontent with you or others here. I don't know you nor could even identify you nor "Dog on the Porch". My argument is based on logical grounds of which I only postulate what even you would assume as some standard moral virtue/vice and then try to show how the combined facts involved demonstrate inconsistency. You and not me, are the one acting with intentional disgust towards me and my views as a person. You are basing it on mere emotions. While I can try to empathize with you from any assumed background abuses you may personally have experienced, I don't own any emotional baggage nor have any hidden motives to trick you or others in my words.

I would say this-if someone, anyone uses their beliefs whether individually or collectively to hurt others, to define them as inferiors not worthy of dignity then yes its questionable behaviour.

And what do you think you are doing if not imposing your 'beliefs' of me (that I'm supposedly some hater here), attempting to 'hurt' me (by asserting but not proving or actually demonstrating that I hold some Anti-Semitic view), and to define me as 'inferior' (by asserting I have some mental defect of character)?

I have never come on this board and said everything Israel does is moral. Israel has in the past implemented policies, laws, engaged in reactions to terrorism, conflict, uprisings, ethnic disagreements in negative ways. Of course it has. It also has a vibrant Knesset, an explosive media, over 125 human rights organizations, a legal system, questioning and challenging what it is doing. Its not and can never be perfect but you have tried to justify smeering all Israelis, all Zionists, and all Jews with stereotypes accusing them of being immoral, evil, and now child molesters.

I already challenged you on your lack of ability to interpret my comparison appropriately above. But you HAVE acted to defend Zionism as if you speak for all Jews globally in defense of some feigned presumption of me being against even ONE Jew. My disapproval is to the fact that Israel is state purposely designed to foster a racial-based system of which they happen to particularly BE and FAVOR Jews in a globally specific belief about ALL JEWS themselves.

You have blanket generalized terrorists as being innocent and not culpable for their actions calling them poor and in so doing insulting millions of impoverished people who reject terrorism and overcome with hard work and positive belief in life not violence and anger.

No. I'm saying that in the relative disadvantaged community of Palestinians, who ARE variable, the minor minority of those you assert as "terrorists" is transferred in fact to the penalty of the WHOLE of all Palestinians by Israel. Also, while the minority of Palestinians may or may not commit acts of which you could define "terrorism", this is a relative term and to the reality, the actual whole of the Israeli FORCES act in unison as one LARGE group who act as a "terrorist" organ because the Israelis here are the Goliath to the Palestinian's David.

Note how David, in the story, used an advanced weapon for its day? That since David was sufficiently smaller relative to the Giant Philistine (Goliath), who in turn did not wield a weapon but was just sufficiently too big for tiny David to competitively beat otherwise, that the story makes David into a HERO? I'd imagine the Philistines interpreting David's act as a form of 'cheating' or, what you presume about the present Palestinian's acts to rebel, as "terrorism".

To me as to many others, David's act is 'justified' given the story's means to show how those Philistines acting as "Goliaths (= Giants)" who did not necessarily have to overtly violate others when they behave since their less apparent violent means was defaulted unnecessary since they were simply to big and powerful to prevent them from getting their way regardless. Can you see if you reverse this simple moral to which I assume you'd agree was 'fair' is similar to the Palestinian 'terrorists' today representing David while Israel represents those Goliaths. The Goliaths don't require acting with similar extreme because they ARE the natively stronger force. But their acts still do not make their actions any less violent. They are just indirect or hidden.

If you have two people walking down a crowded street with one holstering a large gun while the other without, the one with the gun often begins to simply walk straight without voluntarily moving out of the way of others expecting the weaker to maneuver around them with caution. The bully is the gun-holder as he is counting on the fact of his present power to threaten others acts as a 'deterrent' and disrespects their own behavior. Who in these examples are the real abusers here?

You don't get something very basis. I argue what I do not just on behalf of Israelis but exactly for the same reasons on behalf of Palestinians because I lived with both and see them unlike you at all times as equals.

You don't get that when a bomb goes off, a Jew, a Muslim, a Palestinian, an Israeli, they blow up the same way. They blow up and become steamy mush the exact same way. You don't get it. You don't get to see the body parts in bags I have and regret every day until you die you couldn't do more to bring about peace. You don't. You just pose-you pose from an artificial world where you assume you know what is right and wrong and you dismiss both Palestinians and Israelis as "wrong" for wanting to be master's of their own futures.

Neither is evil both have equal amounts of good and bad people and want the same things-they want their children to have the same things,

I am not supporting "suicide bombers". I am arguing that their desperation makes them relatively likely to opt this. If their economy was reversed, the same person may be the one who either simply joins the army in power OR ends up being one of those (also in the army often) who personally commits suicide for some personal reasons. That is, a David would not even have had a NEED to use a sling shot had he been as competently as large as Goliath.

I am saying the 'apparent' subtle acts we think are harmless or not worthy of being considered as demeaning as "terrorism" is false because the hidden and indirect forms of violation actually makes those capable of being 'terrorist' but being able to hide their accountability, makes them more suspect. Would you prefer someone who is direct and assaults you with a punch in the face OR do you think it respectful to have someone cleverly use a tactic to harm you, pretend they are your 'friend' and then lose accountability for it as you can't determine who or what directly just hit you behind the head and knocked you out?

[jbg]

The topic is "Israel's war crimes in Gaza" and to what I'm focused on here. This does NOT diminish any Nationalistic extremists elsewhere either. But the REALITY is that the Israeli side is defaulted to being relatively 'innocent' here AND by most, politically, it is deemed to be a crime, if not real, at least virtual, to speak against Israel. As such, those like yourself presume we have to default to assume the Muslim side as PURE UNADULTERATED EVIL and the Israelis as PURE UNADULTERATED ANGELS who are 'victims' unresponsible for their own actions.

When the Arab/Muslim side is utterly unrealistic, refuses to engage in good faith negotiations and adopts abhorrent tactics \to what other conclusion can one come? The Arabs/Muslims started four essentially unprovoked wars. Before settlements started they were given multiple opportunities for territorial resolutions, which they refused. Settlements only started when it became obvious that the Arabs would never agree to a Jewish state of Israel inside any boundaries. There are consequences to starting and losing wars. Sadly, those are often tragic for the losing side. Why is Israel not permitted to be a victor?

You insult the Muslims as if they are somehow inferior intrinsically which disables them from succeeding, and so blame them for their own extremes. Yet inversely, you think it is alright to ignore the fact that economics and power reside with the Israelis, regardless of any of their own intrinsic virtues distinct from the extremes of the Muslims.

What Muslim society has succeeded as an independent country? I give up.

The ban of a Jew in Mecca is only a reactive response of the aggression derived from the Jews initially. The hatred is reflective hatred. If you were sincere and correct, the Israelis would not have had a need to build walls, impose 'settlements' by stealing controversial lands by brute force.

Thats a whopper. Jews were to my knowledge always banned from Mecca. And certainly since the creation of the State of Israel. It has nothing to do with Israels seizure of territory in 1967 in an Arab-initiated war.

Your arrogant thinking is as follows: A very strong man manning costly and powerful guns is walking down a busy city street. As he walks, he focuses precisely on where he wants to go and doesn't bother to respect the same standards as others on the same streets. For instance, if you have a group of people and are walking in the opposite direction, this man would keep walking as if no crowd were in front of him and step on them should anyone NOT move out of the way. The crowd requires being extra cautious around him for this behavior and so someone challenges him by reflecting the same behavior as an 'equal'. But upon trying, this strong man with guns steps on the other then blames him for NOT moving out of the way.

To you, you'd blame the crowd for their own weakness and the man who challenged this giant as simply being 'stupid'. Yet, who is the one behaving with unfairness here? If you think ones' strength alone justifies him to behave, then you perhaps understand those like Hitler who would surely agree: 'Weed out the weaklings. Those with the POWER to command their WILL is all that matters. The weak are terrorizing the strong for their own incompetence to chose to BE strong.'

Either I am too stupid to follow or that was totally unintelligible or incoherent.

[Scott Mayers]

When the Arab/Muslim side is utterly unrealistic, refuses to engage in good faith negotiations and adopts abhorrent tactics \to what other conclusion can one come? The Arabs/Muslims started four essentially unprovoked wars. Before settlements started they were given multiple opportunities for territorial resolutions, which they refused. Settlements only started when it became obvious that the Arabs would never agree to a Jewish state of Israel inside any boundaries. There are consequences to starting and losing wars. Sadly, those are often tragic for the losing side. Why is Israel not permitted to be a victor?

I've already covered this above and explained this false perspective. If Israel is permitted 'victory' its at the expense of those losing to them. Of course you'd appreciate such 'victory' being on the winning side. And so why should you complain should the opposition treat you too like this as some sporting event? You can't declare foul play to the Palestinians if all that matters is winning to you. Then those acts you'd refer to as "terrorism" are just normal expected means to compete.

What Muslim society has succeeded as an independent country? I give up.

Is this a justification true or not to offend them? If you disrespect them for their quality of standards you believe defines their religion, you ignore that perhaps religious conviction is itself at fault, not just some particular religion.

Thats a whopper. Jews were to my knowledge always banned from Mecca. And certainly since the creation of the State of Israel. It has nothing to do with Israels seizure of territory in 1967 in an Arab-initiated war.

My response was to something claimed of someone else and I don't have context to determine what you find so shocking (a whopper)? [i wish we had access here to easily quote and quote within quotes. This was already more than a week ago and appears distracting of what the conversation has evolved to.

Either I am too stupid to follow or that was totally unintelligible or incoherent.

I gave a comparison to a bully holstering a gun whose confidence with his deterrent makes him walk without concern to respect others without requiring to be OVERTLY violent, even where he may be.

If it helps, think of David and Goliath of my response above. I coincidentally had just reused this analogy their to which you referenced the same from a week and a half ago. Read that and respond there since you might follow better.

[Argus]

Israel is selectively "democratic". That's the "nationalist" part:...that one must be Jewish to be granted priority in law-making. Had they been sincerely 'democratic', they'd not have been interested in creating a Zionistic State for Jews but to establish a friendly democracy collectively among ALL people in that region.

So only Jews can vote or run for office?

[kactus]

I don't see Israel as a democracy at all. It is a state with complex and secretative military machine that feeds from foreign aids it receives...it shows a distorted image to the rest of the world as "democracy" with selective policies dictating how it should be run and governed. More like those religious zealots it is run by a bunch of nutjobs.

[Rue]

I demonstrated Zionism is racist because it is no different that asserting one is an "Aryanist". When you define yourself based significantly on ethnic grounds, this cannot logically be interpreted as anything else because the Zionist, like the Aryanist, bases themselves on establishing some specific nationality based foremost on their genetic ancestral relationships. You even admitted before that a 'Jew' doesn't require being one who believes in Judaism but to their genetic relationship

You did not demonstrate Zionism is racist. What you did was express the subjective opinion it was. You have never demonstrated it. You have in fact no proof of it. Simply restating your subjective unproven, undemonstrated opinion over and over does not demonstrate or prove it.

You stated incorrectly that both I and Zionists define the Jewish identity as based on significantly ethnic grounds then went on to state and so this ethic definition basis can not be logically interpreted as anything else but being racist.

Zionism does not and has never defined Jews as simply an ethnic group. If it did, defining someone as an ethnic group does not make that defining by ethnicity racist. That is not logical. It is in fact an assumption you have not proven.

Reference to ethnicity only becomes discriminatory in regards to other ethnicities if it describes other ethnicities as inferior or not equal which Zionism when defining Jewish identity does not and has never done.

Ethnicity is not race. You equate race and ethnicity as one and the same which is illogical let alone just plain stupid.

No its not logical to assume ethnicity means race let alone ethnicity automatically when defined Is racist as you have stated.

Its anything but logical.

As well your statement that Zionism defines Jews no different than Nazis did Aryans is patently false, its not even remotely true,

You also repeated the false statement that Zionism and Judaism define Jews by genetic ancestral relationships. They do not.

You again repeat the same false statements, patently false I might add, and refuse to acknowledge the information I provided showing your statements false. You now demonstrate you will simply ignore evidence that shows what you have stated is false and keep repeating it with no proof, then present that continued set of deliberate false statements as logical and proven.

You have yet to demonstrate a damn thing on this forum, not one piece of evidence to back up your continuing false statements.

"You even admitted before that a 'Jew' doesn't require being one who believes in Judaism but to their genetic relationship."

What I in fact stated is that for the purpose of the definition of Zionism, or even for the purpose of law of return eligibility to be fast tracked for Israeli citizenship one need not practice Judaism.

You falsely misstated it and added an out and out falsehood that I referenced Zionism and the definition of Judaism to genetic relationship. I in fact stated you keep repeating the falsehood Jewish identity is defined by genetics and provided information why.

At this point Mayer, you repeat deliberately false statements over and over refusing to provide evidence for them and you now lie about what I said. You don't distinguish what you actually stated and believe from what I actually stated in challenge to your beiefs and statements and pose them as once and the same, again evidencing your narcissistic defect..

In the next post I will again repudiate your false statements and you can again ignore them and repeat your false representations again and again refusing to acknowledge or respond to the information I provide exposing yours as false

However at this point, your continued exercise of representing your unproven subjective opinions based on false assumptions as logical and demonstrated speaks for itself. . In my opinon it attests to a narcissistic defect, i.e., a fantasy world where reality is limited to your false beliefs and where you reject anything and anyone you think does not conform to your false beliefs.

You make it clear you can't hear a damn thing that you don't originate, deliberately.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Rue

[jbg]

I don't see Israel as a democracy at all. It is a state with complex and secretative military machine that feeds from foreign aids it receives...it shows a distorted image to the rest of the world as "democracy" with selective policies dictating how it should be run and governed. More like those religious zealots it is run by a bunch of nutjobs.

And Gaza, Syria, the PA, the IS et. al. are democracies?

[kactus]

And Gaza, Syria, the PA, the IS et. al. are democracies?

Democracy is a relative term, which cannot be attributed to the policies of Israel. That was in response to people to the claim that Israel is the only 'democracy' in the Middle East which it isn't. As for your question that is diverting from the topic...

Edited March 13, 2016 by kactus

[jbg]

I've already covered this above and explained this false perspective. If Israel is permitted 'victory' its at the expense of those losing to them. Of course you'd appreciate such 'victory' being on the winning side. And so why should you complain should the opposition treat you too like this as some sporting event? You can't declare foul play to the Palestinians if all that matters is winning to you. Then those acts you'd refer to as "terrorism" are just normal expected means to compete.

There are a few differences. If Israel loses it will be the last defeat. And as a practical matter its Jewish citizens have no where to go. We learned that in WW II. The Arabs have alternative countries in which to live. We don’t. And also when Israel wins the conquered areas suffer occupation. Any idea what would happen to the Jews if Israel were overrun?

Is this a justification true or not to offend them? If you disrespect them for their quality of standards you believe defines their religion, you ignore that perhaps religious conviction is itself at fault, not just some particular religion.

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. I am citing to actual experience, not theoretical possibilities.

The ban of a Jew in Mecca is only a reactive response of the aggression derived from the Jews initially. The hatred is reflective hatred. If you were sincere and correct, the Israelis would not have had a need to build walls, impose 'settlements' by stealing controversial lands by brute force.

Thats a whopper. Jews were to my knowledge always banned from Mecca. And certainly since the creation of the State of Israel. It has nothing to do with Israels seizure of territory in 1967 in an Arab-initiated war.

My response was to something claimed of someone else and I don't have context to determine what you find so shocking (a whopper)? [i wish we had access here to easily quote and quote within quotes. This was already more than a week ago and appears distracting of what the conversation has evolved to.

What's a "whopper" was your statement that the Jews' banning from Mecca was a response somehow to Israel's aggression. My understanding was the Mecca always excluded Jews and Christians. I'll PM you on how to multi-quote text.

Edited March 13, 2016 by jbg

[dre]

When the Arab/Muslim side is utterly unrealistic, refuses to engage in good faith negotiations and adopts abhorrent tactics \to what other conclusion can one come? The Arabs/Muslims started four essentially unprovoked wars. Before settlements started they were given multiple opportunities for territorial resolutions, which they refused. Settlements only started when it became obvious that the Arabs would never agree to a Jewish state of Israel inside any boundaries. There are consequences to starting and losing wars. Sadly, those are often tragic for the losing side.

Almost none of that is true.

Why is Israel not permitted to be a victor?

They ARE permitted to be the victor. They just aren't allowed to annex territory outside their legal borders. Same reason that the US cant annex Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Rue]

I will again address these repeated false representations by Mayer. In this post I address Mayer's repeat falsehood that Zionism defines Jews as a race, a superior race, as Aryans, by genetic ancestral relationship

Please note to date Mayer has not provided 1 source, 1 document, ANYTHING to demonstrate or prove his assertions in 1 nd 2 above but keeps repeating them and now has stated he has demonstrated (proven) them which is an out and out falsehood.

Please note to date Mayer refuses to respond directly to the information I have provided and even attempt to try state it is false.

Please note that what Mayer does is engage in a tactic I challenge on this forum which is to repeatedly flood the board with false statements about Israel, Jews and Zionism without proving one iota of it.

Its a tactic that I would contend believes if you flood the board with the same false statement over and over, it becomes true by virtue of its not being challenged.

In regards to the definition of Zionism, Theodore Herzl was a Hungarian-born atheist Jew who started the movement.. He was a news a correspondent during the Alfred Dreyfus affair, in France and came to the conclusion that the only way Jews in Europe could protect themselves from anti-Semitism was to establish of a Jewish national state. He founded the Zionist Organization (later, World Zionist Organization) in 1897 to implement that belief.

Zionism is not really an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals. Zionism does not enunciate any one system or any system of ideas or even ideals. However if one had to define what its one idea is, and call that its ideology getting away from the strict definition of the word ideology, it would be that it believes that the Jews are a people or nation like any other, and should gather together in a single homeland.

That is all Zionism says.

The actual term "Zionism" was first phrased in 1891 by the Austrian publicist Nathan Birnbaum, to describe this belief but when he used it, the context in which he used it was in reference to describing earlier efforts to return the Jews to their homeland.

The only thing Zionism stated was that Jews should return to their ancient homeland if they want a final solution to avoid being the targets of anti-semitism. In that context Zionism defined Jews not by the definitions of Judaism, not by genetics, but by the concept they are a people targeted for hatred by others who stereotype them as a negative entity for being a Jew. Its in fact a definition based on a reaction to a hated stereotype. It believes self-determination by Jews, i.e., people who are the targets of anti-semitism in their own national home is the only way to assure their continued survival and existence free of persecution by non Jews.

It aims were to secure and support a legally recognized national home for the Jews in their historical homeland, and to initiate and stimulate a revival of Jewish national life, culture and language, but no one specific version of Jewishness.

I have repeatedly challenged Mayer to produce evidence f his false statements about Zionism referring to race, genetics, posing Jews as superior to others. He can not. He can not provide a shred of evidence, not one document but repeats the same lies about Zionism over and over.

For the purpose of this response I provide two sources. One below the quote I produce below and the following for the above words:

http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_definitions.htm

I say to anyone, the definition of Zionism as written by Hertzl is there for anyone to read. What Mayer says it stands for is an out and out falsehood and it is time he stop coming on this board, refusing to provide any sources for his opinions, and keepposing them s facts when they are not.

"The foundations of Zionism are:

1. The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation;

2. Aliyah to Israel from all countries and the effective integration of all immigrants into Israeli Society.

3. Strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state and shaping it as an exemplary society with a unique moral and spiritual character, marked by mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people, rooted in the vision of the prophets, striving for peace and contributing to the betterment of the world.

4. Ensuring the future and the distinctiveness of the Jewish people by furthering Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education, fostering spiritual and cultural values and teaching Hebrew as the national language;

5. Nurturing mutual Jewish responsibility, defending the rights of Jews as individuals and as a nation, representing the national Zionist interests of the Jewish people, and struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism;

6. Settling the country as an expression of practical Zionism."

source for above: http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1707&subject=28

I also provide these quotes and sources to prove what Mayer said is a falsehood:

"The 28th Zionist Congress, meeting in Jerusalem 1968, adopted the five points of the "Jerusalem Program" as the aims of Zionism today. They are:

1. The unity of the Jewish People and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life;

2. The ingathering of the Jewish People in its historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through Aliyah from all countries;

3. The strengthening of the State of Israel which is based on the prophetic vision of justice and peace:

4. The preservation of the identity of the Jewish People through the fostering of Jewish and Hebrew education and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values;

5. The protection of Jewish rights everywhere."

http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=497&subject=43

"Every people has the right to live in freedom and develop its own culture, language and society. Jews are people like any other people. The Jewish people is a people like any other. We, the Jewish people, have the right to self-determination in our own national home, where we can speak our own language and develop our own culture. Those are the basic ideas of Zionism.
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/about.htm

Political and cultural movement calling for the return of the Jewish people to their Biblical home.

www.fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/glossary.htm

"Movement of Jewish national revival calling for the return of the Jewish people to Palestine and the establishment of a nation-state there."

www.p4pd.org/settlements/glossary.html

"The doctrine that the Jews are a nation without a country and should have a country of their own in Israel/Palestine. The Zionist movement was founded as an official organization by Theodore Herzl in Basle in 1897."

www.mideastweb.org/glossary.htm

"There are many "Zionisms"-religious, political, and cultural-all of which have in common the desire to see Jews from around the world settled permanently in a homeland in Palestine, the historical land of Israel. Religious Zionists believe that the gathering together of world Jewry into the land of Israel will fulfill biblical prophecy and bring on the millennium. Political Zionists seeks to build a nation state for the Jewish people, and cultural Zionists seek to strengthen Jewish cultural identity within their historic homeland. Jews who are not Zionists either oppose the existence of the Jewish state for religious reasons."

www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/learn/glossary.htm

"Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine. Zionism was named after Mount Zion in Jerusalem, a symbol of the Jewish homeland in Palestine since the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC. The movement culminated in the birth of the state of Israel in 1948."

www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/browse/glossary.html

"The movement to establish and maintain a Jewish homeland."

http://www.collections.ic.gc.ca/art_context/tglost_z.htm

"Zionism is the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in the land of Israel - the historical birthplace of the Jewish people."

http://www.adl.org/durban/zionism.asp

"Belief in the centrality of Israel in Jewish historical & religious experience."

http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100// www.jafi.org.il/education/hasbara/glossary.html

"The movement that arose at the end of the 19th century with the aim of establishing a homeland for Jews in (then) Palestine."

www.bluethread.com/glossary.htm

"The national liberation movement of the Jewish people, which holds that Jews are entitled to a homeland in the Land of Israel. Theodore Herzl, the "father of modern Zionism," formally organized the Zionist movement in 1897."

www.projectinterchange.org/glossary.htm

" Philosophy of Theodor Herzl, late nineteenth-century German Jewish author of Der Judenstaat (1896). Herzl theorized that growing hatred of Jews in Europe and the slow assimilation of Jewish culture into wider European culture could only be stopped by the establishment of a Jewish homeland."

http://www.faculty.juniata.edu/tuten/islamic/glossary.html

"Jewish ideology that has focused on establishing a homeland. The name is derived from the hill Zion, on which the Temple of Jerusalem was situated."

http://i-cias.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct.pl?zionism.htm www.libraryreference.org/index.php

"The movement to restore the Jewish people to a sovereign homeland of their own."

www.ksyonline.org/terms.html

"...a political movement, founded in the late nineteenth century by Theodor Herzl, aimed at fostering Jewish identity and nationalism. Its eventual goal was to found a Jewish homeland state in Palestine. Many Jews in Nazi Germany identified with the movement. Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, the world Zionist movement has led the effort to support it financially and morally, and encourages Jews to emigrate there."

http://dhrc.wright.edu/faces/glossary.htm

" [A] modern political movement for reconstituting a Jewish national state in Palestine."

www.dadalos.org/int/Vorbilder/Vorbilder/glossar/glossar.htm

"Mount Zion is an ancient Hebrew designation for Yerushalayim (Jerusalem). In Biblical times it began to symbolize the national homeland. The goal of Zionism is the political and spiritual renewal of the Hebrew-Israelite people in their ancestral homeland."

www.dehrechhatorah.com/glossary.htm

"Jewish nationalist movement to establish a homeland in Palestine. This movement began in the late 1800s, as anti-Semitic feelings intensified in Europe. The main leader of this movement was a journalist by the name of Theodor Herzl. Herzl's dream of a homeland for Jewish peoples was realized in 1948 with the creation of Israel."

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic_alpha.cfm

"Political movement securing the Jewish return to the land of Israel."

http://www.re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/gcsere/glossaries/judglos.html

"Idea to establish an autonomous Jewish home in Palestine. In modern times it was resurrected by Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl (1860-1904). The Balfour Declaration of 1917 promised the British would hand over Palestine to the Jews. At the time many Jews viewed Palestine as their spiritual home only, but Hitler's prosecution changed their minds and the modern state of Israel came into being in 1948. In 1942 Zionist leaders met in New York (at the Biltmore Hotel) and demanded a Jewish Democratic Commonwealth as part of the new world order after the war - this became the Biltmore Programme."
http://www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/z1encyc.htm

"The movement that has encouraged the creation and support of the nation of Israel."

http://www.highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767420438/student_view0/chapter8/glossary.html

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition:

"A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel. Put simply, Zionism is the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist within defined and defended borders, and the right to provide security for its citizens."

http://www.clarityandresolve.com/archives/2004/09/a_clear_and_res.html

"Jewish nationalist movement advocating the migration of Jews from all over the world to Palestine; was instrumental in establishing the Jewish state of Israel on May 14, 1948."

www.queens.edu/print_default.asp

"[T]he political movement of support for the modern State of Israel, especially that based on the religious belief that Palestine was the Promised Land which God gave to the ancient Israelites and therefore which ought now to belong to the Jewish people by divine right."

www.jcu.edu/Bible/205/Readings/Glossary.htm

(note: the above represents a description of Zionism a minority of extreme right wing Jewish settlers on the West bank believe-I also put it in because its often quoted as the mainstream definition and is often the basis for the false representations of Zionism being based on notions of Jews being superior to Palestinians and therefore "racist")

" ...movement originating in Eastern Europe during the 1860s and 1870s that argued that the Jews must return to a Middle Eastern Holy Land; eventually identified with the settlement of Palestine. (p. 973)"

www.occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_Z.html

"...a policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine

a movement of world Jewry that arose late in the 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine"

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

"Zionism is a political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) which maintains that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish national homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel."

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

You will note there is no shortage of sources and none define Zionism as Mayer has. Not one.

The following quote is designed to repudiate false stereotypes of Zionism:

source:http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_definitions.htm

"What isn't Zionism?

Not everything that the Zionist movement accomplished, or that Zionists do or say, is a necessary part of Zionism

Zionism is not just about a state - Zionism was not, historically, officially a movement to create a "Jewish State." The first Zionist congress in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897 resolved:

Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law.

Zionists therefore sought charters from governments to establish a national home under their protection. The objectives of the Basle Program were thought by many to have been realized with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the Mandate for Palestine granted to the British in 1922. However, the British eventually reneged on their mandate obligation to support a Jewish homeland. In 1942 the Biltmore Conference resolved to adopt the goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine, in opposition to British policy. In a sense, this was not the original goal of Zionism, but a departure from it forced by circumstances.

Zionism is not just about religion - There are many religious Zionists, and early proponents of return to Zion in the 19th century were rabbis. However, the founders of the Zionist movement were not religious and the Zionist movement is not about religion or return to a "promised land."

Zionism is not about borders - Zionism was never about borders. Some Zionist programs envisioned a Jewish homeland outside of Palestine, some

Zionists envisioned a bi-national state (the Mapam party) , while others ("Revisionists") insisted that the Jewish state must be established on both sides of the Jordan river, in the full territory of the British Mandate.

Zionism is not about taking from others or excluding others - Though the history of Zionism quickly became entangled with Arab nationalist aspirations,

Zionism was not about taking land from others or excluding others. The Zionist "colonial" project aimed to buy land in Palestine, not to conquer it by force.

Zionism is not about militarism - Though the history of Israel and Jewish settlement in Palestine often seems like one long war with interruptions, not all

Zionists were militarists. Most Zionists believed that their cause would triumph by moral force alone. An early Zionist argued:

We shall never possess cannons, even if the goyim shall bear arms against one another for ever. Therefore, we cannot but settle in our land fairly and justly, to live and let live. "

(Meir Dizengoff (writing as "Dromi") "The Workers Question," Hatzvi, September 21, 22, 1909)

Now let me respond finally to the latest illogical, false, unproven statement by Mayer again trying to equate Zionism with Nazism by falsely stating Zionism defines Jews the way Nazis did Aryans.

As I repeatedly stated to Mayer most Zionists were atheists or agnostic. They did no define Jews as per the laws of Judaism but using a non religious definition.

A Jew in Zionism is defined not specifically but in context as anyone who identifies with the history, culture and fate of the Jewish people, i.e., has experienced anti Semitism because of being a Jew.

in this sense, a Jew was seen is seen as anyone who chooses or is compelled to share a common fate with other Jews.

Its modern version is the one held by humanist Jews.

Nowhere in this definition is a Jew or for that matter any definition of Jew whether it be by religious or non religious Zionist Jews or non Zionist Jews as a race, let alone a superior one.

This is why I asked Mayer, produce the Zionist document that states this, and he can't. None exists.

The term "Aryan" in fact referred to people speaking an Indo-European language who invaded northern India in the 2nd millennium bc, displacing the Dravidian and other aboriginal peoples.

Mayer of course clearly has no notion of that.

He refers to how the term was then misappropriated by Nazis to create another meaning and that was to define a pure white race.

The Germans referred to this pure white race as Herrenvolk ("master race") and definedJews, Romani people, ethnic Poles, Slavs, Serbs, any person of color as inferior non-Aryan subhumans. For political expediency the theory had to exempt pro Nazi Arabs and Japanese and Italians, Croatians, at one point Russians, Romanians, Hungarians, all considered inferior when they were allied with the Nazis.

It is a vicious and nasty lie to keep repeating that Zionists or any Jew defines Jews as a superior race.

Zionism never has and neither has Judaism. In my next post I will explain again how Judaism defines being Jewish but nothing in Zionism defines Jews as a superior race, let alone a race. To even suggest it shows just how entrenched and paralyzed Mayer is by his own anti semitic stereotypes.

Common sense would tell you we Jews are a mix of "races" using that word "race". Jews can be found in China (Shanghai), India (Mumbai), North and South Africa, Armenia, throughout the Arab world, all of Europe, the Americas.

We range from coal black African to pale white European. We have every secondary genetic characteristic, i.e., nose shape, hair texture, skin tone, height, weight, face structure.

We do not and have never defined ourselves as Mayer thinks we do. That is his racist stereotype he uses which he can't differentiate from ours.

We are people of the desert. We would have originated from the ancestors of the same people who founded Hinduism and would have been at one point connected to the African continent.

Of course we are a mix and Zionism never saw us as anything to do with being white or black. It simply defined us by our common connection to anti semitic hatred.

Mayer needs to repeat his lie that we define ourselves as a race because if he did not, he couldn't make the false statement we are no different than Nazis.

I again call him out now as a repeat serial liar for continuing to state Jews define ourselves as a race let alone a superior race.

His refusal to back up his statement but continue to repeat it speaks loudly.

.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

I now wish to address again Mayer's repeat falsehood that Judaism defines Jews by genetics and as a superior race.

For the record, I have asked him repeatedly to provide evidence, he refuses, but he continues to repeat the falsehood ignoring any information I provide showing his statements are false.

Keeping in mind Mayer appears limited to reading wikepedia the few times he did seem to respond I will use that source for him because its clear he will never read anything on the topic of Judaism or Zionism unless its from a specific site with his political biases.

Judaism as I have stated repeatedly does not have one way of defining who a Jew is and certainly does not define Jews as a race.

Now I ask you keeping in mind Mayer once went to wikepedia and removed partially a definition of 'goy' how he did not come across this at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

which stated:

" The question is based in ideas about Jewish personhood which have cultural, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions. The definition of who is a Jew varies according to whether it is being considered by Jews based on normative religious statutes or self-identification, or by non-Jews for other reasons. Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity,[1] a religion,[2] or conversion, the definition depends on many aspects that must be considered.[3]

According to the simplest definition used by Jews for self-identification, a person is a Jew by birth, or becomes one through religious conversion.

However, there are differences of opinion among the various branches of Judaism in the application of this definition, including:

The effect of mixed parents: i.e. whether a person of mixed Jewish and non-Jewish parents should be considered Jewish.
Conversion: i.e. what processes of conversion should be considered valid.

Historical loss of Jewish identity: i.e. whether a person's or group's actions (such as conversion to a different religion) or circumstances in his or her community's life (such as being unaware of Jewish parents) should affect his or her status as Jewish or non-Jewish.

Diaspora identity: identity of Jews among themselves, and by non-Jews throughout the Jewish diaspora.

Claim to Israeli citizenship: the examination of the previous issues in the context of the Basic Laws of Israel."

Mayer has created a false definition which he repeats. Keeping in mind he stated in a past post he believes definitions mean whatever he wants them to mean, his definition of Judaism clearly is one he made up to suit his need to define it no different than Nazism.

No it does not as he said define Jews by race of genetic type and never did.

As this article explains there are two Jewish religious sources for defining who is Jewish; i-Tannaitic Judaism and 2-Comteporary Judaism.

In Tatianic Judaism According to the Mishnah, the first written source for halakha, the status of the offspring of mixed marriages was determined matrilineally.

Also in the above article it states:

In contemporary Judaism a person may be a Jew either by birth or through conversion. According to halakha, a Jew by birth must be born to a Jewish mother. Halakha states that the acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not make a person a Jew. But, those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion.[5] Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism often accept a child as Jewish even if only the father is Jewish and if the child chooses to identify as Jewish.[6] As the various denominations of Judaism differ on their conversion processes, conversions performed by more liberal denominations are not accepted by those that are less so.[6]"

It also goes on to state:

"The Society for Humanistic Judaism defines a Jew as "someone who identifies with the history, culture and fate of the Jewish people." In their view it is therefore possible for a non-religious individual to adopt Judaism and join a Humanistic Jewish community, and for the Society for Humanistic Judaism to adopt the person wanting to be part of the Humanistic Jewish family.[64] As Israeli author Amos Oz puts it, "a Jew is anyone who chooses or is compelled to share a common fate with other Jews."[65] Oz summed up his position more succinctly in a monologue published in Tikkun, saying "Who is a Jew? Everyone who is mad enough to call himself or herself a Jew is a Jew."[66]"

Since most original Zionists were not practicing Jews their definition of Zionism would be the humanistic one.

Nowhere in any of the above is a Jew defined by race or genetics.

In fact the above article also states:

"The modern genealogical DNA test of ethnicity is certainly a non-religious definition of 'who is a Jew?' as increasing numbers of persons discover their biological and cultural origins outside of the traditional religious setting.[67] The top two Jewish haplogroups for the priestly families, Haplogroup J-M267 and Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA) have genetic origins in the vast Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, the Horn of Africa, and the Levant, which indicates a more complex cultural genesis and potential identity."

It is a bold faced lie to state Judaism defines by geneology.

In fact DNA testing only started to be used in response to anti-semites who started a false claim that no Jews today are related to the Jews of the ancient days. It was used to repudiate false anti semitic statements. Its not how we identify ourselves in religion or in Zionism.

Mayer is well aware of the above and chooses to ignore it and refuse to provide one source to back up his false repsentations of Judaism. Its what he does. He won't provide sources, just subjective opinions based on false definitions he fabricates.

So how long does he go on repeating the same nonsense hoping if he says it long enough, presto it becomes true?

Now I wish to be clear. while Mayer is absolutely wrong today, Israel, Israelis and Zionist Jews, and non Zionist Jews, we all face and have always faced an on-going debate as to who is a Jew and how we define it.

Its not a static or fixed definition and never was. Its open ended and meant to constantly mutate in meaning.

In Israel for the law of return it becomes very complicated and sometimes unfair to certain Jews the way a Jew is defined and thewikepedia article explains it pretty good as follows:

"Judaism test

As of 2010, anyone who immigrated to Israel after 1990 and wishes to marry or divorce via the Jewish tradition within the state limits must go through a "Judaism test"[70] at an Orthodox Rabbinical court. In this test, a person would need to prove their claim to be Jewish to an investigator beyond a reasonable doubt. They would need to present original documentation of their matriline up to their great-grandmother (4 generations),[71] or in the case of Ethiopian Jews, 7 generations back.[72] In addition, they should provide government documents with nationality/religion shown as Jewish (e.g., birth/death certificates, marriage documents, etc.).

In the case of people whose original documents have been lost or never existed, it may take a lot of work to prove their being Jewish.[73] The court rulings are not final, and any clerk has the power to question them[74] even 20 years later, changing one's citizenship status to "on hold", and putting them in jeopardy of deportation.[75]

The two biggest communities suffering from this problem are:

Immigrants from the former Soviet Union (FSU) – a study conducted between 2003 and 2005 showed that 83% of people from the FSU who started the

Judaism test process successfully finished it. An estimated 10% left the process before completion. In a later study, in 2011, a 90% success rate was achieved in the FSU immigrant community.[76][77] Many Jews in the former Soviet Union took steps to hide their Jewishness. Besides post-Soviet copies of documents are suspected by the tribunal after widespread falsification, and the archived originals are difficult to access for genealogists.[78]
Immigrants from the United States, where government documents generally do not show religion or Jewish ethnicity.[79][80][81][82] "

Nothing in the Law of Return defines any Jew as superior to an Arab, Muslim, Christian. It does expedite citizenship acceptance to Jews that pass its test the same way someone of Irish ancestry can be fast tracked for Irish citizenship or an Italian, Italian citizenship, or how 140 other countries have laws of return for identified ethnic groups.

The expedited process does not prevent non Jews from becoming citizens. They are not rejected. It just takes longer.

There most certainly is a problem with Palestinian Muslims wanting to marry Israeli Muslims. The Israeli government became worried for terrorism and security reasons the same way they began rejecting extremist religious Jews and Christians.

Bahaiis whose head Temple is in Haifa have zero problem precisely because they are so damn peaceful. Its in Iran they are targeted for prsecution and at times mass murder.

Refugees from Sudan wanted to come to Israel but Israel has no room. Israel took in during the former Yugoslav civil war, 10,000 Muslims from Serbia-Croatia caught in the war when not one Arab country took in one Muslim.

Israel had to take in 700,000 Jews expelled from Arab League nations which was far more in number than any Muslims who chose to leave Israel when it became a nation. (another 200,000 reunified with families mostly in France, and the US)

The Law of Return does not define who a Jew is and again the wikepedia article explains it:

Law of Return[edit]

See also: Law of Return

"Following the birth of the modern State of Israel in 1948, the Law of Return was enacted to give any Jew the right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen.[83] However, due to an inability on the lawmakers to agree, the Law did not define who was a Jew, relying instead on the issue to resolve itself over time. As a result, the Law relied in form on the traditional halakhic definition. But, the absence of a definition of who is a Jew, for the purpose of the Law, has resulted in the divergent views of the various streams of Judaism competing for recognition.

Besides the generally accepted halakhic definition of who is a Jew, the Law extended the categories of person who are entitled to immigration and citizenship to the children and grandchildren of Jews, regardless of their present religious affiliation, and their spouses.[84] Also, converts to Judaism whose conversion was performed outside of the State of Israel, regardless of who performed it, were entitled to immigration under the Law. Once again, issues arose as to whether a conversion performed outside of Israel was valid. The variation of the definition in the Law and the definition used by various branches of Judaism has resulted in practical difficulties for many people.

It has been estimated that in the past twenty years about 300,000 avowed non-Jews and even practicing Christians have entered Israel from the former Soviet Union on the basis of being a child or grandchild of a Jew or by being married to a Jew.[85]"

However, there was an exception in the case of a person who had formally converted to another religion derived from the Rufeisen Case in 1962.[68] Such a person, no matter what their halakhic position, was not entitled to immigration under the Law. This created a divergence between political Zionist interpretation of Jewishness and that of halakha. In the 1970 Shalit case the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in favour of a family which sought to register children born in Israel from a Scottish mother as Jewish by nationality,[68] but the 1972 amendment to the Population Registry Law prevented their third child being registered as Jewish.[86]

Current Israeli definitions specifically exclude Jews who have openly and knowingly converted to or were raised in a faith other than Judaism, including Messianic Judaism. This definition is not the same as that in traditional Jewish law; in some respects it is deliberately wider, so as to include those non-Jewish relatives of Jews who may have been perceived to be Jewish, and thus faced antisemitism.

The Law of Return does not, of itself, define the Jewish status of a person; it only deals with those who have a right of immigration to Israel.

In the early 1950s, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate originally objected to the immigration of Karaite Jews to Israel, and unsuccessfully tried to obstruct it. In 2007 Rabbi David Chayim Chelouche, the chief rabbi of Netayana, was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying: "A Karaite is a Jew. We accept them as

Jews and every one of them who wishes to come back [to mainstream Judaism] we accept back. There was once a question about whether Karaites needed to undergo a token circumcision in order to switch to rabbinic Judaism, but the rabbinate agrees that today that is not necessary."[87]"

Where Israel has been called Nazi is because of the following again found in the wikepedia article:

"Until recently, Israeli identity cards had an indication of nationality, and the field was left empty for those who immigrated not solely on the basis of being Jewish (i.e. as a child, grandchild or spouse of a Jew only) to indicate that the person may not be a Jew. Many Israeli citizens who are not recognised by the Rabbinate as Jewish have been issued with Israeli identity cards that do not include their Hebrew calendar birth date."

The labeling of Israel as "racist" in fact was started calling the id cards no different than yellow stars Jews once wore and it was started by ironically ex Nazis in Syria working for the Syrian Ministry of Communication, then used by the KGB (who of course worked for a country requiring everyone to have security cards) and Arab nations (which require non Muslims to identify themselves at all times). That is how it actually started. It has nothing to do with genetics or the belief Jews are superior. If that was true, non Jewish citizens of Israel would not have access to the legal rights, human rights, medical rights, religious rights, property rights, they now have.

The id system by the way differentiated expedited Jews from those born in Israel (sabras) just as much as it did Muslim or Christian or Druze or Bahaii born in Israel and for the same reason-expedited Jews for security reasons were identified because of potential fraudulent identity that would only show up after the fact. I ask for one document, one example of how an expedited process to citizenship is different than any other of the 140 nations with law of returns or how it is Muslims can prohibit Jews from becoming citizens as they all do and define them as inferior, but if Jews create a state to fast track Jews coming in its automatically racist when Jews arenot defined as

a race, but an ethnic nationality.

I argue Mayer's singling out of expedited citizenship process for Jews in Israel anti-Semitic is that he does not call for the abolition of law of returns in any other country. He does not call for the dismantling of all Muslim sharia law states. He doesn't lecture anyone on how Italians or Irish or racist for their laws of return.

In fact using his alleged belief all nationalism would be "racist" and wrong and so you would think he would call for the dismantling of all governments. Does he? Lol. Of course not. How about he start with Canada and have it dismantle the Governor General's office which is our head of state in the absence of Queen Liz. He better because the GG and Queen Liz are directly connected to the Anglican church and that in his reasoning process makes Canada "racist".

I mean come on you know how Anglicans are. Need I say more? I saw one once playing golf with a Jew. Strange.

Mayer will of course continue to make up stories of Jews in Israel being defined as a superior race.

Race my buttox.

Consider who the Jews of Israel are:

Bene Israel , Bnei Menashe (from India)

Beta Israel (Felashie of Ethiopia)

Kaifeng (Chinese Jews)

Lemba (African)

Mitzrahi-Tsfardic (Arab)

Ashkenazi (European)

Crypto Jews of New Mexico (descendant from Spanish Jews)

Burmese

Siberian

Mongolian

Khazakhstanian

Thai

Vietnamese

Cambodian (Kampuchean)

We come in every friggin color.

Bottom line, the modern world of science, long since passed people like Mayer and their stereotypes of race behind and Israel in fact with its medical sciences is at the forefront of this redefinition of race ironically.

Race was once used to divide humans into 3 sub species, Caucasian (white), mongoloid (Asian, occidental, yellow) and negroid (black, African). That categorization was proven to be inaccurate because people who are supposedly negroid have been shown to have more in common genetically with people in the other two types than people in their own "negroid" type.

Wha science came to realize was that the three race types were based on subjective perceptions of skin tone, nose shape and hair texture, all now known to be secondary genetic characteristics irrelevant to defining gene type.

In fact new genetic data much of it coming from cutting edge medical research in Israel, is beginning to show that human genetic variation is related to geographically and patterns of gene flow and genetic drift which then tells us accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals is not dependent on their skin colour, nose shape, hair texture.

We now know tjay genetic types can cluster with geographic origin and ancestry and can correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but those correlations are imperfect because we now know genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations.

Ironically this means ancestry, or the concept of race is not accurate but medical science still wil want to trace genetic characteristics and clusters through ancestry to identify and treat diseases related by genetics and specific genetic variation not political or religious reasons.

Israel was never about defining Jews as a gene pool. To suggest it is given the genetic sciences it is helping research is past absurd.

The fact remaibns, Judaism or Zionism.defines Jews as a spiritual collective not a genetic type. It does not use the word unique or species as Mayer stated.

Zionism defines Jews as people who self identify as Jews based on common experiences, i.e, anti-semtism and persecution.

I can not expect Mayer to grasp this. In his world he labels Jews, Zionists, Israelis with whatever fabrication suits him at any given time and post and his words show they can't acknowledge his stereotypes are false-they must be true because he says so.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

I don't see Israel as a democracy at all.

Of course.

Now read back your stereotype:

"It is a state with complex and secretative (sic) military machine that feeds from foreign aids it receives...it shows a distorted image to the rest of the world as "democracy" with selective policies dictating how it should be run and governed. More like those religious zealots it is run by a bunch of nutjobs."

The description you used could apply to any country.

See its easy to make sweeping negative stereotypes.

Lord knows Mayer has done that. Now you.

The point is can you back it up? Do you have anything to share but a negative slur?

You of course can't back it up.

You of course can't show how your description was determined and how it is different than

any other nation in the world..so now what.

Yah, Israel smells.

Yah Israel is nuts.

Yah Israel is bad bad bad.

Now what?

Is that the point of this thread-to repeat over you don't like Israel?

Yah now what?

How does that help achieve peace and resolve conflicts?

Well?

Anyone can name call. I don't see you though daring to state,

until people like you stop name calling and in that exercise fueling others

to hate, no peace can come about.

Revolutions start when we stop calling each other names.

That's not sanctimonious talk, that's someone who tells you, that your words

can nd will be turned into weapons and in the big picture you are just another

hater adding to the fire.

This is my way of saying, if you've come to burn something , be careful

the days of burning things on my lawn are over. Never again,

Your point? You really think

[jbg]

Is this a justification true or not to offend them? If you disrespect them for their quality of standards you believe defines their religion, you ignore that perhaps religious conviction is itself at fault, not just some particular religion.

Are these coincidences:

Suicide car bombing kills 34 in central Ankara

At least 16 dead as gunmen storm Ivory Coast beach resort

[Big Guy]

I just scanned the pro-Zionist propaganda spouted by the usual long winded zealots.

Reminds me of two common adages:

"Quality beats quantity" and "Bullshit baffles brains".

Looks like somebody is satisfying an assignment for their yeshiva gedolah.

Facts continue to overcome fanatical fervor. Israel is guilty of war crimes.

[jbg]

I just scanned the pro-Zionist propaganda spouted by the usual long winded zealots.

Reminds me of two common adages:

"Quality beats quantity" and "Bullshit baffles brains".

Looks like somebody is satisfying an assignment for their yeshiva gedolah.

Facts continue to overcome fanatical fervor. Israel is guilty of war crimes.

And that's supposed to mean what? Are you saying those explosions didn't happen?

[Rue]

I just scanned the pro-Zionist propaganda spouted by the usual long winded zealots.

Reminds me of two common adages:

"Quality beats quantity" and "Bullshit baffles brains".

Looks like somebody is satisfying an assignment for their yeshiva gedolah.

Facts continue to overcome fanatical fervor. Israel is guilty of war crimes.

That's it? You don't have one word to counter the information so you engage in anti semitic name calling?

Yeshiva Gedolah is it.

Tee hee. Why not just say hooked nosed Jew. Get it out Big Guy get it out. You once again demonstrate how

you use the alleged topic about Israel as a cover to engage in anti semtiic insults.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

And that's supposed to mean what? Are you saying those explosions didn't happen?

It means he has nothing to contribute but passive aggressive insults and anti semitic insults.

The veneer has worn off though. He no longer hides the anti semitic taunts and illustrates once

again how he is not hear to discuss the topic, but use it to insult Jews.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

This thread is temporarily locked.

In the mean time, please avoid thread drift and personal attacks. None of you are the topic of this discussion.