Is Any Criticism of Israel

[Figleaf]

And lets not forget the Jews were forced into slavery a few times by Arab cultures.

If you mean the ancient captvities in Egypt and Babylon then it's not accurate to call them Arab cultures.

why is it not accurate to call them arab cultures? they are part of the Arabian Peninsula (well except the egyptians) It would be inaccurate to call them Islamic.

Recheck your geography. Mesopotamia (i.e. Babylon, Akkadia, etc.) is to the north of the Arabian peninsula. It wasn't until Mohammed led the wars of Islamic conquest that Arabs and Arabian culture was noticeably felt anywhere outside the Peninsula.

[White Doors]

I was only talking of the legitimacy and right of the State of Israel to exist.

Can anyone cite for me the source of the idea that states have a 'right to exist'?

Please don't be obtuse. All states have a right to defend themselves.

The reason that people are sayign that Israel has a right to exist as it is the only one where a significant amount of people think that it does not. Including you I presume.

[Rue]

"And the UN's decision was based on promises made by the Brits. In all cases, the land was never Britain's or the UNs to divvy up."

ABSOLUTE DRIVEL. The UN's mandate came from the Leage of Nations mandate. The League of Nations Mandate was NEVER AT ANY TIME created or based on a British promise.

This is typical of the Israeli bashers. You spew out alleged incorrect completely untrue statements as historic facts.

Go back and read and learn where the mandate from the League of Nations originated. NOTHING AT ALL to do with Britain. In fact what you are twisting and misunderstanding is that Britain LIED to the Leage of Nations and stated that in return for being assigned by the League of Nations to administer the Middle East, it would uphold the League's NOT Britain's mandate to create a state of Israel. While Britain was lying to the League claiming it would fulfill this mandate at the same time it was advising its Arab supporters not to worry they would never allow a Jeiwsh state. That is precisely why Britain illegally seized 80% of Palestine and created Jordan out of it. They thought that would preempt the State of Israel from being able to be created.

"Whatever. Go back and re-read this thread from WestViking's post on. It's pretty clear that what I'm against is the claim that the the Jews have more of a claim to the land than anyone else.

"

The above is a pathetic attempt to weasel out of what you are really getting at. Jews as you now like to refer to us all when discussing Israel's mandate (typical of Israel bashers, they must bring in the entire Jwish people and not just Israelis) who believe in Zionism NEVER AT ANY TIME contended or claim that they have more of a claim to land then anyone else. All Israel and the Jews who live in Israel have ever wanted is

some of the land.

Think about your statement. 80% of Palestine was stolen and seized by the British illegally and turned into Jordan. So how does asking for the other 20% constitute making a claim based on believing you have more of a claim then anyone else. Think before you write. Israel is not even 100% of the remaining 20% of Palestine.

More to the point, and a point you again selectively ignore-The Muslim world controls and claims right to the vast majority of the Middle East. This idiocy that Jews are not allowed their own country out of a tiny sliver of it is assinine.

Its predicated on your ignorance of Judaism.

You bash Judaism and suggest it says something it never did, that it has a better claim to Israel. Read the Jewish religion before you make such untrue statements. The Jewish concept of a convenant from God to certain land does NOT include ALL of the Middle East.

I will also say this one last time no doubt to someone who doesn't think twice about the absurdity of Ukrainian Orthodox Christianity or the precepts as to how the Ukraine was created.

Teh Jewish belief in having a special responsibility to God to live in Israel is no mroe absurd then any other religion's concepts. You in fact are anti-semitic if you continue to point out Judaism's beliefs are absurd but remain silent as you do about the Muslim belief they own all the land and non Muslims can not. never have you acknowledged how Islam works and how it will not recognize any non Muslim's right to own land or run their own givernment. For that precise reason you have no credibility.

Instead you try pretend you are being even handed in this debate. You are not and your proetsts of innocence make me puke. Enough already. If you have any credibility spit it out once and for all-BOTH Jews and Muslims have religions whose values or beliefs if we are to resolve this issue must be treated equally.

You are not. Your arguement is to say Judaism is absurd adn that any Jewish claims to self-determination are vased in religious absurdity but stay silent about the fact that the Muslim concept behind its view of statehood and religion and the very reason many Muslims will not accept a Jewish state is based on their religious views.

More to the point I take no one of Christian ancestry seriously when they call Judaism absurd until they acknowl4edge the blood on the hands of their Christian culture in regards to Jews which forced them to need a state AND until people like you state that no state anywhere in the world should be based on religion in which case every single state in the world, every Muslim state, every Christian state, according to you and your even handed approach, must dismantle because their constitutions are based on absurdities and the last time I looked using your arguement anyone who claims the right to self-determination is wrong so we should have no nations at all.

[Figleaf]

I was only talking of the legitimacy and right of the State of Israel to exist.

Can anyone cite for me the source of the idea that states have a 'right to exist'?

Please don't be obtuse. All states have a right to defend themselves.

The reason that people are sayign that Israel has a right to exist as it is the only one where a significant amount of people think that it does not. Including you I presume.

Rather an unfair comment there, frankly. You already know I challenge the notion of a 'right to exist' for states, so your presumption has a hint of correctness, but Israel-specificity is certainly not part of it.

If you are saying that you meant 'self defence' rather than 'exist', then I suppose I agree that states, including Israel, have a 'right' to self-defence.

[Black Dog]

Rue:

"And the UN's decision was based on promises made by the Brits. In all cases, the land was never Britain's or the UNs to divvy up."

ABSOLUTE DRIVEL. The UN's mandate came from the Leage of Nations mandate. The League of Nations Mandate was NEVER AT ANY TIME created or based on a British promise.

Rue: none of that changes the fundamental point. The land was not for Britain, The League of Nations, or the UN to carve up.

Also, are you aware that the Balfour declaration pledging britain's support for a jewish homeland preceded the founding of the LoN? And that that body's decision to grant Britain mandatory powers over the territory effectivly gave the Brits the power to do as they pleased with the land?

The above is a pathetic attempt to weasel out of what you are really getting at. Jews as you now like to refer to us all when discussing Israel's mandate (typical of Israel bashers, they must bring in the entire Jwish people and not just Israelis) who believe in Zionism NEVER AT ANY TIME contended or claim that they have more of a claim to land then anyone else. All Israel and the Jews who live in Israel have ever wanted is some of the land.

Hysterics aside, this is just hair-splitting. Whether all or some of the land, the point is that Zionism is predicated on the belief that the Jewish people (not to be confused with the state of Israel) are entitled to the land. As this pro-Israeli web site puts it:

The Jewish people base their claim to the land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham; 2) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 3) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people and 4) the territory was captured in defensive wars.

I've dealt with most of these with White Doors already.

Think about your statement. 80% of Palestine was stolen and seized by the British illegally and turned into Jordan.

Stolen from whom?

So how does asking for the other 20% constitute making a claim based on believing you have more of a claim then anyone else. Think before you write. Israel is not even 100% of the remaining 20% of Palestine.

So if I decide I have a right to claim your TV room as my own and take up residence there, you'd be okay with that because it's not your whole house?

More to the point, and a point you again selectively ignore-The Muslim world controls and claims right to the vast majority of the Middle East. This idiocy that Jews are not allowed their own country out of a tiny sliver of it is assinine.

Strawman. I don't recall saying the Jews are not allowed a homeland. I just don't really think they are entitled to one anymore than anyone else is.

You bash Judaism and suggest it says something it never did, that it has a better claim to Israel. Read the Jewish religion before you make such untrue statements. The Jewish concept of a convenant from God to certain land does NOT include ALL of the Middle East.

More straw. I never said the Zionist claim included all the Middle East.

I will also say this one last time no doubt to someone who doesn't think twice about the absurdity of Ukrainian Orthodox Christianity or the precepts as to how the Ukraine was created.

Irrelevant.

Teh Jewish belief in having a special responsibility to God to live in Israel is no mroe absurd then any other religion's concepts.

I agree. it's just as absurd as belief in the Ressurection of Christ, Muhammed's asscension to heaven or the world existing on the back of a giant turtle. But I don't see how that helps your case.

You in fact are anti-semitic if you continue to point out Judaism's beliefs are absurd but remain silent as you do about the Muslim belief they own all the land and non Muslims can not.

Non sequitur. It does not logically follow that rejection of one ludicrous religious claim indicates endorsement of another. If you want to talk about other religious claims to the land, we can have that conversation. But that's not what we're talking about here.

never have you acknowledged how Islam works and how it will not recognize any non Muslim's right to own land or run their own givernment. For that precise reason you have no credibility.

Again: Islam's tenets are totally irrelevant here. Focus!

Instead you try pretend you are being even handed in this debate. You are not and your proetsts of innocence make me puke. Enough already. If you have any credibility spit it out once and for all-BOTH Jews and Muslims have religions whose values or beliefs if we are to resolve this issue must be treated equally.

This is the second time someone has demanded I prove myself to them on this thread. Sorry, not interested. I will, however, concede that the religious beliefs of both parties should be treated equally: they should be ignored.

More to the point I take no one of Christian ancestry seriously when they call Judaism absurd until they acknowl4edge the blood on the hands of their Christian culture in regards to Jews which forced them to need a state AND until people like you state that no state anywhere in the world should be based on religion in which case every single state in the world, every Muslim state, every Christian state, according to you and your even handed approach, must dismantle because their constitutions are based on absurdities

Sounds great. Sign me up. But just to be clear, I think if someone wants to start a state based on religion or hair colur, whatever, that's fine provided they do so without predjudicing the rights of anyone else and that they do so in a just manner.

and the last time I looked using your arguement anyone who claims the right to self-determination is wrong so we should have no nations at all

Huh? You'll have to explain that for me. I never said anyone who claims the right to self-determination is wrong.

[Figleaf]

Teh Jewish belief in having a special responsibility to God to live in Israel is no mroe absurd then any other religion's concepts.

I agree. it's just as absurd as belief in the Ressurection of Christ, Muhammed's asscension to heaven or the world existing on the back of a giant turtle. But I don't see how that helps your case.

(Though, let's be honest, most of what Rue writes on this subject doesn't help his case.)

[Figleaf]

...until people like you state that no state anywhere in the world should be based on religion in which case every single state in the world, every Muslim state, every Christian state, according to you and your even handed approach, must dismantle because their constitutions are based on absurdities ...

Now you're on to something! Though for many states it's probably sufficient to simply reconstitute them minus archaic religious references, rather thant to dismantle them completely.

[jbg]

...until people like you state that no state anywhere in the world should be based on religion in which case every single state in the world, every Muslim state, every Christian state, according to you and your even handed approach, must dismantle because their constitutions are based on absurdities ...

Now you're on to something! Though for many states it's probably sufficient to simply reconstitute them minus archaic religious references, rather thant to dismantle them completely.

And what about the Islamic countries? Or is pointing out that inconsistency taboo?

[Figleaf]

...until people like you state that no state anywhere in the world should be based on religion in which case every single state in the world, every Muslim state, every Christian state, according to you and your even handed approach, must dismantle because their constitutions are based on absurdities ...

Now you're on to something! Though for many states it's probably sufficient to simply reconstitute them minus archaic religious references, rather thant to dismantle them completely.

And what about the Islamic countries? Or is pointing out that inconsistency taboo?

What do you mean, what about them? Are you suggesting they should be exempted???

[jbg]

What do you mean, what about them? Are you suggesting they should be exempted???

Should Islamic states also reconstitute themselves as religiously neutral states?

[Figleaf]

What do you mean, what about them? Are you suggesting they should be exempted???

Should Islamic states also reconstitute themselves as religiously neutral states?

Yes. As I just said above. Read much?

[moderateamericain]

And lets not forget the Jews were forced into slavery a few times by Arab cultures.

If you mean the ancient captvities in Egypt and Babylon then it's not accurate to call them Arab cultures.

why is it not accurate to call them arab cultures? they are part of the Arabian Peninsula (well except the egyptians) It would be inaccurate to call them Islamic.

Recheck your geography. Mesopotamia (i.e. Babylon, Akkadia, etc.) is to the north of the Arabian peninsula. It wasn't until Mohammed led the wars of Islamic conquest that Arabs and Arabian culture was noticeably felt anywhere outside the Peninsula.

so it is your perception that the Persian empire contained no arabs? even tho it stretched from India to Eastern Europe? I dare say the Arabic culture effected alot more than just that area. Remember that the capital city of Persia was located in present day Iran. And yes i know Persians arent exactly Arabs, its kind like saying English people are not related to Americans.

[jbg]

What do you mean, what about them? Are you suggesting they should be exempted???

Should Islamic states also reconstitute themselves as religiously neutral states?

Yes. As I just said above. Read much?

I read just fine, and I've never understood you to oppose radical Islam with the same vitriol that you reserve for Israel and Jews.

[jbg]

so it is your perception that the Persian empire contained no arabs? even tho it stretched from India to Eastern Europe? I dare say the Arabic culture effected alot more than just that area. Remember that the capital city of Persia was located in present day Iran. And yes i know Persians arent exactly Arabs, its kind like saying English people are not related to Americans.

I don't perceive that many Arabs were allowed into Persia proper. Their modus operandi isn't exactly "suicidal multicultural" the way Europe and Canada are.

Also, do you seriously perceive Americans as having any resemblence to English, Canadians or Australians?

[Figleaf]

What do you mean, what about them? Are you suggesting they should be exempted???

Should Islamic states also reconstitute themselves as religiously neutral states?

Yes. As I just said above. Read much?

I read just fine, and I've never understood you to oppose radical Islam with the same vitriol that you reserve for Israel and Jews.

What the hell are you talking about? I have no vitriol for Jews. And my criticisms of Israel are always fair.

In any case, Rue's comment was clearly inclusive of all religiously based states, mentioning both Christianity and Islam specifically. My endorsement of his statement was obviously equally inclusive. You only think you can read, it seems.

[Figleaf]

And lets not forget the Jews were forced into slavery a few times by Arab cultures.

If you mean the ancient captvities in Egypt and Babylon then it's not accurate to call them Arab cultures.

why is it not accurate to call them arab cultures? they are part of the Arabian Peninsula (well except the egyptians) It would be inaccurate to call them Islamic.

Recheck your geography. Mesopotamia (i.e. Babylon, Akkadia, etc.) is to the north of the Arabian peninsula. It wasn't until Mohammed led the wars of Islamic conquest that Arabs and Arabian culture was noticeably felt anywhere outside the Peninsula.

so it is your perception that the Persian empire contained no arabs? even tho it stretched from India to Eastern Europe? I dare say the Arabic culture effected alot more than just that area. Remember that the capital city of Persia was located in present day Iran. And yes i know Persians arent exactly Arabs, its kind like saying English people are not related to Americans.

Your original point was that Jews had been oppressed by Arab cultures. I pointed out that if you meant Egypt and Babylon, they were not Arab cultures. The presense of an Arab or two or ten or six hundred in either of those empires won't change that a bit. You need to accept the facts of history ... Pharaonic Egypt and Ancient Babylonia were not Arab cultures. And neither were the Persians for that matter.

[Rue]

Your original point was that Jews had been oppressed by Arab cultures. I pointed out that if you meant Egypt and Babylon, they were not Arab cultures. The presense of an Arab or two or ten or six hundred in either of those empires won't change that a bit. You need to accept the facts of history ... Pharaonic Egypt and Ancient Babylonia were not Arab cultures. And neither were the Persians for that matter.

You really are an oaf. Don't play the fool on this issue. Find out who implemented dhimmitude and why and then give it a rest. Your attempt to engage in a semantical arguement about "Arab" civilizations is ridiculous.

[Figleaf]

Your original point was that Jews had been oppressed by Arab cultures. I pointed out that if you meant Egypt and Babylon, they were not Arab cultures. The presense of an Arab or two or ten or six hundred in either of those empires won't change that a bit. You need to accept the facts of history ... Pharaonic Egypt and Ancient Babylonia were not Arab cultures. And neither were the Persians for that matter.

You really are an oaf.

Reported to moderator.

Don't play the fool on this issue.

Accuracy is not foolish. Ancient Egypt and Babylonia were not Arab cultures, that's the fact.

[Rue]

Your original point was that Jews had been oppressed by Arab cultures. I pointed out that if you meant Egypt and Babylon, they were not Arab cultures. The presense of an Arab or two or ten or six hundred in either of those empires won't change that a bit. You need to accept the facts of history ... Pharaonic Egypt and Ancient Babylonia were not Arab cultures. And neither were the Persians for that matter.

You really are an oaf.

Reported to moderator.

Don't play the fool on this issue.

Accuracy is not foolish. Ancient Egypt and Babylonia were not Arab cultures, that the fact.

You are playing semantics and you know it.

[Figleaf]

Not in the least. If it seems important enough for someone to suggest that Arab cultures oppressed Jewish people in the past, surely it is important enough to point out the the fact that such suggestion is plainly incorrect.

Your contention that the difference between one culture and another is merely semantics is ludicrous and offensive.

[jbg]

Accuracy is not foolish. Ancient Egypt and Babylonia were not Arab cultures, that's the fact.

Probably quite accurate. They accomplished worthwhile things beyond becoming experts in demolition and cultists in death.

[Figleaf]

Accuracy is not foolish. Ancient Egypt and Babylonia were not Arab cultures, that's the fact.

Probably quite accurate. They accomplished worthwhile things beyond becoming experts in demolition and cultists in death.

You pick ~interesting~ subjects for your plaudits.

[Rue]

Not in the least. If it seems important enough for someone to suggest that Arab cultures oppressed Jewish people in the past, surely it is important enough to point out the the fact that such suggestion is plainly incorrect.

Your contention that the difference between one culture and another is merely semantics is ludicrous and offensive.

The only thing offensive is you trying to portray yourself as a defender of Arab culture. Excuse me if I have a good laugh at that one. This coming from a poster who has yet to write anything other then his subjective personal opinions.

As for finding me offensive, finally! What took you so long!

[Figleaf]

Not in the least. If it seems important enough for someone to suggest that Arab cultures oppressed Jewish people in the past, surely it is important enough to point out the the fact that such suggestion is plainly incorrect.

Your contention that the difference between one culture and another is merely semantics is ludicrous and offensive.

The only thing offensive is you trying to portray yourself as a defender of Arab culture.

"Portray myself as a defender of Arab culture"? Is that what I'm doing?

I thought I was making a factual point to correct a factual inaccuracy appearing in a post. I had no idea that simply pointing out the facts of history and archaeology would challenge anyone's prejudices.

As for finding me offensive, finally! What took you so long!

I'm a kind and patient person who tries to give everyone a fair chance to express themselves. Figures you'd find that worthy of mockery.