|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 18, 2014 11:12:40 GMT
Whereas I do like Benjamin Netanyahu very much, I do not care at all for the House of Saud. I also did not especially care for Mubarak. (His predecessor, Anwar Sadat--who was assassinated in 1981--was far preferable, in my view.) And do you really suppose that Fidel Castro was an improvement over Fulgencio Batista? Or that the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was better than Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the last occupant of the Peacock Throne)?
Strange because I thought you opposed racism and Israel was established as a (religious/racist/ethnic) "aparthied" nation. Netanyahu, as a Zionist, is a primary advocate for the aparthied State of Israel and seeks to expand it based upon acts of aggression against the non-Jewish population of the Palestinian territories. A person that opposes racism and ethnic discrimination cannot be a supporter of Israel anymore than they could have been a supporter for aparthiedism in South Africa.
Tyrannical regimes provide the foundation for revolution but that has never implied that the government to replace a tyrannical regime will be less tyrannical.
For example Saddam was a secular dictator in Iraq and the US invaded and replaced him with a sectarian Shiite "democracy" that has oppressed the Sunnis. Sunni Islamic extremists used the oppression by the sectarian Shiite government to justify a violent civil war against the US installed government. Funded by the wealth of Saudi Arabia these radical Sunnis could very well topple the current Shiite government and they would probably install a fundamentalist Sunni dictator leaving Iraq worse off than it was under Saddam. That is one of the predictions we, the 20% that opposed the US invasion in 2003, made and it's basically the last of the predictions that remains to become true. All of our other predictions came true and this is the last one that still needs to be fulfilled.
The problem with supporting tyrannical regimes is that it's ultimately a no-win situation and history has shown that to be true.
Our backing of Israel today is going to backfire in the second half of the 21st Century when the Arabs become the majority in Israel and it ceases to be a Jewish state. We know that's going to happen. Israel, like the rest of the Middle East, is going to become an oppressive Islamic nation in the 2nd half of the 21st Century based upon the projected demographic changes in Israel where the Arabs become the majority not later than 2048 and that writing is on the wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 19, 2014 0:15:37 GMT
A maximum speed of just 45 miles per hour would be a bit slow for anyone using the interstate (or freeway, as it is termed in some parts of the country). And a 40-mile range would not necessarily eliminate the problem. For instance, the last place I worked previous to my retirement--for about 16 years--was about 20 miles from my house; or a 40-mile round trip. And I used the interstate every day, in getting to and from it. And your $6,000 car--or even one that sells for "below $10,000"--would likely be very lightweight, and therefore relatively unsafe in an accident. Also, not everyone can afford to purchase two cars (one of these a Mercedes, yet). Oh, and it is not just people with "above average incomes" who purchase new cars. I have purchased several new cars within my lifetime--the last vehicle I purchased, however (an SUV), was one year old--and I never earned more than $12 an hour at anytime within my life.
As I noted the 45 mph/40-mile range related to a secondary vehicle and not a primary vehicle and I'm aware of the fact that not every household can afford two vehicles but then not every household lives 35 miles from work either. For many households where their work is just a few miles away they could use it as a primary vehicle. About 50 million households are retirees and don't even go to work and often 99% of their driving is local. My parents live in Cottonwood AZ and haven't left the city limits in the last 5 years to my knowledge and never will again because they're just too old. No, it's not freeway "legal" but I lived for two years riding a Yamaha 70 motorcycle that downhill could do 50 mph and I learned how to get around without using freeways. Of course if a family with one of these wanted to go on a long distance driving vacation they could rent a car for that purpose.
Just because a car is lightweight does not imply it is unsafe from an engineering standpoint. Why do you keep believing that when you should know better?
Yes, there are exceptions at both ends. I've been in the top 25% income bracket for the last 30 years and I didn't purchase my first new car until 2012. My Mercedes is a rare relatively low mileage 1984 280SE (I just sold my '85 280SL) that I only paid $1,500 for and then invested about $15,000 in repairs to bring it back to near perfect condition. So I'm about $17,000 into a fine luxuary car but it is almost 30 years old (I love old cars).
I had to chuckle a bit about the Yamaha 70cc motorcycle you once owned; not out of some silly sense of smugness on my part, but out of a sense of comeradeship: In the 1960s (when I was much younger) I owned a Honda 50--which was only slightly more powerful than a Moped. It, too, could muster about 50 MPH downhill--although it had considerable difficulty getting up hills. Your proposal might work for those "many" people who reside "just a few miles" from their work; but many others do not work quite so close to home. What lightweight cars do you know of that are relatively safe "from an engineering standpoint" in a major crash? Hey, everybody should have something that he (or she) really likes. And if vintage cars are your thing--then go for it! (Actually, $17,000 really does not sound bad for a fully restored Mercedes--even if it is 30 years old.) |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 19, 2014 0:26:01 GMT
Whereas I do like Benjamin Netanyahu very much, I do not care at all for the House of Saud. I also did not especially care for Mubarak. (His predecessor, Anwar Sadat--who was assassinated in 1981--was far preferable, in my view.) And do you really suppose that Fidel Castro was an improvement over Fulgencio Batista? Or that the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was better than Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the last occupant of the Peacock Throne)?
Strange because I thought you opposed racism and Israel was established as a (religious/racist/ethnic) "aparthied" nation. Netanyahu, as a Zionist, is a primary advocate for the aparthied State of Israel and seeks to expand it based upon acts of aggression against the non-Jewish population of the Palestinian territories. A person that opposes racism and ethnic discrimination cannot be a supporter of Israel anymore than they could have been a supporter for aparthiedism in South Africa.
Tyrannical regimes provide the foundation for revolution but that has never implied that the government to replace a tyrannical regime will be less tyrannical.
For example Saddam was a secular dictator in Iraq and the US invaded and replaced him with a sectarian Shiite "democracy" that has oppressed the Sunnis. Sunni Islamic extremists used the oppression by the sectarian Shiite government to justify a violent civil war against the US installed government. Funded by the wealth of Saudi Arabia these radical Sunnis could very well topple the current Shiite government and they would probably install a fundamentalist Sunni dictator leaving Iraq worse off than it was under Saddam. That is one of the predictions we, the 20% that opposed the US invasion in 2003, made and it's basically the last of the predictions that remains to become true. All of our other predictions came true and this is the last one that still needs to be fulfilled.
The problem with supporting tyrannical regimes is that it's ultimately a no-win situation and history has shown that to be true.
Our backing of Israel today is going to backfire in the second half of the 21st Century when the Arabs become the majority in Israel and it ceases to be a Jewish state. We know that's going to happen. Israel, like the rest of the Middle East, is going to become an oppressive Islamic nation in the 2nd half of the 21st Century based upon the projected demographic changes in Israel where the Arabs become the majority not later than 2048 and that writing is on the wall.
I certainly do not agree with your assertion that the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state necessarily implies "racism." (It would probably be well to recall the predicate for its establishment: Hitler's attempt to annihilate the Jewish population in Europe.) And I am really not much of a fan of projections based upon current trends, as if those trends were immutable. I do agree, however, that the overthrow of a tyrranical regime does not necessarily guarantee that a more enlightened and democratic form of government to follow. In fact, revolutions usually produce even worse results than had previously existed. (The French Revolution--complete with its Reign of Terror, and its eventual beheading of even Robespierre, is a very good example of this. The American Revolution did not devolve into this horrid state, probably because it was atypical among revolutions in this sense: It really did not wish to topple the existing government--in this case, the Tory government of Britain--but merely declare its independence from it.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 20, 2014 1:46:11 GMT
I certainly do not agree with your assertion that the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state necessarily implies "racism." (It would probably be well to recall the predicate for its establishment: Hitler's attempt to annihilate the Jewish population in Europe.) And I am really not much of a fan of projections based upon current trends, as if those trends were immutable. I do agree, however, that the overthrow of a tyrranical regime does not necessarily guarantee that a more enlightened and democratic form of government to follow. In fact, revolutions usually produce even worse results than had previously existed. (The French Revolution--complete with its Reign of Terror, and its eventual beheading of even Robespierre, is a very good example of this. The American Revolution did not devolve into this horrid state, probably because it was atypical among revolutions in this sense: It really did not wish to topple the existing government--in this case, the Tory government of Britain--but merely declare its independence from it.)
Any nation founded upon religion, race, ethnic heritage, social status, or other invidious criteria that divides the people in inherently tyrannical. It always places those "in charge" in a position to oppress those that are excluded from the "national identity" of the nation. Simply remember history where in 1948 through terrorism, murder, and coercion that between 400,000 and 700,000 Arabs fled the Zionists that created Israel and they were never allowed to return. These were not soldiers that fought against the Zionists but ordinary women, children, and working husbands and shop keepers that had generally lived in Palestine their entire lives.
There really isn't much difference between the Jewish State of Israel and the Aryan Nation of Nazi Germany because both excluded people based upon the "national identify" that created the "preferred" and the "others" that were oppressed.
A sad historical fact is that when a people are oppressed if they can overturn the that state then they generally become the oppressors. That's why we see a tyrannical regime replace a tyrannical regime so often. While you may not place much faith in demographic projections they are still relatively accurate and will be in Israel unless Israel resorts to Nazi-type explusions. Israel is actually forcing Arabs from their homes in the occupied territories and many Zionists openly advocate that all the Muslims should be forced out of Israel and Palestine completely. That is very "Nazi-like" and it spells the ultimate doom of Israel IMHO. When the Arabs become the majority in Israel they will "vote" to become an Islamic nation and they will probably oppress the Jews like the Jews have oppressed them. It will just be history repeating itself like we've seen so many times before.
The Oppressed eventually become the Oppressors.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 20, 2014 2:05:55 GMT
I had to chuckle a bit about the Yamaha 70cc motorcycle you once owned; not out of some silly sense of smugness on my part, but out of a sense of comeradeship: In the 1960s (when I was much younger) I owned a Honda 50--which was only slightly more powerful than a Moped. It, too, could muster about 50 MPH downhill--although it had considerable difficulty getting up hills. Your proposal might work for those "many" people who reside "just a few miles" from their work; but many others do not work quite so close to home. What lightweight cars do you know of that are relatively safe "from an engineering standpoint" in a major crash? Hey, everybody should have something that he (or she) really likes. And if vintage cars are your thing--then go for it! (Actually, $17,000 really does not sound bad for a fully restored Mercedes--even if it is 30 years old.)
Excluding "defects" like the GM ignition switch the ranking of the five worst car for safety are:
Five Least Safe Vehicles:
1) Fiat 500, boldly styled Italian coupe/convertible has numerous safety issues;
2) Kia Rio 5, sporty design doesn’t overcome safety performance;
3) Toyota Corolla L, best-selling compact among worst for safety;
4) Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart, sportiest version of the Lancer sedan;
5) Mercedes-Benz CL600, sleek design doesn’t overcome safety drawbacks.
www.thedetroitbureau.com/2013/01/the-10-bestworst-vehicles-for-auto-safety/
Of course that's relative because all of them are safer that the cars of just 10 years ago. For example my Fiat 500 won't do well in an accident with an SUV but it also has seven air-bags to protect the occupants during a crash. The car might be destroyed but the occupants will probably survive even a serious accident. They're certainly a lot safer than people were just ten years ago in the "safest" car of that time period.
Of course as a motorcycle rider the first rule of being safe on the road is to not get into any accidents, ever!!
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 20, 2014 16:28:25 GMT
I certainly do not agree with your assertion that the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state necessarily implies "racism." (It would probably be well to recall the predicate for its establishment: Hitler's attempt to annihilate the Jewish population in Europe.) And I am really not much of a fan of projections based upon current trends, as if those trends were immutable. I do agree, however, that the overthrow of a tyrranical regime does not necessarily guarantee that a more enlightened and democratic form of government to follow. In fact, revolutions usually produce even worse results than had previously existed. (The French Revolution--complete with its Reign of Terror, and its eventual beheading of even Robespierre, is a very good example of this. The American Revolution did not devolve into this horrid state, probably because it was atypical among revolutions in this sense: It really did not wish to topple the existing government--in this case, the Tory government of Britain--but merely declare its independence from it.)
Any nation founded upon religion, race, ethnic heritage, social status, or other invidious criteria that divides the people in inherently tyrannical. It always places those "in charge" in a position to oppress those that are excluded from the "national identity" of the nation. Simply remember history where in 1948 through terrorism, murder, and coercion that between 400,000 and 700,000 Arabs fled the Zionists that created Israel and they were never allowed to return. These were not soldiers that fought against the Zionists but ordinary women, children, and working husbands and shop keepers that had generally lived in Palestine their entire lives.
There really isn't much difference between the Jewish State of Israel and the Aryan Nation of Nazi Germany because both excluded people based upon the "national identify" that created the "preferred" and the "others" that were oppressed.
A sad historical fact is that when a people are oppressed if they can overturn the that state then they generally become the oppressors. That's why we see a tyrannical regime replace a tyrannical regime so often. While you may not place much faith in demographic projections they are still relatively accurate and will be in Israel unless Israel resorts to Nazi-type explusions. Israel is actually forcing Arabs from their homes in the occupied territories and many Zionists openly advocate that all the Muslims should be forced out of Israel and Palestine completely. That is very "Nazi-like" and it spells the ultimate doom of Israel IMHO. When the Arabs become the majority in Israel they will "vote" to become an Islamic nation and they will probably oppress the Jews like the Jews have oppressed them. It will just be history repeating itself like we've seen so many times before.
The Oppressed eventually become the Oppressors.
Your breezy comparison of contemporary Israel with Nazi Germany begs the question: How many Palestinians (or Gentiles, or any other non-Jews) have been murdered by Israel, in the name of achieving "ethnic purity"? It has been my experience that those who use the term, "Zionists," to refer to residents of Israel, are rather similar to those who use the odious "N" word to refer to black people: In both cases, it is meant to be not merely descriptive, but unnecessarily derogatory also. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 20, 2014 16:37:55 GMT
I had to chuckle a bit about the Yamaha 70cc motorcycle you once owned; not out of some silly sense of smugness on my part, but out of a sense of comeradeship: In the 1960s (when I was much younger) I owned a Honda 50--which was only slightly more powerful than a Moped. It, too, could muster about 50 MPH downhill--although it had considerable difficulty getting up hills. Your proposal might work for those "many" people who reside "just a few miles" from their work; but many others do not work quite so close to home. What lightweight cars do you know of that are relatively safe "from an engineering standpoint" in a major crash? Hey, everybody should have something that he (or she) really likes. And if vintage cars are your thing--then go for it! (Actually, $17,000 really does not sound bad for a fully restored Mercedes--even if it is 30 years old.)
Excluding "defects" like the GM ignition switch the ranking of the five worst car for safety are:
Five Least Safe Vehicles:
1) Fiat 500, boldly styled Italian coupe/convertible has numerous safety issues;
2) Kia Rio 5, sporty design doesn’t overcome safety performance;
3) Toyota Corolla L, best-selling compact among worst for safety;
4) Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart, sportiest version of the Lancer sedan;
5) Mercedes-Benz CL600, sleek design doesn’t overcome safety drawbacks.
www.thedetroitbureau.com/2013/01/the-10-bestworst-vehicles-for-auto-safety/
Of course that's relative because all of them are safer that the cars of just 10 years ago. For example my Fiat 500 won't do well in an accident with an SUV but it also has seven air-bags to protect the occupants during a crash. The car might be destroyed but the occupants will probably survive even a serious accident. They're certainly a lot safer than people were just ten years ago in the "safest" car of that time period.
Of course as a motorcycle rider the first rule of being safe on the road is to not get into any accidents, ever!!
I remember an incident that occurred in the late 1960s or early '70s--I forget the exact year--in which a pickup truck pulled out in front of me, when I was on my motorcycle (my little Honda 50): I slammed into the side of the pickup, thereby cracking a few ribs. Ouch! You mentioned that your Fiat 500 "won't do well in an accident with an SUV." That is doubtless one reason that I like my SUV (a Chrysler Pacifica) so much: It is relatively safe, in case of an accident. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 20, 2014 21:14:31 GMT
Your breezy comparison of contemporary Israel with Nazi Germany begs the question: How many Palestinians (or Gentiles, or any other non-Jews) have been murdered by Israel, in the name of achieving "ethnic purity"? It has been my experience that those who use the term, "Zionists," to refer to residents of Israel, are rather similar to those who use the odious "N" word to refer to black people: In both cases, it is meant to be not merely descriptive, but unnecessarily derogatory also.
I personally find the murder of even one person for political power to be objectionable and avoid the "comparative tyranny" arguments. If the government murders people based upon it's "national identity" then it is an act of tyranny and there is no question whatsoever that Israel has murdered innocent Palestinians historically.
Zionism is a political ideology just like Nazism and not all Israeli Jews support it. Yes, Zionism can and should carry a negative connotation because it is a political ideology based upon denial of equality to all people. The very foundation of Zionism was the violation of the Rights of the non-Jewish population in Palestine (all of Palestine from 1922 to today) and it continues that policy today. I don't know how anyone can look at Zionism and not see it in a deragatory context if they know anything about the expressed goals and history of Zionism.
What many people, especially the Zionists, attempt to do it to connect "anti-Zionism" to "anti-Sematism" but they are not the same. Many millions of Jews are opposed to Zionism and Zionism is not exclusively a Jewish political ideology. In short:
Zionism =/= Jewish political ideology.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 20, 2014 21:26:08 GMT
I remember an incident that occurred in the late 1960s or early '70s--I forget the exact year--in which a pickup truck pulled out in front of me, when I was on my motorcycle (my little Honda 50): I slammed into the side of the pickup, thereby cracking a few ribs. Ouch! You mentioned that your Fiat 500 "won't do well in an accident with an SUV." That is doubtless one reason that I like my SUV (a Chrysler Pacifica) so much: It is relatively safe, in case of an accident.
With more experience as a rider we anticipate the possible movement of vehicles even when they appear to be unoccupied. Of course any movement at all can be "scary" to someone on a motorcycle. To recall a story I was riding down the street and a car stopped before entering the road from a parking lot. I saw it and so it was on my "radar" as I approached. For whatever reason the driver decided to pull forward and with that slight movement I was on the brakes starting to evade but the driver only move a few inches. Then, when I was real close, in the "critical zone' the car moved forward again literally driving me into starting a panic evasion but the car stopped again. My heart was in my throat because the second movement would have been very hard to avoid but I saw it and could have evaded by taking radical actions. The point being the driver scared the crap out of me twice for no reason but I was prepared to do what was necessary in both cases to avoid the accident. I don't get "surprised" by anything but I have taken evasive action numerous times to avoid accidents.
Your SUV won't do very well with a cement truck either. The laws of physics do apply so more "mass" is more dangerous but if we evolved into using more efficient and smaller cars then the threat of the SUV to my Fiat becomes more remote. More smaller cars and fewer SUV's. As noted though because I have seven airbags that protect me from impacts coming from any direction I'm relatively safe even if I'm hit by an SUV. The car might be totaled but I don't really care that much about the car. Then again, like you and your SUV, I might not do very well with a cement truck though. LOL
PS I've never had an accident on a motorcyle but I did "fall over" once on my Yamaha 70 because I was jerking around on it. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 21, 2014 22:44:01 GMT
Your breezy comparison of contemporary Israel with Nazi Germany begs the question: How many Palestinians (or Gentiles, or any other non-Jews) have been murdered by Israel, in the name of achieving "ethnic purity"? It has been my experience that those who use the term, "Zionists," to refer to residents of Israel, are rather similar to those who use the odious "N" word to refer to black people: In both cases, it is meant to be not merely descriptive, but unnecessarily derogatory also.
I personally find the murder of even one person for political power to be objectionable and avoid the "comparative tyranny" arguments. If the government murders people based upon it's "national identity" then it is an act of tyranny and there is no question whatsoever that Israel has murdered innocent Palestinians historically.
Zionism is a political ideology just like Nazism and not all Israeli Jews support it. Yes, Zionism can and should carry a negative connotation because it is a political ideology based upon denial of equality to all people. The very foundation of Zionism was the violation of the Rights of the non-Jewish population in Palestine (all of Palestine from 1922 to today) and it continues that policy today. I don't know how anyone can look at Zionism and not see it in a deragatory context if they know anything about the expressed goals and history of Zionism.
What many people, especially the Zionists, attempt to do it to connect "anti-Zionism" to "anti-Sematism" but they are not the same. Many millions of Jews are opposed to Zionism and Zionism is not exclusively a Jewish political ideology. In short:
Zionism =/= Jewish political ideology.
Well, it is doubtless true that some ethnic Jews oppose Zionism. But I seriously doubt that many religious Jews oppose it. As for the proper definition of Zionism, Dictionary.com defines it as follows: "1. a political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel "2. a policy or movement for Jews to return to Palestine from the Diaspora" Wikipedia defines Zionism as "the national movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel." Wikipedia continues: " A religious variety of Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity, opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be a majority in their own nation, and to be liberated from antisemitic discrimination, exclusion, and persecution that had historically occurred in the diaspora." And further: "Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security." Here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism And you are certainly correct--in pure theory, at least--that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not necessarily identical. But it does seem to me that a great many anti-Semites (and I am not accusing you of being one of these) use "anti-Zionism" as a mere cover for their true sentiments. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 21, 2014 22:53:19 GMT
I remember an incident that occurred in the late 1960s or early '70s--I forget the exact year--in which a pickup truck pulled out in front of me, when I was on my motorcycle (my little Honda 50): I slammed into the side of the pickup, thereby cracking a few ribs. Ouch! You mentioned that your Fiat 500 "won't do well in an accident with an SUV." That is doubtless one reason that I like my SUV (a Chrysler Pacifica) so much: It is relatively safe, in case of an accident.
With more experience as a rider we anticipate the possible movement of vehicles even when they appear to be unoccupied. Of course any movement at all can be "scary" to someone on a motorcycle. To recall a story I was riding down the street and a car stopped before entering the road from a parking lot. I saw it and so it was on my "radar" as I approached. For whatever reason the driver decided to pull forward and with that slight movement I was on the brakes starting to evade but the driver only move a few inches. Then, when I was real close, in the "critical zone' the car moved forward again literally driving me into starting a panic evasion but the car stopped again. My heart was in my throat because the second movement would have been very hard to avoid but I saw it and could have evaded by taking radical actions. The point being the driver scared the crap out of me twice for no reason but I was prepared to do what was necessary in both cases to avoid the accident. I don't get "surprised" by anything but I have taken evasive action numerous times to avoid accidents.
Your SUV won't do very well with a cement truck either. The laws of physics do apply so more "mass" is more dangerous but if we evolved into using more efficient and smaller cars then the threat of the SUV to my Fiat becomes more remote. More smaller cars and fewer SUV's. As noted though because I have seven airbags that protect me from impacts coming from any direction I'm relatively safe even if I'm hit by an SUV. The car might be totaled but I don't really care that much about the car. Then again, like you and your SUV, I might not do very well with a cement truck though. LOL
PS I've never had an accident on a motorcyle but I did "fall over" once on my Yamaha 70 because I was jerking around on it. LOL
You are certainly correct that my SUV would not fare very well in a crash involving "a cement truck." But the odds against my hitting (or being hit by) a cement truck are pretty astronomical. In a motor accident involving an automobile--which is much more probable--I would probably fare rather well. Going back to the motorcycle: I can still remember a couple of other accidents. One involved my skidding along the gravel at the side of the road, falling, and skinning several of my fingertips rather badly. Nothing serious. But it surely did hurt. The other involved my skidding along a highway when it was wet from a recent rainstorm. The actual fall did not injure me; but I touched the motorcycle's muffler upon getting up--forgetting, momentarily, that it would be hot--and burned myself. Again, not a matter of cosmic importance, in the greater scheme of things; it just hurt a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 24, 2014 12:43:05 GMT
Well, it is doubtless true that some ethnic Jews oppose Zionism. But I seriously doubt that many religious Jews oppose it. As for the proper definition of Zionism, Dictionary.com defines it as follows: "1. a political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel "2. a policy or movement for Jews to return to Palestine from the Diaspora" Wikipedia defines Zionism as "the national movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel." Wikipedia continues: " A religious variety of Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity, opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be a majority in their own nation, and to be liberated from antisemitic discrimination, exclusion, and persecution that had historically occurred in the diaspora." And further: "Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security." Here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism And you are certainly correct--in pure theory, at least--that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not necessarily identical. But it does seem to me that a great many anti-Semites (and I am not accusing you of being one of these) use "anti-Zionism" as a mere cover for their true sentiments.
Politically correct statements about "Zionism" are designed to mask the tyranny it represented. In practice it employed terrorism, fear, and coercion to force between 400,000 and 700,000 non-Jewish people from their homes, evicting them from their homeland, and confiscation of their property in 1948 alone. They have never been allowed to return home nor have they ever been compensated for the property stolen from them by Israel. Since they the Zionists have waged a war to remove more non-Jewish people from their homes and land in the territories occupied in 1967 and many Zionists propose the eviction of all non-Jewish people from all of Palestine (as established at the end of WW I by the British). All of this has been accomplished by acts of military force and violence by the Zioinist.
We should note the hypocracy of the Zionists that believe that Jews in Europe should be entitled to compensation for losses caused by the Nazis (and I agree with that) but oppose any compensation for Arabs that lost their homes, their possessions, and property to the Zionists during the founding of Israel. Always remember that the 400,000 to 700,000 that were forced from Israel in 1948 were not involved in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. They were farmers, shopkeepers, women and children fleeing as refugess. Most took up residence in the "Palestinian Territories" and the Zionists in Israel are now, once again, evicting then from their homes and land at the point of a bayonet.
In truth it was anti-Semitism in Europe that advocated the Zionist immigration of European Jews to Palestine. They wanted to rid Europe of Jews and sending them to Palestine was their means of accomplishing this.
The "Diaspora" argument is pure BS. Not a single European Jew could trace their family history back 2,000 years to Palestine.
Orthodox Jews, the most religious of all Jewish people, oppose Zionism and they oppose it on religious grounds.
www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
www.truetorahjews.org/zionism
Zionism is purely political and it's about seizing and securing power through acts of tyranny. There are few more supportive of Zionism in America than the white supremacy organizations that would like to see every single Jew living in the United States to move to Israel because they hate the Jews.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 24, 2014 20:25:37 GMT
Well, it is doubtless true that some ethnic Jews oppose Zionism. But I seriously doubt that many religious Jews oppose it. As for the proper definition of Zionism, Dictionary.com defines it as follows: "1. a political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel "2. a policy or movement for Jews to return to Palestine from the Diaspora" Wikipedia defines Zionism as "the national movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel." Wikipedia continues: " A religious variety of Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity, opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be a majority in their own nation, and to be liberated from antisemitic discrimination, exclusion, and persecution that had historically occurred in the diaspora." And further: "Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security." Here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism And you are certainly correct--in pure theory, at least--that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not necessarily identical. But it does seem to me that a great many anti-Semites (and I am not accusing you of being one of these) use "anti-Zionism" as a mere cover for their true sentiments.
Politically correct statements about "Zionism" are designed to mask the tyranny it represented. In practice it employed terrorism, fear, and coercion to force between 400,000 and 700,000 non-Jewish people from their homes, evicting them from their homeland, and confiscation of their property in 1948 alone. They have never been allowed to return home nor have they ever been compensated for the property stolen from them by Israel. Since they the Zionists have waged a war to remove more non-Jewish people from their homes and land in the territories occupied in 1967 and many Zionists propose the eviction of all non-Jewish people from all of Palestine (as established at the end of WW I by the British). All of this has been accomplished by acts of military force and violence by the Zioinist.
We should note the hypocracy of the Zionists that believe that Jews in Europe should be entitled to compensation for losses caused by the Nazis (and I agree with that) but oppose any compensation for Arabs that lost their homes, their possessions, and property to the Zionists during the founding of Israel. Always remember that the 400,000 to 700,000 that were forced from Israel in 1948 were not involved in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. They were farmers, shopkeepers, women and children fleeing as refugess. Most took up residence in the "Palestinian Territories" and the Zionists in Israel are now, once again, evicting then from their homes and land at the point of a bayonet.
In truth it was anti-Semitism in Europe that advocated the Zionist immigration of European Jews to Palestine. They wanted to rid Europe of Jews and sending them to Palestine was their means of accomplishing this.
The "Diaspora" argument is pure BS. Not a single European Jew could trace their family history back 2,000 years to Palestine.
Orthodox Jews, the most religious of all Jewish people, oppose Zionism and they oppose it on religious grounds.
www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
www.truetorahjews.org/zionism
Zionism is purely political and it's about seizing and securing power through acts of tyranny. There are few more supportive of Zionism in America than the white supremacy organizations that would like to see every single Jew living in the United States to move to Israel because they hate the Jews.
I really do not believe that either Dictionary.com or Wikipedia is a " olitically correct" organization.
The "Diaspora argument" is really not all about tracing one's "family history back 2,000 years to Palestine." One is not required to be a genealogy buff in order to realize that the Jewish people are of Middle Eastern descent.
The land that was taken in war in 1967--war that was initiated by the Arab nations--is not "occupied" territory. Rather, it was lost in war by the aggressor; and there is simply no good reason, therefore, that it should be returned.
And I think you may be tiptoeing right up to the so-called "right-of-return" argument, which would, essentially, overwhelm Israel, causing it immediately to cease being the world's only Jewish state.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 25, 2014 12:23:07 GMT
I really do not believe that either Dictionary.com or Wikipedia is a " olitically correct" organization.
The "Diaspora argument" is really not all about tracing one's "family history back 2,000 years to Palestine." One is not required to be a genealogy buff in order to realize that the Jewish people are of Middle Eastern descent.
The land that was taken in war in 1967--war that was initiated by the Arab nations--is not "occupied" territory. Rather, it was lost in war by the aggressor; and there is simply no good reason, therefore, that it should be returned.
And I think you may be tiptoeing right up to the so-called "right-of-return" argument, which would, essentially, overwhelm Israel, causing it immediately to cease being the world's only Jewish state.
The 1967 6-Day War was provoked by Israel for the purpose of the acquisition of territory according to numerous sources including Mosha Dayan that was the Israeli military commander on the Syrian border. According to Dayan it was the Israelis that were provoking a military response from Syria by sending people into the neutral zone between the two nations.
Israel invaded Egypt while Egypt had no intentions whatsoever of attacking Israel. We know that as a historical fact. Rationalizations for the Israeli invasion were farcical. For example the Israelis cited the closure of the Straits of Tiran as a "reason" but Israel hadn't even used the Straits for any purpose for many years. It was not an Israeli trade route and not a single Israeli ship was ever denied passage through the Straits.
All People are of "African" decent so does that mean we can all invade Africa and force the current people out of Africa? Palestine belonged to the People living in Palestine when the British became the Mandatory at the end of WW I. They didn't have to trace their heritage back 2,000 years and it was their homeland. What "right" did Europeans have to come to their homeland and take it away from them? The answer is none whatsoever. Even the Mandate for Palestine prohibited the violation of the civil rights of the existing residents in Palestine that the Zionists were intent on violating from day one.
The British had no authority under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to allow European Jewish immigration to Palestine. The only authority and responsibility the British had as the "Mandatory" was to educate the existing population in Palestine (at the end of WW I) in modern self-government and the British failed completely in this responsibility.
Finally, please explain to me how the forced "ethnic cleansing" of "Israel" in 1948 is any different than the Nazi policies of ethnic cleaning? True, the Zionists didn't murder as many non-Jewish residents as the Nazis but the policies were virtually the same because both were based upon cleansing the nation of undesirable" individuals. We can note that had it not been for the ethnic cleansing then Israel would not have existed because the Israeli Declaration of Independence would not have been passed because the Jews were out-numbered even in the territory that became Israel. The foundation of Israel was based upon the violation of the civil rights of the people that lived in the territory that were forced to leave their homeland and denied the right to vote for the government that would represent them.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 26, 2014 23:55:07 GMT
I really do not believe that either Dictionary.com or Wikipedia is a " olitically correct" organization.
The "Diaspora argument" is really not all about tracing one's "family history back 2,000 years to Palestine." One is not required to be a genealogy buff in order to realize that the Jewish people are of Middle Eastern descent.
The land that was taken in war in 1967--war that was initiated by the Arab nations--is not "occupied" territory. Rather, it was lost in war by the aggressor; and there is simply no good reason, therefore, that it should be returned.
And I think you may be tiptoeing right up to the so-called "right-of-return" argument, which would, essentially, overwhelm Israel, causing it immediately to cease being the world's only Jewish state.
The 1967 6-Day War was provoked by Israel for the purpose of the acquisition of territory according to numerous sources including Mosha Dayan that was the Israeli military commander on the Syrian border. According to Dayan it was the Israelis that were provoking a military response from Syria by sending people into the neutral zone between the two nations.
Israel invaded Egypt while Egypt had no intentions whatsoever of attacking Israel. We know that as a historical fact. Rationalizations for the Israeli invasion were farcical. For example the Israelis cited the closure of the Straits of Tiran as a "reason" but Israel hadn't even used the Straits for any purpose for many years. It was not an Israeli trade route and not a single Israeli ship was ever denied passage through the Straits.
All People are of "African" decent so does that mean we can all invade Africa and force the current people out of Africa? Palestine belonged to the People living in Palestine when the British became the Mandatory at the end of WW I. They didn't have to trace their heritage back 2,000 years and it was their homeland. What "right" did Europeans have to come to their homeland and take it away from them? The answer is none whatsoever. Even the Mandate for Palestine prohibited the violation of the civil rights of the existing residents in Palestine that the Zionists were intent on violating from day one.
The British had no authority under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to allow European Jewish immigration to Palestine. The only authority and responsibility the British had as the "Mandatory" was to educate the existing population in Palestine (at the end of WW I) in modern self-government and the British failed completely in this responsibility.
Finally, please explain to me how the forced "ethnic cleansing" of "Israel" in 1948 is any different than the Nazi policies of ethnic cleaning? True, the Zionists didn't murder as many non-Jewish residents as the Nazis but the policies were virtually the same because both were based upon cleansing the nation of undesirable" individuals. We can note that had it not been for the ethnic cleansing then Israel would not have existed because the Israeli Declaration of Independence would not have been passed because the Jews were out-numbered even in the territory that became Israel. The foundation of Israel was based upon the violation of the civil rights of the people that lived in the territory that were forced to leave their homeland and denied the right to vote for the government that would represent them.
There is an old saying: That which proves too much proves nothing at all. I thought of this when I read your words about how all of humankind originated in Africa, as if that were (somehow) comparable to both the ethnicity and the religious heritage of those whose ancestors lived in ancient Israel. Your allusion to President Wilson's creation--the League of Nations--is most disappointing. (This was, of course, the forerunner to the current United Nations--for which I have the lowest possible regard.) As Wikipedia notes, Israel's assault in the 1967 Six-Day War was "in response to PLO sabatoge acts against Israeli targets." Finally, I believe you have answered your own question: The "ethnic cleansing" of Hitler was not even remotely comparable to what happened in Palestine (Israel) in 1948, as the latter did not involve mass murder. Also, there was no desire to exterminate an entire ethnicity of people, as Hitler wished to exterminate the Jews. And there was certainly no desire to achieve ethnic purity, as though any interaction with those of another ethnicity would necessarily have a corrupting influence.
|
|
