|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 10, 2014 22:13:00 GMT
To claim that "[t]he majority of the Jews of today have no historical linkage to the Middle East prior to the 20th Century" is surely to engage in historical revisionism. And it entirely ignores the Diaspora. (Even Jews living in Europe in the twentieth century--prior to Hitler's attempt to annihilate them--can trace their ancestory back to the Middle East.) And your churlish attempt to paint Israel as the aggressor in any future war with Syria also bespeaks your anti-Israeli bias...
Did you fail to read the link completely? The genetic evidence establishes that the majority of European Jews have no historical linkage to the Middle East. They were "converts" to Judism that have no hereditary ties to the time of the disporia. They are and have always been Europeans.
Not a single living Jew can trace their family lineage back to the Middle East at the time of the disporia. Even you should be aware of that fact.
Do you place all your confidence in one "study" that reinforces a view that is congenial to you own preconceived beliefs? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 11, 2014 12:10:35 GMT
Did you fail to read the link completely? The genetic evidence establishes that the majority of European Jews have no historical linkage to the Middle East. They were "converts" to Judism that have no hereditary ties to the time of the disporia. They are and have always been Europeans.
Not a single living Jew can trace their family lineage back to the Middle East at the time of the disporia. Even you should be aware of that fact.
Do you place all your confidence in one "study" that reinforces a view that is congenial to you own preconceived beliefs?
I would base it on two different facts.
1) Genetically we know the historical ancestry of the European Jews. This is not an "opinion" but instead it is a physical fact as the DNA has been mapped.
2) Not a single European Jew can traces their personal family history to the Middle East (and in fact no Jews today can trace their family history to the Middle East of 2000 years ago).
While there were unquestionably some Jews that lived in the Middle East 2,000 years ago there is no record of any individal living today that can traces their lineage to the Middle East or provide any information on why their family, if it ever lived in the Middle East historically, might have left. For all we know they "sold their property" and immigrated elsewhere and their Rights were never violated by anyone.
More importantly is that a 2,000 year old claim is pure BS. The Right of the People living today supersedes any historical claims of those that lived 2,000 years ago.
We're dealing with that today based upon just a 100 year old claim that is very valid related to the Sioux Nation and the Black Hills where there are actual families that can trace their personal family history to living in the Black Hills. The residents of Deadwood today have an established "right to live there" that supersedes the claims of the Sioux that had their "right to live there" violated 100 years ago. The Sioux People are not demanding that the residents of Deadwood be evicted but instead that 'government' land that was wrongfully taken be granted back to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 12, 2014 0:21:08 GMT
Do you place all your confidence in one "study" that reinforces a view that is congenial to you own preconceived beliefs?
I would base it on two different facts.
1) Genetically we know the historical ancestry of the European Jews. This is not an "opinion" but instead it is a physical fact as the DNA has been mapped.
2) Not a single European Jew can traces their personal family history to the Middle East (and in fact no Jews today can trace their family history to the Middle East of 2000 years ago).
While there were unquestionably some Jews that lived in the Middle East 2,000 years ago there is no record of any individal living today that can traces their lineage to the Middle East or provide any information on why their family, if it ever lived in the Middle East historically, might have left. For all we know they "sold their property" and immigrated elsewhere and their Rights were never violated by anyone.
More importantly is that a 2,000 year old claim is pure BS. The Right of the People living today supersedes any historical claims of those that lived 2,000 years ago.
We're dealing with that today based upon just a 100 year old claim that is very valid related to the Sioux Nation and the Black Hills where there are actual families that can trace their personal family history to living in the Black Hills. The residents of Deadwood today have an established "right to live there" that supersedes the claims of the Sioux that had their "right to live there" violated 100 years ago. The Sioux People are not demanding that the residents of Deadwood be evicted but instead that 'government' land that was wrongfully taken be granted back to them.
Do you really believe that Middle Eastern Jews merely "'sold their property' and immigrated elsewhere" 2,000 years ago? If so, that is certainly, well, a truly unique view... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 13, 2014 12:47:49 GMT
Do you really believe that Middle Eastern Jews merely "'sold their property' and immigrated elsewhere" 2,000 years ago? If so, that is certainly, well, a truly unique view...
Can a single Jew today establish that the property rights of their ancestors were violated 2,000 years ago in a court of law?
From an legal standpoint they couldn't even establish that they are a part of a "class action lawsuit" related to what happened 2,000 years ago because they can't trace their family history back to what occured 2,000 years ago. There is no legal basis for the claims that today's Jews were ever subjected to discrimination or a violation of their rights 2,000 years ago based upon a claim of ancestry to the Middle East. Many can certainly make that claim based upon discrimination and violations of their civil rights in Europe during the 19th and 20th Centuries but there is no legal foundation related to claims being made about what happened 2,000 years ago.
If we were to use the US Constitution as a guideline the European Jews of the 19th and 20th Century had no "legal standing" related to anything that happened in Palestine over 2,000 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 13, 2014 21:47:08 GMT
Do you really believe that Middle Eastern Jews merely "'sold their property' and immigrated elsewhere" 2,000 years ago? If so, that is certainly, well, a truly unique view...
Can a single Jew today establish that the property rights of their ancestors were violated 2,000 years ago in a court of law?
From an legal standpoint they couldn't even establish that they are a part of a "class action lawsuit" related to what happened 2,000 years ago because they can't trace their family history back to what occured 2,000 years ago. There is no legal basis for the claims that today's Jews were ever subjected to discrimination or a violation of their rights 2,000 years ago based upon a claim of ancestry to the Middle East. Many can certainly make that claim based upon discrimination and violations of their civil rights in Europe during the 19th and 20th Centuries but there is no legal foundation related to claims being made about what happened 2,000 years ago.
If we were to use the US Constitution as a guideline the European Jews of the 19th and 20th Century had no "legal standing" related to anything that happened in Palestine over 2,000 years ago.
My entire case for the establishment of Israel is thoroughly unrelated to "anything that happened in Palestine over 2,000 years ago." Rather, my case-- in toto--is this: The Jews have been persecuted throughout history, culminating in the horror we know as the Holocaust; so it seems reasonable that they should have a state of their own, in order to be made free of this persecution. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 14, 2014 14:40:10 GMT
My entire case for the establishment of Israel is thoroughly unrelated to "anything that happened in Palestine over 2,000 years ago." Rather, my case-- in toto--is this: The Jews have been persecuted throughout history, culminating in the horror we know as the Holocaust; so it seems reasonable that they should have a state of their own, in order to be made free of this persecution.
Your argument hinges on a belief that "the persecuted should become the persecutors" which is exactly what happened with the creation of Israel.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 14, 2014 20:56:10 GMT
My entire case for the establishment of Israel is thoroughly unrelated to "anything that happened in Palestine over 2,000 years ago." Rather, my case-- in toto--is this: The Jews have been persecuted throughout history, culminating in the horror we know as the Holocaust; so it seems reasonable that they should have a state of their own, in order to be made free of this persecution.
Your argument hinges on a belief that "the persecuted should become the persecutors" which is exactly what happened with the creation of Israel.
Contrary to your assertion, the Israelis do not "persecute[e]" anyone... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 15, 2014 13:33:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 15, 2014 23:16:35 GMT
The only homes that have been "bulldozed" are those on Israeli territory. They were wrongly placed there by those who claim (as you do, also) that the Israelis' using land that was won in 1967, against the aggressor states of the Arab nations, amounts to an "occup[ation]" and an "act of aggression" by the Israelis... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 16, 2014 15:55:08 GMT
The only homes that have been "bulldozed" are those on Israeli territory. They were wrongly placed there by those who claim (as you do, also) that the Israelis' using land that was won in 1967, against the aggressor states of the Arab nations, amounts to an "occup[ation]" and an "act of aggression" by the Israelis...
Excluding Israel there isn't a single government in the world, including the US government, that recognizes the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as being a part of Israel. Not a single one. None of the houses being bulldozed in the occupied territory of the West Bank or E Jerusalem are in Israeli territory. Out of the 193 nations that are members of the United Nations, including Israel, 192 of them steadfast are politically that the occupied territories DO NOT BELONG TO ISRAEL. This was clearly established by UNSC Resolution 242 that emphasized that the acquisition of territory by war was unacceptable and that position has not changed by one iota in any nation since 1967.
What part of that do you fail to understand?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 20, 2014 18:50:28 GMT
The only homes that have been "bulldozed" are those on Israeli territory. They were wrongly placed there by those who claim (as you do, also) that the Israelis' using land that was won in 1967, against the aggressor states of the Arab nations, amounts to an "occup[ation]" and an "act of aggression" by the Israelis...
Excluding Israel there isn't a single government in the world, including the US government, that recognizes the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as being a part of Israel. Not a single one. None of the houses being bulldozed in the occupied territory of the West Bank or E Jerusalem are in Israeli territory. Out of the 193 nations that are members of the United Nations, including Israel, 192 of them steadfast are politically that the occupied territories DO NOT BELONG TO ISRAEL. This was clearly established by UNSC Resolution 242 that emphasized that the acquisition of territory by war was unacceptable and that position has not changed by one iota in any nation since 1967.
What part of that do you fail to understand?
For starters, I do not recognize the UN as a moral authority as regarding anything. What part of that do you "fail to understand"? And I will reiterate that this "acquisition of territory" was made in a purely defensive war-- not a war of conquest... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 21, 2014 12:40:16 GMT
For starters, I do not recognize the UN as a moral authority as regarding anything. What part of that do you "fail to understand"? And I will reiterate that this "acquisition of territory" was made in a purely defensive war-- not a war of conquest...
Can I also assume that with your rejection of the United Nations you also refuse the authority of it's predecessor the League of Nations? That being the case then the immigration of European Jews to Palestine based upon the British Mandate for Palestine lacked any authority and they should get the hell out and go back to their homeland(s) in Europe.
I disagree with that proposition but question your statement that you don't recognize international organizations that most nations have become members of based upon voluntary treaties with the other member nations.
My dad taught me that integrity is the most important trait of the person and I would state that integrity is also the most important trait of a nation. When a nation voluntarily becomes a member of a treaty that nation should abide by the conditions of the treaty. That is identical in all respects to a person becoming a voluntary party to a contract. The person should honor the conditions of the contract they voluntarily entered into.
Integrity matters but it seems that you might believe that the United States should not be held to the same standard of integrity that we would expect from people.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 21, 2014 19:07:51 GMT
For starters, I do not recognize the UN as a moral authority as regarding anything. What part of that do you "fail to understand"? And I will reiterate that this "acquisition of territory" was made in a purely defensive war-- not a war of conquest...
Can I also assume that with your rejection of the United Nations you also refuse the authority of it's predecessor the League of Nations? That being the case then the immigration of European Jews to Palestine based upon the British Mandate for Palestine lacked any authority and they should get the hell out and go back to their homeland(s) in Europe.
I disagree with that proposition but question your statement that you don't recognize international organizations that most nations have become members of based upon voluntary treaties with the other member nations.
My dad taught me that integrity is the most important trait of the person and I would state that integrity is also the most important trait of a nation. When a nation voluntarily becomes a member of a treaty that nation should abide by the conditions of the treaty. That is identical in all respects to a person becoming a voluntary party to a contract. The person should honor the conditions of the contract they voluntarily entered into.
Integrity matters but it seems that you might believe that the United States should not be held to the same standard of integrity that we would expect from people.
Yes, I thoroughly reject the creation of the far left's hero, Woodrow Wilson, known then as "The League of Nations." Your comparison of a treaty to an individual's contract is highly misleading. Both presidents and Congresses can change--very substantially!--over time. What was ratified at one time might no longer be ratified at another time, by entirely different people. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 22, 2014 12:55:48 GMT
Can I also assume that with your rejection of the United Nations you also refuse the authority of it's predecessor the League of Nations? That being the case then the immigration of European Jews to Palestine based upon the British Mandate for Palestine lacked any authority and they should get the hell out and go back to their homeland(s) in Europe.
I disagree with that proposition but question your statement that you don't recognize international organizations that most nations have become members of based upon voluntary treaties with the other member nations.
My dad taught me that integrity is the most important trait of the person and I would state that integrity is also the most important trait of a nation. When a nation voluntarily becomes a member of a treaty that nation should abide by the conditions of the treaty. That is identical in all respects to a person becoming a voluntary party to a contract. The person should honor the conditions of the contract they voluntarily entered into.
Integrity matters but it seems that you might believe that the United States should not be held to the same standard of integrity that we would expect from people.
Yes, I thoroughly reject the creation of the far left's hero, Woodrow Wilson, known then as "The League of Nations." Your comparison of a treaty to an individual's contract is highly misleading. Both presidents and Congresses can change--very substantially!--over time. What was ratified at one time might no longer be ratified at another time, by entirely different people.
If I start an enterprise and establish a contract with another person that owns another company that contract between us is still binding on our heirs should we die. Only by the mutual consent of the owners of the two enterprises, regardless of whether they are the original owners or not, can the contract be modified. In some cases it may be terminated unilaterally and in other cases it might require mutual consent based upon the conditions of the original contract.
If the United States no longer wants to be a member of the United Nations then Congress can vote us out of that treaty either with the consent of the President or by over-riding a presdential veto. While there are always nutcases elected to Congress there is no real support in Congress to vote us out of the United Nations so any claim that Congress has any different desires related to US membership in the United Nations is pure poppycock. There has been no change in the US desire by any Congress or any President to be a member of the United Nations since we became a founding member in it's creation.
While presidents and Congresses change over time one of the constants of all Congresses and presidents is our desire to be a treaty member of the United Nations. UN membership (by treaty agreement) has been universally supported by all US presidents and all US Congresses since it's very first day of existance.
Ironically I also believe it would be accurate to state that all US presidents and all US Congresses since we became a founding member of the United Nations have also supported violations of the treaty provisions of the United Nations Charter by the United States. Basically we want to be a party to the treaty but don't want to comply with the provisions of the treaty.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 22, 2014 18:21:14 GMT
Yes, I thoroughly reject the creation of the far left's hero, Woodrow Wilson, known then as "The League of Nations." Your comparison of a treaty to an individual's contract is highly misleading. Both presidents and Congresses can change--very substantially!--over time. What was ratified at one time might no longer be ratified at another time, by entirely different people.
If I start an enterprise and establish a contract with another person that owns another company that contract between us is still binding on our heirs should we die. Only by the mutual consent of the owners of the two enterprises, regardless of whether they are the original owners or not, can the contract be modified. In some cases it may be terminated unilaterally and in other cases it might require mutual consent based upon the conditions of the original contract.
If the United States no longer wants to be a member of the United Nations then Congress can vote us out of that treaty either with the consent of the President or by over-riding a presdential veto. While there are always nutcases elected to Congress there is no real support in Congress to vote us out of the United Nations so any claim that Congress has any different desires related to US membership in the United Nations is pure poppycock. There has been no change in the US desire by any Congress or any President to be a member of the United Nations since we became a founding member in it's creation.
While presidents and Congresses change over time one of the constants of all Congresses and presidents is our desire to be a treaty member of the United Nations. UN membership (by treaty agreement) has been universally supported by all US presidents and all US Congresses since it's very first day of existance.
Ironically I also believe it would be accurate to state that all US presidents and all US Congresses since we became a founding member of the United Nations have also supported violations of the treaty provisions of the United Nations Charter by the United States. Basically we want to be a party to the treaty but don't want to comply with the provisions of the treaty.
I certainly agree with your assertion that the US may disentangle itself from the UN by simply getting out of it--I have long advocated something along the lines of that 1960s-era bumper sticker: Get the US Out of the UN, and get the UN Out of the US"--although I regret that you consider those of us who think that way as mere "nutcases." |
|
