babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Sheik Yassin/Gaza pullout conspiracy.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Sheik Yassin/Gaza pullout conspiracy.
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 23 March 2004 06:42 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So Sharon says Israel will pull out of Gaza and dismantle the settlements.

Then Yassin is assassinated. Hamas goes nuts in Gaza, the IDF *has* to stay in Gaza to protect Israel from revenge attacks. Prestochango, no more pullout is possible.

Any thoughts? Too cynical?


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 March 2004 07:55 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think... I feel... like watching the whole thing devolve into madness, while I'm here, snug in Canada. There will be some spillage I am afraid. Other than that we should lobby for immediate diplomatic sanction against Israel, meaning cutting of relations.

In order to do this it might be politically expedient to suggest cutting of relations with the PA, in order to seem unniaded.

Such a project would be impossible to achieve, but might be a good rallying point to focus preassure on Israel.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 23 March 2004 12:28 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cue ball wrote "Other than that we should lobby for immediate diplomatic sanction against Israel, meaning cutting of relations."

On what grounds? That a terror mastermind was killed? I believe Canada is committed to the war on terror and Paul Martin has already stated that Israel has a right to defend itself.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 23 March 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We should really have gone for sanctions the moment Israel started deliberately assassinating people that they could perfectly well have picked up and put on trial. This is just the most egregious case so far.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 March 2004 06:50 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suppose "terror mastermind" plays well in Peoria or Tel Aviv, but Yassin could be thought of as a Tito or a Jean Moulin if one considers him a leader of a resistance movement, trying to liberate his country.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 24 March 2004 01:45 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
I suppose "terror mastermind" plays well in Peoria or Tel Aviv, but Yassin could be thought of as a Tito or a Jean Moulin if one considers him a leader of a resistance movement, trying to liberate his country.

If he had only targeted the Israeli military and government, that might be so, but blowing up civilians makes one far more terrorist than freedom fighter, even if the line between those is blurry.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
greatdebate
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5270

posted 24 March 2004 02:29 PM      Profile for greatdebate     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find it sad that Rabble participants would support a fundamentalist extremist who preaches hatred and practices murder against civilians. However, politics makes strange bedfellows.
The essence of Yassin's Hamas movement is that Jews have no rights to national self determination, and that murdering civilians is a legitimate way to achieve that aim. Palestinians often note that the strength of fundamentalist extremists like Yassin's Hamas, makes it difficult for moderates to pursue a two state solution, along the lines of the Nusseibeh-Ayalon plan. Yassin's killing may exacerbate tension in the short run, but if it weakens his extremist movement, it will over time allow Palestinian moderates to come forward and support people like Nusseibeh. All Israeli survey evidence shows that most Israelis support that kind of plan: a two state solution, resettlement of Palestinian refugees in either the West Bank, Gaza, or host countries, and the resettlement of Jews removed from West Bank and Gaza, into Israel.

From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 24 March 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by greatdebate:
I find it sad that Rabble participants would support a fundamentalist extremist who preaches hatred and practices murder against civilians.
Each "Rabble participant" speaks for himself. In my case, I believe (from my limited knowledge of Yassin) that he was a dangerous extremist who encouraged suicide bombers. However, targetting and killing him was wrong, an incredibly dumb strategic move that will only increase the number of innocent Jews and Palestinians who will be killed.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 24 March 2004 02:43 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There we go again, any critism of Israel gets a response of being in bed with terrorists (I guess it's a slight improvement from being called anti-Semite?). . . can't you right wingers buy yourselfs a clue and learn from your past mistakes . . . you right wing hawks have had your kick at the mid-east can for almost the full 50 some odd years now . . . the only time anyone close to a leftie had a go at it, they were so close to a breakthrough that a right wing Israeli had to assinate him for fear peace would break out.

If any side is "in bed with the terrorists" it's those that do everything in their mindless power to prolong the hatred and murdering (for those clueless right wingers, that would be you.)

Why don't you right wing war mongers just step down for a year or so and let someone try a different method . . . I'm so tired of having violent rednecks telling us that they need to be in power to protect us from violent rednecks!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 24 March 2004 02:50 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There we go again, any critism of Israel gets a response of being in bed with terrorists (I guess it's a slight improvement from being called anti-Semite?).

I wish there could be a discussion of the middle east that didn't de-volve to that level too. I dont' know why it can't be pointed out:

1. It was an assissination, and that by its own definition should be wrong. Gee, I believe even the US outlawed assissinations in the 70s under Carter.
2. The killing of Yassin is NOT going to bring peace to the Middle East, rather its just going to make things worse and exculated the violence on both sides.
3. Israel has said that there are more folks on its "hit list". No one on the right questions that this may be a totally inappropriate comment for a modern state to make.
4. The assisination of Yassin and subsequent actions that Israel is planning threatens to destablize the entire region.

That's not anti-sematic nor am I in bed with the terrorists, that's criticizing a modern nation state one that is acting badly.


From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 24 March 2004 03:22 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Yards wrote " you right wing hawks have had your kick at the mid-east can for almost the full 50 some odd years now . . . the only time anyone close to a leftie had a go at it, they were so close to a breakthrough that a right wing Israeli had to assinate him for fear peace would break out."

Check your history books..Israel politicaly may not always have been left leaing, but the country followed many socialist practices for many years, most notably the communal Kibutz, which was a vital fact in the early days. That didn't stop the Arabs from attacking then.

I wouldn't go bragging about the moral supremecy of the left anyways..how many millions were killed in the name of Communism? Even the Nazis considered the state to be above the individual, a very leftish mind set.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 March 2004 03:25 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*sigh*

Socialism ≠ Communism ≠ Nazism

*plonk*


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
'topherscompy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2248

posted 24 March 2004 03:48 PM      Profile for 'topherscompy        Edit/Delete Post
lefties are terr'ists and commies and nazis, oh my.
well, to begin, a lot of people of varying ideologies have done a lot of horrible things over the last several thousand years, at least since anyone started keeping track. and the most horrible things have tended to be done by the most ideologically inclined; but do not forget that ideologies tend to be conservative in the main. they draw on history, some golden era of past right(eousness) to proscribe the tactics and strategies of the present and future as some paradigm of 'common sense'.

but specifically to this topic, yassin was by all accounts an inciter and promoter of hate and violence, though perhaps one of the relatively moderate ones if that makes any sense. either way, i'm not going to miss him. but shit, killing him was pretty stupid from the standpoint of anyone who wants peace. one has to wonder what the reaction of israel would be if ariel sharon - who by all accounts is an inciter and promoter of violence, and perhaps hate as well - were assassinated. i would assume such a move would not be in the interests of peace either, again, even though i would not be one crying at his passing.
nor it does it help any that yassin was a quadriplegic hit with missle, on top of the fact that israel had previously released him from their prison. after co-founding his organization.
i will (most unfortunately assuredly) though be mourning those innocents caught in the middle, arab or jew, palestinian or israeli. it's a shame they always pay the price for the ideological violence, no matter which brand of conservative brings it.


From: gone | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 March 2004 04:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by greatdebate:
I find it sad that Rabble participants would support a fundamentalist extremist who preaches hatred and practices murder against civilians.

I would find it sad too, were that the case. Happily, it's not. Unhappily for you, if you continue to make these kind of sweeping statements about participants on this board, you're going to find yourself very unpopular, with both the members and the moderator of this forum.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 24 March 2004 04:03 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's true, greatdebate. Watch yourself.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 24 March 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm in 1948 terorrists bomb a hotel (Hotel King David) killing innocent women, men and children to strike a blow against a hated oppressor. Funny how one of the bombers was menachim begin and it was a Jewish terrorist organization fighting the British (while the Egyptians under nasser and sadat did the same).

He is right, yassim COULD be a another jean moulin fighting what he sees as a oppressive enemy. I really dont see any winners here, only losers unless someone takes a stand with compromise and refuses to flinch from it

Aint gonna happen tho


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 24 March 2004 05:33 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I still haven't seen any rightist deal with the basic point: If Israel claims to be a responsible nation-state, there is such a thing as the rule of law. If they have a problem with someone living on territory they have occupied, their responsibility is to arrest him or her, have a fair trial, and if there is enough evidence for a guilty verdict, jail him. Possibly execute him if the laws are sufficiently barbaric as to call for that.

There was nothing to stop the Israeli government from doing precisely that with any of the people they have of late assassinated in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. That they did not do so is unconscionable and utterly illegitimate. It also happens to be calculated to increase the level of violence in the occupied territories, which makes it simply evil, but even disregarding that, even assuming that each and every one of the people assassinated deserved to die, even discounting all the other people killed in the process, it is utterly unacceptable for any nation to perform assassinations when they have the option instead of performing arrests. This is the kind of behaviour that we used to expect in El Salvador or Guatemala. The low-tech version of that missile that killed Yassin is known as a "death squad".
But the right seem to consistently ignore this problem, because they refuse to condemn this behaviour but have absolutely nothing to offer that justifies destroying the rule of law when the option of upholding it was perfectly practical.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 24 March 2004 05:43 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rufus,

Im generally considered somewhat right wing (tho recently joined the NDP, go figure) on many issues and I do NOT agree with Israels stance here. We expect governments to take the high road and would totally freak on for example Fantino if Torontos finest beat the ever living shit out of someone and then justified it by saying "well they were guilty". We demand a higher plane of contact for officials and I see no reason why this should not apply here.

I mean, if Hamas assassinates Sharon now, will the world and Israel shrug and say "well fairs fair, we assassinated one of them"


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 24 March 2004 05:46 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rufus wrote " If they have a problem with someone living on territory they have occupied, their responsibility is to arrest him or her, have a fair trial, and if there is enough evidence for a guilty verdict, jail him. Possibly execute him if the laws are sufficiently barbaric as to call for that."

So the IDF should have just waltzed into Gaza and arrested him? That simple? You don't think that would have been a far bloodier affair than a missle? You don't think it would have triggered a firefight that would have taken much more lives? And if they did do that, I am sure ypu guys would all say "Good work Israel!"


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 March 2004 06:05 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
I suppose "terror mastermind" plays well in Peoria or Tel Aviv, but Yassin could be thought of as a Tito or a Jean Moulin if one considers him a leader of a resistance movement, trying to liberate his country.

Yasser Arafat is more like Tito.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 24 March 2004 06:37 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Rufus wrote " If they have a problem with someone living on territory they have occupied, their responsibility is to arrest him or her, have a fair trial, and if there is enough evidence for a guilty verdict, jail him. Possibly execute him if the laws are sufficiently barbaric as to call for that."
So the IDF should have just waltzed into Gaza and arrested him? That simple? You don't think that would have been a far bloodier affair than a missle? You don't think it would have triggered a firefight that would have taken much more lives? And if they did do that, I am sure ypu guys would all say "Good work Israel!"

No one said it would have been easier. But it would have been the right thing to do.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2004 06:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
On what grounds? That a terror mastermind was killed?

I must have missed something in the news. When was Sharon killed? Yesterday? Today?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 March 2004 06:56 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by black_dog:

No one said it would have been easier. But it would have been the right thing to do.


Would it have been a first step towards ending the intifada


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 24 March 2004 07:14 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball wrote "I must have missed something in the news. When was Sharon killed? Yesterday? Today?"

In your dreams...literally....and who says lefties are just angry and bitter..thats some great comedy!


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2004 07:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I am angry and I am bitter. Areil Sharon has gone out of his way to make his war my war. If forced to choose sides I will choose against those who intentionally tried to force my hand.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 24 March 2004 07:22 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Areil Sharon has gone out of his way to make his war my war."

Huh? I don't get it


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2004 07:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Areil Sharon knew very well that assassinating Yassin would alienate a huge number of Muslim people world wide. Today Muslims who have cautiously stood by the sidelines, or opposed terrorism, are now having second thoughts. Sharon knew that this would be a collateral result.

This means that there will be backlash. This also means that their will be more funding for radical Islamic activities, their will be more sympathizers, more safe-houses, more raw recruits. Some of these people will live here.

There is an ever greater chance today that there will be attacks in this country, than there was a week ago. Sharon new this, and acted anyway, unilaterally without consideration for the possible results.

Even worse, it is very possible that Sharon calculated this potential into the equation of the 'gamble,' with the explicit intention of polarizing the world into two camps, the Judeo/Christian camp V. the Muslim camp.

I refuse this. I hate him, and I will do anything legal to undermine him.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 March 2004 08:15 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Today Muslims who have cautiously stood by the sidelines, or opposed terrorism, are now having second thoughts.

WTF!

You can hate what Sharon did and still hate Hamas at the same time.

A moderate Muslim woudn't neccesarily start supporting terrorism because of this attack.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2004 08:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You obviously aren't reading the news.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2004 09:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
News of Yassin's death spread like wildfire across Pakistan, including the tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan where thousands of Pakistan troops have encountered fierce resistance from tribal fighters as they attempt to track down al-Qaeda fugitives and Afghan resistance members.

Asia Timed

quote:
Rockets hit Pakistani city as al-Qaeda hunt continues

smh

quote:
US soldiers fired shots to disperse a violent protest in an Iraqi town against Israel’s killing of Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin.

breakingnews

quote:
`We call upon the sons of the Arab and Islamic nations to close ranks, unite and work hard for the liberation of the usurped land and restore rights,'' Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani said in a statement released by his office in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

CBS

quote:
At least one explosive device was detonated and a number of petrol bombs were thrown during the protest by people who had failed to obtain work with the police and security forces. Witnesses reported that some chanted the name of the Hamas leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, assassinated by Israel. They said: "We are all sons of Yassin."

Telegraph

quote:
MANAMA, Bahrain - More than 200 young demonstrators pelted the high walls surrounding the U.S. Embassy compound in Bahrain with stones Wednesday, shouting "Death to America and Israel," then scattering when riot police came at them with batons and tear gas.

Yahoo

quote:
But Mubarak abruptly suspended Monday an Egyptian delegation's departure for anniversary celebrations at the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem to mark the peace treaty Egypt and Israel signed in March 1979.

In Jordan, the main opposition Islamic Action Front demanded the moderate Amman government scrap its 1994 peace treaty with Israel.


Middle East On-line

quote:
March 22 - Turkey has condemned Israel for its killing of the spiritual leader of the Palestinian group Hamas, saying that the action could only fuel instability in the region.

NTV


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 24 March 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I fear the whirlwind.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 25 March 2004 12:11 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Would it have been a first step towards ending the intifada

I would say that yes, the beginning of a basic acceptance by the occupiers that if they are going to occupy they have a duty to adhere to the rule of law would, indeed, be a very useful step towards ending the intifada. Consistently lawless behaviour by the occupiers was certainly the major impetus behind the intifada in the first place. It might also be a first step towards remembering that the occupation is itself utterly against both international law and numerous UN resolutions, and should be ended--something that would also be a very good, probably decisive, step towards ending the intifada.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 25 March 2004 12:24 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:

So the IDF should have just waltzed into Gaza and arrested him? That simple?

In a word, yes. They're already *in* Gaza. They've got troops and armoured vehicles and commando squads in Gaza, with night sights and gimmickry up the wazoo, many of them very well trained. One hopes they've got what it takes to arrest an old, half-blind quadroplegic with a couple of bodyguards.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 25 March 2004 02:36 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Besides, Israel's always wagging its finger at the demolished Palestinian Authority for "failing to apprehend terrorists", blah-blah-blah. If Arafat is expected to clamber out of his rubble and arrest the "bad guys" with the tattered shreds of a security infrastructure that remain to him, then surely Israel, one of the most powerful states in the world, should be able to accomplish the same thing.

Israel can send in tanks and bulldozers and phalanxes of soldiers to demolish Palestinians' houses at will, but they're incapable of arresting somebody? Please.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 March 2004 04:49 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ANBERRA Israel's assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the leader of the Palestinian radical Islamic group Hamas, will resonate well beyond the Arab world. Many Muslims around the world will view his killing as an assault on Islam by Israel and its international backer, the United States. This is bound to undermine the U.S.-led war on terror.

Launching a martyr


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 25 March 2004 12:55 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did any of you see Black Hawk Down..when US forces decided to "just arrest" a Somali warlord? End result: hundreds of casualties.

Of coure the Israelis were capable of arresting Yassin. But it would have hurt the Palestinians much worse if they fought their way in. To deny that is to deny reality.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 25 March 2004 12:58 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what? It would have been the right thing to do. And hopefully they wouldnt do it as he left a mosque after prayers which in the reality killed other innocents leaving the mosque
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 March 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ALERT: A film made in Hollywood has just been entered into the debate as concrete evidence.
  • 1) Set ideology filters to maximum.
  • 2) Activate "Us Vs. Them" Ontological Reflex Reaction Pacifiers.
  • 3) Check operation of Racial Bias and Stereotyping Detectors, and set to full sweep.
  • 4) Nulify all Cognitive Suspension of Disbelief Indexes.

If any above the systems or their related sub-systems are non-operative DO NOT RESPOND TO POST. I REPEAT DO NOT RESPOND TO POST.

[ 25 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 March 2004 01:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In fairness, maybe his local Blockbuster has Black Hawk Down in the documentary section.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 25 March 2004 01:35 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, let me rephrase this so you people will understand: Do any of you remember the ACTUAL EVENTS which inspired the film Black Hawk Down? When US forces wanted to "just arrest" a Somali warlord and ended up with a bloodbath. Is that a little clearer?
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 March 2004 01:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I am familiar with it. The US tried to drop in on him while almost all of the tribal elders were gathered for a meeting. A good time to visit.

We remember how they got Eichman, now that was an operations. Done from the other side of the world. Something to be proud of, no doubt. This was butchery.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 25 March 2004 02:03 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I guess you guys have more faith in the IDF than I do..I don't argue that they are one of the top militaries in the world, but I think the human cost on the Palestinian side would have been much greater if they did things your way. I don't get you Cueball. On one hand you go crazy whenever Israel accidentaly kills civilians (and rightfully so) yet here you are advocating a course of action which would do just that. Is Palestinian life that cheap to you? Is being "right" in your eyes worth dozens of lives?
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 25 March 2004 03:55 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excuse me, but it's not like assassination versus arrest has been an either/or for Israel. They do both. Israel does in fact frequently arrest Hamas leaders, and even more frequently breaks into their homes and arrests whoever they feel like who happens to be around. Generally there is no loss of life unless the Israeli troops shoot up the house some while they're breaking in.

So it's utterly silly to claim it would be too hard for them to do stuff they do all the time. They assassinate people purely to make a point, not because they couldn't do the right thing instead. This really isn't disputable. The government of Israel does not choose assassination in order to spare lives. They choose it because they don't give a crap about the rule of law and because they want to provoke a response while looking tough. Your blatant, utterly insubstantial apology for every Israeli policy and act no matter how indefensible is disgusting and reminds me of the desperate weaselling of white supremacists and holocaust deniers.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paladin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3119

posted 25 March 2004 04:28 PM      Profile for Paladin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Easy there, Rufus

Getting back to the original question, this kind of thing seems to be Sharon's MO. Provovation whenever there's a threat that peace will break out. But this time he's really ratcheting up the tension and as Cueball says, sucking the rest of us into the conflict.

The committment to assassinate the entire Hamas leadership is interesting. Is it just blowing smoke, or do these guys really think that they can make Hamas and Palestinian resistance disappear?


From: Jugular knotch | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 March 2004 08:54 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ok, let me rephrase this so you people will understand: Do any of you remember the ACTUAL EVENTS which inspired the film Black Hawk Down? When US forces wanted to "just arrest" a Somali warlord and ended up with a bloodbath.

What do you mean by "you people"? Don't blame others for your intellectual sloppiness.

I think the essential adjective in your example is "US" forces.

Ever see Raid on Entebbe or The Man Who Captured Eichmann?

[ 25 March 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 25 March 2004 09:04 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
The government of Israel does not choose assassination in order to spare lives. They choose it because they don't give a crap about the rule of law and because they want to provoke a response while looking tough. Your blatant, utterly insubstantial apology for every Israeli policy and act no matter how indefensible is disgusting and reminds me of the desperate weaselling of white supremacists and holocaust deniers.

Hold on here. It is perfectly in accordance with international law and the law of war to kill enemy combatants who have not surrendered. Yassin advocated the mass slaughter and/or displacement of Jews from Israel and has called for the elimination of a UN-member state. It is Hamas who targets the killing of innocents. The deliberate targetting of innocent civilians is in violation of every morality and law. Some perspective please!


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 25 March 2004 09:11 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*sign of the X from family feud

Thanks for playing! International law allows for the killing of a combatant who does not surrender WHILE engaged in combat, not coming out of a mosque after prayers. This would be sanctionable under international law ONLY if he had been firing a gun at the military and they could not get him to stop otherwise. And it also doesnt allow for killing everyone around him who is not engaged in combat either.

[ 25 March 2004: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 25 March 2004 09:14 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"It is perfectly in accordance with international law and the law of war to kill enemy combatants who have not surrendered."

Yassin would not have been considered an "enemy combatant" under international law. Moreover, it takes some chutzpah to cite international law when Israel has built settlements on occupied land in clear violation of international law, and ignores just about every UN resolution passed regarding the conflict.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 25 March 2004 10:04 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
"It is perfectly in accordance with international law and the law of war to kill enemy combatants who have not surrendered."

Yassin would not have been considered an "enemy combatant" under international law. Moreover, it takes some chutzpah to cite international law when Israel has built settlements on occupied land in clear violation of international law, and ignores just about every UN resolution passed regarding the conflict.


The West Bank and Gaza are disputed territories and not occupied territories. There is a huge difference. Also, why is it illegitimate for a Jew to live in the land of his ancestors?

Israel, unlike all Arab states or would-be states (i.e. the PA/PLO)except Egypt and the Hashemite Kingdom has accepted 242. General Assembly Resolutions are not really international law. They have more the status of expressions of opinion. Moreover, the overwhelming concern with Israel and not with other areas betrays a certain bias.

Where's the Tibet thread, anyway.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 25 March 2004 10:07 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
*sign of the X from family feud

Thanks for playing! International law allows for the killing of a combatant who does not surrender WHILE engaged in combat, not coming out of a mosque after prayers. This would be sanctionable under international law ONLY if he had been firing a gun at the military and they could not get him to stop otherwise. And it also doesnt allow for killing everyone around him who is not engaged in combat either.

[ 25 March 2004: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


His daily business in the mosque and elsewhere was to send Arabs to kill innocent Jews. He was a ticking bomb. Several earlier attempts were aborted in order to avoid unnecessary death. From what I've heard only his bodyguards dies with. They were hardly innocent bystanders.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 March 2004 10:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by talkin2u:
Where's the Tibet thread, anyway.

If Tibet interests you, then start one.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 25 March 2004 10:12 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He was not an enemy combatant under international law. A "ticking bomb," whatever that means, is not an enemy combatant.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 March 2004 10:17 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Also, why is it illegitimate for a Jew to live in the land of his ancestors?

Why is it illegitimate for a Palestinian to live in the land where she was born?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 25 March 2004 10:24 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Why is it illegitimate for a Palestinian to live in the land where she was born?


It isn't. Remember the Jews accepted each partition proposal (1937, 1948 and 2001). Each time, Arabs have preferred war.

It is clear that the "fight" for a Palestinian state (or a second such state after Jordan) is only a cover. What it attempts to do is provide a sheen of respectability to an otherwise hateful and immoral position. That position is that Jews should either be killed or leave the land of their ancestors. The fascist (and I use the term technically and not rhetorically) leadership of the Palestinian Arabs in the 1930s and 1940s used the same techniques in league with Hitler as Hamas and Fatah use today. The goal was the same. The left should be very concerned.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 25 March 2004 10:31 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"It is clear that the "fight" for a Palestinian state (or a second such state after Jordan) is only a cover. What it attempts to do is provide a sheen of respectability to an otherwise hateful and immoral position. That position is that Jews should either be killed or leave the land of their ancestors."

Ah, the old Jordan canard. And, of course, you ignore the real position of most Palestinians, including the PLO. That being that there should be a democratic, secular state in Israel/Palestine in which both Jews and Arabs should be free to live.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 March 2004 11:49 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why is it illegitimate for a Palestinian to live in the land where she was born?
-----------
It isn't.

So you agree that the Palestinian diaspora has the right to return to its homeland?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 25 March 2004 11:57 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
"It is clear that the "fight" for a Palestinian state (or a second such state after Jordan) is only a cover. What it attempts to do is provide a sheen of respectability to an otherwise hateful and immoral position. That position is that Jews should either be killed or leave the land of their ancestors."

Ah, the old Jordan canard. And, of course, you ignore the real position of most Palestinians, including the PLO. That being that there should be a democratic, secular state in Israel/Palestine in which both Jews and Arabs should be free to live.



Ah ha. In otherwords Jews are not entitled to self determination. Rather they should be submerged in another state. Moreover, in some Arab states (like Jordan and Saudi Arabia) you're not allowed to be Jewish. When Transjordania was created by severing Mandatory Palestine, it enacted a citizenship law denying citizenship to Jews. All Jewish communities were uprooted and the Jews went to what was left of Palestine.

Why is it that only Jews are denied self determination by some on the left?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 25 March 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

So you agree that the Palestinian diaspora has the right to return to its homeland?


If they wish to return to whatever Palestinian state is created that is fine. The future Palestinian state will, presumably, create a citizenship and immigration law that will address this issue. That is a matter for a sovereign state to decide. There is no right of return to Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 26 March 2004 12:36 AM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The West Bank and Gaza are disputed territories and not occupied territories. There is a huge difference. Also, why is it illegitimate for a Jew to live in the land of his ancestors?


Um only Israel calls them disputed, everyone else calls them occupied since they were seized in war, much like Alsace Lorraine by the Nazis or Danzig by the Nazis


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 March 2004 12:40 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When Transjordania was created by severing Mandatory Palestine,

One could drown wading through the revisionist history that's oozing through the cracks here.

Trans-Jordan was never a part of the Mandate of Palestine. In any case, both were severed from Syria.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 March 2004 12:44 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by talkin2u:

If they wish to return to whatever Palestinian state is created that is fine. The future Palestinian state will, presumably, create a citizenship and immigration law that will address this issue. That is a matter for a sovereign state to decide. There is no right of return to Israel.


Who are you to decide? Since Israel has no official borders, this might be open for negotiation in the future anyway.

quote:
Why is it illegitimate for a Palestinian to live in the land where she was born?
-----------
It isn't.

Make up your mind. Can those who were born in, say, in Jerusalen or Akka return home?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 26 March 2004 12:49 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why even bother? These cretins just keep rehashing the sos again and again and again. I'm tired of repeating myself. I shall hearby invoke the *instaplonk*, to be used anytime one of these 'land without a people' racists crawls out from under a new rock.

*instaplonk*


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 March 2004 07:33 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by talkin2u:


Ah ha. In otherwords Jews are not entitled to self determination. Rather they should be submerged in another state. Moreover, in some Arab states (like Jordan and Saudi Arabia) you're not allowed to be Jewish. When Transjordania was created by severing Mandatory Palestine, it enacted a citizenship law denying citizenship to Jews. All Jewish communities were uprooted and the Jews went to what was left of Palestine.

Why is it that only Jews are denied self determination by some on the left?



Judaism is a religion. I do not believe in states based on religion, whether it be Israel or Pakistan. Nor do I support quasi-theocratic governments such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. Until the Zionist movement began making headway with its call for a Jewish state, relations between Jews and Muslims in the Arab world were relatively harmonious.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 26 March 2004 10:03 AM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
Why even bother? These cretins just keep rehashing the sos again and again and again. I'm tired of repeating myself. I shall hearby invoke the *instaplonk*, to be used anytime one of these 'land without a people' racists crawls out from under a new rock.

*instaplonk*



are you calling me a racist?

From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 26 March 2004 10:07 AM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:


Judaism is a religion. I do not believe in states based on religion, whether it be Israel or Pakistan. Nor do I support quasi-theocratic governments such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. Until the Zionist movement began making headway with its call for a Jewish state, relations between Jews and Muslims in the Arab world were relatively harmonious.


Jews are a people and a nation and a religion. The Jewish people have existed for several thousand years. A Jewish state is no different than a French state or an Italian state or an Eqyptian state.

Relations were not relatively harmonious. Jews were forced to live as second-class non-citizens and had to pay a Jew tax in Arab lands. Moreover, they were frequently subjected to riots and progroms. This only changed with the advent of Zionism. Jews were finally able to return to the stage of history as a nation and to defend themselves collectively.

To deny Jews a nation is to deny Jews as Jews the right to self determination that we grant every other nation. To deny Jews a state is aniisemitic.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 March 2004 10:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Therefore to deny the German people purity of race is to deny Germans their right of self-determination and therefore racist. Thank you for expressing the underlying themes of the NSDAP literature, but in a new context.

Lovely!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 March 2004 10:22 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by talkin2u:

Jews are a people and a nation and a religion. The Jewish people have existed for several thousand years. A Jewish state is no different than a French state or an Italian state or an Eqyptian state.

Relations were not relatively harmonious. Jews were forced to live as second-class non-citizens and had to pay a Jew tax in Arab lands. Moreover, they were frequently subjected to riots and progroms. This only changed with the advent of Zionism. Jews were finally able to return to the stage of history as a nation and to defend themselves collectively.

To deny Jews a nation is to deny Jews as Jews the right to self determination that we grant every other nation. To deny Jews a state is aniisemitic.



Bullshit. Judaism is religion. Zionism is a political movement. One can be Jewish without being Zionist, as I am. A Jewish state is different from, say, France. France was not established on religion, and is a secular, pluralistic nation.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 26 March 2004 11:03 AM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:


Bullshit. Judaism is religion. Zionism is a political movement. One can be Jewish without being Zionist, as I am. A Jewish state is different from, say, France. France was not established on religion, and is a secular, pluralistic nation.



Can we remain civil here. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. Yes there are some Jews who are not Zionists. The Jewish people are a people and a nation. A goy kodesh. A nation has its own language, culture, customs, religion (often), etc. Jews in fact are an aboriginal population. There are few nations today who speak the same language, worship the same God and live on the same land they did nearly 4,000 years ago.

The reason Jews in Palestine were offered self-determination is they showed all the attributes of a nation. They had internal bodies of self-government, a language, a vibrant cultural life, trade union movement, etc. The yishuv functioned as a self-contained entity. The density of the settlement was another reason (in other words, the Jewish areas could be given self-determination on a majoritarian basis).
Israel is no different from France. Many states have established religions (UK, Sweden, Denmark, Saudi Arabia (where you have to be Muslim), Egypt, Lebanon, etc). In Israel, however, there is freedom of religion.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 26 March 2004 11:08 AM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Therefore to deny the German people purity of race is to deny Germans their right of self-determination and therefore racist. Thank you for expressing the underlying themes of the NSDAP literature, but in a new context.

Lovely!


Why is it that those opposed to the existence of the State of Israel always find a way to invoke Nazi imagery to depict Israel. It is strange that one doesn't have to scratch very far to find this.

I don't think I talked about purity of race. I think I said something consistent with general principles of liberal democracy. That is, nations and peoples enjoy the right to self-determination. Jews enjoy that right no less than Germans or Arabs or Chinese (or Kurds or Tibetans for that matter).


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 March 2004 11:12 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by talkin2u:


Can we remain civil here. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. Yes there are some Jews who are not Zionists. The Jewish people are a people and a nation. A goy kodesh. A nation has its own language, culture, customs, religion (often), etc. Jews in fact are an aboriginal population. There are few nations today who speak the same language, worship the same God and live on the same land they did nearly 4,000 years ago.

The reason Jews in Palestine were offered self-determination is they showed all the attributes of a nation. They had internal bodies of self-government, a language, a vibrant cultural life, trade union movement, etc. The yishuv functioned as a self-contained entity. The density of the settlement was another reason (in other words, the Jewish areas could be given self-determination on a majoritarian basis).
Israel is no different from France. Many states have established religions (UK, Sweden, Denmark, Saudi Arabia (where you have to be Muslim), Egypt, Lebanon, etc). In Israel, however, there is freedom of religion.



You start calling people anti-semitic, and then you complain about lack of civility.

Judaism is a religion. People can become Jewish by converting. They are not born that way.

The yishuv sprang from Zionism. So, I fail to see your point.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 26 March 2004 11:12 AM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
[QB]Who are you to decide? Since Israel has no official borders, this might be open for negotiation in the future anyway.

QB]



I think that a member state of the United Nations has the right to control entry and exit and immigration. I am presuming the same would apply to a future Palestinian state. Israel has internationally recognised borders with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon (which although the UN recognises this last border the Lebanese Republic does not). It has no border with the West Bank and Gaza since it has found no one to negotiate with (the last time Israel tried to give away this land it was met with war). The boundaries between Israel and a future Palestinian state will eventually be negotiated. In the meantime, Israel will take those steps necessary to protect its civilian population.

From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 26 March 2004 11:16 AM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:


You start calling people anti-semitic, and then you complain about lack of civility.

Judaism is a religion. People can become Jewish by converting. They are not born that way.

The yishuv sprang from Zionism. So, I fail to see your point.


I don't think I called anyone antisemitic. Yes, you can convert (we're an open tribe). But, people are also born that way. It is not so different with, say, Canadian citizenship. Some are born Canadian and others become Canadian. So what.

The yishuv grew out of the preexisting Jewish community strengthened with the return of ashkanazim fleeing persecution. Are you saying that the Jews of the Ottoman empire had no right to receive Jews fleeing Europe? Of course not.

I think Zionism, BTW goes back to the captivity. Every time the nations tried to ban us from our land we have returned.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 March 2004 11:20 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"But, people are also born that way. It is not so different with, say, Canadian citizenship. Some are born Canadian and others become Canadian. So what."


People are not "born that way." You are not born Jewish the way you are born male or female, black or white, asian or slavic. And citizenship is a totally different concept. Of course you can change citizenship, just as you can change religion. But you can't change your race or ethnicity.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 26 March 2004 11:32 AM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
"But, people are also born that way. It is not so different with, say, Canadian citizenship. Some are born Canadian and others become Canadian. So what."


People are not "born that way." You are not born Jewish the way you are born male or female, black or white, asian or slavic. And citizenship is a totally different concept. Of course you can change citizenship, just as you can change religion. But you can't change your race or ethnicity.


Jewishness is all of these things (race, religion, nation) partly because Jews predate most of these modern concepts. Jewishness is an ethnicity (and some would say race--however, race as a concept is deeply problematic). Any child of a Jewish mother is a Jew.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 March 2004 11:45 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any child of a Jewish mother is considered a Jew because that's what the Rabbis have decreed, not because of nature. Judaism is a religion, no matter how many ethnic "features" you wish to attribute to it.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paladin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3119

posted 26 March 2004 12:11 PM      Profile for Paladin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The notion about Jewish "blood" and therefore, race, is really a construct of the Roman Catholic Church dating from the time of the Inquisition.

I think you would agree that Jews are not an ethnic group per se, but rather encompass several such groups.


From: Jugular knotch | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 26 March 2004 12:25 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin:
The notion about Jewish "blood" and therefore, race, is really a construct of the Roman Catholic Church dating from the time of the Inquisition.

I think you would agree that Jews are not an ethnic group per se, but rather encompass several such groups.


Jewish law defines the Jewish people (that is born of a Jewish mother or converted). There are subgroups within the Jewish people. I am not sure they are ethnicities (although maybe they are--we may be making too fine a distinction).

I have trouble with the idea of race. However, Jews share a common descent from Abraham. Like Abraham, many persons not born of Jewish parents have joined the nation. However, I don't think this invalidates the idea that Jews constitute a nation.

Again, I find it interesting that we accept every other people's claim to nationality except that of the Jew. The world largely accepted the idea of Jewish nationality until Jews constituted themselves as a nation state. In other words historically Jew and non-Jew saw the Jews as a nation distinct. That was often an excuse to beat up on the Jew. Why is it so different now that we have reentered history as a nation state?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Paladin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3119

posted 26 March 2004 12:31 PM      Profile for Paladin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"However, Jews share a common descent from Abraham"

As do Arabs


From: Jugular knotch | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 26 March 2004 12:34 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agree with everything you say Talkin2you.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 26 March 2004 12:50 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And just to quickly add, I find it pretty ironic that the "tolerent left" is so quick to insult and swear at anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with their wacky world view. Although there are a few sane voices, in the short time I have been on this board I have been insulted and sworn at for expressing an opinion. Whats the matter..I thought the left was all about dissent....save the emotional crap for the "direct action" workshops, the Chomsky readings, and people who are impressed by that nonsense.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 March 2004 12:53 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Again, I find it interesting that we accept every other people's claim to nationality except that of the Jew. The world largely accepted the idea of Jewish nationality until Jews constituted themselves as a nation state. In other words historically Jew and non-Jew saw the Jews as a nation distinct. That was often an excuse to beat up on the Jew. Why is it so different now that we have reentered history as a nation state?"


Again, you confuse religion with nationality. And now your argument has degenerated to the point where you are relying on the persecutor's treatment as justification for separation.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paladin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3119

posted 26 March 2004 12:59 PM      Profile for Paladin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by o:
And just to quickly add, I find it pretty ironic that the "tolerent left" is so quick to insult and swear at anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with their wacky world view. Although there are a few sane voices, in the short time I have been on this board I have been insulted and sworn at for expressing an opinion. Whats the matter..I thought the left was all about dissent....save the emotional crap for the "direct action" workshops, the Chomsky readings, and people who are impressed by that nonsense.[/QUOTE

If you characterize people as "wacky", you shouldn't be surprised if they respond with invective. I would be more than willing to consider your opinion if it wasn't obscured by provocative statements of that kind.


From: Jugular knotch | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 26 March 2004 01:06 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't call anyone wacky, I called their opinions wacky.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Paladin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3119

posted 26 March 2004 01:08 PM      Profile for Paladin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I stand corrected
From: Jugular knotch | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 26 March 2004 01:10 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:

Again, you confuse religion with nationality. And now your argument has degenerated to the point where you are relying on the persecutor's treatment as justification for separation.[/QB]


Jews had their own kingdom in the time of Solomon and David. Nations have kingdoms (at the time the kohen gadol was the religious head of the nation). The Davidic dynasty lasted through to the exilarchs of Babylonia (about 1300 years ago).

Israel is sitting in the land known to the ancient world as Judea. I don't understand why it is so inconceivable that a people can be both a people and a religion.

That is the reason you can have secular Jews. There is no such thing as a secular Christian (because to be Christian you must believe) and there is no such thing as a secular Muslim (again). However, there are secular Canadians, secular Arabs, secular Frenchmen(women).


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 March 2004 01:34 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, you're saying there's no belief system in Judaism? That would be news to most Jews.

I am not saying Jews should not be able to live in what was Judea. But to reach back 3000 years as support for reconstituting Judea when 3000 years of history and demographic reality has intervened is absurd. There is no reason why Jews and Arabs could not have, and could not still, live in a democratic, secular and pluralistic state in the land that is now Israel/Palestine.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 26 March 2004 01:35 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by talkin2u:

Jewish law defines the Jewish people (that is born of a Jewish mother or converted). There are subgroups within the Jewish people. I am not sure they are ethnicities (although maybe they are--we may be making too fine a distinction).

Excuse me, but some Jews are semitic like Palestinians, largely indistinguishable. Some Jews are basically slavs. Some Jews are pretty much germanic. And some Jews are black, for Pete's sake! If that isn't distinct ethnicities, I'm not sure what a distinct ethnicity would be.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 29 March 2004 02:40 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[QB]So, you're saying there's no belief system in Judaism? That would be news to most Jews.

QB]



No, there is a belief system. However, not believing doesn't make one any less of a Jew. Once again, one can have atheist Jews since Jewish identity is both national and religious. An atheistic Jew is still a Jew for all purposes.

For instance an apostate who wishes to return to the Jewish religion does not have to "convert" back. This would be absurd if Jewish identity were purely religious.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 29 March 2004 02:45 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

Excuse me, but some Jews are semitic like Palestinians, largely indistinguishable. Some Jews are basically slavs. Some Jews are pretty much germanic. And some Jews are black, for Pete's sake! If that isn't distinct ethnicities, I'm not sure what a distinct ethnicity would be.


I guess what I am trying to say is that while there is incredible genetic diversity within the Jewish people, the fact is a Jew is a Jew. There are Ethiopian Jews and Ashkenazim and Sphardim and Yeminite and Indian and so on. The differences are primarily differences of minhag (or custom). It is not considered "out-marriage" for an Ashkenazi Jew to marry a Yemeni Jew.

I think identity is much more complex than the "racial" or "ethnic" categories often used. That's all


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 March 2004 02:46 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And there are "lapsed Catholics" and "nonpracticing Protestants." The equivalent of "secular Jews." That doesn't make them "ethnic Catholics" or "ethnic Protestants."
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 29 March 2004 03:14 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
And there are "lapsed Catholics" and "nonpracticing Protestants." The equivalent of "secular Jews." That doesn't make them "ethnic Catholics" or "ethnic Protestants."

Again, I don't know why every other national group gets automatically recognized by the universse and Jews don't.

You can't be a Christian if you don't subscribe to the Nicene creed. Ask a priest or minister. You can be a Jew and not believe in God. Ask a rabbi. The Jewish people have existed as a national group for thousands of years. There were Jewish kingdoms in antiquity. In Babylon, Jews lived under the rule of the exilarch (a descedent of King David) until the muslim conquest. Jews continued their national existance without a state for centuries. To this day disputes in our community are frequently settled by a Beit Din in accordance with jewish law. Jewish law is only partly about religious or ritual matters. It also has civil and criminal branches. I don't know what else to call a group which has its own language, culture, religion, law and communal institutions and has so had for millenia. We tend to call that a nation. In fact, most nations don't have the millenia of history that Jews have.

Why is the national status of the Jews at issue anyway? The UN accepted it in 1947. I think this particular part of the debate needs to end. However, I think there is something not wholesome about trying to deny Jews the same rights as other nations.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 March 2004 03:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The internal ideological view of a group may define it as a national group, but not necessarily an ethincity. Canada is a nation, not an ethnicity. The same is true of religions.

It is a mistake to conflate nation with race.

[ 29 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 March 2004 03:26 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again you call a religion a "national group." And you ignore my examples and persist in insisting that the Jewish religion is the only religion with "non-believers." And the language and law spring from the religion. As for a common culture, just look at the differences between European and Middle Eastern Jews.

But I agree we're starting to go around in circles. So it's best to move on.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
greatdebate
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5270

posted 29 March 2004 06:15 PM      Profile for greatdebate     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Until the early part of the 20th century virtually no one spoke of a Palestinian people. There were Arabs living in an Ottomon province who were largely considered by most other Arabs and themselves to be part of southern Syria. However, if today we accept that a Palestinian people exist, even though ethnically, religiously, linguistically and culturally they are almost indistinguishable from the Arab nations surrounding them, why is is so hard to accept that a Jewish people exists - unless of course we want to delegitimize their right to national self determination.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 29 March 2004 06:41 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
why is is so hard to accept that a Jewish people exists - unless of course we want to delegitimize their right to national self determination.

Go set up that straw man to loiter somewhere else. Who here denies that a Jewish people exist?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
greatdebate
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5270

posted 29 March 2004 07:07 PM      Profile for greatdebate     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Josh indicates he is an adherent of the Jewish religion but isn't a member of the Jewish people, the existence of which he appears to deny. He does this even though many, and perhaps most, Jews who define themselves as Jews, do so wholly or partly by virtue of their peoplehood. The only reason I can assume that Josh has done so, is to delegitimize the right of national self determination of the Jewish people.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 March 2004 07:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heh...I missed the part where josh said he is an adherent of the Jewish religion.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 March 2004 07:26 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by greatdebate:
Josh indicates he is an adherent of the Jewish religion but isn't a member of the Jewish people, the existence of which he appears to deny. He does this even though many, and perhaps most, Jews who define themselves as Jews, do so wholly or partly by virtue of their peoplehood. The only reason I can assume that Josh has done so, is to delegitimize the right of national self determination of the Jewish people.

As with any religion, adherents of the Jewish religion are people. So, if you want to call them "the Jewish people" fine. But then you must call Catholics, "the Catholic people" and Protestants, "the Protestant people." Judaism is a religion. If you believe there should be a separate state for Jews, then you are in favour of a religious state. Because I believe in pluralistic, democratic and secular states, I do not support such a state.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 March 2004 07:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, being agnostic and not religiously observant, as I believe you have said about yourself in the past on babble, josh, does that mean you're not Jewish?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 29 March 2004 07:35 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not that simple.

Yes, one can adhere to Judaism and not be 'Jewish'; but one can be secular and still be a Jew. I do not think that it is fair to reduce Jewishness to a simple matter of religion. There are cultural and ethnic roots that matter just as much.

Josh:

quote:
Judaism is a religion. If you believe there should be a separate state for Jews, then you are in favour of a religious state.
Classic 'undistributed middle'. It does not follow that those with a common Jewish heritage and culture are therefore practitioners of Judaism. It is conceivable, though I grant you unlikely in the given context, to have a thouroughly secular Jewish state, like there is a thouroughly secular French state.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 March 2004 07:37 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The world has tagged me as Jewish, so it's often easier not to dispute that identification. And, as with any religion, there are cultural and intellectual aspects I can identify with.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 March 2004 07:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I can see that. I'm no longer a practicing Baptist, but I still identify that way if someone asks me what religion I am.

I guess it's like people who don't believe in "race". I can say that I don't believe in race and that it's all a social construct, and that people aren't really "black" or "white", but I still call myself white if the issue comes up.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 29 March 2004 08:02 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(have I *instaplonked* you before, greatdebate? If so, then I apologize to myself for lapsing and reading your post, which states that there are no Palestinian people. If not, I've been remiss.)

*instaplonk*


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
greatdebate
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5270

posted 29 March 2004 08:23 PM      Profile for greatdebate     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is up to Josh to choose to opt in or opt out of being Jewish, whether he chooses to define it as a religion, a peoplehood or both. It is even up to him to decide to reclaim Jewish heritage only for PR purposes. Arafat routinely trots out "show Jews" just like the Afrikaners in the 70s would trot out "show Blacks").

However, even if he chooses to opt out for himself, he shouldn't deny the right of national self determination to those Jews who do regard themselves as a people. Similarly, the fact that some French residents of Canada or elsewhere are against Quebecois nationalism doesn't mean the Quebecois are not a people, if that is how they define themselves. And it certainly isn't appropriate for me as an Anglo Canadian to tell the Quebecois that they are not a people.

The same logic should apply to the Quebecois, Kurds, Armenians, Palestinians and Jews. People then can argue about borders, but avoid the hateful attempts to delegitimize another people and their right to exist.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
greatdebate
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5270

posted 29 March 2004 09:21 PM      Profile for greatdebate     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sarcasmobri misunderstands me. I did not argue that Palestinians have no national rights. I argued that if the same tests were applied to the Palestinians, Kurds, Quebecois and Jews, you would agree either that none were entitled to self determination, or that all are "peoples" entitled to national self determination on some portion of their historic homeland. Polls consistently show that most Jews in Israel support a Jewish dominated state (Israel) and a Palestinian dominated state (Palestine), but are also very fearful that most Palestinians (and Arabs generally) do not recognize that the Jewish people have a right to a state where they are the dominant majority.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 March 2004 09:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Josh indicates he is an adherent of the Jewish religion but isn't a member of the Jewish people, the existence of which he appears to deny.

If your going to defame people by twisting their words, you should take some basic Logic of Philosphy courses. (just a tip)


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 29 March 2004 09:43 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by greatdebate:
It is up to Josh to choose to opt in or opt out of being Jewish, whether he chooses to define it as a religion, a peoplehood or both. It is even up to him to decide to reclaim Jewish heritage only for PR purposes. Arafat routinely trots out "show Jews" just like the Afrikaners in the 70s would trot out "show Blacks").

However, even if he chooses to opt out for himself, he shouldn't deny the right of national self determination to those Jews who do regard themselves as a people. Similarly, the fact that some French residents of Canada or elsewhere are against Quebecois nationalism doesn't mean the Quebecois are not a people, if that is how they define themselves. And it certainly isn't appropriate for me as an Anglo Canadian to tell the Quebecois that they are not a people.

The same logic should apply to the Quebecois, Kurds, Armenians, Palestinians and Jews. People then can argue about borders, but avoid the hateful attempts to delegitimize another people and their right to exist.


Exactly on the ball. The only rationale for denying the peoplehood of Jews is to deny them a basis for a state. It is also to deny to Jews a basic human collective right: to form a state. All leftists should be concerned when we try to deny a basic human right to a specified group.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 March 2004 09:59 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, talkin2u seems like he (or she) can't make up his mind about whether Judaism constitutes a distinct ethnicity or not.

For at least twenty years, up until at least the early 1990s, my impression was that it was uniformly agreed that Judaism was not a race, it was a religion, and for this reason, Nazis and other anti-Semites who tried to justify their claims on such grounds were wrong.

This is somewhat important since a religion is something you can become or un-become.

Race, however, is not.

Yet, in the last decade, it seems that for some unfathomable reason it has become tactically convenient to label Judaism as a quasi-ethnicity.

This is dangerous, because it opens the door for a boomerang effect wherein the idiots who've been claiming this crap all along will turn around and say "See? We're right! They ARE a distinct race, eating away at the white anglo-saxon body politic!" or some idiotic balderdash thereof.

The weird thing is that this ethnicity/not-ethnicity duality seems to be selectively exploited much like the Israel-is-at-war/Israel-is-not-at-war duality.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 29 March 2004 10:07 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
You know, talkin2u seems like he (or she) can't make up his mind about whether Judaism constitutes a distinct ethnicity or not.

For at least twenty years, up until at least the early 1990s, my impression was that it was uniformly agreed that Judaism was not a race, it was a religion, and for this reason, Nazis and other anti-Semites who tried to justify their claims on such grounds were wrong.

This is somewhat important since a religion is something you can become or un-become.

Race, however, is not.

Yet, in the last decade, it seems that for some unfathomable reason it has become tactically convenient to label Judaism as a quasi-ethnicity.

This is dangerous, because it opens the door for a boomerang effect wherein the idiots who've been claiming this crap all along will turn around and say "See? We're right! They ARE a distinct race, eating away at the white anglo-saxon body politic!" or some idiotic balderdash thereof.

The weird thing is that this ethnicity/not-ethnicity duality seems to be selectively exploited much like the Israel-is-at-war/Israel-is-not-at-war duality.


Race is a widely disputed (and largely discredited) category. Until very recently (and only in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict) Jew and non-Jew agreed that Jews were a nationality (yes, and a religion). It is not convenience and it is not "quasi". Jews are a nation (or a people). Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. Some Jews are not believers or observant of the commandments. That doesn't make them any less Jewish (note, even for religious obligations--that is a non-believing Jew may count as part of the religious quorum).

I have avoided loose terms like ethnicity and race and have preferred nationality and nation and people.

You actually can't unbecome Jewish (although you can become Jewish). A Jew who converts to another religion is simply a Jew who is sinning. The identity is permanent.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 March 2004 10:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why don't you start a thread in the Ideas section so that people can talk about Yassin and Gaza, like the thread title. It is really better place to talk about essential ideas, like these, which you bring up again and again, in totaly unrelated threads.

I'm not a moderator, but its a little annoying, distracting and not a clear manner of discussion.

Please?!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
greatdebate
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5270

posted 29 March 2004 10:27 PM      Profile for greatdebate     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bacchus claims that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied not disputed territories because "Um only Israel calls them disputed, everyone else calls them occupied since they were seized in war, much like Alsace Lorraine by the Nazis or Danzig by the Nazis."

Three points:
First, if lands seized in war are irrevocably "occupied", then Canada is occupied territory. At least Jews could claim that they had some historical, religious and possessory rights. What can most Canadians claim? By what right are we (who came from, or whose ancestors came from)Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East living in Canada? Are we Canadians much like the Nazis?
Second, if the Jews returning are occupiers, then why aren't the Arabs, who also were invaders centuries prior, sweeping out of Arabia as imperialist conquerors over much of the middle east, north Africa and into Spain? yeFurthermore,

Third, the aboriginals didn't provoke us non-aboriginals by attacking us in Europe, Africa etc. The French in Alsace didn't provoke an attack by the Nazi invaders. In 1967 the Arabs in the West Bank attacked Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 March 2004 10:36 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"You actually can't unbecome Jewish (although you can become Jewish). A Jew who converts to another religion is simply a Jew who is sinning. The identity is permanent."

WTF? You have no idea what you're talking about. A Jew who converts to another religion is no longer Jewish. He or she is now a member of the religion converted to.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 March 2004 10:43 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"However, even if he chooses to opt out for himself, he shouldn't deny the right of national self determination to those Jews who do regard themselves as a people. Similarly, the fact that some French residents of Canada or elsewhere are against Quebecois nationalism doesn't mean the Quebecois are not a people, if that is how they define themselves. And it certainly isn't appropriate for me as an Anglo Canadian to tell the Quebecois that they are not a people."

So, you're saying you're in favour of Quebec breaking away from Canada? But that's another discussion.

It's not in my power to deny anyone the right of national self-determination. But it is in my power to oppose something I believe to be wrong. I believe the separatism you advocate in general, and religious states in particular, are wrong. And I will not permit any attempt at enforcing Zionist political correctness from speaking out on the question.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
talkin2u
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5284

posted 29 March 2004 11:11 PM      Profile for talkin2u        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
"You actually can't unbecome Jewish (although you can become Jewish). A Jew who converts to another religion is simply a Jew who is sinning. The identity is permanent."

WTF? You have no idea what you're talking about. A Jew who converts to another religion is no longer Jewish. He or she is now a member of the religion converted to.


You are right but not in the way you think you are. Religiously you are correct. An apostate Jew would not be allowed to fulfill Jewish religious duties because he/she has separated him/herself from the Jewish community. However, because the Jew's national identity remains unchanged, if he/she wants to rejoin the Jewish community no formal conversion is required.

Look I know Jewish law is complicated, but that's also why it's fun


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 March 2004 12:01 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would be the first to argue that race has little concrete meaning; however, it appears that talkin2u still wants to have it both ways; to argue that Judaism is a religion, and yet more than a religion.

Trying to do that inevitably invites logical contradictions and exposes weaknesses to those who one would not wish to expose them to.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
R_Louis
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5304

posted 30 March 2004 12:42 AM      Profile for R_Louis        Edit/Delete Post
Really. DrConway? What weaknesses are you talking about?

Jews they may be, and a state?

What will it take to destroy Israel?

Armies come and go. Next year in Jerusalem!


From: On the Border | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 March 2004 01:58 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm talking about weaknesses in trying to use that line of argumentation, as well as weaknesses in trying to keep the wingnut lunatics from trying some sort of lame judo thing where they think your own words convict you.

If you want to go ahead and give the likes of Wolfgang Droege manna from heaven, just keep going right on ahead and claiming Judaism is race-like and not religion-like.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 30 March 2004 02:51 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
babble's gone weird lately. We've seen a couple of race-theorists, who come short of phrenology, but yet whose statements on race would warm the cockles of Alfred Rosenberg's heart. There have also been some denials of Palestinian history that would make Ernie Zundel blush.

I don't know what to conclude from this, but babble is the poorer for it.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 March 2004 07:20 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
"You actually can't unbecome Jewish (although you can become Jewish). A Jew who converts to another religion is simply a Jew who is sinning. The identity is permanent."

WTF? You have no idea what you're talking about. A Jew who converts to another religion is no longer Jewish. He or she is now a member of the religion converted to.


Exactly! I wonder what this guy thinks of Jews for Jesus?

Okay, with that, this topic is well over a hundred posts. I'm closing it.

(P.S. Cueball, you're probably right about the discussion going way off track, but by the time the whole digression on what being Jewish is, the thread was living on borrowed time anyhow. )


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca