# Israel = Jewish State, officially



## Randy (Nov 23, 2014)

Thoughts?



> Reactions decrying the cabinets approval of a bill that would enshrine in law Israels status as the nation-state of the Jewish people came fast and furious after the ministers vote.
> 
> The bill that passed was a combination of two bills, one proposed by Knesset members Ayelet Shaked and Yariv Levin, and the other by MK Zeev Elkin. The bill, which includes tough wording that both Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Yesh Atid ministers oppose, will be incorporated into another version Netanyahu plans to present later this week.
> 
> ...



Breaking ranks, Livni, Lapid say they won't support Jewish nation-state bill - NationalIsrael News - Haaretz Israeli News source


----------



## Negav (Nov 23, 2014)

I don't care what anybody thinks. Basing a country's policies on any religion is stupid, and people proposing such bills should step down from politics and enter a mental asylum.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 23, 2014)

Interesting, but this isn't really surprising given the current right-wing government.

What will be interesting is to see what happens when this is actually put to the vote on Wednesday.


----------



## celticelk (Nov 23, 2014)

Negav said:


> I don't care what anybody thinks. Basing a country's policies on any religion is stupid, and people proposing such bills should step down from politics and enter a mental asylum.



Framing this as a vote simply about religion misses a great deal of the complexity of Jewish identity and its historical relationship to Israel.


----------



## asfeir (Nov 23, 2014)

looks like we will have a Jewish state and an Islamic state in the Middle East. fun times ahead.


----------



## celticelk (Nov 24, 2014)

asfeir said:


> looks like we will have a Jewish state and an Islamic state in the Middle East. fun times ahead.



And this differs from the state of affairs of the past 35 years in what way?


----------



## Ibzzus (Nov 24, 2014)

Present day Apartheid... 'nuff said


----------



## Sumsar (Nov 24, 2014)

asfeir said:


> looks like we will have a Jewish state and an Islamic state in the Middle East. fun times ahead.



Jup, but why are we only bombing one of them (Denmark (my country) apparently is  )?? / why are we bombing any of them?

Their kill scores in counter-strike is about the same I think? Although this summer Israel made several "monster kills" / genocide, so they may even be in the lead?

But yeah, Hitler didn't die in vain, Israel keeps an alternate version of his dream alive..


----------



## asher (Nov 24, 2014)

The number of people Israel has killed vastly exceeds what the Palestinians have managed to accomplish.

I think the thing I'm most scratching my head about is the fact that, apparently, the cabinet members can be *thrown out for disagreeing with a bill*.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 24, 2014)

^Not all that different from the US actually. Cabinet members have been forced to resign for publicly speaking against the president and/or his policies.

As others have said, basing a government on a religion is just begging for disaster. All it does is ensure that those who do not partake in the state religion become under-represented and eventually fall into civil unrest and rebellion. Do people not ever open a history book, or at least look out their goddamn window? 
This stuff happens over and over again ad nauseam, that you'd think at least one half bright individual would say, "You know what? This isn't working. We should try something different. Maybe such as NOT letting religion have any say in what the government does."

That said, the US and other countries just need to pull out and let the middle east have its damn royal rumble. It's gonna happen with or without our meddling, and if history has shown anything, our involvement will just prolong and exacerbate the whole affair. Our love affair with Israel has created nine kinds of hell for us, and from what I can see, Israel has returned the favor by gross extermination of Palestinian people. Naturally those people become bitter, angry, and vengeful. Next thing you know, rockets come flying into Israeli neighborhoods. Israeli's go "aha! Damn those heathen terrorists! Blow them all to hell!" In comes IDF and kills a bunch more impoverished and embittered Palestinian farmers. Rinse and repeat. It reminds me a lot of the whole crips and bloods thing here in SoCal. One guy shoots someone from the other gang. That gang retaliates, and someone from the first gang and maybe a family member dies. Then it just escalates from there.

At some point, people just need to realize that vengeance isn't the answer and will yield only more bloodshed. Nobody can force the two sides to stop. They have to figure it out on their own. Maybe when everybody is dead and there's no more Israel or even Middle East, someone might grow a brain and say "You know, we probably should've taken a more peaceful approach..."


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 24, 2014)

celticelk said:


> And this differs from the state of affairs of the past 35 years in what way?



Official titles are enough tp make ppl behave differently in any number of situations... 

Althougg I don't see this one changing anyones behavior by much.


----------



## asher (Nov 24, 2014)

celticelk said:


> And this differs from the state of affairs of the past 35 years in what way?



They're writing it down and making it official now?


----------



## Skyblue (Nov 24, 2014)

A few quick notes since it's late, I hope I'll have more time to write about that tomorrow: 

Just to be clear, for those of you not familiar with Jewish people, especially those who lie in Israel, we live in a very complex situation in which the term "Jewish" can refer both to one's nationality and religion. When referring to a "Jewish state" here, the main focus is on nationality, BUT, it might open the way for religion based government and laws. 

Passing this bill won't really make a Jewish state and an Islamic state. First, because It won't suddenly create an Islamic state. Second, Arab people are about 20% of Israel's population, and this bill is not going to change that, most likely. It might, however, turn them into sort-of second-class citizen as mentioned above, for various reasons. 

Last, I'd like to ask everyone in this thread to take a second before they write and think about some of the words and phrases you use. As already discussed thoroughly in the last thread, there isn't a genocide going on. Yes, there's an on going war, or fighting, with casualties on both sides. Yes, the Palestinian people have more, which is most likely because of the strength differences between Hamas and the IDF, and because Hamas has been hiding behind civilians many times. And yes, there have been times where the IDF killed innocent Palestinian people, either because of honest mistakes, or intentionally, when a crazy soldier decides he can do whatever he wants. But coming and claiming "Genocide" indicates you believe Israel is systematically trying to kill all the Palestinian people, and that is plain wrong. 

@Sumsar- I'm not following you... Who is Denmark bombing? I think you're getting confused with ISIS here, and thank god we don't have to (directly) deal with them yet...

And finally, my 2 cents about the bill: It sucks. Seriously, one of the worst idea this government had lately, and it had SEVERAL of those. I very much hope it won't pass. That's what happens when you let extremists into your government...


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 24, 2014)

I should clarify that in terms of Israel or Palestine, I don't prefer one over the other. I honestly think both are being equally stupid about the whole thing. And when I say Israel or Palestine, I'm referring to their representative bodies. I'm well aware that the people themselves just want to be left alone and live their lives in peace.

But consider what the toll of all this fighting is. How many more people have to die and how much more bloodshed does there have to be before the insanity stops? Consider what it is both sides are fighting over. A REGION OF ....ING LAND. You know, earth that existed long before living organisms ever crawled up out from the murky depths onto the shore. And what better way to establish dominance over said region of land by blowing it the .... up and anyone unlucky enough to happen to be on it at that particular moment, rendering it years before it can inhabitable again anyways? You both sure come out as winners there.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 28, 2014)

@blue sky Cultural genocide, can't be denied...


----------



## Skyblue (Nov 28, 2014)

Overtone said:


> @blue sky Cultural genocide, can't be denied...



As the term "Cultural Genocide" is, from what I understand, a bit unclear (as it was never officially defined) , I'd be happy if you could clarify what you mean by that...


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 28, 2014)

> Last, I'd like to ask everyone in this thread to take a second before they write and think about some of the words and phrases you use. As already discussed thoroughly in the last thread, there isn't a genocide going on. Yes, there's an on going war, or fighting, with casualties on both sides.


No, it's not a war. The Israeli army doesn't fight the Palestinian army for whatever reason. The way you present the stuff is as loaded as it can possibly be.

I'm also appalled that you say that jewish is both religion and nationality. Being jewish is having a jewish mother. This _and nothing else_. It says nothing about your religion (Although most jews do follow the religion of Abraham, you have christian jews, etc) It says nothing about your nationality. My (paternal*) grandfather was Egyptian, Jewish and Christian.

*Hence me not being jewish but having a jewish family name and a good chunk of my extended family being jewish. I went to Tel Aviv 4 months ago to visit some of them. Wish I could have spent more than half a day in Jerusalem, fascinating city

Presenting it any other way shows an agenda. Tsahal is an occupation army violating a good number of UN directives.

Now I know both sides have arguments that can be discussed at length, but this being a war is NOT one. It is the repression of an insurgent movement and an army against civilians.



> "Cultural Genocide"


Bomb the schools, make it sure kids can't go there, and in 30 years you have an illiterate population that can't achieve anything and from whom no leader can emerge. That is important because the natality is such that at some point the palestinians just won't physically be able to stay there and persuading jews from other countries to immigrate to counterbalance it is tricky.


----------



## Ibzzus (Nov 28, 2014)

Andromalia said:


> Bomb the schools, make it sure kids can't go there, and in 30 years you have an illiterate population that can't achieve anything and from whom no leader can emerge. That is important because the natality is such that at some point the palestinians just won't physically be able to stay there and persuading jews from other countries to immigrate to counterbalance it is tricky.



What kids? You mean the few thousand that they didn't kill already? Population control my friend. Will write a longer response when I get off work.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 28, 2014)

Basically making it harder and harder for the Palestinian identity and culture to continue. 

I won't say all these things are individually designed to achieve that effect, but collectively that's what they have the potential to do. 

- No right of return means once you go (or have already left) you can't ever come back
- Restriction of movement due to walls and checkpoints, meaning that communities can't be connected, people can't visit their home towns, agricultural practices are impeded, religious sites can't be visited, etc. 
- If someone from the Arab community commits a crime against a Jewish person there are a disproportionate arrest of Arabs from that community, often with no due process. If their government does something, then ALL the people suffer, be it by bombs, destruction of infrastructure, or blockades. 
- Removal of Arabic from road signs 
- Propoganda to make people outside the area believe that non Jews have no history in the land and that there were no native inhabitants before the Zionist immigration.

So you have a cultural group that has been restricted from growing its population through immigration, is restricted from doing the things they have historically done, are collectively punished, are having their language gradually removed from the region, are being represented as a fabricated identity to the rest of the world. And if they don't like it and leave, they are gone forever.

It looks like an early, watered down version of what the Ottomans tried to do to the Greeks. Another twenty years of Netanyahu types and I wonder how much closer to that kind of oppression it will be.


----------



## Ibzzus (Nov 28, 2014)

(nevermind)


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 29, 2014)

No offense to anyone, but the sooner the US can sever all religious, financial(oil), and political ties to this region the better. 

Having relations to this region that wants to kill each other over religion and lines in the sand, needs to end. 

Political/religious corruption ties us to the Middle East and drags us further into their ageless conflict that will NEVER cease.

I'm sorry to say this but their is no favorable outcome for anyone involved.


----------



## Skyblue (Nov 29, 2014)

> No, it's not a war. The Israeli army doesn't fight the Palestinian army for whatever reason. The way you present the stuff is as loaded as it can possibly be.


You're right, the Israeli army is fighting (in this area) Hamas. If you'd like to refer to the Hamas as the palestinian army it's your choice (and it's somewhat understandable since they united with the Palestinian Authority) but I believe most of the world recognizes that Hamas is a terror organization. 



> I'm also appalled that you say that jewish is both religion and nationality. Being jewish is having a jewish mother. This _and nothing else_. It says nothing about your religion (Although most jews do follow the religion of Abraham, you have christian jews, etc) It says nothing about your nationality. My (paternal*) grandfather was Egyptian, Jewish and Christian.


We can both agree that one can be Jewish without being religious at all, right? The Jewish people have a history and a heritage and traditions that go much further back than the the state of Israel. So our identity is not dependent only on a physical state (Israel) but on various elements. 
Maybe I was using the term "nationality" wrong? I wasn't at all trying to push any agenda. 



> Tsahal is an occupation army violating a good number of UN directives.


Tsahal (or the IDF, for those of you who do not speak Hebrew) is the Israeli Army, doing what the government is ordering it to do, and protecting Israel and it's population. Among its missions and actions is the Gaza strip area and the West Bank. It's violations of UN directives, of such occur, are not really the point of discussion here.
Also, I would like to point that I myself support the end of the occupation, and believe a 2-state solution would be the better solution to the area. It's just that as someone who served 3 years in the IDF, I find it to be a twisted view when people see only the bad sides and the "f_ck-ups" of the IDF (and I'm not claiming there are none, not even close to that) 



> Now I know both sides have arguments that can be discussed at length, but this being a war is NOT one. It is the repression of an insurgent movement and an army against civilians.


Again, I'll worry that my use of words was incorrect. Perhaps I was wrong to use the term "War". But we ARE dealing with terror organizations, which are actively trying to harm Israeli population. And the IDF, no matter how much you'd like to think so, does not kill uninvolved citizens on purpose. Any occasions of such cases are investigated, and actions are taken against those involved, if they are found guilty. 



> Bomb the schools, make it sure kids can't go there, and in 30 years you have an illiterate population that can't achieve anything and from whom no leader can emerge. That is important because the natality is such that at some point the palestinians just won't physically be able to stay there and persuading jews from other countries to immigrate to counterbalance it is tricky.



Are there cases of schools being bombed, aside for those in which they were used by Hamas to store Ammunition and/or fire out of? 




Overtone said:


> Basically making it harder and harder for the Palestinian identity and culture to continue.
> 
> I won't say all these things are individually designed to achieve that effect, but collectively that's what they have the potential to do.
> 
> ...



- As for the Right Of Return, I'm pretty sure the subject is discussed heavily in every round of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I admit I don't have any simple answer to the problem. From what I read (not highly thoroughly, I'll admit), by the way, the international law is not in favor of the palestinians in this case. 
- I'd like to believe these walls and checkpoints exist solely for security reason. I understand how they hurt the Palestinian people obviously, and hopefully the sooner a solution will be found the faster they will disappear (I'm not entirely sure about that as the walls will become borders... But who knows) 
- Not a very accurate claim, as many arabs live in Israel and are treated equally in the eyes of the law, but I understand what you're talking about so it doesn't really matter. I think the only cases in which major arrests are done are in major criminal cases- murders, shootings and bombings, mostly done because of political reasons (I'm having a bit of trouble translating my thoughts into english here so excuse me if it's a bit jumbled..). Not that this fact makes it ok, but I mean that it probably won't happen over cases of theft or similar offenses. I don't believe we've ever attacked over palestinian government decisions, only as a response to attacks (which I'd say come more from Hamas the the PA.)
- I really have no idea what you're referring to. The subject came up in different bills proposed by far-right politicians but was never approved to the best of my knowledge. 
- I'm not familiar with such propaganda, but that might be because it's obviously targeted towards other countries, and not the Israeli people. If you have such an example, I'd be happy to see it. Such propaganda is a f_cked up thing, and such claims are complete lies. 

I can only pray with you we won't have another 4 years of Netanyahu types, let alone 20. 



> *Hence me not being jewish but having a jewish family name and a good chunk of my extended family being jewish. I went to Tel Aviv 4 months ago to visit some of them. Wish I could have spent more than half a day in Jerusalem, fascinating city


Jerusalem is definitely worth another visit. Beautiful city. Though personally I like the northern part of Israel better (Might be because that's where I live~)


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 29, 2014)

Andromalia said:


> Bomb the schools, make it sure kids can't go there Deny Israel's right to exist and hurl rockets at Israel from schools, and in 30 years [insert hysterical rant]


Fixed. Oh and btw: Palestinians bomb school in Gaza, but that's none of my business.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 29, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Having relations to this region that wants to kill each other over religion and lines in the sand, needs to end.



I think I asked in the terror tunnels topic, and I know that I've asked before that, how often Israel has engaged in words and actions about eliminating Arabs and Muslims, compared to those parties who cannot even name Israel due to their hatred, instead referring to it as "the aggression." 

Support for Israel trying to kill others over religion, please!


----------



## Overtone (Nov 29, 2014)

@skyblue

Language:
Israeli Traffic Signs May Get Hebrew Makeover : NPR
And again more recently
 Advertisement

It's a relief that it's not already the case, but it says a lot about intentions. Still, I will concede that if this isn't already happened anywhere, then it's not currently a problem, just part of a possible agenda. 

As for the Propoganda, I saw a lot of it during the 2008 conflict from certain American Facebook friends who are Jewish. One person in particular had a lot of it to post, and posted multiple times per day, so I messaged her about it and she was pretty shitty to me and I just blocked her. It was a lot of stuff like "10 reasons why Palestine never existed" and had things like the quotes by Mark Twain (which are quite a misrepresentation), implications that it was a purely British creation, that most Arabs in the region are VERY recent immigrants, and questions like "how can there have been a Palestinian people if they had no currency until the 20th century," etc. I am pretty sure I even saw similar claims on here this summer. I don't think you'd be this clueless, but in the post Ottoman Empire period ALL the Arab states were more or less drawn up by Europeans and eventually built out their flags and currencies and anthems and whatnot. There wasn't all that much time where there was any true autonomy. But in no way does that mean the people who were there didn't belong there! It was just hate speech. This claim was also made by Newt Gingrich during his campaign for the 2012 presidency. If I come across some web pages or posts like that I'll shoot them your way, but I am not on social media or political sites all that much these days.


----------



## Ibzzus (Nov 30, 2014)

@skyblue, it seems to become clearer and clearer to me that the word terrorist is relative. Let me take you back to how Israel came into creation, but I'm sure you know already. The Jewish people were kicked out of every country they went to till they appealed to the English. The English gave them Palestine, which they had no right to give. It is like me telling a homeless man that he can live in my neighbors apartment. Now the Jewish people came and started settling, in a land with 90% non-Jewish people already living. The Big-shot Zionist Jewish Americans had loads of money which they funded into the creation of the 'holy land' and the Palestinians just couldn't retaliate. This money wasn't just used for armies, construction and industry, it was also used to keep a media bias and blackout (on the forced settlements, you should see the videos on YouTube where they kick out Palestinians from their homes in order to create Jewish settlements).

Now imagine that homeless guy I mentioned earlier takes out a knife and forces my neighbors into the toilet. He locks the door and says "This toilet is now your property, the rest is mine." Now having a thief living in their house the family tries to retaliate by whatever means they have at their disposal, but they can barely scratch the surface of the toilet door. Upon hearing the commotion the homeless man, fearing for his life, opens the toilet door, knife in hand, takes the youngest of the family and kills him. That will keep them in line. They retaliate again, he calls the cops on them, "Look at these terrorists, trying to kill me, I gave them a place to stay and these ungrateful, illiterate, barbarians are trying to kill me." The cops give them a good thrashing and tell the homeless man to inform them if they start acting up again.

Israel keeps saying it has a right to defend itself, but honestly, in my opinion, Israel doesn't even have the right to exits.

Just to be clear, I am not defending suicide bombing, I am not defending kidnapping innocent teenagers and killing them, I am not defending any senseless killing at all, I am defending their right to fight for their land, and to me that is not terrorism, occupying someones land and twisting the worlds perspective of the situation is waaaaay worse than terrorism.

You seem like genuinely nice guy though, who wants the occupation to end and realizes the horror his government is afflicting on innocent people who just want their homes back and are tired of living like cattle. However twisted or apologetic your excuses are, I can tell that your heart is in the right place and I hope you do some research into the matter to fully comprehend the situation.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 30, 2014)

I think that the creation of Israel is an argument best left for posterity. The fact of the matter is that both groups are there, right now. Finding a solution to live peacefully should be the focus of the argument. America has no right to exist, yet here we are. I mean, the French sold us a third of our country, bugger the people who were already there. My point is that the objective reality is that Israel exists. Right or wrong, that is a fact that won't likely change anytime soon. What both sides can do, however, is try to find a common ground that will end all of the bloodshed.


----------



## McKay (Nov 30, 2014)

Israel is the only modern day colony and it's the only ethno-state the western world endorses/funds. Bizarre.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 30, 2014)

McKay said:


> Israel is the only modern day colony


That's wildly retarded. But I think I know what you're _trying_ to say. 



McKay said:


> and it's the only ethno-state the western world endorses/funds. Bizarre.



Ever hear of Saudi Arabia?  What's bizarre is how anyone could spout such ignorance while on the internet, where facts are a few keystrokes away.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Nov 30, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> Ever hear of Saudi Arabia?  What's bizarre is how anyone could spout such ignorance while on the internet, where facts are a few keystrokes away.



Religious state=///////////=ethno-state


----------



## flint757 (Nov 30, 2014)

Ibzzus said:


> Israel keeps saying it has a right to defend itself, but honestly, in my opinion, Israel doesn't even have the right to exits.





The Reverend said:


> I think that the creation of Israel is an argument best left for posterity. The fact of the matter is that both groups are there, right now. Finding a solution to live peacefully should be the focus of the argument. America has no right to exist, yet here we are. I mean, the French sold us a third of our country, bugger the people who were already there. My point is that the objective reality is that Israel exists. Right or wrong, that is a fact that won't likely change anytime soon. What both sides can do, however, is try to find a common ground that will end all of the bloodshed.



Agreed. It's a moot point. There's no turning back the clock and all land is stolen land at some point. Even native americans would get into tribal disputes over land. If Israel was a recent invention (as in last decade or so) I could see the argument having merit, but it has been around for too long for it to matter at all anymore. There are now plenty of Israeli born children to make the argument that they do have some right to live there.



sevenstringj said:


> That's wildly retarded. But I think I know what you're _trying_ to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of Saudi Arabia?  What's bizarre is how anyone could spout such ignorance while on the internet, where facts are a few keystrokes away.



It may not be the only one that is endorsed by the western world, but the US in particular is heavily invested in Israelis future for whatever reason. The US has offered more support to the Israeli military than Israelis themselves. I think we close in on 135 billion dollars since Israels creation; that's a pretty expensive endorsement if you ask me. In some respects the US has done/does more for Israel than the US does even for its own citizens.



> Although Israel is an "advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country," it "receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product] per capita of several Arab states." Approximately a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel, "even though Israel comprises just...one-thousandth of the world's total population, and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes."


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 30, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> I should clarify that in terms of Israel or Palestine, I don't prefer one over the other. I honestly think both are being equally stupid about the whole thing. And when I say Israel or Palestine, I'm referring to their representative bodies. I'm well aware that the people themselves just want to be left alone and live their lives in peace.
> 
> But consider what the toll of all this fighting is. How many more people have to die and how much more bloodshed does there have to be before the insanity stops? Consider what it is both sides are fighting over. A REGION OF ....ING LAND. You know, earth that existed long before living organisms ever crawled up out from the murky depths onto the shore. And what better way to establish dominance over said region of land by blowing it the .... up and anyone unlucky enough to happen to be on it at that particular moment, rendering it years before it can inhabitable again anyways? You both sure come out as winners there.



I think it's the "If I can't have it RIGHT NOW, no one can.."

Ya know... That shit they try to breed out of us at age 2...


----------



## McKay (Nov 30, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> That's wildly retarded. But I think I know what you're _trying_ to say.



You're right, Israel is totally not a settler state. It clearly isn't the direct result of Zionism and new settlements on Arab land absolutely aren't contentious issues and are in no way analogous to western colonialism.



> Ever hear of Saudi Arabia?  What's bizarre is how anyone could spout such ignorance while on the internet, where facts are a few keystrokes away.


Saudi Arabia is literally *Saud*i Arabia. It's not a ethnic state, it's the part of Arabia the Saud family rules. It's also not heavily subsidised by the west and is supported on the quiet rather than overtly because of lucrative oil and arms deals. It's a completely different case.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 30, 2014)

McKay said:


> You're right, Israel is totally not a settler state. It clearly isn't the direct result of Zionism and new settlements on Arab land absolutely aren't contentious issues and are in no way analogous to western colonialism.
> 
> Saudi Arabia is literally *Saud*i Arabia. It's not a ethnic state, it's the part of Arabia the Saud family rules. It's also not heavily subsidised by the west and is supported on the quiet rather than overtly because of lucrative oil and arms deals. It's a completely different case.


You just moved the goal posts, so even you know your original quip was ridiculous. 

Btw, "Saudi Arabia is a homogeneous nation, home to people of Arab ethnic and national backgrounds." -wikipedia

I also looked up the term "ethno-state" since it sounded like some recently made-up pseudo-analytical bullshit. Sure enough, it traces back to some racialist/white supremacist crank in the 90s. Good to know that's your standard for discourse.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 30, 2014)

Captain Shoggoth said:


> Religious state=///////////=ethno-state



Ethnicity includes religion. And besides, "Saudi Arabia is a homogeneous nation, home to people of Arab ethnic and national backgrounds." -wikipedia Again, we're on the internet. Knowledge is a few keystrokes away.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Nov 30, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> Ethnicity includes religion. But don't take my word for it. Again, we're on the internet. Knowledge is a few keystrokes away.



I'm aware that Judaism has surprisingly intact ethnic ties as evidenced by studies of mitochondrial DNA, and that all religions have strong bases in certain ethnicities. However, it is a fundamental fact that Islam, the example YOU chose in the case of Saudi Arabia is an evangelical proselytising religion that makes pointedly clear that it has no ties to ethnicity whatsoever. I would know, because I was raised in it.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 30, 2014)

Captain Shoggoth said:


> I'm aware that Judaism has surprisingly intact ethnic ties as evidenced by studies of mitochondrial DNA, and that all religions have strong bases in certain ethnicities. However, it is a fundamental fact that Islam, the example YOU chose in the case of Saudi Arabia is an evangelical proselytising religion that makes pointedly clear that it has no ties to ethnicity whatsoever. I would know, because I was raised in it.



I know all about it. I've even read the Quran. Still, religion is part of ethnicity. I also added a wikipedia reference on Saudi Arabia's people and the fact that it's ethnically homogenous, as in Arab. So my point stands. (I added that part just minutes after posting originally, but you were too quick for me. )


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 30, 2014)

Ooooh, Korea and Japan are largely homogenous too, do they count?


----------



## McKay (Nov 30, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> You just moved the goal posts, so even you know your original quip was ridiculous.
> 
> Btw, "Saudi Arabia is a homogeneous nation, home to people of Arab ethnic and national backgrounds." -wikipedia
> 
> I also looked up the term "ethno-state" since it sounded like some recently made-up pseudo-analytical bullshit. Sure enough, it traces back to some racialist/white supremacist crank in the 90s. Good to know that's your standard for discourse.



I moved no goalposts. Israel, as this thread is about, is a state by and for Jewish people. Korea and Japan aren't. Psuedo-analytical is one way to describe a word with a very obvious meaning, I wanted to used something equivalent to nationstate but without the connotations as countries like Germany, with very different laws on citizenship, started as nationstates. Fine job on the ad hominem bullshit + rep though.

As other posters have pointed out, you know far less than you think you do.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 30, 2014)

McKay said:


> Israel, as this thread is about, is a state by and for Jewish people. Korea and Japan aren't.



Yeah, I haven't run across very many Jews here in Korea .


----------



## McKay (Nov 30, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Yeah, I haven't run across very many Jews here in Korea .



 You know what I meant.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 30, 2014)

There's definitely Arab countries with immigration/citizenship policies that I think are unreasonable and in poor spirit. For example you can be born in the UAE, work your ass off for your whole life, and never be given citizenship. It's a VERY limited privilege only given to people in extraordinary circumstances (ie. they have some serious "wasta"). I'm not even sure you can buy land there. There's examples on the other side too, though... like I believe that the child of Lebanese parents has the right to live there even if they weren't born there and don't have citizenship. 

The point I'm making... is Saudi Arabia lame as fck? Yes. Does that change anything about Israel, and the direction it seems to be moving towards? No.


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 1, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Ooooh, Korea and Japan are largely homogenous too, do they count?



In McKay's world of neo-nazi rhetoric, yes.



McKay said:


> I moved no goalposts. Israel, as this thread is about, is a state by and for Jewish people. Korea and Japan aren't. Psuedo-analytical is one way to describe a word with a very obvious meaning, I wanted to used something equivalent to nationstate but without the connotations as countries like Germany, with very different laws on citizenship, started as nationstates. Fine job on the ad hominem bullshit + rep though.
> 
> As other posters have pointed out, you know far less than you think you do.


You're just playing semantics. All I know is, first you said Israel is a colony. That's plain false _by definition_, so you changed it to "settler state." I guess that's more backpedalling than moving the goal posts.  You also switched from simply fund/endorse to "heavily" fund and "overtly" endorse. That's definitely moving the goal posts.  But that's ok, because we also overtly endorse & heavily fund the "ethno-state" of the Palestinian territories.


----------



## McKay (Dec 1, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> In McKay's world of *neo-nazi* rhetoric, yes.







> You're just playing semantics.





> First you said Israel is a colony. That's plain false _by definition_, so you changed it to "settler state."


Sounds like you're the one playing semantics. Maybe English isn't your first language but colony and settler state are generally used interchangeably despite there being a minor distinction. In fact, the only thing that even slightly blurs the comparison is that Israel is a colony of the Jewish people, who were at the time stateless. To me that doesn't preclude Israel from being described as a colony, it just makes the distinction more complex.



> You also switched from simply fund/endorse to "heavily" fund and "overtly" endorse.


By which I mean _both _fund and endorse, something the US and the West in general don't do for Saudi Arabia. There's also a big difference between selling things to a country and funding it.



> We also overtly endorse & heavily fund the "ethno-state" of the Palestinian territories.


If you think they're remotely comparable then you're either disingenuous or mentally deficient.


----------



## Ibzzus (Dec 1, 2014)

some dude on this thread is giving negative rep to people he doesn't agree with. Real mature bro


----------



## McKay (Dec 1, 2014)

Ibzzus said:


> some dude on this thread is giving negative rep to people he doesn't agree with. Real mature bro



We could play the guessing game but it's pretty obvious.


----------



## Ibzzus (Dec 1, 2014)

yes indeed. Gave him a taste of his own medicine too.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 1, 2014)

Rep-whining is a good way to get on the fast track to Bansville Station, as per the site rules.

(Wasn't me.)


----------



## Ibzzus (Dec 1, 2014)

So if I gave you negative rep right now for no reason, you aren't allowed to complain? And I can get away with being a total douche?


----------



## Overtone (Dec 1, 2014)

Hey guys what's with all these antisemantic comments?!


----------



## Ibzzus (Dec 1, 2014)

No one is being Anti-Semitic here. We are just stating facts, and these facts just happen to put Israel in a very bad light. If stating these facts is considered anti-Semitic, then I guess the media brainwashing over the years really does shine through. Just saying something bad about Israel becomes a big no-no. It's the history they chose to create for themselves, and putting that history down in writing on a forum is not at all anti-Semitic. 

John Stewart puts it best


----------



## Overtone (Dec 1, 2014)

*whoosh*


----------



## Ibzzus (Dec 1, 2014)

Overtone said:


> *whoosh*



oooooh... anti-semantic... i get it


----------



## Randy (Dec 1, 2014)

This is the part where I come in and say we need to channel a bit more civility or this thread's getting locked and more than one of you is getting banned.


----------



## technomancer (Dec 1, 2014)

Ibzzus said:


> So if I gave you negative rep right now for no reason, you aren't allowed to complain? And I can get away with being a total douche?



Both of you can take a week off for this crap.

To answer your question, if you feel the rep system is being abused contact a mod and we'll look into it. Complaining about rep on the forum is not allowed.

When you get back you might want to read the rules linked in my sig.

Randy: Sorry, didn't see your post first, but this was getting completely out of hand. If you want to go in and lift the bans feel free.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 1, 2014)

I was talking with someone well-connected to the similar situation to what is being asserted as being the situation in Israel. I started a topic about it here on SS.org, so those who have been posting here, I'd appreciate your input and ideas as to how to arouse the same world passion.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po...about-china-colonizing-tibet.html#post4229327


----------



## Randy (Dec 1, 2014)

technomancer said:


> Randy: Sorry, didn't see your post first, but this was getting completely out of hand. If you want to go in and lift the bans feel free.



No, you were right. I hadn't read the whole exchange yet.

We can't have blatant disregard for the rules on here, especially in this subforum.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Dec 1, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I was talking with someone well-connected to the similar situation to what is being asserted as being the situation in Israel. I started a topic about it here on SS.org, so those who have been posting here, I'd appreciate your input and ideas as to how to arouse the same world passion.
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po...about-china-colonizing-tibet.html#post4229327



I'll stand up and say I agree here. China not only participates in a brutal colonisation and oppression of Tibet but also in stealing its natural resources and damming off its water supply, it gambles with the lives of 1/3 of the global population who live within the river basins of (and rely on) those rivers spawning on the Tibetan plateau.

I think if people were aware of these things it would make it more of an issue. I also that some of the biggest differences are that;

a. there is no strong humanitarian voice (i.e. refugees from/people who feel solidarity) for Tibet in the West, (not so the case with Palestine) and it's a damn crying shame

b. there is not a racial element, but purely an imperialist one with China (funnily enough the only racism issue in Tibet is that select few Tibetans despise mixed-race Han-Tibetans)

c. China's violence over the next decade is not fueled by $30 billion dollars of military aid paid for by the US taxpayer


but this is all a digression here


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Dec 1, 2014)

^I agree with this.


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 8, 2014)

Overtone said:


> Hey guys what's with all these antisemantic comments?!





McKay said:


>



"An ethnostate is a political concept originally coined by racialist author Wilmot Robertson."

 Wether you got that term from him or conjured it on your own is irrelevant. The subversive intent is the same.



McKay said:


> Sounds like you're the one playing semantics. Maybe English isn't your first language but colony and settler state are generally used interchangeably despite there being a minor distinction. In fact, the only thing that even slightly blurs the comparison is that Israel is a colony of the Jewish people, who were at the time stateless. To me that doesn't preclude Israel from being described as a colony, it just makes the distinction more complex.


"In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign."

Israel is not a colony.

"colony" "settler state" "apartheid" "genocide" ...all just emotional rhetoric.



McKay said:


> By which I mean _both _fund and endorse, something the US and the West in general don't do for Saudi Arabia. There's also a big difference between selling things to a country and funding it.


That's why I brought up the West Bank/Gaza. Jordan is another "ethnostate" that we "overtly endorse" and "heavily fund."



McKay said:


> If you think they're remotely comparable then you're either disingenuous or mentally deficient.


2012 US aid to Israel ~ $3.1b
2012 US aid to Jordan ~ $1.135b
2012 US aid to West Bank/Gaza ~ $457m

Israel GDP ~ $287b
Jordan GDP ~ $31
West Bank/Gaza GDP ~ $10b

% of Israel's economy funded by the US ~ 1.1%
% of Jordan's economy funded by the US ~ 3.7%
% of West Bank/Gaza's economy funded by the US ~ 4.6%

You're right. We'd have to _increase_ our aid to Israel to make it "comparable." 



Ibzzus said:


> No one is being Anti-Semitic here. We are just stating facts, and these facts just happen to put Israel in a very bad light. If stating these facts is considered anti-Semitic, then I guess the media brainwashing over the years really does shine through. Just saying something bad about Israel becomes a big no-no. It's the history they chose to create for themselves, and putting that history down in writing on a forum is not at all anti-Semitic.


White supremacist rhetoric & some hyperbolic rant about locking a family in the bathroom and killing their kids have nothing to do with facts.



Ibzzus said:


> John Stewart puts it best



I'm a fan, but he's conflating genuine analysis & criticism of Israel with the kind of emotional rhetoric being spewed in this thread. Example: the ADL doesn't concern itself with Haaretz's regular criticism of Israel. It does sound off on Haaretz's publication of a cartoon depicting Bibi flying a plane into the Twin Towers.


----------



## Randy (Jan 3, 2015)

Not sure this necessitates a new thread but the next chapter in this saga:

Israel withholds funds, weighs lawsuits against Palestinians


----------



## asher (Jan 4, 2015)

"saying they could damage the peace process."

trans: anything that Israel or the U.S. don't want, right?


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 4, 2015)

I'd bet in any way in 100 years Israel won't exist any longer because of sheer demographic pressure. The fact that they managed to male mortal enemies of all the countries around them these last 20 years while the situation got a lot better in the 90es will will backfire as there is no way with the nativity rates in Gaza people will stay there. At this point Gaza is a giant concentration camp and people will spill into Israel by whatever means when, plainly, there won't be enough physical room for them in Gaza. And that "spillage" won't be peaceful: thanks to Israel cutting funds and bombing schools, most of the palestinian population is at moderately illiterate and easy prey for fundamentalists.


----------



## McKay (Jan 5, 2015)

You're replying to posts you've already replied to months earlier sevenstringj but what the hell, here goes.



sevenstringj said:


> "An ethnostate is a political concept originally coined by racialist author Wilmot Robertson."
> 
> Wether you got that term from him or conjured it on your own is irrelevant. The subversive intent is the same.



Nationality and ethnicity are essentially synonyms, I've already explained why I said ethnostate instead of nationstate (to differentiate between Israel and Germany for example) but that's beside the real point here which is that I'm condemning a state I see as being repressive and intolerant, that's hardly echoing the views of a racialist author I'm completely unfamiliar with. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of calling someone a Nazi because in saying "Lebensraum was an immoral concept" they used a term coined by one.

Perhaps you should re-read our conversation, we've already been over this.



> "In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign."
> 
> Israel is not a colony.
> 
> "colony" "settler state" "apartheid" "genocide" ...all just emotional rhetoric.


Again, we've already been over this. You accused me of being semantic but you're splitting hairs over the difference between a rhetorical use of the term colony and a formal one. If you used the rest of the paragraph you're quoting you'd have no point because it goes on to explain the nebulous nature of colonies through history. Some were founded by states, some weren't. "Loose term" is not a difficult concept.

If you want to use the term "settler state" or "settler colony" go right ahead.



> That's why I brought up the West Bank/Gaza. Jordan is another "ethnostate" that we "overtly endorse" and "heavily fund."


Funny, I wasn't aware that most Jordanians arrived within living memory, displaced the original inhabitants and continue to do so to this day. If you think Jordanian and Israeli ideas of identity are even remotely contextually similar you're incredibly ignorant, willfully or otherwise.




> 2012 US aid to Israel ~ $3.1b
> 2012 US aid to Jordan ~ $1.135b
> 2012 US aid to West Bank/Gaza ~ $457m
> 
> ...


That's a farcical interpretation of those statistics that shows absolutely no understanding of the historical context. Gross aid is an important factor, not to mention the aid Israel gets nonfinancially.



> White supremacist rhetoric & some hyperbolic rant about locking a family in the bathroom and killing their kids have nothing to do with facts.


Again with the "white supremacist" nonsense! You're making a big assumption that the people you're talking to are white and let's not forget your repeated accusations of "emotional rhetoric". I can't think of a more apt description for what you're doing.



> I'm a fan, but he's conflating genuine analysis & criticism of Israel with the kind of *emotional rhetoric* being spewed in this thread. Example: the ADL doesn't concern itself with Haaretz's regular criticism of Israel. It does sound off on Haaretz's publication of a cartoon depicting Bibi flying a plane into the Twin Towers.


Again! Is your thought process "if I repeat the same phrases enough people will change their mind"?


----------



## McKay (Jan 5, 2015)

double post <-


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 5, 2015)

McKay said:


> You're replying to posts you've already replied to months earlier sevenstringj but what the hell, here goes.


Wha? When did I reply to the same posts twice? I haven't even peeped this thread in a month. 



McKay said:


> Nationality and ethnicity are essentially synonyms, I've already explained why I said ethnostate instead of nationstate (to differentiate between Israel and Germany for example) but that's beside the real point here which is that I'm condemning a state I see as being repressive and intolerant, that's hardly echoing the views of a racialist author I'm completely unfamiliar with. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of calling someone a Nazi because in saying "Lebensraum was an immoral concept" they used a term coined by one.


It's a word you pulled out of your ass to demonize Israel. Next time, just stick to the "real point" instead of spouting emotional rhetoric.



McKay said:


> Again, we've already been over this. You accused me of being semantic but you're splitting hairs over the difference between a rhetorical use of the term colony and a formal one. If you used the rest of the paragraph you're quoting you'd have no point because it goes on to explain the nebulous nature of colonies through history. Some were founded by states, some weren't. "Loose term" is not a difficult concept.


Nothing in the rest of the paragraph negates the first sentence as it applies to Israel. That's why Israel ain't on the list of colonies. 



McKay said:


> Funny, I wasn't aware that most Jordanians arrived within living memory, displaced the original inhabitants and continue to do so to this day. If you think Jordanian and Israeli ideas of identity are even remotely contextually similar you're incredibly ignorant, willfully or otherwise.


You know Jordanians and Israelis intimately enough to know how they self-identify?









McKay said:


> That's a farcical interpretation of those statistics that shows absolutely no understanding of the historical context. Gross aid is an important factor, not to mention the aid Israel gets nonfinancially.


I was being cheeky. The point is, your assertion that "Israel is the only ethno-state the western world endorses/funds" or even "heavily" funds (since you like to move the goal posts) is false. If you wanna _change the subject_ to non-financial aid, just go ahead. 



McKay said:


> Is your thought process "if I repeat the same phrases enough people will change their mind"?


----------



## McKay (Jan 5, 2015)

> Wha? When did I reply to the same posts twice? I haven't even peeped this thread in a month.


It should read "you're making the same argument twice despite me having explained why it doesn't apply" instead then. The point is you're retreading ground we've already been over regarding the word "ethnostate" and why it was used.



sevenstringj said:


> It's a word you pulled out of your ass to demonize Israel. Next time, just stick to the "real point" instead of spouting emotional rhetoric.



What word would you use to describe a state by and for a particular ethnicity? Seems completely appropriate to me, I can't think of a more neutral term for what Israel is. For the third time, there are plenty of former nationstates out there whose stance on identity and citizenship aren't anything like Israel so it was useful to make a distinction.



> Nothing in the rest of the paragraph negates the first sentence as it applies to Israel. That's why Israel ain't on the list of colonies.


It's on this list:

Settler colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The paragraph you quote goes on to say;



> Some colonies were ...countries, while others were territories without definite statehood from their inception.


Both of which apply to Israel. Again, if you to call Israel a "settler colony" or "settler state" then go right ahead. Are you sure English is your first language? A settler colony, a trading colony and an imperial possession are all types of colony, it isn't always necessary to add the qualifier when the meaning is contextually implicit anyway.



> You know Jordanians and Israelis intimately enough to know how they self-identify?


I know enough about Jordan and Israel to know that Jordanian nationality is completely different to Israeli nationality. For a start Jordan is and always has been a multiethnic country, Israel is a Jewish state. Jordan is primarily Arabic which makes it one of many Arabic counties, Israel is the only Jewish-majority state. While Jordan has demographic issues, considering them analogous to Israel's is a stretch at best.



> I was being cheeky. The point is, your assertion that "Israel is the only ethno-state the western world endorses/funds" or even "heavily" funds (since you like to move the goal posts) is false. If you wanna change the subject to non-financial aid, just go ahead.


Since we've clarified the term "ethno-state" several times now, can you point out a state like Israel that we support in a comparable way? You tried to claim Saudi Arabia despite there being major differences. I don't need to change the goalposts because my original point still stands, you're the one ignoring the qualifier in the original statement; Israel is the only modern ethnic-state we endorse and fund. 

Greece considers ethnicity an important part of citizenship. So does Germany. Germany doesn't systematically discriminate against the Sorbian or Frisian minorities, and we don't give them extremely generous arms deals or financial aid either. Greece has demographic complexities with the Albanian and Vlach minorities there but the Greek state doesn't exclude them from civic participation. They're inclusive, rather than exclusive nationstates which is why it was useful to differentiate them from Israel, hence using a different term to "nationstate". Even if Germany and Greece were exactly like Israel, we don't fund them and we wouldn't endorse their behavior.

There was a country like Israel in recent history: Apartheid South Africa. We put enormous pressure on it to reform itself and used a bunch of sanctions to do so. What we didn't do was give them massive technological, military and financial aid. The west funds and supports all kinds of horrible regimes but we don't celebrate and support them. We don't endorse them as a culture. You don't see people on fox defending Saudi repression of women but you do see people on fox defending Israel.


----------



## Skyblue (Jan 6, 2015)

Randy said:


> Not sure this necessitates a new thread but the next chapter in this saga:
> 
> Israel withholds funds, weighs lawsuits against Palestinians



This whole withholding-of-taxes-and-funds seems to me like an idiotic idea of Netanyahu. He's acting like a bully, and this move isn't helping him in any way. Hopefully we could finally get rid of him in the coming elections...


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 6, 2015)

Nice quote war guys. Seriously.


----------



## asher (Jan 6, 2015)

Skyblue said:


> This whole withholding-of-taxes-and-funds seems to me like an idiotic idea of Netanyahu. He's acting like a bully, and this move isn't helping him in any way. Hopefully we could finally get rid of him in the coming elections...



The rest of the world crosses its fingers but does not hold its breath.


----------



## Overtone (Jan 6, 2015)

That dude is like a tick!


----------



## Skyblue (Jan 7, 2015)

asher said:


> The rest of the world crosses its fingers but does not hold its breath.





Overtone said:


> That dude is like a tick!



I do have some cautious-optimism that he will not be elected again. Many people realize now how he failed both in the economic and welfare grounds, and in national security related issues too. One can hope...


----------



## FRETPICK (Jan 7, 2015)

Probably worth checking out Jacob Prasch's Palestine? Palestinian?


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 7, 2015)

Skyblue said:


> I do have some cautious-optimism that he will not be elected again. Many people realize now how he failed both in the economic and welfare grounds, and in national security related issues too. One can hope...



Don't be so sure. The USA re-elected Bush Jr, Italy re-elected Berlusconi, so there is no guarantee.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 7, 2015)

McKay said:


> It should read "you're making the same argument twice despite me having explained why it doesn't apply" instead then. The point is you're retreading ground we've already been over regarding the word "ethnostate" and why it was used.
> 
> What word would you use to describe a state by and for a particular ethnicity? Seems completely appropriate to me, I can't think of a more neutral term for what Israel is. For the third time, there are plenty of former nationstates out there whose stance on identity and citizenship aren't anything like Israel so it was useful to make a distinction.


"For the third time" (or 4th? or 5th?), your claim was that Israel's the only "ethnostate" funded/endorsed by the US, which is false. You keep parsing your precious sentence and neglecting to put things back in context. 



McKay said:


> It's on this list:
> 
> Settler colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thanks. And right away we're greeted with:








Maybe instead of trying to salvage needless rhetoric, you could contribute to cleaning up that "article." 



McKay said:


> The paragraph you quote goes on to say;
> 
> "Some colonies were historically countries, while others were territories without definite statehood from their inception."
> 
> Both of which apply to Israel. Again, if you to call Israel a "settler colony" or "settler state" then go right ahead. Are you sure English is your first language? A settler colony, a trading colony and an imperial possession are all types of colony, it isn't always necessary to add the qualifier when the meaning is contextually implicit anyway.


The shit you're trying to pull here is like saying "Frogs are amphibious animals. Some frogs are green, some are brown. Green and brown both apply to trees. Therefore, trees are amphibious animals."  I.e., a colony is a territory--whether historically a country or without definite statehood from inception--under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign. Hence, Israel is not a colony, as it was never under the immediate political control of a state distinct from its own territory.



McKay said:


> I know enough about Jordan and Israel to know that Jordanian nationality is completely different to Israeli nationality. For a start Jordan is and always has been a multiethnic country, Israel is a Jewish state. Jordan is primarily Arabic which makes it one of many Arabic counties, Israel is the only Jewish-majority state. While Jordan has demographic issues, considering them analogous to Israel's is a stretch at best.


Israel: a jewish republic that's 75% jewish.
Jordan: a "multiethnic" arab kingdom that's 98% arab/97% sunni. 



McKay said:


> Since we've clarified the term "ethno-state" several times now, can you point out a state like Israel that we support in a comparable way? You tried to claim Saudi Arabia despite there being major differences. I don't need to change the goalposts because my original point still stands, you're the one ignoring the qualifier in the original statement; Israel is the only modern ethnic-state we endorse and fund.
> 
> Greece considers ethnicity an important part of citizenship. So does Germany. Germany doesn't systematically discriminate against the Sorbian or Frisian minorities, and we don't give them extremely generous arms deals or financial aid either. Greece has demographic complexities with the Albanian and Vlach minorities there but the Greek state doesn't exclude them from civic participation. They're inclusive, rather than exclusive nationstates which is why it was useful to differentiate them from Israel, hence using a different term to "nationstate". Even if Germany and Greece were exactly like Israel, we don't fund them and we wouldn't endorse their behavior.


Jordan & West Bank/Gaza = "ethnostates" the US funds & endorses.



McKay said:


> There was a country like Israel in recent history: Apartheid South Africa. We put enormous pressure on it to reform itself and used a bunch of sanctions to do so. What we didn't do was give them massive technological, military and financial aid. The west funds and supports all kinds of horrible regimes but we don't celebrate and support them. We don't endorse them as a culture. You don't see people on fox defending Saudi repression of women but you do see people on fox defending Israel.


The apartheid angle.  I suppose you could quote the first half of the wiki article on it, and I can quote the second half.  Either way, "Israel is the only modern day colony and it's the only ethno-state the western world endorses/funds" is false, emotional rhetoric.



Skyblue said:


> I do have some cautious-optimism that [Netanyahu] will not be elected again.






Andromalia said:


> Nice quote war guys. Seriously.


 I aim to please.


----------



## McKay (Jan 7, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> "For the third time" (or 4th? or 5th?), your claim was that Israel's the only "ethnostate" funded/endorsed by the US, *which is false*. You keep parsing your precious sentence and neglecting to put things back in context.



Something you've yet to actually argue successfully, rendering everything else you're saying moot.



> Thanks. And right away we're greeted with:


The only thing that proves is that enough people shouted loudly about it.



> Maybe instead of trying to salvage needless rhetoric, you could contribute to cleaning up that "article."


You keep using that word while making entirely rhetorical points that add nothing to the discussion, pretty hypocritical.



> The shit you're trying to pull here is like saying "Frogs are amphibious animals. Some frogs are green, some are brown. Green and brown both apply to trees. Therefore, trees are amphibious animals."  I.e., a colony is a territory--whether historically a country or without definite statehood from inception--under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign. Hence, Israel is not a colony, as it was never under the immediate political control of a state distinct from its own territory.


Are you really that mentally challenged or do you not understand that the same word can have multiple meanings when the context changes? Repeating myself is getting tiresome but again, the only reason Israel doesn't fit the bill here exactly is because Jews were stateless which is a unique enough circumstance to justify the retention of the term "colony", unless we're going to invent a new word entirely. Not only that but prior to the partition the Israeli parts of Palestine _did_ fit that description exactly. Using the absolute strictest usage of a single definition the worst you can reduce my argument to is that Israel is a colonial successor state that hasn't abandoned any of its practices.

I dunno, a little bit like Rhodesia.



> Israel: a jewish republic that's 75% jewish.
> Jordan: a "multiethnic" arab kingdom that's 98% arab/97% sunni.


Yet Jordanian Christians and Shi'ite Muslims are still Jordanian because Jordan isn't the "Arab Homeland" or the "Sunni Homeland".

Let me spell it out for you a _second time_ since you seem to be struggling with this. You can have an ethnic nationalist country with large minorities and you can have a civic nationalist country that is completely homogenous. Since you seem to have some fundamental issue with understanding context I'll simplify the point: Israel is an ethnic nationalist state, Jordan isn't. Their genesis was under completely different circumstances. Israel has minorities because it is the product of a single ethnic group imposing itself on a region.



> Jordan & West Bank/Gaza = "ethnostates" the US funds & endorses.


Not under any definition I can think of. Are you really this stupid? They're products of post-Ottoman breakup, they're not ethnic nationalities.



> The apartheid angle  I suppose you could quote the first half of the wiki article on it, and I can quote the second half.  Either way, "Israel is the only modern day colony and it's the only ethno-state the western world endorses/funds" is false, emotional rhetoric.


Then prove it with examples rather than a useless semantic argument about whether or not the word colony can or can't have alternate uses.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 7, 2015)

McKay said:


> Something you've yet to actually argue successfully, rendering everything else your [sic] saying moot.


If telling yourself that makes you sleep better at night. 



McKay said:


> The only thing that proves is that enough people shouted loudly about it.


Because it's worthless, needless rhetoric, probably written by another eager armchair advocate.



McKay said:


> You keep using that word while making entirely rhetorical points that add nothing to the discussion, pretty hypocritical.
> 
> I know you are but wut am I?






McKay said:


> Are you really that mentally challenged or do you not understand that the same word can have multiple meanings when the context changes? Repeating myself is getting tiresome but again, the only reason Israel doesn't fit the bill here exactly is because Jews were stateless which is a unique enough circumstance to justify the retention of the term "colony", unless we're going to invent a new word entirely. Not only that but prior to the partition the Israeli parts of Palestine _did_ fit that description exactly. Using the absolute strictest usage of a single definition the worst you can reduce my argument to is that Israel is a colonial successor state that hasn't abandoned any of its practices.


You made the classic fallacy "if A then B; B, therefore A." That's not "changing context."  Now you're trying to redefine the word altogether to comprise a single characteristic. It's like defining apple as "something with skin" and then claiming humans are apples.  Then you conjure even more worthless rhetoric like "colonial successor state."  Israel is not a "modern day colony" nor was it ever, because it's not and never was "a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign, whether historically a country or a territory without definite statehood from its inception." (And no, the last clause by itself isn't another definition of colony.) Pretty fuggin simple.



McKay said:


> Yet Jordanian Christians and Shi'ite Muslims are still Jordanian...








Israeli Christians and Muslims are still Israeli.



McKay said:


> ...because Jordan isn't the "Arab Homeland" or the "Sunni Homeland".


First 2 articles of their constitution: "*The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent sovereign Arab State.* It is indivisible and inalienable and no part of it may be ceded. *The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab Nation*, and its system of government is parliamentary with a hereditary monarchy. *Islam is the religion of the State* and Arabic is its official language."

Pretty straight-forward stuff.



McKay said:


> Let me spell it out for you a _second time_ since you seem to be struggling with this. You can have an ethnic nationalist country with large minorities and you can have a civic nationalist country that is completely homogenous. Since you seem to have some fundamental issue with understanding context I'll simplify the point: Israel is an ethnic nationalist state, Jordan isn't. Their genesis was under completely different circumstances. Israel has minorities because it is the product of a single ethnic group imposing itself on a region.
> 
> Not under any definition I can think of. Are you really this stupid? They're products of post-Ottoman breakup, they're not ethnic nationalities.


That breakup separated them by ethnic nationalities. Hence, they're both "ethnostates." They're also "endorsed/funded by the western world." 

Btw, I love how you cloak your rampant insults in question format to dodge a ban. 



McKay said:


> Then prove it with examples rather than a useless semantic argument about whether or not the word colony can or can't have alternate uses.
> 
> I know you are but wut am I?


----------



## McKay (Jan 7, 2015)

double post


----------



## McKay (Jan 7, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> If telling yourself that makes you sleep better at night.



Avoiding the point.



> Because it's worthless, needless rhetoric, probably written by another eager armchair advocate.


Which makes you what? I'm not sure what's worthless about exploring a different perspective?



> You made the classic fallacy "if A then B; B, therefore A." That's not "changing context."  Now you're trying to redefine the word altogether to comprise a single characteristic. It's like defining apple as "something with skin" and then claiming humans are apples. Then you conjure even more worthless rhetoric like "colonial successor state." Israel is not a "modern day colony" nor was it ever, because *it's not and never was "a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign, whether historically a country or a territory without definite statehood from its inception."* (And no, the last clause by itself isn't another definition of colony.) Pretty fuggin simple.


That's odd since the Zionists started settling there before the state of Israel existed, when Palestine _was_ a colony under the definition you're using. Explain to me without resorting to a _rhetorical_ reply how Israel is not a colonial successor state? Are you suggesting that it didn't come from Mandatory Palestine? Are you suggesting that British Palestine wasn't a colony? That would be bizarre since it fits the definition you've been using exactly.

It would be more like saying that humans and apples both have skin, not that humans are apples because they have skin. I'm not redefining anything, merely using a nuanced descriptor. For the nth time Israel was founded by a stateless people, using colony to describe it makes sense as it fits the definition in all but one unique way. It's a colony with a qualifier, if there's a more pertinent term I'll be happy to use it and amend my assertion to include it. The point is we support its practices despite condemning them everywhere else, the label we give those practices isn't particularly important.



> Israeli Christians and Muslims are still Israeli.


But they're not Jews in a country that literally only exists to provide Jews with a state. Israel controls territory in Gaza and TWB and gives the population no representation, are the Muslims there Israeli? 



> First 2 articles of their constitution: "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent sovereign Arab State. It is indivisible and inalienable and no part of it may be ceded. The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab Nation, and its system of government is parliamentary with a hereditary monarchy. Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language."


Improve your reading comprehension, the first thing I said was that Jordan is an Arabic country. I qualified my original statement by saying that Jordan has demographic issues, minorities face discrimination but it's a different beast to Israel. The Arabs there aren't actively displacing Christians, the reduction in Christian numbers there is rooted in emigration. Put blunty, Jordanian demographics are for all intents and purposes an accident. It's a troubled country just like Israel is but its ambitions as a state are entirely different, its history is different. Existentially they're different cases.



> That breakup separated them by ethnic nationalities. Hence, they're both "ethnostates." They're also "endorsed/funded by the western world."


I don't see the western world endorsing Jordanian human rights abuses. We don't endorse Jordan and they're not an ethnic nation-state, it's not even a nation-state. You could argue that they're a theocratic state. Regardless of whether or not Jordan has an official language imposed on it there has been no huge push for homogeneity or discrimination on the level Israel has. Israel was founded as a Jewish homeland, Jordan was partitioned by Britain from the leftovers of the Ottoman Empire. Israel actively pushes out undesirable minorities, Jordan's problems with discrimination are relatively minor in comparison. They're not comparable.



> Btw, I love how you cloak your *rampant insults* in question format to dodge a ban.


As opposed to yours?


----------



## flint757 (Jan 7, 2015)

This is going nowhere could y'all please stop. I have an interest in this thread beyond your arguments over what is largely semantics. Just breathe and let it go. 

And sevenstringj, responding like a child isn't going to make your point any more valid and really just makes me assume off hand that you have no idea what you're talking about. You argue like a 12 year old.


----------



## McKay (Jan 7, 2015)

Yeah, it's getting ridiculous and I'm sure nobody else cares. PM me or something if you want to carry on sevenstringj.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 8, 2015)

McKay said:


> Avoiding the point.


You didn't make a point; denial isn't a point. This little tangent is petty. Back to the point:



McKay said:


> Which makes you what? I'm not sure what's worthless about exploring a different perspective?


People have already "explored that perspective" and put giant warnings at the top that it's riddled with issues.  Like I said, go ahead and resolve the problems with that article. If you wanna tell yourself that the warnings are there "only because enough people shouted loudly about it" then shout louder and get them removed if you really think there's any validity there.



McKay said:


> That's odd since the Zionists started settling there before the state of Israel existed, when Palestine was a colony under the definition you're using. Explain to me without resorting to a rhetorical reply how Israel is not a colonial successor state? Are you suggesting that it didn't come from Mandatory Palestine? Are you suggesting that British Palestine wasn't a colony? That would be bizarre since it fits the definition you've been using exactly.


I never said British Palestine wasn't a British colony. So "colonial successor state" is just more superfluous rhetoric, and a worthless tangent.



McKay said:


> It would be more like saying that humans and apples both have skin, not that humans are apples because they have skin. I'm not redefining anything, merely using a nuanced descriptor. For the nth time Israel was founded by a stateless people, using colony to describe it makes sense as it fits the definition in all but one unique way. It's a colony with a qualifier, if there's a more pertinent term I'll be happy to use it and amend my assertion to include it. The point is we support its practices despite condemning them everywhere else, the label we give those practices isn't particularly important.


This is beyond special pleading. What you're doing is so ass backwards and absurd, you're effectively nullifying language altogether. You can't say Israel fits the definition of colony "in all but one unique way" because that one unique way *IS* the definition of colony: "a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign." You're substituting a "descriptor" or "qualifier" for the definition (thereby redefining it) and pretending that the definition itself need not apply.  It's like saying a leaf is a frog because, being green, it "fits the definition" (really a description) of frog, and so a leaf is just a "unique" frog in that it's not an amphibious animal. Again, this is exactly why Israel is NOT on the list of colonies (and why leaves aren't listed as a species of frog).

The word for a bunch of people coming to a new country or territory and _not_ being under immediate political control of their home state is _immigration_.

The pertinent term for Israel is simply _state_. There's no reason you can't refer to it as a state and condemn it's policies.



McKay said:


> But they're not Jews in a country that literally only exists to provide Jews with a state. Israel controls territory in Gaza and TWB and gives the population no representation, are the Muslims there Israeli?
> 
> Improve your reading comprehension, the first thing I said was that Jordan is an Arabic country. I qualified my original statement by saying that Jordan has demographic issues, minorities face discrimination but it's a different beast to Israel. The Arabs there aren't actively displacing Christians, the reduction in Christian numbers there is rooted in emigration. Put blunty, Jordanian demographics are for all intents and purposes an accident. It's a troubled country just like Israel is but its ambitions as a state are entirely different, its history is different. Existentially they're different cases.
> 
> I don't see the western world endorsing Jordanian human rights abuses. We don't endorse Jordan and they're not an ethnic nation-state, it's not even a nation-state. You could argue that they're a theocratic state. Regardless of whether or not Jordan has an official language imposed on it there has been no huge push for homogeneity or discrimination on the level Israel has. Israel was founded as a Jewish homeland, Jordan was partitioned by Britain from the leftovers of the Ottoman Empire. Israel actively pushes out undesirable minorities, Jordan's problems with discrimination are relatively minor in comparison. They're not comparable.


Jesus Christ. Where to begin.
-Of course Muslims in the West Bank/Gaza territories aren't given representation in Israel, otherwise it'd be a Palestinian state. Israel is merely acting in accordance with the Oslo Accords that call for security coordination and cordoning off swaths of land pending a final peace deal.
-We don't endorse human rights abuses by anyone, including Israel, Palestinians, or Jordan.
-The Israeli Arab population continues to grow at a faster pace than the Jewish Israeli population despite this so-called "displacement" you speak of.
-There's no push for homogeneity in Israel, even with the proposed bill (to somewhat bring things back on course ).
-Jordan is a nation-state AND a theocratic state AND an "ethnostate" by virtue of its demographics & constitution.
-Jordan has an official state religion; Israel doesn't.
-Jordan is officially an ally; i.e., we endorse them.
-We endorse and heavily fund the Palestinians, at an even greater proportion to their GDP than the Israelis.
-West Bank/Gaza is also an "ethnostate" by design, as an alternative to a single Palestinian "ethnostate" encompassing what's now Israel, so even that distinction is irrelevant.

Your contention that "Israel is a modern day colony and the only ethnostate the western world funds/endorses" remains false as Israel is not a colony by definition, and we fund/endorse "ethnostates" like Jordan and the West Bank/Gaza Strip regardless of your myriad special pleading.

It boils down to this. You can criticize Israel without resorting to subversive, emotional rhetoric, which doesn't pressure hardliners but rather makes it easier for them to blow off the opposition out of hand. It also has a tendency to drown out reasonable dialog.



flint757 said:


> And sevenstringj, responding like a child isn't going to make your point any more valid and really just makes me assume off hand that you have no idea what you're talking about. You argue like a 12 year old.


Funny, McKay repeatedly hurls jr high insults in question form for the sole purpose of insulting me without technically breaking forum rules, like "are you mentally challenged" "are you really that stupid" "you sure english is your first language" etc., but I'm the one being childish? Your biased assessment is in-and-of-itself a childish excuse to blow off 1 side of the debate.



flint757 said:


> This is going nowhere could y'all please stop. I have an interest in this thread beyond your arguments over what is largely semantics. Just breathe and let it go.





McKay said:


> Yeah, it's getting ridiculous and I'm sure nobody else cares. PM me or something if you want to carry on sevenstringj.


Maybe you should've done that instead of bumping it after a month.


----------



## McKay (Jan 8, 2015)

Let it go man, PM me if you want.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 8, 2015)

Randy bumped this thread with a new link in an attempt to spark fresh convo, but you chose instead to reignite our argument a MONTH after the last reply.




Worse yet, you freely perpetuate it for a whole page and then tell _me_ to let it go!?!?

That's not taking the high road. That's not doing anyone any favors. That's _being an asshole_.

Besides, it's your turn. Quit posturing and pm me if you actually have a rebuttal.


----------

