A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.
It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.
I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.
It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".
This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.
But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?
The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.
Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...
(What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)
Its behaviour.
The Israelis should just roll over and be ruled by the PA and Hamas and Hezbollah ... ???
It's not going to happen ...
It's a non-starter ...
Again, The State of Israel (which IS "Jewish") is not going to negotiate itself out of existence ... 1948 and 1967 and 1973 should be proof enough of that ...
Never again will *they* quietly meekly pack a suitcase and report ti the train station to be transported *somewhere*else* ...
(And no, neither are The Tibetans going to cede tibet, nor will The Kurds give up interest in self government nor will Native Americans/First Nations just *shrug* and abandon their treaty rights in The USA and Canada ...)
But the Palestinians are expected to just shrug and put up with being exiles or second clasd citizens on their own land?
About 20% of the citizens -- FULL citizens -- of The State of Israel are non-Jewish ...
How many citizens of "Palestine," OTOH, are Jewish ... ??
The whole ancestry thing is such bunk, no matter who is using it. There are so many cases in the world where research uncovers that the supposed 'ancestors' of a group claiming ancient connection just don't have the right genetics, and the (ugh) purity of races is never anything like reality.
Recently it's been determined that Stonehenge was erected by dark-skinned people, pale Europeans not actually existing in the slow shuffle of genetics at the time. Every race or nation you currently see before you will not exist in that form in a couple of millennia, no matter what. Every. Single. One.
I'm all for fighting against racial discrimination, but trying to claim who belongs where over the course of thousands of years is just utterly pernicious.
If modern Jewish people wish to have a country, okay, but the basis of that argument is not that ancient Jewish people had a country when it's highly likely that thorough testing would not be able to draw a neat, straight biological line between the 2 groups. I bet that a genetic analysis would have 'Jews' and 'Palestinians' frequently discovering they come from the same stock as each other, and other times discovering that if we insisted on placing people in the location of their ancestors they ought to be deported to somewhere else in Eurasia or northern Africa.
WHOA ...
Are you really wanting to get into the "genetics" arguments about who is or is not a REAL "Jew" ... ???
Are you going to propose a "blood quantum" formula ... ???
Comprehension fail. My whole point is the exact opposite. You've invoked the patriarchs.
No ...
Jewish attachment to -- identification with -- The Land of Israel long pre-dates the 19th century ... See: The Torah, The Prophets, The Writings ...
In fact The People of Israel have had that special relationship to The Land of Israel dating back to The Patriarchs, ca. 1800 BCE ...
It is true that there have been various invasions and occupations of The Land of Israel during the long centuries, sometimes experiences of domination by neighboring peoples and states as well as forced Exile and dispersions ...
But during all of that time -- about 3,800 years -- The People of Israel never ceded so much as one square meter of their Homeland -- not to the Egyptians or the Syrians or the Babylonians or the Persians or the Greeks or the Romans or any Arab peoples or the Crusaders or the Ottomans or the League of Nations or the British ... or anyone ...
We get all this, and then when I say how wrong it is to try to invoke ancient connections we get the same man, in apparent horror (not say miscomprehension) saying:
WHOA ...
Are you really wanting to get into the "genetics" arguments about who is or is not a REAL "Jew" ... ???
Are you going to propose a "blood quantum" formula ... ???
If you're going to talk about The People of Israel (with a questionable use of capitalisation) and a Homeland that hasn't been ceded to Egyptians, Syrians, Persians, Arabs etc, it's ridiculous to then act as if you're appalled by the idea of checking whether someone is really from the People of Israel rather than actually being more Egyptian, Syrian, Persian, Arab etc.
The whole point is that it's someone who invokes ancient connections like that who logically ends up being in a position where they want to assess someone's ancestry (and quite probably will get unexpected results from such an assessment) to see whether they "belong" or not. How do you claim membership of The People of Israel, eh?
Whereas my view is that invoking ancient connections is a really dumb idea. I don't want to test where people came from because I don't care where they came from.
The whole ancestry thing is such bunk, no matter who is using it. There are so many cases in the world where research uncovers that the supposed 'ancestors' of a group claiming ancient connection just don't have the right genetics, and the (ugh) purity of races is never anything like reality.
Recently it's been determined that Stonehenge was erected by dark-skinned people, pale Europeans not actually existing in the slow shuffle of genetics at the time. Every race or nation you currently see before you will not exist in that form in a couple of millennia, no matter what. Every. Single. One.
I'm all for fighting against racial discrimination, but trying to claim who belongs where over the course of thousands of years is just utterly pernicious.
If modern Jewish people wish to have a country, okay, but the basis of that argument is not that ancient Jewish people had a country when it's highly likely that thorough testing would not be able to draw a neat, straight biological line between the 2 groups. I bet that a genetic analysis would have 'Jews' and 'Palestinians' frequently discovering they come from the same stock as each other, and other times discovering that if we insisted on placing people in the location of their ancestors they ought to be deported to somewhere else in Eurasia or northern Africa.
WHOA ...
Are you really wanting to get into the "genetics" arguments about who is or is not a REAL "Jew" ... ???
Are you going to propose a "blood quantum" formula ... ???
Comprehension fail. My whole point is the exact opposite. You've invoked the patriarchs.
The Torah "invokes" The Patriarchs ...
The Tomb of The Patriarchs is in Hebron ...
I see no reason to doubt that The Patriarchs have living descendants today ...
No ...
Jewish attachment to -- identification with -- The Land of Israel long pre-dates the 19th century ... See: The Torah, The Prophets, The Writings ...
In fact The People of Israel have had that special relationship to The Land of Israel dating back to The Patriarchs, ca. 1800 BCE ...
It is true that there have been various invasions and occupations of The Land of Israel during the long centuries, sometimes experiences of domination by neighboring peoples and states as well as forced Exile and dispersions ...
But during all of that time -- about 3,800 years -- The People of Israel never ceded so much as one square meter of their Homeland -- not to the Egyptians or the Syrians or the Babylonians or the Persians or the Greeks or the Romans or any Arab peoples or the Crusaders or the Ottomans or the League of Nations or the British ... or anyone ...
We get all this, and then when I say how wrong it is to try to invoke ancient connections we get the same man, in apparent horror (not say miscomprehension) saying:
WHOA ...
Are you really wanting to get into the "genetics" arguments about who is or is not a REAL "Jew" ... ???
Are you going to propose a "blood quantum" formula ... ???
If you're going to talk about The People of Israel (with a questionable use of capitalisation) and a Homeland that hasn't been ceded to Egyptians, Syrians, Persians, Arabs etc, it's ridiculous to then act as if you're appalled by the idea of checking whether someone is really from the People of Israel rather than actually being more Egyptian, Syrian, Persian, Arab etc.
The whole point is that it's someone who invokes ancient connections like that who logically ends up being in a position where they want to assess someone's ancestry (and quite probably will get unexpected results from such an assessment) to see whether they "belong" or not. How do you claim membership of The People of Israel, eh?
Whereas my view is that invoking ancient connections is a really dumb idea. I don't want to test where people came from because I don't care where they came from.
And ... like it or not ... The facts on the ground in the Land of Israel today are what they are today ... and those facts are the starting point for any negotiations ... and some of the facts on the ground are not going to be negotiable ... Exactly my point ...
Tankies are people who hold a sufficiently positive opinion of Stalin's USSR that they're prepared to explain why Kruschev was justified in sending the tanks into Hungary in 1956.
I see no reason to doubt that The Patriarchs have living descendants today ...
Sure. Who are they?
I mean, I'm quite sure that all sorts of classes of people exist. That's not the question. The question is, if you've asserted that only a certain class of people are allowed to do a certain thing or be in a certain place, how you assess membership of the class.
A rule that says that only doctors are permitted to perform surgery then requires you to have a means of determining who is a doctor.
A rule that says descendants of the patriarchs have a special claim to a particular area of land requires you to be able to determine who is a descendant of a patriarch.
EDIT: I pointed out to you days ago, the Israeli courts have had cases about who is eligible to take advantage of the right of return. The existence of the right of return creates the question. You're so horrified at the question of determining who is a Jew? The Israeli courts are doing it!
Tankies are people who hold a sufficiently positive opinion of Stalin's USSR that they're prepared to explain why Kruschev was justified in sending the tanks into Hungary in 1956.
That's right ... What precious resource needed protection in Budapest ... ???
I see no reason to doubt that The Patriarchs have living descendants today ...
Sure. Who are they?
I mean, I'm quite sure that all sorts of classes of people exist. That's not the question. The question is, if you've asserted that only a certain class of people are allowed to do a certain thing or be in a certain place, how you assess membership of the class.
A rule that says that only doctors are permitted to perform surgery then requires you to have a means of determining who is a doctor.
A rule that says descendants of the patriarchs have a special claim to a particular area of land requires you to be able to determine who is a descendant of a patriarch.
EDIT: I pointed out to you days ago, the Israeli courts have had cases about who is eligible to take advantage of the right of return. The existence of the right of return creates the question. You're so horrified at the question of determining who is a Jew? The Israeli courts are doing it!
I just think that it is a matter for The Israelis to decide matters of Israeli citizenship (including right of return), not up to me, not up to you ...
And ... the question of who is or is not a "Jew" is for The Jews to decide ... not anyone else ...
But the history of The People of Israel is what it is and according to the documents we do have, that history -- in The Land of Israel -- goes back to ca. 1800 BCE ...
My dude, the people have already noted why citing the Bible is not helpful for discussing modern day Israel. Why are you now citing absurd dates? 1800 BCE?
I see no reason to doubt that The Patriarchs have living descendants today ...
Sure. Who are they?
I mean, I'm quite sure that all sorts of classes of people exist. That's not the question. The question is, if you've asserted that only a certain class of people are allowed to do a certain thing or be in a certain place, how you assess membership of the class.
A rule that says that only doctors are permitted to perform surgery then requires you to have a means of determining who is a doctor.
A rule that says descendants of the patriarchs have a special claim to a particular area of land requires you to be able to determine who is a descendant of a patriarch.
EDIT: I pointed out to you days ago, the Israeli courts have had cases about who is eligible to take advantage of the right of return. The existence of the right of return creates the question. You're so horrified at the question of determining who is a Jew? The Israeli courts are doing it!
I just think that it is a matter for The Israelis to decide matters of Israeli citizenship (including right of return), not up to me, not up to you ...
And ... the question of who is or is not a "Jew" is for The Jews to decide ... not anyone else ...
But the history of The People of Israel is what it is and according to the documents we do have, that history -- in The Land of Israel -- goes back to ca. 1800 BCE ...
If you don't think it's up to you to decide matters of Israeli citizenship, then stop citing The People of Israel, The Land of Israel and The Patriarchs. Because they're completely irrelevant.
My dude, the people have already noted why citing the Bible is not helpful for discussing modern day Israel. Why are you now citing absurd dates? 1800 BCE?
Well, ummm ... Not *everybody* agrees that the Past has no relation to the Present (and vice versa) ...
My dude, the people have already noted why citing the Bible is not helpful for discussing modern day Israel. Why are you now citing absurd dates? 1800 BCE?
Well, ummm ... Not *everybody* agrees that the Past has no relation to the Present (and vice versa) ...
No one is saying the past has no relationship to the present. They’re literally all saying how the past does bear on the present. And, furthermore, I didn’t say anywhere anything about the past and the present.
I see no reason to doubt that The Patriarchs have living descendants today ...
Sure. Who are they?
I mean, I'm quite sure that all sorts of classes of people exist. That's not the question. The question is, if you've asserted that only a certain class of people are allowed to do a certain thing or be in a certain place, how you assess membership of the class.
A rule that says that only doctors are permitted to perform surgery then requires you to have a means of determining who is a doctor.
A rule that says descendants of the patriarchs have a special claim to a particular area of land requires you to be able to determine who is a descendant of a patriarch.
EDIT: I pointed out to you days ago, the Israeli courts have had cases about who is eligible to take advantage of the right of return. The existence of the right of return creates the question. You're so horrified at the question of determining who is a Jew? The Israeli courts are doing it!
I just think that it is a matter for The Israelis to decide matters of Israeli citizenship (including right of return), not up to me, not up to you ...
And ... the question of who is or is not a "Jew" is for The Jews to decide ... not anyone else ...
But the history of The People of Israel is what it is and according to the documents we do have, that history -- in The Land of Israel -- goes back to ca. 1800 BCE ...
If you don't think it's up to you to decide matters of Israeli citizenship, then stop citing The People of Israel, The Land of Israel and The Patriarchs. Because they're completely irrelevant.
Who says "they're completely irrelevant" ... ???
Is it "irrelevant" that Muslims understand that The Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) ascended into Heaven -- centuries ago -- from The Temple Mount and that is why The Dome of The Rock was built there ... ???
If anything counts in that region, it is HISTORY ...
My dude, the people have already noted why citing the Bible is not helpful for discussing modern day Israel. Why are you now citing absurd dates? 1800 BCE?
I don't agree that "The Bible" is "not helpful in discussing modern day Israel" ...
And I see nothing "absurd" about mentioning the generally accepted date for the Patriarchs, i.e., ca. 1800 BCE ... (hint: ask PRESENT DAY Observant Muslims and Jews if they care about having free access to The Tomb of The Patriarchs, which is in Hebron ...)
Is it "irrelevant" that Muslims understand that The Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) ascended into Heaven -- centuries ago -- from The Temple Mount and that is why The Dome of The Rock was built there ... ???
To Israeli citizenship? Yes. It's absolutely irrelevant.
It might well be relevant to access to that site and control of access. But to the existence of a nation state, its boundaries and the rights of the people living within those boundaries, it's another one of those things that barely registers.
The trouble with your argument style is that you are more than ready to spit out facts (a few of which are slightly questionable, but many of which are reasonable), without identifying in any way what questions or issues they might be relevant to.
Your strategy on this thread appears to be to mention everything about Jews or Israel (frequently in reference to a nation that ended as a political entity about 2,500 years ago) that you can think of, and then just expect that it magically hangs together into a coherent argument. Whether it's ancient history or the execution of an American hostage 35 years ago, you think it's all somehow "relevant" because you've managed to shove the word "Jew" or "Israel" in there.
It's like arguing with an early, unrefined version of a Google search engine.
Is it "irrelevant" that Muslims understand that The Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) ascended into Heaven -- centuries ago -- from The Temple Mount and that is why The Dome of The Rock was built there ... ???
To Israeli citizenship? Yes. It's absolutely irrelevant.
It might well be relevant to access to that site and control of access. But to the existence of a nation state, its boundaries and the rights of the people living within those boundaries, it's another one of those things that barely registers.
The trouble with your argument style is that you are more than ready to spit out facts (a few of which are slightly questionable, but many of which are reasonable), without identifying in any way what questions or issues they might be relevant to.
Your strategy on this thread appears to be to mention everything about Jews or Israel (frequently in reference to a nation that ended as a political entity about 2,500 years ago) that you can think of, and then just expect that it magically hangs together into a coherent argument. Whether it's ancient history or the execution of an American hostage 35 years ago, you think it's all somehow "relevant" because you've managed to shove the word "Jew" or "Israel" in there.
It's like arguing with an early, unrefined version of a Google search engine.
I simply recognize the tangled complexity of facts, which are stubborn things ... whether they reside in the past in texts or in ruins or in memory or at present on the ground ...
What information do you have about "double tap" Israeli responses to rocket attacks or other? Didn't find other than one 2015 link about it. Not corroborated.
Bachmann, Jutta; Baldwin-Ragaven, Laurel; Hougen, Hans-Petter; Leaning, Jennifer; Kelly, Karen; Özkalipci, Önder; Reynolds, Louis; Vacas, Alicia (January 20, 2015). "Gaza 2014 - Findings of an Independent Medical Fact-Finding Mission" (PDF). Physicians for Human Rights Israel.
Another variation is Roof Knocking, where the IDF will fire a nonexplosive rocket on a house to warn the residents their house is about to be destroyed by another high explosive rocket and they need to evacuate the house:
Is it "irrelevant" that Muslims understand that The Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) ascended into Heaven -- centuries ago -- from The Temple Mount and that is why The Dome of The Rock was built there ... ???
To Israeli citizenship? Yes. It's absolutely irrelevant.
It might well be relevant to access to that site and control of access. But to the existence of a nation state, its boundaries and the rights of the people living within those boundaries, it's another one of those things that barely registers.
The trouble with your argument style is that you are more than ready to spit out facts (a few of which are slightly questionable, but many of which are reasonable), without identifying in any way what questions or issues they might be relevant to.
Your strategy on this thread appears to be to mention everything about Jews or Israel (frequently in reference to a nation that ended as a political entity about 2,500 years ago) that you can think of, and then just expect that it magically hangs together into a coherent argument. Whether it's ancient history or the execution of an American hostage 35 years ago, you think it's all somehow "relevant" because you've managed to shove the word "Jew" or "Israel" in there.
It's like arguing with an early, unrefined version of a Google search engine.
I simply recognize the tangled complexity of facts, which are stubborn things ... whether they reside in the past in texts or in ruins or in memory or at present on the ground ...
A completely non-responsive response. Recognising facts is not enough. Recognising their relevance is just as important.
Another variation is Roof Knocking, where the IDF will fire a nonexplosive rocket on a house to warn the residents their house is about to be destroyed by another high explosive rocket and they need to evacuate the house:
I don’t see anything in there about “roof knocking” - and anyway, warning the residents to allow evacuation in advance of an attack sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing.
I simply recognize the tangled complexity of facts, which are stubborn things ... whether they reside in the past in texts or in ruins or in memory or at present on the ground ...
IMHO: Based on your posts on this thread: no, you don't "recognize the tangled complexity of facts".
It's like having a mess of yarn, different kinds and different colors. ISTM you've picked one thread, and are trying to follow it all the way through. You consider the rest mostly worthless, because you have no interest in or use for it. You're angry at the rest for existing, let alone being there. And you're *so* passionate about this yarn that you talk like nothing else in the world matters. And you do it in such a repetitive, narrow-visioned, thoroughly annoying way that you push people's visceral reaction to be against that wonderful yarn. And I mean people who like that yarn a lot.
We have to keep reminding ourselves that the problem here isn't this yarn--it's the way you're talking about it.
You're NOT doing the Jewish people any favors by the way you're talking about them
As several of us have told you: the way you're posting about a people you say you love seems to be purposely annoying--to the point of sounding like haters who mock them.
I don't know what's going on with you. But, for God's sake (literally), calm down and get a clue.
I don't think anyone cares much about war crimes any more.
Speak for yourself. If there has been a guiding principle of left-liberal foreign policy over the last 75 years it's that international law must mean more than victors' justice, that crimes against humanity can never be justified. I think the reason centrists and the right attribute criticism of Israel to anti-semitism (and criticism of the US to anti-Americanism, and...) is that they can't conceive of an international system based on more than just who is on which "side" (something the tankie left has a problem with too).
Can you give me an idea of who holds to left-liberal foreign policy as you describe it? Is it something arising out of decisions of international tribunals? Is it a position held by the EU? Is it a position held by organisations like MSF and other NGOs?
I would say Amnesty International and other human rights NGOs hold this sort of view. The late Robin Cook's advocacy of an "ethical foreign policy" was rooted in this tradition (as was the Blair government's decision to incorporate the ECHR into domestic law and join the ICC, for all that Blair trampelled on it in later years. I'd place the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in this category, as well as George Monbiot's campaign to get Tony Blair held to account for crimes against peace. I'd also cite The Elders as working within this kind of framework. The further left you go there can be a blindspot about self-proclaimed socialist regimes, and Jeremy Corbyn's commitment to human rights suffers from this (the reluctance to criticise Cuba's human rights record, for example).
Is it "irrelevant" that Muslims understand that The Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) ascended into Heaven -- centuries ago -- from The Temple Mount and that is why The Dome of The Rock was built there ... ???
To Israeli citizenship? Yes. It's absolutely irrelevant.
It might well be relevant to access to that site and control of access. But to the existence of a nation state, its boundaries and the rights of the people living within those boundaries, it's another one of those things that barely registers.
The trouble with your argument style is that you are more than ready to spit out facts (a few of which are slightly questionable, but many of which are reasonable), without identifying in any way what questions or issues they might be relevant to.
Your strategy on this thread appears to be to mention everything about Jews or Israel (frequently in reference to a nation that ended as a political entity about 2,500 years ago) that you can think of, and then just expect that it magically hangs together into a coherent argument. Whether it's ancient history or the execution of an American hostage 35 years ago, you think it's all somehow "relevant" because you've managed to shove the word "Jew" or "Israel" in there.
It's like arguing with an early, unrefined version of a Google search engine.
I simply recognize the tangled complexity of facts, which are stubborn things ... whether they reside in the past in texts or in ruins or in memory or at present on the ground ...
A completely non-responsive response. Recognising facts is not enough. Recognising their relevance is just as important.
Is it "irrelevant" that Muslims understand that The Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) ascended into Heaven -- centuries ago -- from The Temple Mount and that is why The Dome of The Rock was built there ... ???
To Israeli citizenship? Yes. It's absolutely irrelevant.
It might well be relevant to access to that site and control of access. But to the existence of a nation state, its boundaries and the rights of the people living within those boundaries, it's another one of those things that barely registers.
The trouble with your argument style is that you are more than ready to spit out facts (a few of which are slightly questionable, but many of which are reasonable), without identifying in any way what questions or issues they might be relevant to.
Your strategy on this thread appears to be to mention everything about Jews or Israel (frequently in reference to a nation that ended as a political entity about 2,500 years ago) that you can think of, and then just expect that it magically hangs together into a coherent argument. Whether it's ancient history or the execution of an American hostage 35 years ago, you think it's all somehow "relevant" because you've managed to shove the word "Jew" or "Israel" in there.
It's like arguing with an early, unrefined version of a Google search engine.
I simply recognize the tangled complexity of facts, which are stubborn things ... whether they reside in the past in texts or in ruins or in memory or at present on the ground ...
A completely non-responsive response. Recognising facts is not enough. Recognising their relevance is just as important.
Or lack thereof.
Yes. I actually thought afterwards I should have added that for clarity.
Another variation is Roof Knocking, where the IDF will fire a nonexplosive rocket on a house to warn the residents their house is about to be destroyed by another high explosive rocket and they need to evacuate the house:
I don’t see anything in there about “roof knocking” - and anyway, warning the residents to allow evacuation in advance of an attack sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing.
Only in the same sense that a mugger showing you his knife before stabbing you if you don't immediately hand over your wallet is a "good thing".
@Fr Teilhard is right for all the wrong reasons. All. There can be no rapprochement @Gramps49, as @Simon Toad tacitly infers, and in the Jewish foundation myth, the Canaanites split by evolving religion and the monotheists engaged in a millennium of ethnic cleansing.
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
It's impunity. Just lie, it ALWAYS works. I mean, really, it NEVER fails. The lie of the empty land, the lie that Trump won. Again, seriously, when does lying ever fail the higher up the scales of social justice you go? On second thoughts, just when does it ever fail in the bent scales of social justice at all?
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...
Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...
Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...
We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...
The vast majority of Jewish people in Mandatory Palestine in 1947 were about as native to that location as I am to Saxony.
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...
The vast majority of Jewish people in Mandatory Palestine in 1947 were about as native to that location as I am to Saxony.
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...
The vast majority of Jewish people in Mandatory Palestine in 1947 were about as native to that location as I am to Saxony.
Centuries less surely?
I think the difference between 1400 and 1800 years in this sort of context is well beyond the point of relevance.
Another variation is Roof Knocking, where the IDF will fire a nonexplosive rocket on a house to warn the residents their house is about to be destroyed by another high explosive rocket and they need to evacuate the house:
I don’t see anything in there about “roof knocking” - and anyway, warning the residents to allow evacuation in advance of an attack sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing.
Another variation is Roof Knocking, where the IDF will fire a nonexplosive rocket on a house to warn the residents their house is about to be destroyed by another high explosive rocket and they need to evacuate the house:
I don’t see anything in there about “roof knocking” - and anyway, warning the residents to allow evacuation in advance of an attack sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing.
Another variation is Roof Knocking, where the IDF will fire a nonexplosive rocket on a house to warn the residents their house is about to be destroyed by another high explosive rocket and they need to evacuate the house:
I don’t see anything in there about “roof knocking” - and anyway, warning the residents to allow evacuation in advance of an attack sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing.
Only in the same sense that a mugger showing you his knife before stabbing you if you don't immediately hand over your wallet is a "good thing".
If you don’t agree with their reasons for attacking, nothing about the attack is going to seem good. But if it warns the inhabitants, roof knocking mitigates the harm, which makes it the opposite of double tapping, not a variant of it.
What information do you have about "double tap" Israeli responses to rocket attacks or other? Didn't find other than one 2015 link about it. Not corroborated.
Bachmann, Jutta; Baldwin-Ragaven, Laurel; Hougen, Hans-Petter; Leaning, Jennifer; Kelly, Karen; Özkalipci, Önder; Reynolds, Louis; Vacas, Alicia (January 20, 2015). "Gaza 2014 - Findings of an Independent Medical Fact-Finding Mission" (PDF). Physicians for Human Rights Israel.
Another variation is Roof Knocking, where the IDF will fire a nonexplosive rocket on a house to warn the residents their house is about to be destroyed by another high explosive rocket and they need to evacuate the house:
In the hospitalized patient interviews, 10 patients reported a ‘double tap’ pattern, in which the second strike caused the incident that injured them: three of these were described as drone strikes; 17 three described strikes from tank shells or missiles; 18 two were from an F16 aircraft; 19 and, in two other cases, the source of the double strike was unknown to the patients.
It would be good to know the interview protocol and how this is not followed up by others. Perhaps the interviews were of evidence quality.
Re the "roof knocking". Is this considered the same as this "double tap" bombing, or is the first strike a warning to get out?
Is it "irrelevant" that Muslims understand that The Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) ascended into Heaven -- centuries ago -- from The Temple Mount and that is why The Dome of The Rock was built there ... ???
To Israeli citizenship? Yes. It's absolutely irrelevant.
It might well be relevant to access to that site and control of access. But to the existence of a nation state, its boundaries and the rights of the people living within those boundaries, it's another one of those things that barely registers.
The trouble with your argument style is that you are more than ready to spit out facts (a few of which are slightly questionable, but many of which are reasonable), without identifying in any way what questions or issues they might be relevant to.
Your strategy on this thread appears to be to mention everything about Jews or Israel (frequently in reference to a nation that ended as a political entity about 2,500 years ago) that you can think of, and then just expect that it magically hangs together into a coherent argument. Whether it's ancient history or the execution of an American hostage 35 years ago, you think it's all somehow "relevant" because you've managed to shove the word "Jew" or "Israel" in there.
It's like arguing with an early, unrefined version of a Google search engine.
I simply recognize the tangled complexity of facts, which are stubborn things ... whether they reside in the past in texts or in ruins or in memory or at present on the ground ...
A completely non-responsive response. Recognising facts is not enough. Recognising their relevance is just as important.
Or lack thereof.
Yes. I actually thought afterwards I should have added that for clarity.
What information do you have about "double tap" Israeli responses to rocket attacks or other? Didn't find other than one 2015 link about it. Not corroborated.
Bachmann, Jutta; Baldwin-Ragaven, Laurel; Hougen, Hans-Petter; Leaning, Jennifer; Kelly, Karen; Özkalipci, Önder; Reynolds, Louis; Vacas, Alicia (January 20, 2015). "Gaza 2014 - Findings of an Independent Medical Fact-Finding Mission" (PDF). Physicians for Human Rights Israel.
Another variation is Roof Knocking, where the IDF will fire a nonexplosive rocket on a house to warn the residents their house is about to be destroyed by another high explosive rocket and they need to evacuate the house:
In the hospitalized patient interviews, 10 patients reported a ‘double tap’ pattern, in which the second strike caused the incident that injured them: three of these were described as drone strikes; 17 three described strikes from tank shells or missiles; 18 two were from an F16 aircraft; 19 and, in two other cases, the source of the double strike was unknown to the patients.
It would be good to know the interview protocol and how this is not followed up by others. Perhaps the interviews were of evidence quality.
Re the "roof knocking". Is this considered the same as this "double tap" bombing, or is the first strike a warning to get out?
War and terror are terrible.
I posted a video of several houses that were roof knocked. However, it also showed a couple of houses that did not get the warning, killing family members inside. Nevertheless, this is still against international law.
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...
Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...
We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?
The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...
Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...
We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?
The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...
Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...
We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?
The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...
This is literally the opposite of what you’ve been saying.
They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...
Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...
We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?
The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...
Power will negotiate what to powerlessness do you think?
Comments
About 20% of the citizens -- FULL citizens -- of The State of Israel are non-Jewish ...
How many citizens of "Palestine," OTOH, are Jewish ... ??
Comprehension fail. My whole point is the exact opposite. You've invoked the patriarchs.
As was Reagan.
We get all this, and then when I say how wrong it is to try to invoke ancient connections we get the same man, in apparent horror (not say miscomprehension) saying:
If you're going to talk about The People of Israel (with a questionable use of capitalisation) and a Homeland that hasn't been ceded to Egyptians, Syrians, Persians, Arabs etc, it's ridiculous to then act as if you're appalled by the idea of checking whether someone is really from the People of Israel rather than actually being more Egyptian, Syrian, Persian, Arab etc.
The whole point is that it's someone who invokes ancient connections like that who logically ends up being in a position where they want to assess someone's ancestry (and quite probably will get unexpected results from such an assessment) to see whether they "belong" or not. How do you claim membership of The People of Israel, eh?
Whereas my view is that invoking ancient connections is a really dumb idea. I don't want to test where people came from because I don't care where they came from.
The Torah "invokes" The Patriarchs ...
The Tomb of The Patriarchs is in Hebron ...
I see no reason to doubt that The Patriarchs have living descendants today ...
And ... like it or not ... The facts on the ground in the Land of Israel today are what they are today ... and those facts are the starting point for any negotiations ... and some of the facts on the ground are not going to be negotiable ... Exactly my point ...
Sure. Who are they?
I mean, I'm quite sure that all sorts of classes of people exist. That's not the question. The question is, if you've asserted that only a certain class of people are allowed to do a certain thing or be in a certain place, how you assess membership of the class.
A rule that says that only doctors are permitted to perform surgery then requires you to have a means of determining who is a doctor.
A rule that says descendants of the patriarchs have a special claim to a particular area of land requires you to be able to determine who is a descendant of a patriarch.
EDIT: I pointed out to you days ago, the Israeli courts have had cases about who is eligible to take advantage of the right of return. The existence of the right of return creates the question. You're so horrified at the question of determining who is a Jew? The Israeli courts are doing it!
That's right ... What precious resource needed protection in Budapest ... ???
I just think that it is a matter for The Israelis to decide matters of Israeli citizenship (including right of return), not up to me, not up to you ...
And ... the question of who is or is not a "Jew" is for The Jews to decide ... not anyone else ...
But the history of The People of Israel is what it is and according to the documents we do have, that history -- in The Land of Israel -- goes back to ca. 1800 BCE ...
If you don't think it's up to you to decide matters of Israeli citizenship, then stop citing The People of Israel, The Land of Israel and The Patriarchs. Because they're completely irrelevant.
Well, ummm ... Not *everybody* agrees that the Past has no relation to the Present (and vice versa) ...
No one is saying the past has no relationship to the present. They’re literally all saying how the past does bear on the present. And, furthermore, I didn’t say anywhere anything about the past and the present.
Of course! And it’ll be just for descendants of Athelstan! A kingdom to rule all kingdoms!
Who says "they're completely irrelevant" ... ???
Is it "irrelevant" that Muslims understand that The Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) ascended into Heaven -- centuries ago -- from The Temple Mount and that is why The Dome of The Rock was built there ... ???
If anything counts in that region, it is HISTORY ...
I don't agree that "The Bible" is "not helpful in discussing modern day Israel" ...
And I see nothing "absurd" about mentioning the generally accepted date for the Patriarchs, i.e., ca. 1800 BCE ... (hint: ask PRESENT DAY Observant Muslims and Jews if they care about having free access to The Tomb of The Patriarchs, which is in Hebron ...)
To Israeli citizenship? Yes. It's absolutely irrelevant.
It might well be relevant to access to that site and control of access. But to the existence of a nation state, its boundaries and the rights of the people living within those boundaries, it's another one of those things that barely registers.
The trouble with your argument style is that you are more than ready to spit out facts (a few of which are slightly questionable, but many of which are reasonable), without identifying in any way what questions or issues they might be relevant to.
Your strategy on this thread appears to be to mention everything about Jews or Israel (frequently in reference to a nation that ended as a political entity about 2,500 years ago) that you can think of, and then just expect that it magically hangs together into a coherent argument. Whether it's ancient history or the execution of an American hostage 35 years ago, you think it's all somehow "relevant" because you've managed to shove the word "Jew" or "Israel" in there.
It's like arguing with an early, unrefined version of a Google search engine.
I simply recognize the tangled complexity of facts, which are stubborn things ... whether they reside in the past in texts or in ruins or in memory or at present on the ground ...
Bachmann, Jutta; Baldwin-Ragaven, Laurel; Hougen, Hans-Petter; Leaning, Jennifer; Kelly, Karen; Özkalipci, Önder; Reynolds, Louis; Vacas, Alicia (January 20, 2015). "Gaza 2014 - Findings of an Independent Medical Fact-Finding Mission" (PDF). Physicians for Human Rights Israel.
Another variation is Roof Knocking, where the IDF will fire a nonexplosive rocket on a house to warn the residents their house is about to be destroyed by another high explosive rocket and they need to evacuate the house:
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/8000/mde150172014en.pdf
And which of them does God love, Fr Teilhard?
A completely non-responsive response. Recognising facts is not enough. Recognising their relevance is just as important.
IMHO: Based on your posts on this thread: no, you don't "recognize the tangled complexity of facts".
It's like having a mess of yarn, different kinds and different colors. ISTM you've picked one thread, and are trying to follow it all the way through. You consider the rest mostly worthless, because you have no interest in or use for it. You're angry at the rest for existing, let alone being there. And you're *so* passionate about this yarn that you talk like nothing else in the world matters. And you do it in such a repetitive, narrow-visioned, thoroughly annoying way that you push people's visceral reaction to be against that wonderful yarn. And I mean people who like that yarn a lot.
We have to keep reminding ourselves that the problem here isn't this yarn--it's the way you're talking about it.
You're NOT doing the Jewish people any favors by the way you're talking about them
As several of us have told you: the way you're posting about a people you say you love seems to be purposely annoying--to the point of sounding like haters who mock them.
I don't know what's going on with you. But, for God's sake (literally), calm down and get a clue.
Your posts will be better for it.
I would say Amnesty International and other human rights NGOs hold this sort of view. The late Robin Cook's advocacy of an "ethical foreign policy" was rooted in this tradition (as was the Blair government's decision to incorporate the ECHR into domestic law and join the ICC, for all that Blair trampelled on it in later years. I'd place the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in this category, as well as George Monbiot's campaign to get Tony Blair held to account for crimes against peace. I'd also cite The Elders as working within this kind of framework. The further left you go there can be a blindspot about self-proclaimed socialist regimes, and Jeremy Corbyn's commitment to human rights suffers from this (the reluctance to criticise Cuba's human rights record, for example).
Or lack thereof.
Yes. I actually thought afterwards I should have added that for clarity.
Only in the same sense that a mugger showing you his knife before stabbing you if you don't immediately hand over your wallet is a "good thing".
Hear, hear!
[from the back benches; to which I have retired being as I've only lived here in the Galilee for 35 years so what would I know]
The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.
Well ... God loved the guards at the Konzentrationslagern too ... So what ... ???
The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...
Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...
We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?
The vast majority of Jewish people in Mandatory Palestine in 1947 were about as native to that location as I am to Saxony.
Centuries less surely?
I think the difference between 1400 and 1800 years in this sort of context is well beyond the point of relevance.
Let's go to (a) video: https://youtu.be/69icTMgIjlw There are other videos like this.
If you don’t agree with their reasons for attacking, nothing about the attack is going to seem good. But if it warns the inhabitants, roof knocking mitigates the harm, which makes it the opposite of double tapping, not a variant of it.
Thanks for finding. The first document has this:
It would be good to know the interview protocol and how this is not followed up by others. Perhaps the interviews were of evidence quality.
Re the "roof knocking". Is this considered the same as this "double tap" bombing, or is the first strike a warning to get out?
War and terror are terrible.
Great minds.
I posted a video of several houses that were roof knocked. However, it also showed a couple of houses that did not get the warning, killing family members inside. Nevertheless, this is still against international law.
The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...
So the Patriarchs are even MORE irrelevant.
This is literally the opposite of what you’ve been saying.
Power will negotiate what to powerlessness do you think?