Is it wrong the hate Judaism?

brianthebard

PDN wrote: »

They were, but that wasn't my question.

Are they illegitimate States?

Sure why not? The concept of nation states only works while the majority buy into it. Some states are more legitimate than others. Some states aren't recognised by some other states, some are recognised by some but not others. You should read Wallerstein's unthinking nineteenth century paradigms, it'll blow your mind.

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

Two people were able to chat, therefore it was a success? Poor example.

It was generally seen as a high time in Abrahamic tolerance, and in intellectual learning. Just look up some sources on it.

brianthebard wrote: »

All of this hinges upon a fundamentalist reading of the bible/torah. If that's your thing go for it, but don't expect me to have any regard for your view. I don't believe in the divine right of one community to take the property of another.

How do you explain this when many Jewish atheists and agnostics argue for the right of Israel to exist? It really isn't a valid argument. It doesn't rest on a literal reading of the Torah, I could argue for Israel's existence without belief in the Bible. Many atheists and agnostics do argue for Israel's existence. It's a poor argument. Many Jews in Israel and the United States do not believe in God yet argue for Israel's right to exist. To think that this is purely a religious and not a political argument is wrong. Many of the pioneers of Zionism also came from a secular perspective. Einstein and Herzl are examples of this.

brianthebard

Well maybe you could, but you currently are not. You've made reference to a promised land a few times at this stage. There maybe be secular jews who argue for Israel's right to exist now, after the fact, but the actual creation of Israel is what I'm talking about atm and is a slightly seperate issue. Can you tell me why a group of people who live in one place, moving to another place and taking the land of the people there is not colonisation?

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

Well maybe you could, but you currently are not. You've made reference to a promised land a few times at this stage. There maybe be secular jews who argue for Israel's right to exist now, after the fact, but the actual creation of Israel is what I'm talking about atm and is a slightly seperate issue. Can you tell me why a group of people who live in one place, moving to another place and taking the land of the people there is not colonisation?

No, not just now. In the mid 19th century when Zionism came into fruition there were secular humanists behind it. It's not just a religious argument, and it's deceptive to make it like one.

You were the one who suggested before I even mentioned Moses or the Israelites, that I was doing this due to a "fundementalist" view of the Torah. Define what you mean by fundementalist, as it is a term that has been distorted. I believe that Moses led the Jews into Israel, but I don't think it's the only reason that I believe that Israel should exist. You were the first one to mention that it was due to a religious understanding that I have been putting forward Israel's existence. Which is odd, because I thought that atheists would appreciate not referring to religion in my discussion of this conflict.

Can I tell you why a group of people [in this case the Jews] moved from one place to another? Due to vilification, hatred, violence against them, and so on. Also important to note, the Jewish people initially didn't capture land, they bought it. I'd see that as a fair purchase. And also, believe it or not, initially the Arabs received them positively, Jews and Arabs worked together in the Orange groves in Jaffa before pogroms began in Jewish settlements. Seriously if you want a good source on this history, get Israel - A History by Martin Gilbert. One of the worst of these was in 1929 when the Arabs drove the Jews out of Hebron, which is ironically one of the hot spots in the West Bank today.

As for seizures of land, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is correct, the first seizure of land began in 1948 after 700,000 Palestinians were driven off the land. I would be the first to condemn this. Mind you ironically after this happened the Palestinians weren't displeased to have the Egyptians and the Jordanians seize their land between 1949 and 1967. Would you like to explain this a bit more?

See brianthebard, with all due respect, this conflict is a lot more complex than people make it out to be.

However, Brian, I think the term I used initially was "ancestral homeland", which would be correct even from a secular point of view as there is archaeological evidence to back up my view that the Israelites had a state in Israel in history, and their ancestors indeed lived there. I have kept this discussion non-religious until the point when you brought in "fundementalist interpretation of the Torah".

brianthebard

Jakkass wrote: »

No, not just now. In the mid 19th century when Zionism came into fruition there were secular humanists behind it. It's not just a religious argument, and it's deceptive to make it like one.

You were the one who suggested before I even mentioned Moses or the Israelites, that I was doing this due to a "fundementalist" view of the Torah. Define what you mean by fundementalist, as it is a term that has been distorted. I believe that Moses led the Jews into Israel, but I don't think it's the only reason that I believe that Israel should exist. You were the first one to mention that it was due to a religious understanding that I have been putting forward Israel's existence. Which is odd, because I thought that atheists would appreciate not referring to religion in my discussion of this conflict.

Can I tell you why a group of people [in this case the Jews] moved from one place to another? Due to vilification, hatred, violence against them, and so on. Also important to note, the Jewish people initially didn't capture land, they bought it. I'd see that as a fair purchase. And also, believe it or not, initially the Arabs received them positively, Jews and Arabs worked together in the Orange groves in Jaffa before pogroms began in Jewish settlements. Seriously if you want a good source on this history, get Israel - A History by Martin Gilbert. One of the worst of these was in 1929 when the Arabs drove the Jews out of Hebron, which is ironically one of the hot spots in the West Bank today.

As for seizures of land, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is correct, the first seizure of land began in 1948 after 700,000 Palestinians were driven off the land. I would be the first to condemn this. Mind you ironically after this happened the Palestinians weren't displeased to have the Egyptians and the Jordanians seize their land between 1949 and 1967. Would you like to explain this a bit more?

See brianthebard, with all due respect, this conflict is a lot more complex than people make it out to be.

You aren't addressing the questions. And strawmen like the Palestinians were ok with being invaded by other Arab nations is simplifying the conflict a lot don't you think? Buying land does not entitle you to create a state out of it. Also I'm not an atheist.

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

You aren't addressing the questions. And strawmen like the Palestinians were ok with being invaded by other Arab nations is simplifying the conflict a lot don't you think? Buying land does not entitle you to create a state out of it. Also I'm not an atheist.

brianthebard, I'm merely trying to get you to see that there are perfectly valid arguments that could be made from the Zionist side in relation to all the claims you and others have made on this thread. I think that's perfectly reasonable. I answered your points dealing with how the Israelis stole the land of the Palestinian people, it wasn't as simple as you described. Nowhere near as simple, and there are cases of hypocrisy that have to be dealt with. You can either attempt to run away from reasonable points that also need to be addressed, or deal with them. The 1949 Armstice Agreement with Israel, Egypt and Jordan is entirely reasonable to be brought up. Why weren't the Palestinians involved in this, and why did they let the Egyptians take Gaza, and the Jordanians take the West Bank? It's just a case of the so-called allies of the Palestinians screwing them over.

I explained to you totally why the Jews wanted to live in Israel. It's rather clear from the writings of the time that it was due to European anti-Semitism. Seriously try living in a country where people hate you for being born who you are. It's no doubt difficult.

I don't see it as simplifying it, it's just a point that needs to be answered if you are going to charge the Israelis with stealing the land.

brianthebard

I can understand why they want to live in Israel, but that doesn't mean its a good idea.

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

I can understand why they want to live in Israel, but that doesn't mean its a good idea.

Yes but brianthebard, why? Why is it bad that they [the Jews] want to live in their ancestral homeland?

If you did imply that it was the Jewish people that you were speaking about. Do you not think it would sound intolerant if I used that they to refer to any ethnic or religious group.

For example say that "they" referred to Nigerians, or Muslims, that statement would be seen as intolerant or offensive. Is it any different because it refers to the Jewish people?

I'm not accusing you of anything, I just want you to think about the reasoning behind that.

brianthebard

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes but brianthebard, why? Why is it bad that they [the Jews] want to live in their ancestral homeland?

If you did imply that it was the Jewish people that you were speaking about. Do you not think it would sound intolerant if I used that they to refer to any ethnic or religious group.

For example say that "they" referred to Nigerians, or Muslims, that statement would be seen as intolerant or offensive. Is it any different because it refers to the Jewish people?

I'm not accusing you of anything, I just want you to think about the reasoning behind that.

I think you are accusing me of a lot, or you wouldn't have said it.
What if the Irish in the nineteenth century, who believed themselves to be celts, had tried to take over a region in Europe above Italy and take bits and pieces of a few countries? Would you approve of that? Its the exact same logic.
Also I think you need to came the hell down, if you think they is a racist term.

philologos

The point wasn't to accuse. The point was to bring up an inconsistency in your logic.

I'm really hoping that you don't honestly believe that Israel would be a better place if there wasn't Jews. If I put in any country instead of Israel there, it would be a rather intolerant comment. I have more faith in humanity than to think that a rationally minded person (such as yourself) would suggest that a country would be a worse place due to an ethnic or a religious group residing there. In the case of the Jews they are an ethno-religious group.

See, brianthebard, the hypothetical scenario you put there is irrelevant. The Jewish people didn't "believe" themselves to be Jews, they are Jews, with genetic proof. You seem to think that Jewishness is really just something that people believe themselves to be. However, this isn't quite correct, yes you can become Jewish by conversion, but there is genetic evidence (whether or not you believe this was due to descent from Abraham is up to you to decide) to suggest that Ashkenazi Jews have a different Y-chromosone value to Gentile Europeans. They knew they were Jews. Theres a difference between believing you are something, and genuinely being the case in question.

brianthebard

Jakkass wrote: »

The point wasn't to accuse. The point was to bring up an inconsistency in your logic.

I'm really hoping that you don't honestly believe that Israel would be a better place if there wasn't Jews. If I put in any country instead of Israel there, it would be a rather intolerant comment. I have more faith in humanity than to think that a rationally minded person (such as yourself) would suggest that a country would be a worse place due to an ethnic or a religious group residing there. In the case of the Jews they are an ethno-religious group.

See, brianthebard, the hypothetical scenario you put there is irrelevant. The Jewish people didn't "believe" themselves to be Jews, they are Jews, with genetic proof. You seem to think that Jewishness is really just something that people believe themselves to be. However, this isn't quite correct, yes you can become Jewish by conversion, but there is genetic evidence (whether or not you believe this was due to descent from Abraham is up to you to decide) to suggest that Ashkenazi Jews have a different Y-chromosone value to Gentile Europeans. They knew they were Jews. Theres a difference between believing you are something, and genuinely being the case in question.

There's been genetic tests on Irish people too, and there was no genetic profiling in the period you are talking about anyways, so either way your point is invalid and the example still stands. Secondly there is no inconsistency in my using the word they. I don't know what Israel would be like without Jews. And I haven't suggested once that they shouldn't be allowed exist. I'm talking specifically about the State of Israel. Anymore accusations of racism and subtle suggestions of xenophobia you want to make there?

philologos

I just don't think it's a reasonable comment to make that somehow the Palestinians get off completely scotfree, and then for the Jews to be told that they do not have a right to seek peace after hundreds of years of hostility. Something in me tells me that that isn't right. Likewise something tells me that the Israel - Palestine conflict isn't right. I would just like the people who propose that Israel should have never existed to propose a better solution for them than to give them the right to live in the land of their ancestors. Surely if people are so critical they must have somewhat of a radically better alternative.

I genuinely am a peace loving individual, and given that I want both sides to be assessed fairly so that we can perhaps for the first time come to a realistic peace solution, which allows both the Israelis and the Palestinians to reside in their respective homeland together.

PDN

brianthebard wrote: »

What if the Irish in the nineteenth century, who believed themselves to be celts, had tried to take over a region in Europe above Italy and take bits and pieces of a few countries? Would you approve of that? Its the exact same logic.

Well, the Celts did come and do just that when they conquered Ireland sometime around the 12th Century BC. So does that make Ireland an illegitimate State?

brianthebard

PDN wrote: »

Well, the Celts did come and do just that when they conquered Ireland sometime around the 12th Century BC. So does that make Ireland an illegitimate State?

Still on about that? Again, sure why not? I don't believe in nations anyways.

Jakkass wrote: »

I just don't think it's a reasonable comment to make that somehow the Palestinians get off completely scotfree, and then for the Jews to be told that they do not have a right to seek peace after hundreds of years of hostility.

Where is the peace? Seems the creation of Israel has been responsible for a lot of wars. As for scot free, in what sense? Over defending themselves from apartheid?

philologos

brianthebard, you know full well that the Arabs have been responsible for a lot of wars with the Israelis.

1948, 1967, 1973, just to mention a few. It's not fair to suggest that the Israelis have been responsible for all Arab-Israeli conflict.

This isn't even mentioning the pogroms that took place in the 1920's and the 1930's. As I say it isn't as easy as blaming the Israelis, there is a large piece of blame to be attributed to the Palestinians and this is being ignored. Is this really a fair assessment of the conflict?

PDN

brianthebard wrote: »

Still on about that? Again, sure why not? I don't believe in nations anyways.

If you don't believe in nations then it is meaningless to speak of an 'illegitimate nation'.

brianthebard

Jakkass wrote: »

brianthebard, you know full well that the Arabs have been responsible for a lot of wars with the Israelis.

1948, 1967, 1973, just to mention a few. It's not fair to suggest that the Israelis have been responsible for all Arab-Israeli conflict.

This isn't even mentioning the pogroms that took place in the 1920's and the 1930's. As I say it isn't as easy as blaming the Israelis, there is a large piece of blame to be attributed to the Palestinians and this is being ignored. Is this really a fair assessment of the conflict?

Could arab states go to war with an Israeli state if one hadn't been created? You seem to have conceded the genetic rights point?

PDN wrote: »

If you don't believe in nations then it is meaningless to speak of an 'illegitimate nation'.

Not really, not believing or subscribing to a social construct doesn't make it go away.

ChocolateSauce

OP:

There is nothing wrong with hating a religion, although I think blaming the situation in the middle east on one religion (or indeed religion only) is extremely simplistic.

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

Could arab states go to war with an Israeli state if one hadn't been created? You seem to have conceded the genetic rights point?

Your first point is poor. People can't go to a country without it existing? That's just about as devoid a point as saying that America couldn't go to war with Iraq if it didn't exist. Should Iraq exist? Clearly yes in my opinion. It's a very poor point. Is that a justification of sorts for the invasion of Israel by Arab states during all those respective conflicts I listed? Well if a country exists, we may as well just all plot to destroy it?

No I haven't conceded it. I never claimed that it was from the timeperiod of Zionism. Ashkenazi Jews that are currently in Europe are of a different genetic lineage to other Europeans for the most part. Different Y-chromosones. The same is the case for certain Jewish tribes in Africa, Asia, and so on.

From this document: http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/Nebel%20_2005.pdf

It makes a rather strong case that based on modern studies one can conclude that Ashkenazi Jews remained very much genetically isolated from Gentile Europeans suspecting about 0.5% interbreeding rate, probably due to conversions in the most part to Judaism.

So no they don't "believe" their are Jews, they know they are Jews due to the passing on of Jewish identity through the mother.

Hivemind187

I am amazed that this wasnt locked or moved to politics or somewhere more approriate since I cant really see what the association to atheism anti-semitism has (and it is anti-semitism if you cant separate the ethnic group from the actions of a national governmet).

Can someone drop the Godwin bomb now please?

philologos

I think the OP is frustrated by the role of religion in the Israel - Palestine conflict, rather than advocating anti-Semitism. I think it's worthy of discussing at least. The crux of the issue for many of those who don't follow Abrahamic faiths is the Promised Land concept. I didn't really bring it up in depth in this post, I tried to keep my argument as much based on history, and what is clear. However it is worth exploring I guess.

Nodin

Zamboni wrote: »

When the followers are blatantly murderous scumbags?

Give me, a secular atheist, a reason not to detest the actions of Israel.
Please?

Because its riduclous. Can't blame Jews as a religon for the actions of Israel as a state. And no, they aren't all "murderous scumbags".

Zamboni wrote: »

I've yet to see a demonstration at the local synagogue about the mindless slaughter in Gaza. Maybe the Jews are nicer around your area?

I hear the same thing said about Muslims and mosques. Used get the same about Catholics and the RA. Total crap, really.

jayel wrote:

The only difference is that very few people can relate to the Jewish people's struggle.

....because they're colonising the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and the Golan. As this is fundamentally an aggressive act, not too many are going to have sympathy with it.

Munchester wrote:

I've also yet to see the Irish person who can walk untouched in the streets of Gaza without a heavy Hamas escort....

Funny enough, I remember a number used work over there escorting children to school...because without the escort, they used shoot at the schoolchildren.
Yer woman Butterly was shot in the leg, as far as I recall, by an Israeli.

Certainly theres still Christian Peace Patrols still doing similar in the West Bank

Jakkass wrote:

What was so different about Moorish Spain than Israel that Jews, Christians and Muslims could live together in relative peace there.....

A lack of fanaticism. A combination of a new influx of more hardline Islamic converts and the machinations of the Spanish royalty put an end to that.

munchester29

Nodin wrote: »

Funny enough, I remember a number used work over there escorting children to school...because without the escort, they used shoot at the schoolchildren.
Yer woman Butterly was shot in the leg, as far as I recall, by an Israeli.

Certainly theres still Christian Peace Patrols still doing similar in the West Bank

They aren’t hurt because they are either always accompanied by Hamas representatives, or they wear very clear identification marks that identify them immediately as aid workers.
Sometimes even that doesn’t help, for example:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/7434.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/24/news/mideast.php

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/790704.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3112233,00.html

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

They (.....)

As far as I'm aware the majority, if not all of those incidents , were carried out by or in relation to activities of the Dagmash clan based in Gaza city. Hamas clamped down on them last year.

Dades

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I am amazed that this wasnt locked or moved to politics or somewhere more approriate since I cant really see what the association to atheism anti-semitism has...

It would have been locked had the OP not stepped back somewhat from his original post (here).

And historically A&A doesn't shirk from interesting debate.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Can someone drop the Godwin bomb now please?

I think it would be well nigh impossible to discuss the establishment of the State of Israel without referring to the Holocaust sooner or later.

On a personal note, I had some difficulties entering Israel when they asked me the question as to whether I, or any of my family, had visited Israel in the past. I told them my dad had served as a British soldier in Palestine being shot at by Jewish terrorists. For some reason they failed to see the humor in that.

BJC

Zamboni wrote: »

Because it would be naive to suggest they are mutually exclusive.
Of course there are nice non-violent jews, but do you think they are the majority?

I'm glad you're not the majority...:rolleyes:

Húrin

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't understand why we cannot aim for an Al Andalus type climate. What was so different about Moorish Spain than Israel that Jews, Christians and Muslims could live together in relative peace there.

I wouldn't idealise that too much! It was only during the first half of Moorish Spain that Jews were permitted to live there. I'm not sure if Christians ever were. There was regime change in the 11th century when the fundamentalist Berbers took over, and made life very difficult for Jews. Then the Muslim state split up into several states.

As for Christians, their states in the north of Spain waged an almost unrelenting Reconquista, beginning in 711 and ending in 1492. The idea that there could be a Muslim state in Europe and that they could permanently share the Iberian peninsula with them was unthinkable.

There were some admirable aspects of the early Muslim tolerance of Jews and I expect something could be learned from it, but it wasn't a time of peace.

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

Well, the Celts did come and do just that when they conquered Ireland sometime around the 12th Century BC. So does that make Ireland an illegitimate State?

The Celts never conquered Ireland. There was trade that began in the 7th century BC, but no colonisation. The Irish, Scots and Welsh are descended primarily from the Gaels and Scandinavians. So are the English, but they have lots of German and Norman thrown in as well.

storker

Zamboni wrote: »

I really do wish I could say something more 'useful' than bollox.

Nice to hear you admit it...

Stork