Why can't people just leave the Jews alone?

[Flankerl]

These Apocalyptic wetdreams were always present. Even as far back as 1400 years when the East Roman Emperor Heraclius persecuted almost every Jew he could find safe for a small community that was "needed for Christs return". So even Chalcedonian Christianity had this "flaw".

Evangelical Protestantism wasn't really prominent in Europe until quite recently. Its something American.

 

[Shad]

You're absolutely right, but the problem is, so far in Israel its been so one sided against the Palestinians that its too late to ask the Palestinians to change, its time for the Israelis to take the first step to peace, evacuate the settlements, build a wall if they have to, but Palestinians have just as much right to half of Israel as Jews do, we need a two state solution, I think the whole world knows by now that a one state solution will always heavily favour the Jews, and it isn't working, its not going to work, and it never could work, seriously the Jews have offended the Arabs so badly now, that there's no getting along with Jews running everything, the Israeli leaders are racist and express hatred for Palestinians, same can be said for most Palestinians, the leaders are racist and express hatred for the Jews. so divide, split it up, build a wall 300 ft tall Have your ethnically pure Jewish homeland, and have the common human decency to give the Palestinians half of what they deserve, the country of Israel.

PS Hamas and Abbas will accept peace if you give them half they country as they deserve.

You know such an option was available before 48 yet one side refused repeatedly to the point a war broke out. Now that the dust has settled this option is available again to the defeated. Sure it is probably the only solution but lets not pretend Israeli is even the major side against such a solution nor has a history of being against it in comparison to other factions. Compromise goes both ways. If one side can not change then comprise is useless and just accepted demands of people not willing to change their views.

Hamas' goals are clear in it's own charter. Accepting a deal with a group with a public statement stating their goal is not a two state solution but a one state solution will end badly. Are you related to Chamberlain?

 

[Lyndon]

Wrong again!!

 

[Shad]

Wrong again!!

Nope. Hamas' charter is public knowledge. If they change the charter I would give them the benefit of the doubt but they do not. Dealing with a group of people with stated goals which are in direct opposing to the other side itself will end badly, hence my Chamberlain remark.

Saying wrong again is a statement not an argument. Anyone can do it. Watch. Lyndon is wrong. Try again son.

 

[Lyndon]

Wrong again!!!

 

[Curious George]

Wrong again!!!

Well I can see this thread has progressed to a high level of maturity.

 

[Shad]

Well all you people that believe in returning to the land of your ancestors should be heading back to Africa where you come from.

Everyone's ancestor is from Africa..... Your reply is is nonsense in this light. You have to go back as well thus no one but animals get to use and live on the land in question.

 

[Shad]

Wrong again!!!

Very convincing.... Now use your words.... Try it....

 

[Lyndon]

Given that the Jews in question are maybe 10% related to the ancestors in Israel, and 90% mixed in with the races wherever they migrated to, its just as nonsensical to think they have a right to move back to and occupy and take over someone else's land, there's really no logic to it at all.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Given that the Jews in question are maybe 10% related to the ancestors in Israel, and 90% mixed in with the races wherever they migrated to,

Source?

 

[Lyndon]

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...21/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/

 

[Brickjectivity]

I also don't believe in right of return. I only believe in right to exist and right to self defence. Right to return is not politically valid to me, unless we are talking about internal Israeli politics. I think it makes sense for Israelis to recognize that they have a responsibility to care for Jews who have nowhere else to go, because that is part of why they were founded. I don't think there is an actual right that I have to recognize myself.

 

[Shad]

Given that the Jews in question are maybe 10% related to the ancestors in Israel, and 90% mixed in with the races wherever they migrated to, its just as nonsensical to think they have a right to move back to and occupy and take over someone else's land, there's really no logic to it at all.

Bloodlines are irrelevant. Besides I wonder how many Palestine have mixed bloodlines. How many have a relative like a grandparent that is from another nation or region. One from relative from Syria is enough as it is just as arbitrary as your line in the sand. Given the history of human migration your criteria is untenable unless you draw a line in the sand for a date which most likely lands right with the side you support. Which is just the same argument the other side has attempted to use with different arbitrary line in the sand.

You just rehashed the origins argument but the flaws are the same.

 

[Lyndon]

So you claim that modern Palestinian bloodline from 100 years ago when Palestine was theirs are just as weak as Israeli Jews bloodline related to when they last occupied Palestine 2000 years ago, and that makes sense to you?? I can see this argument is going nowhere!!

 

[rosends]

I also don't believe in right of return. I only believe in right to exist and right to self defence. Right to return is not politically valid to me, unless we are talking about internal Israeli politics. I think it makes sense for Israelis to recognize that they have a responsibility to care for Jews who have nowhere else to go, because that is part of why they were founded. I don't think there is an actual right that I have to recognize myself.

I don't think the issue is the right of return. The claim being made is that there is an illegitimacy simply because the population is made up of migrants (not that the migrants achieved the political status of citizens by any particular machinations). The claims was

"the Jews in question are maybe 10% related to the ancestors in Israel, and 90% mixed in with the races wherever they migrated to, its just as nonsensical to think they have a right to move back to and occupy and take over someone else's land"

If I move to Israel tomorrow and take 5 years to study, get a job, fill out paperwork, pass a test and become a citizen (like someone moving to America would), the argument would still say that I have no right to occupy Indian land because I am an immigrant and not part of the "10%" that is related to anyone in the past. The separate question of whether any particular Jew is genetically traceable to someone who lived within certain borders at a certain specified moment in history is silly. One cannot prove that, genetically, a particular Arab did or did not have an ancestor who might have lived somewhere, or that an American citizen has an ancestor who wandered across the continent 2000 years ago. The right to live there comes from the existence of a national body with laws, not some fiction of racial connection. As a side note, this is not to say that I don't claim a "racial connection" but that because it cannot be a conclusive and precise measuring rod, it isn't a useful tool. By setting up the strawman argument that this is the only valid way of determining a right to live somewhere, one can knock it down by citing statistics that one can find to support a particular side. I can find genetic tests which draw the conclusion that a huge percentage of the current Jewish population IS genetically connected to the historical land of Israel and its very local environs. But would this mean that converts can't move in and become citizens? Or that Christians can't move to Israel? Those are both absurd contentions.

The secondary problem is this fiction of "occupy and take over someone else's land." Not only "occupy" misused, but the belief that the land actually belongs to someone else is not meaningful.

 

[rosends]

So you claim that modern Palestinian bloodline from 100 years ago when Palestine was theirs are just as weak as Israeli Jews bloodline related to when they last occupied Palestine 2000 years ago, and that makes sense to you?? I can see this argument is going nowhere!!

"Palestine" was whose? The Ottomans? Are they the only ones who can live in Israel?

 

[Lyndon]

Oh brother!!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...21/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/

Except that your source doesn't say that "the Jews in question are maybe 10% related to the ancestors in Israel, and 90% mixed in with the races wherever they migrated to". It's saying that a lot of their mitochondrial DNA (which comes from the female) comes from European populations, but not all of it. That still leaves the male DNA and the rest of the mitochondrial DNA, which is mostly Near Eastern. It's not exactly a surprise that Jews would have European genes to an extent because they've been interacting with Europeans since Antiquity. So this doesn't prove that modern Ashkenazim aren't descendants of the indigenous people of Canaan/Israel/the Levant. The Ashkenazim practice a high rate of homogamy in regards to reproduction, which is why reasons they have a high rate of genetic disorders.

So, fail on your part.

 

[Lyndon]

For your information, everytime a non Jewish by birth woman gives birth to male child (Jewish) that DNA is only 50% Jewish assuming the Father is 100% Jewish DNA which is unlikely, multiply that by hundreds of generations and you'll see why my figures, which were estimates, may not be far off.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For your information, everytime a non Jewish by birth woman gives birth to male child (Jewish) that DNA is only 50% Jewish assuming the Father is 100% Jewish DNA which is unlikely, multiply that by hundreds of generations and you'll see why my figures, which were estimates, may not be far off.

Er, a non-Jewish woman who converts is considered just as Jewish as a born Jewish woman. Being Jewish is more than just genetics.

And you make it sound like genetic Jews don't really exist anymore, which is just ridiculous. I guess Arabs don't really exist anymore, either.