So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

[ruby sparks]

Hamas, who control the Gaza strip, want to throw the Jews out of Israel and don't mind annihilating them to achieve that. Beyond that, they would be in favour of wiping all jews off the face of the earth, because they are virulently anti-semitic. This is no big secret.

And yet you defend them. Why?

You see, this is where discussion with you tends to just go straight up, alternative universe, fucking weird. Are you even capable, in the most basic way, of having a rational, balanced (as in non-skewed) discussion?

That was rhetorical.

I can see that both 'sides' in the dispute are neither wholly right or wrong in principle (and note that 'Hamas' and 'Palestinians' are not the same thing). I wouldn't be in favour of any violence, ideally, and certainly not any which affects civilians, such as Hamas' rocket attacks. And let's face it, both armed sides use civilians as human shields. Yes, the Zionists have to take some responsibility for trying to set up a new jewish state in a hostile territory in the first place, and for the excesses during the displacements. But that was a long time ago. And that is only what I would criticise them for. I would be as critical of the arabs at that time, for the similar things they did (albeit they were the ones facing the mass immigration, so one can make that basic distinction). In the current situation, I condemn Hamas unreservedly. On the whole, I have more sympathy with Israel, but imo its government is too hardline, its responses to attack sometimes disproportionate and I disapprove of the new settlements. That said, they are facing a tangible threat to their very existence, and a great deal of antisemitism to boot. I would also be critical of other arab/muslim states in the region for not doing enough and for in some cases pouring petrol on the fire. This whole, 'two sides to the coin' thing and other 'shades of grey' nuances are obviously really, really tricky for you, aren't they?

Look, I've lived through a somewhat similar conflict. Don't take sides in any simplistic way, that's my advice. Always try hard to see both sides.

One of the driving forces behind white supremacy is they are worried about becoming a minority in the US. How is this different? Why is it not acceptable for them to attack non-whites, especially immigrants?

You are kidding. You have to be. No one in their right mind could actually say something that ludicrous and actually mean it, surely.

 

[repoman]

Is demographics destiny or is it a "Proposition Nation"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look, I've lived through a somewhat similar conflict. Don't take sides in any simplistic way, that's my advice. Always try hard to see both sides.

You're not following your own advice.

One of the driving forces behind white supremacy is they are worried about becoming a minority in the US. How is this different? Why is it not acceptable for them to attack non-whites, especially immigrants?

You are kidding. You have to be. No one in their right mind could actually say something that ludicrous and actually mean it, surely.

Keeping attacking me for it doesn't address the issue. If it's wrong show what's wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

Keeping attacking me for it doesn't address the issue. If it's wrong show what's wrong.

Actually, you made a claim of fact without one iota of substantiation. It is up to you to support your claims. Instead of your usual evasion, try to actually support one of your claims of fact with actual evidence.

BTW, I think that many of these white bigots know that they are no longer on the top of the social order and are likely to fall even farther down the social order. At least that is the impression I get from talking with some of them. But, that is not real evidence, it is anecdotal.

 

[ruby sparks]

You're not following your own advice.

You are kidding. You have to be. No one in their right mind could actually say something that ludicrous and actually mean it, surely.

Keeping attacking me for it doesn't address the issue. If it's wrong show what's wrong.

Apart from, as has been pointed out, it being merely a bald assertion, not backed up by any good analysis, reasoning or evidence, it is imo furthermore already plainly obvious to any reasonable, rational person that beyond superficial and relatively insignificant similarities, equating the plight of white nationalists in the USA with that of the Palestinians is ludicrous. It is, imo, a 'fucking keeper' among the various memorably, laughably ridiculous things I've 'heard' some people 'say' on the internet. I do not feel obliged to address it any further than that, because imo it does not deserve it. You are free to take the idea back to the alternative mental universe you may inhabit, and cherish it. I don't much care what you do with it, however personally attacked you feel because I am not inclined to address your stupid point. There, now you can feel all wronged. I should tell you that I am, actually, assuming that you are just saying if for a wind up and that you don't actually, really believe it yourself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Keeping attacking me for it doesn't address the issue. If it's wrong show what's wrong.

Actually, you made a claim of fact without one iota of substantiation. It is up to you to support your claims. Instead of your usual evasion, try to actually support one of your claims of fact with actual evidence.

BTW, I think that many of these white bigots know that they are no longer on the top of the social order and are likely to fall even farther down the social order. At least that is the impression I get from talking with some of them. But, that is not real evidence, it is anecdotal.

You're not following your own advice.

You are kidding. You have to be. No one in their right mind could actually say something that ludicrous and actually mean it, surely.

Keeping attacking me for it doesn't address the issue. If it's wrong show what's wrong.

Apart from, as has been pointed out, it being merely a bald assertion, not backed up by any good analysis, reasoning or evidence, it is imo furthermore already plainly obvious to any reasonable, rational person that beyond superficial and relatively insignificant similarities, equating the plight of white nationalists in the USA with that of the Palestinians is ludicrous. It is, imo, a 'fucking keeper' among the various memorably, laughably ridiculous things I've 'heard' some people 'say' on the internet. I do not feel obliged to address it any further than that, because imo it does not deserve it. You are free to take the idea back to the alternative mental universe you may inhabit, and cherish it. I don't much care what you do with it, however personally attacked you feel because I am not inclined to address your stupid point. There, now you can feel all wronged. I should tell you that I am, actually, assuming that you are just saying if for a wind up and that you don't actually, really believe it yourself.

Both of you are attacking me about this rather than addressing the situation.

The Palestinians objected to Jewish immigration with violence because they feared a loss of power. You seem to consider that appropriate.

The white nationalists object to non-white immigration and have reacted with violence because they fear a loss of power. You consider that inappropriate.

How do you reconcile these two positions?

 

[repoman]

They both are understandable impulses but not the best strategy.

White Rabbit will learn ya, Loren.

 

[ruby sparks]

Oh well. Why not, I suppose.

The Palestinians objected to Jewish immigration with violence because they feared a loss of power. You seem to consider that appropriate.

Because you seem to think in binaries, I find it necessary to remind you that I can, as I have said, see two sides of the coin. One of those sides is that the Palestinian response was understandable in the circumstances, yes, and indeed there is a case for saying it was arguably appropriate. But I have even gone so far as to say that I think there is a case for saying that a suitably proportioned Jewish state in Palestine was valid in principle, and that the response of the arabs in general was arguably unreasonable. I don't think in binaries. I have not, like you, taken simplistic sides, overall, or divided the situation up into teams of goodies and baddies.

The white nationalists object to non-white immigration and have reacted with violence because they fear a loss of power. You consider that inappropriate.

How do you reconcile these two positions?

They are not the same situation. They are only superficially similar in some respects. Put white people, or any people, in the same situation as the Palestinians were in in 1948 and put Palestinians in the same situation as the jewish/Zionist immigrants were, and I'd think the same things. But the white nationalists in the USA are not, in fact, in the same situation. White people in the USA are not facing being thrown of their land in large numbers to make way for a new, non-white nation, for instance. The number of immigrants is very small compared to the white population. Their response is therefore not as appropriate to the threat. To be more equivalent, we'd need something like 200 million non-white immigrants to be arriving in the USA over a relatively short period of time, AND with the intention of declaring it a non-white country, potentially involving or threatening the displacement of many of the whites living there. Or, if we were only considering, say, South Carolina, we'd need, I think, about 3 million non-white immigrants arriving AND intending to claim South Carolina as a non-white nation, potentially involving or threatening displacement of many of the local whites. In those circumstances, I would also find resistance by the whites living there (and perhaps in neighbouring states) to be understandable and arguably more appropriate. But even then it wouldn't necessarily be a binary assessment. Other things might have to be considered if they were factors.

You can reasonably compare and contrast two situations that have some similarities, but you can't necessarily, as you did, equate them or put them on a par. That is literally daft.

 

[angelo]

Oh well. Why not, I suppose.

The Palestinians objected to Jewish immigration with violence because they feared a loss of power. You seem to consider that appropriate.

Because you seem to think in binaries, I find it necessary to remind you that I can, as I have said, see two sides of the coin. One of those sides is that the Palestinian response was understandable in the circumstances, yes, and indeed there is a case for saying it was arguably appropriate. But I have even gone so far as to say that I think there is a case for saying that a suitably proportioned Jewish state in Palestine was valid in principle, and that the response of the arabs in general was arguably unreasonable. I don't think in binaries. I have not, like you, taken simplistic sides, overall, or divided the situation up into teams of goodies and baddies.

The white nationalists object to non-white immigration and have reacted with violence because they fear a loss of power. You consider that inappropriate.

How do you reconcile these two positions?

They are not the same situation. They are only superficially similar in some respects. Put white people, or any people, in the same situation as the Palestinians were in in 1948 and put Palestinians in the same situation as the jewish/Zionist immigrants were, and I'd think the same things. But the white nationalists in the USA are not, in fact, in the same situation. White people in the USA are not facing being thrown of their land in large numbers to make way for a new, non-white nation, for instance. The number of immigrants is very small compared to the white population. Their response is therefore not as appropriate to the threat. To be more equivalent, we'd need something like 200 million non-white immigrants to be arriving in the USA over a relatively short period of time, AND with the intention of declaring it a non-white country, potentially involving or threatening the displacement of many of the whites living there. Or, if we were only considering, say, South Carolina, we'd need, I think, about 3 million non-white immigrants arriving AND intending to claim South Carolina as a non-white nation, potentially involving or threatening displacement of many of the local whites. In those circumstances, I would also find resistance by the whites living there (and perhaps in neighbouring states) to be understandable and arguably more appropriate. But even then it wouldn't necessarily be a binary assessment. Other things might have to be considered if they were factors.

You can reasonably compare and contrast two situations that have some similarities, but you can't necessarily, as you did, equate them or put them on a par. That is literally daft.

The main and biggest difference with your analogy is the fact that Jews can trace their history of this part of the world back thousands of years. 200 million non white immigrants arriving in the US today have no history or claim to any part of the USA.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh well. Why not, I suppose.


Because you seem to think in binaries, I find it necessary to remind you that I can, as I have said, see two sides of the coin. One of those sides is that the Palestinian response was understandable in the circumstances, yes, and indeed there is a case for saying it was arguably appropriate. But I have even gone so far as to say that I think there is a case for saying that a suitably proportioned Jewish state in Palestine was valid in principle, and that the response of the arabs in general was arguably unreasonable. I don't think in binaries. I have not, like you, taken simplistic sides, overall, or divided the situation up into teams of goodies and baddies.



They are not the same situation. They are only superficially similar in some respects. Put white people, or any people, in the same situation as the Palestinians were in in 1948 and put Palestinians in the same situation as the jewish/Zionist immigrants were, and I'd think the same things. But the white nationalists in the USA are not, in fact, in the same situation. White people in the USA are not facing being thrown of their land in large numbers to make way for a new, non-white nation, for instance. The number of immigrants is very small compared to the white population. Their response is therefore not as appropriate to the threat. To be more equivalent, we'd need something like 200 million non-white immigrants to be arriving in the USA over a relatively short period of time, AND with the intention of declaring it a non-white country, potentially involving or threatening the displacement of many of the whites living there. Or, if we were only considering, say, South Carolina, we'd need, I think, about 3 million non-white immigrants arriving AND intending to claim South Carolina as a non-white nation, potentially involving or threatening displacement of many of the local whites. In those circumstances, I would also find resistance by the whites living there (and perhaps in neighbouring states) to be understandable and arguably more appropriate. But even then it wouldn't necessarily be a binary assessment. Other things might have to be considered if they were factors.

You can reasonably compare and contrast two situations that have some similarities, but you can't necessarily, as you did, equate them or put them on a par. That is literally daft.

The main and biggest difference with your analogy is the fact that Jews can trace their history of this part of the world back thousands of years. 200 million non white immigrants arriving in the US today have no history or claim to any part of the USA.

So. Fucking. What.

Those people that lived there once are long since dead and gone, and buried. There is no claim other than the claim all humans have to the whole of the earth. The land itself does not care.

 

[angelo]

Oh well. Why not, I suppose.


Because you seem to think in binaries, I find it necessary to remind you that I can, as I have said, see two sides of the coin. One of those sides is that the Palestinian response was understandable in the circumstances, yes, and indeed there is a case for saying it was arguably appropriate. But I have even gone so far as to say that I think there is a case for saying that a suitably proportioned Jewish state in Palestine was valid in principle, and that the response of the arabs in general was arguably unreasonable. I don't think in binaries. I have not, like you, taken simplistic sides, overall, or divided the situation up into teams of goodies and baddies.



They are not the same situation. They are only superficially similar in some respects. Put white people, or any people, in the same situation as the Palestinians were in in 1948 and put Palestinians in the same situation as the jewish/Zionist immigrants were, and I'd think the same things. But the white nationalists in the USA are not, in fact, in the same situation. White people in the USA are not facing being thrown of their land in large numbers to make way for a new, non-white nation, for instance. The number of immigrants is very small compared to the white population. Their response is therefore not as appropriate to the threat. To be more equivalent, we'd need something like 200 million non-white immigrants to be arriving in the USA over a relatively short period of time, AND with the intention of declaring it a non-white country, potentially involving or threatening the displacement of many of the whites living there. Or, if we were only considering, say, South Carolina, we'd need, I think, about 3 million non-white immigrants arriving AND intending to claim South Carolina as a non-white nation, potentially involving or threatening displacement of many of the local whites. In those circumstances, I would also find resistance by the whites living there (and perhaps in neighbouring states) to be understandable and arguably more appropriate. But even then it wouldn't necessarily be a binary assessment. Other things might have to be considered if they were factors.

You can reasonably compare and contrast two situations that have some similarities, but you can't necessarily, as you did, equate them or put them on a par. That is literally daft.

The main and biggest difference with your analogy is the fact that Jews can trace their history of this part of the world back thousands of years. 200 million non white immigrants arriving in the US today have no history or claim to any part of the USA.

So. Fucking. What.

Those people that lived there once are long since dead and gone, and buried. There is no claim other than the claim all humans have to the whole of the earth. The land itself does not care.

But Arab Palestinians have a claim to all the land right?

 

[Jarhyn]

So. Fucking. What.

Those people that lived there once are long since dead and gone, and buried. There is no claim other than the claim all humans have to the whole of the earth. The land itself does not care.

But Arab Palestinians have a claim to all the land right?

False dichotomy. The Arab Palestinians are there, and recently displaced and are disadvantaged as a direct result of displacement. They should have every right to move, travel, influence government, attain representation, seek work, and access education in the regions they were recently displaced from. They should be expected, as anyone ought, to act peaceably in these activities and if they do not, to be treated as anyone breaking the peace.

 

[ruby sparks]

The main and biggest difference with your analogy is the fact that Jews can trace their history of this part of the world back thousands of years. 200 million non white immigrants arriving in the US today have no history or claim to any part of the USA.

Omg. Did you think that criterion through, even slightly?

On behalf of white Americans, and indeed white Australians, have a.....

 

[Arctish]

So. Fucking. What.

Those people that lived there once are long since dead and gone, and buried. There is no claim other than the claim all humans have to the whole of the earth. The land itself does not care.

But Arab Palestinians have a claim to all the land right?

The ones who are descendants of the same ancestors as the Jewish Palestinians do. That's what this is all about.

People who can claim Palestine as their ancestral homeland aren't defined by their religious beliefs. Beliefs aren't inherent characteristics; they can change.

The people who can rightfully claim Palestine as their homeland in accordance with the modern, internationally accepted definition of the concept are recognized by their ancestry.

The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Hebrews who lived there thousands of years ago and are members of communities that never left the region. Their claim is extremely well founded. It would be unassailable if it weren't for the politics of racism and religious bigotry that deny some people their Rights, even the Right to live in their own homeland.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are not the same situation. They are only superficially similar in some respects. Put white people, or any people, in the same situation as the Palestinians were in in 1948 and put Palestinians in the same situation as the jewish/Zionist immigrants were, and I'd think the same things. But the white nationalists in the USA are not, in fact, in the same situation. White people in the USA are not facing being thrown of their land in large numbers to make way for a new, non-white nation, for instance.

Had they not taken the path of violence nobody would have been thrown off their land.

The number of immigrants is very small compared to the white population.

If current trends continue the US will have a non-white majority in 2045.

You can reasonably compare and contrast two situations that have some similarities, but you can't necessarily, as you did, equate them or put them on a par. That is literally daft.

You haven't shown they are different.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The main and biggest difference with your analogy is the fact that Jews can trace their history of this part of the world back thousands of years. 200 million non white immigrants arriving in the US today have no history or claim to any part of the USA.

You're utterly off target here. Whether the Jews were there before has nothing to do with my point.

 

[angelo]

So. Fucking. What.

Those people that lived there once are long since dead and gone, and buried. There is no claim other than the claim all humans have to the whole of the earth. The land itself does not care.

But Arab Palestinians have a claim to all the land right?

The ones who are descendants of the same ancestors as the Jewish Palestinians do. That's what this is all about.

People who can claim Palestine as their ancestral homeland aren't defined by their religious beliefs. Beliefs aren't inherent characteristics; they can change.

The people who can rightfully claim Palestine as their homeland in accordance with the modern, internationally accepted definition of the concept are recognized by their ancestry.

The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Hebrews who lived there thousands of years ago and are members of communities that never left the region. Their claim is extremely well founded. It would be unassailable if it weren't for the politics of racism and religious bigotry that deny some people their Rights, even the Right to live in their own homeland.

You are aware that Jews lived in this place 600 years before the founder, the pedophile/terrorist of islam/muslims was even born? As this article makes clear. But I very much doubt even all this visible evidence will stop these two anti semites members of Congress from spewing out Israeli hatred.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/07/rashida-and-ilhans-excellent-adventure

 

[Arctish]

The ones who are descendants of the same ancestors as the Jewish Palestinians do. That's what this is all about.

People who can claim Palestine as their ancestral homeland aren't defined by their religious beliefs. Beliefs aren't inherent characteristics; they can change.

The people who can rightfully claim Palestine as their homeland in accordance with the modern, internationally accepted definition of the concept are recognized by their ancestry.

The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Hebrews who lived there thousands of years ago and are members of communities that never left the region. Their claim is extremely well founded. It would be unassailable if it weren't for the politics of racism and religious bigotry that deny some people their Rights, even the Right to live in their own homeland.

You are aware that Jews lived in this place 600 years before the founder, the pedophile/terrorist of islam/muslims was even born? As this article makes clear. But I very much doubt even all this visible evidence will stop these two anti semites members of Congress from spewing out Israeli hatred.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/07/rashida-and-ilhans-excellent-adventure

We've been over all this already.

You can't use religion as the basis for a claim to an ancestral homeland.

Kate Capshaw is Jewish, but the area around Jerusalem isn't her ancestral homeland. Her ancestors are European. Her husband is Jewish and while he has mostly Canaanite Hebrew ancestry, he also has some European ancestry. Their children are Jewish and can claim _some_ Canaanite Hebrew ancestry, but their claim to the Jerusalem area as their homeland is nowhere near as strong as that of a person with _only_ Canaanite Hebrew ancestry.

The author of that linked article appears to think there's some confusion about Jews having originated in the area. There isn't. It's just that like it or not, Jews aren't the only ones descended from the ancient Hebrews.

 

[ruby sparks]

The main and biggest difference with your analogy is the fact that Native Americans could trace their history of this part of the world back tens of thousands of years. Millions of white immigrants arriving in the US had no history or claim to any part of the USA.

Fixed.

 

[angelo]

The ones who are descendants of the same ancestors as the Jewish Palestinians do. That's what this is all about.

People who can claim Palestine as their ancestral homeland aren't defined by their religious beliefs. Beliefs aren't inherent characteristics; they can change.

The people who can rightfully claim Palestine as their homeland in accordance with the modern, internationally accepted definition of the concept are recognized by their ancestry.

The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Hebrews who lived there thousands of years ago and are members of communities that never left the region. Their claim is extremely well founded. It would be unassailable if it weren't for the politics of racism and religious bigotry that deny some people their Rights, even the Right to live in their own homeland.

You are aware that Jews lived in this place 600 years before the founder, the pedophile/terrorist of islam/muslims was even born? As this article makes clear. But I very much doubt even all this visible evidence will stop these two anti semites members of Congress from spewing out Israeli hatred.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/07/rashida-and-ilhans-excellent-adventure

We've been over all this already.

You can't use religion as the basis for a claim to an ancestral homeland.

Kate Capshaw is Jewish, but the area around Jerusalem isn't her ancestral homeland. Her ancestors are European. Her husband is Jewish and while he has mostly Canaanite Hebrew ancestry, he also has some European ancestry. Their children are Jewish and can claim _some_ Canaanite Hebrew ancestry, but their claim to the Jerusalem area as their homeland is nowhere near as strong as that of a person with _only_ Canaanite Hebrew ancestry.

The author of that linked article appears to think there's some confusion about Jews having originated in the area. There isn't. It's just that like it or not, Jews aren't the only ones descended from the ancient Hebrews.

Biblical scholars use the term Hebrews to designate the descendants of the patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)—i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also called Israel [Genesis 33:28])—from that period until their conquest of Canaan (Palestine) in the late 2nd millennium bce.
Hebrew | people | Britannica.com
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hebrew