Anti-semitic activity in the US on the rise

[Trausti]

When the Jews returned in peace to the land of their ancestors bought land and improved it.

The Arabs attacked the Jews. The Jews fought back and won. This happened again and again.

The Jews had no reason to initiate the use of violence. They could out compete the Arabs academically and economically with their higher IQ's.

Hang on there. A lot of the land comprising modern Israel was purchased freely. But the Zionists were intent on making a state, and force was not ruled out as a means. You can defend Israel and still acknowledge its checkered past.

 

[Trodon]

During the Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kipper War of 1973 the much larger armies of the Arabs were supported by the Soviet Union.

So? my statement stands. "Survival of the fittest" sounds very hollow when the survival of your nation is dependent upon the good graces of your patron.

Your statement stands on its head. Even with the support of the Soviet Union Israel won.

 

[LordKiran]

So? my statement stands. "Survival of the fittest" sounds very hollow when the survival of your nation is dependent upon the good graces of your patron.

Your statement stands on its head. Even with the support of the Soviet Union Israel won.

Yeah those soviets were some truly poor allies for the Israelis.

At any rate, that was then and this is now. Israel is entirely dependent upon us to shelter them from their many enemies if push were to ever come to shove. The nation-state of Israel only exists insofar as we allow it to.

The Israelis know this for a fact too, it's why they make such a priority to accrue favor with our people.

 

[Trodon]

When the Jews returned in peace to the land of their ancestors bought land and improved it.

The Arabs attacked the Jews. The Jews fought back and won. This happened again and again.

The Jews had no reason to initiate the use of violence. They could out compete the Arabs academically and economically with their higher IQ's.

Hang on there. A lot of the land comprising modern Israel was purchased freely. But the Zionists were intent on making a state, and force was not ruled out as a means. You can defend Israel and still acknowledge its checkered past.

If the Arabs had not begun to attack the Jews, the Jews would not have attacked the Arabs. Eventually the Arabs would have moved away from what became Israel. Arabs would not have been able to get well paying jobs because Jews were more intelligent. Rents in homes and land Arabs occupied would have risen beyond the ability of the Arabs to pay. This happens in the United States. We call it "gentrification."

 

[LordKiran]

Hang on there. A lot of the land comprising modern Israel was purchased freely. But the Zionists were intent on making a state, and force was not ruled out as a means. You can defend Israel and still acknowledge its checkered past.

If the Arabs had not begun to attack the Jews, the Jews would not have attacked the Arabs. Eventually the Arabs would have moved away from what became Israel. Arabs would not have been able to get well paying jobs because Jews were more intelligent. Rents in homes and land Arabs occupied would have risen beyond the ability of the Arabs to pay. This happens in the United States. We call it "gentrification."

Except the Israelis did attack the Palestinians. I also like how you use "Jew" in place of "Israeli" as if to silently acknowledge that Israel is an ethnic state for the Jewish people.

 

[Trodon]

Your statement stands on its head. Even with the support of the Soviet Union Israel won.

Yeah those soviets were some truly poor allies for the Israelis.

At any rate, that was then and this is now. Israel is entirely dependent upon us to shelter them from their many enemies if push were to ever come to shove. The nation-state of Israel only exists insofar as we allow it to.

The Israelis are greatly out numbered by the Arabs. Israel is a small oaisis of civilization surrounded by a vast desert of primitive and horrifying barbarism. The money we give Israel in foreign aid is well spent. By contrast, the money we give sub Saharan countries is appropriated by dictators for their own luxury.

Donald Trump has said that he will appoint David Friedman to be U.S. ambassador to Israel. Friedman is a militant Zionist. That will send a message both to the Arab world, and to anti Semites who have been attracted to Trump's candidacy.

- - - Updated - - -

If the Arabs had not begun to attack the Jews, the Jews would not have attacked the Arabs. Eventually the Arabs would have moved away from what became Israel. Arabs would not have been able to get well paying jobs because Jews were more intelligent. Rents in homes and land Arabs occupied would have risen beyond the ability of the Arabs to pay. This happens in the United States. We call it "gentrification."

Except the Israelis did attack the Palestinians. I also like how you use "Jew" in place of "Israeli" as if to silently acknowledge that Israel is an ethnic state for the Jewish people.

The Jews counter attacked the Arabs.

Israel is indeed an ethnic state for the Jewish people. That is why I love Israel.

 

[LordKiran]

Yeah those soviets were some truly poor allies for the Israelis.

At any rate, that was then and this is now. Israel is entirely dependent upon us to shelter them from their many enemies if push were to ever come to shove. The nation-state of Israel only exists insofar as we allow it to.

The Israelis are greatly out numbered by the Arabs. Israel is a small oaisis of civilization surrounded by a vast desert of primitive and horrifying barbarism. The money we give Israel in foreign aid is well spent. By contrast, the money we give sub Saharan countries is appropriated by dictators for their own luxury.

Donald Trump has said that he will appoint David Friedman to be U.S. ambassador to Israel. Friedman is a militant Zionist. That will send a message both to the Arab world, and to anti Semites who have been attracted to Trump's candidacy.

- - - Updated - - -

If the Arabs had not begun to attack the Jews, the Jews would not have attacked the Arabs. Eventually the Arabs would have moved away from what became Israel. Arabs would not have been able to get well paying jobs because Jews were more intelligent. Rents in homes and land Arabs occupied would have risen beyond the ability of the Arabs to pay. This happens in the United States. We call it "gentrification."

Except the Israelis did attack the Palestinians. I also like how you use "Jew" in place of "Israeli" as if to silently acknowledge that Israel is an ethnic state for the Jewish people.

The Jews counter attacked the Arabs.

Israel is indeed an ethnic state for the Jewish people. That is why I love Israel.

Hey so long as you admit that the inferior Jewish peoples wouldn't have a client state to live in without the benevolence of their betters, I'm good.

 

[blastula]

Your statement stands on its head. Even with the support of the Soviet Union Israel won.

Yeah those soviets were some truly poor allies for the Israelis.

The Soviets were aiding the Arab states.

At any rate, that was then and this is now. Israel is entirely dependent upon us to shelter them from their many enemies if push were to ever come to shove. The nation-state of Israel only exists insofar as we allow it to.

The Israelis know this for a fact too, it's why they make such a priority to accrue favor with our people.

Israel likes the aid, but they have shown they can fight their own battles. They even have their own nukes. They would just need extra aid only as much as others in the region were getting extra aid.

 

[LordKiran]

The Soviets were aiding the Arab states.

I know. I was mocking his poor syntax.

Israel likes the aid, but they have shown they can fight their own battles. They even have their own nukes. They would just need extra aid only as much as others in the region were getting extra aid.

The aid isn't what keeps them around. The diplomatic shield they get from the daddyUSA is what keeps them around.

 

[blastula]

Define "diplomatic shield." What do you think would happen if they didn't have it? Would they disintegrate?

 

[LordKiran]

Define "diplomatic shield." What do you think would happen if they didn't have it? Would they disintegrate?

I believe that without an external world power to intervene, Israel would be beset on all sides by their enemies and would eventually be worn down into nothing, military hardware or no.

The existence of a military patron in the US discourages formal wars being declared against Israel which is why you see the perpetual proxy war between them and the Arab powers-that-be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the Arabs had not begun to attack the Jews, the Jews would not have attacked the Arabs. Eventually the Arabs would have moved away from what became Israel. Arabs would not have been able to get well paying jobs because Jews were more intelligent. Rents in homes and land Arabs occupied would have risen beyond the ability of the Arabs to pay. This happens in the United States. We call it "gentrification."

Except the Israelis did attack the Palestinians. I also like how you use "Jew" in place of "Israeli" as if to silently acknowledge that Israel is an ethnic state for the Jewish people.

Except you have it backwards. When Israel declared statehood it was immediately attacked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Please. The nation of Israel couldn't survive without its patron. So spare me the 'might makes right' speech.

Israel could survive. The main thing our support does is keep down the bloodshed.

Israel would have won in 1973 even without our help--but at a minimum Cairo would have been radioactive ashes, perhaps other cities also if the Arabs didn't surrender quickly enough. The Arab nations know they can't avoid nuclear retaliation, that's why there has been only proxy wars since then.

 

[Warpoet]

The Israelis are greatly out numbered by the Arabs. Israel is a small oaisis of civilization surrounded by a vast desert of primitive and horrifying barbarism.

Ah, yes, it's the old manichean oversimplification of the civilized vs the barbarians. So much easier to justify stomping out other groups of people when you view them as your civilizational inferiors.

The money we give Israel in foreign aid is well spent. By contrast, the money we give sub Saharan countries is appropriated by dictators for their own luxury.

You have a rather odd grasp of the concept of return on investment if you think our lavish aid to Israel is "well-spent;" bankrolling and validating their crimes against the Palestinians, and the defense against the backlash it inevitably creates, has done little for the United States except enrage a large percentage of the world's population, and help push some to the point of violence. We get very little in return - certainly nothing that would offset the tremendous costs we've paid monetarily, socially and politically.

Donald Trump has said that he will appoint David Friedman to be U.S. ambassador to Israel. Friedman is a militant Zionist. That will send a message both to the Arab world, and to anti Semites who have been attracted to Trump's candidacy.

Yes, that's exactly what we need in this equation - more extremist nutjobs who have no interest in peace.

Israel is indeed an ethnic state for the Jewish people. That is why I love Israel.

Apparently it doesn't bother you at all if said ethnic state is created at the expense of the people already living there. But hey, it doesn't matter - barbarians, right? Nice to see the spirit of colonialism is still alive and well.

 

[LordKiran]

Except the Israelis did attack the Palestinians. I also like how you use "Jew" in place of "Israeli" as if to silently acknowledge that Israel is an ethnic state for the Jewish people.

Except you have it backwards. When Israel declared statehood it was immediately attacked.

And before formal declarations were made? Don't hide behind semantics Loren, people hate that. The Israelis attacked the palestinians. I said nothing of the Arabs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except you have it backwards. When Israel declared statehood it was immediately attacked.

And before formal declarations were made? Don't hide behind semantics Loren, people hate that. The Israelis attacked the palestinians. I said nothing of the Arabs.

There were small ongoing attacks in both directions before statehood. At the moment of statehood there was an invasion. Look at the timeline--the invasion was in response to the existence of a Jewish state, not by any Jewish violence. The real sin of the Jews was throwing off the Muslim yoke.

 

[blastula]

Define "diplomatic shield." What do you think would happen if they didn't have it? Would they disintegrate?

I believe that without an external world power to intervene, Israel would be beset on all sides by their enemies and would eventually be worn down into nothing, military hardware or no.

The existence of a military patron in the US discourages formal wars being declared against Israel which is why you see the perpetual proxy war between them and the Arab powers-that-be.

This ignores what I said earlier, that they would just need extra aid only as much as others in the region were getting extra aid. They have shown they can defend themselves on their own. And they are the only ones there with nukes.

Do you believe the other nations have just cause to declare wars against Israel?

 

[LordKiran]

I believe that without an external world power to intervene, Israel would be beset on all sides by their enemies and would eventually be worn down into nothing, military hardware or no.

The existence of a military patron in the US discourages formal wars being declared against Israel which is why you see the perpetual proxy war between them and the Arab powers-that-be.

This ignores what I said earlier, that they would just need extra aid only as much as others in the region were getting extra aid. They have shown they can defend themselves on their own. And they are the only ones there with nukes.

Do you believe the other nations have just cause to declare wars against Israel?

Define "just."

I'd argue that Israel was unjustly founded at the expense of others who continue to suffer from foreign occupation, for the benefit of people who had no rightful claim to the land (Rightful in this case would be something more substantive than one's religious doctrine) so to argue that a war against them to be somehow 'unjust' is nonsense to me.

 

[blastula]

So you do support war against Israel. You like war, when it's against Israel at least. But which nation of the ones that you envision declaring war can show they have a rightful claim to the land?

 

[LordKiran]

So you do support war against Israel. You like war, when it's against Israel at least. But which nation of the ones that you envision declaring war can show they have a rightful claim to the land?

To be honest, it's a difficult decision to come to. I think the nation of Israel is unjustly founded, but like it or not they're here now. And like it or not there is no going back. The Zionists failed to integrate the native population but rather pushed them away, so now they have a displaced and disaffected population of rebels at their doorstep.

The bitter cold truth is that the chance for peace has honestly past, and there is only one outcome possible:

Either through direct war or through the slow and agonizing attrition of asymmetric warfare, one will destroy the other and push them out of the region indefinitely.

To my mind, the most just act would be to side against the Israelis

The pragmatic act would be to let them sort themselves out

What will likely happen is a continuation of more of the same that will eventually reach a tipping point with our own blood fighting and dying for the benefit of an Israeli client state. Not ideal.

Now to more directly answer your question, no nation will declare war to claim the land directly but will rather form a pro-palistine coalition to create a new sovereign state, perhaps as a puppet for whichever nation has the most pull in the given coalition.