Jews

Discussion in 'History' started by arauca, Sep 1, 2013.

  1. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,784
    Well it's good you at least acknowledge that the Jewish people are a nation with accompanying national rights. As I understand it, Jews were the largest constituent population in Jerusalem even under Ottoman rule, so it's logical that it could be viewed as a historic Jewish capital with a history going back more than 2000 years, although that alone doesn't legitimize displacing other settled peoples in order to sweep out a state which includes it.

    Most of the European and North African states that exist today were established by tribes of eastern barbarians sweeping west, and they've been rewarded for their massacres with independent states in the modern age. Thus it's only logical that the Roma, who never massacred any Europeans or North Africans, should be rewarded with a sovereign territory as compensation for all the attempts to deliver them to the same fate as those who lived on the lands before them. And if it's ever collectively decided that the Jews aren't entitled to a sovereign homeland in the region where such a homeland once existed before the Arabs and Europeans invaded, then the centuries of discimination, repression, pogroms and massacres they've subsequently suffered at the hands of Europeans and Muslims entitle them to such a state elsewhere, on lands of vastly higher quality and size.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,543
    These areas became British mandates after WWI. By the end of WWII, Iraq and Jordan were independent (arab) countries. The only territory still under British control was Palestine.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,019
    Actually the evidence for proto Arab people being in the region predates evidence of a jewish state. When palestingbwas conquered it was Arabs conquerering Arabs
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,019
    The recitation of next year in Jerusalem was never a call to reform one of the ancient jewish kingdoms. It was a read earning the spiritual conection. At least that's what the jews I've heard talk about it have said. It was only after Zionism birth in the late 1800 and early 1900 along with the creation of the idea as jews as an ethnic group and nation that it was used as such.
     
  8. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,784
    What evidence is there for a Saudi presence in Israel 2500 years ago? Sources?

    There was a well-documented Jewish nation in the time of Christ and earlier (c.f. the Alexandrian era) which was conquered by the Romans and ethnically cleansed, there was a Jewish nation formed by Israeli exiles in Khazaria which was conquered by Muslims and ethnically cleansed, there were Jewish communities in Spain that were expelled and slaughtered by the Conquistadors alongside the Moors, and so on. Until recently, there was no place on Earth Jews could go and enjoy the right to religious and cultural freedom, because every single time they began to thrive somewhere, they were either kicked out or well along the path to such a fate. Even today, there's probably only one country on the planet where the Jews actually outnumber the antisemites, and it ain't America.

    As an ethnicity- this is indisputable- the Jews have vastly more national and cultural history than the Eastern barbarians who invaded Europe and had a bunch of pickle and sausage-maker states carved out for them over the last few centuries by the more established powers. Once again, if the Jewish/Yiddish/Hebrew people aren't a nation with the accompanying rights, then hardly anyone else is, so everyone around the world should drop their border checkpoints without delay and embrace anyone who wants to live amongst them.
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I suspect "Next year in Jerusalem." has always had both meanings. I also doubt your friends were linguists, expert in pre-1800 Hebrew enough to know that those words were not often also taken literally, at least for Jews not living there.

    In fact in almost all languages in which both a literal and symbolic / figurative meanings of some phrase now exists, the symbolic one ONLY comes to exist AFTER the literal one is well established and known.* So I think you are wrong, even without being an expert in pre-1800 Hebrew.

    I do however thank Mathman for catching my error of an extra "I" at end of what we agree was WWI.

    * To prove this point, here is purely symbolic / figurative phase I just made up: "Yes a noisy green ball rolling along." as you have no earlier or prior literal meaning of that to extend into the figurative realm, you have no unique idea what is the figurative meaning I intend. Thus, you can only understand my invented phrase literally.
    LITERAL MEANING ALWAYS COMES FIRST.

    So I'll tell you what my invented figurative phrase means with another figurative phase that you can understand as the two literal meanings ** it comes from are well known:

    "Yes a noisy green ball rolling along." = "Yes, there is a lot of hot air on the ecological band wagon now."

    **(hot air & bandwagon are both used figuratively in the above, and understood correctly in this figurative use, as their figurative uses are now common and come from their earlier literal meanings)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2013
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,019
    Please tell me this sarcasm because ther alternative is just laughable.



    There was a well-documented Jewish nation in the time of Christ and earlier (c.f. the Alexandrian era) which was conquered by the Romans and ethnically cleansed,[/QUOTE] No there wasn't. their was a jewish state and a hebrew ethnicity documented but not a nation. the very idea of nationhood didn't come into existence until much later.
    Actualy the conversion of Khazaria to judiasm happened via a conversion of the nobility to the faith and no real evidence of ethnic cleansing of the native Khazers by muslim conquest. Unlike with christian and now jewish expansionism which was characterized by the whole sale slaughter of native populations and replacing them with their own population muslim expansion was primarily done via forced cultural conversion.
    not really by your own admission here through out history there were numerous times jews were able to thrive and in many of those places enjoyed cultural and religious freedom. and one could argue Israel is an anti semitic state.

    you do realize some of those states you dismiss so casually are some of the oldest cultural groups in europe? hell the concept of poland goes back over a thousand years. germanic history goes back 2500 years
    only if you use your highly dubious rendition of history that is quite literally filled with a rampant bigotry to peoples that have histories of states far surpassing the jewish states and using such an anachronistic use of terminology to be laughable. The concept of a jewish nation only goes back 130 years or so putting around the same age as unified germany and italy both of which have cultural traditions going back much further. trying to claim a jewish nation existed in a time when people only really viewed them selves as linked to maybe their city and surrounding area is pure arrogannce.
     
  11. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,784
    It's not sarcasm at all. If the Palestinians want to claim an ancient, sacred right to all of the land of Israel and to negate the Jews' right to a partition, then it should be established that they exercised some form of historical exclusivity over the land. In Roman times there were roughly 1,000,000 Jews estimated to be living in the land. At the time of the Crusades, under Muslim control, the population of the entire land had dwindled to something like 30,000. The Biblical Phillistines originated from Greece and had the land renamed in their historical honour when the Romans conquered it from the Jews, whereas the modern Palestinians adopted their name from the land and have a population descended from migrants from all over the world, mainly from lands ruled by the Islamic empires who repeatedly conquered it after the Romans. As just one of many examples, there was a mass migration of Arab Egyptians in the 19th century which accounts for a large percentage of today's Palestinian population.

    I believe the Palestinians have rights to a share of Israel-West Bank-Gaza based on how much of the land they were actually using at the time of the 1947 partition, not an entitlement to all of the land based on the idea that they're historically native to it and that the Jews are mostly European or Arab converts whose ancestors never set foot there until recently.

    Please explain the practical difference to me- I wasn't aware that Napoleon was the first to give people a sense of identity.

    "Forced cultural conversion" in medieval ages where human rights consisted of your right to bow to your liege lord whenever he farts, you really think that happened through non-violence? Khazaria was a land where the Jews gained the ability to openly practise their faith without outside repression, to be themselves and enjoy the according self-determination, and over a period of several centuries it was systematically stolen from them by Viking invaders, Russian Christian barbarian invaders and Muslims, until the nation ceased to exist altogether.

    On the other hand, there was never a wholesale slaughter of Palestinians by the modern Israeli state, not even close. Your type cries for 70 years about a couple hundred people being massacred in the village of Deir Yassin, while using that one incident as an excuse to kill tends of thousands or more. 70 years of Arab-Israeli conflict has yet to produce as many casualties (including both sides and all military casualties) as 3 years of fighting in Syria. You're a hypocrite, go home and find another people to harass.

    You left out what happened historically whenever those Jews started to enjoy too many freedoms and a little too much prosperity. They ended up slaughtered and expelled, every... single... fricking... time. Now they have a homeland, they can defend themselves against any nation on this Earth, and they won't be leaving it until they have an even better place to go, if ever.

    No, I don't. Germany received huge migrations from eastern Europe in Roman times, and the modern concept of Germany as a nation didn't emerge until the Middle Ages.

    Not even half as old as the Jewish nation, and yet which one ended up cleansing out the other?

    How many Celts are there in Germany today? What gives Germany the right to a sovereign country after all the horrible things they've done for the world and other ethnicities, if the Jews aren't entitled to one of their own?

    If only you could understand how accurately your projections describe your own self.

    Yeah, because in the Alexandrian and Roman times there was no such thing as a kingdom or an empire, just small amalgamations of local city states. Nice try.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
     
  13. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The word 'Jew' refers to a religion...not a race or a nation.
     
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No, like many words, there are several different meanings. Fraggle gives three different (commonly used by gentiles) here:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?135981-Jews&p=3109944&viewfull=1#post3109944
    In response to my statement telling what the state of Israel defines as a Jew. I.e. for Israel's laws, especially the "right of return" law, you are a Jew IFF your mother was a Jew, etc. back as far as their are records.*

    In private surveys, where no records of identity are taken, the number of Israel law defined Jews, who are either agnostics or atheists out number by far the number of orthodox Jews. I.e. most Israeli legal Jews don't follow the Jewish religion. They are like Christmas & Easter church going "Christians." They may keep some of the holly days. (By for example not allowing themselves or the their kids to eat bacon, especially not with milk, that day.)

    * If there are no records, I think, you can give your DNA as evidence that you are very probably of Jewish descent, as you claim to be, and be legally recognized by Israel as a Jew, which will then make any children you have be Jews by birth, regardless of what religion, if any, you or they believe.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2013
  15. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,784
    Actually, the definition of Jew as a racial/heritage identifier is one of the correct technical definitions outlined in standard dictionaries. The Vikings didn't cease to be a nation or an amalgamation of nations the day they gave up the Norse gods for Christianity; with or without religion, the Jews still meet the same criteria as every other ethnic nation state, both by their own definitions and by the definitions of the people who've historically hunted them.
     
  16. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,040
  17. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,784
    If that's truly the case, then they should get a national homeland in Europe just like all the other European ethnicities, as I've been saying from the start. I would expect Ashkenazi Jews to look very European and be mostly European in their genetic makeup regardless of their true origins, since they've been living and interbreeding there for over 1,000 years. I find it interesting that your cited study claims to debunk the idea that the Jews of Europe descend from Khazar converts with no ancestral connection to Israel, but I find the claim that there were once 6,000,000 Jews throughout the Roman Empire to be utterly absurd. At its height the Roman Empire had roughly 60,000,000 citizens of whom roughly 1,000,000 actually lived in Rome- that's an awful lot of Jews disappearing from the history books if they truly made up 10% of the population.
     
  18. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Yes there are many erroneous meanings, but only ONE true definition.

    The laws of Israel quoted above only delay discovering the true definition by pushing it back in time.

    If I am a Jew because my mother is a Jew...what makes her a Jew??? etc.

    If a Christian woman converts to Judisam...will Israel only recognize her children as Jews?

    The idea that modern european Jews can trace their genetics directly back to the ancient Hebrews has long been debunked.

    http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jew...0592320?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381269384&sr=1-1
     
  19. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,784
    If I recall correctly, the author in this link makes the argument that modern Jews mainly descend from Khazar converts, whereas the study you previously linked to claims to debunk this same argument. All the same, none of your arguments conflict with the Jews' right to self-determination in a nation state where they constitute the majority. If they're European, then let them have their rightful European homeland.
     
  20. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,205
    That's consistent with the view that male Jewish founders took native brides. This study followed maternal DNA. It doesn't prove that these people didn't have ancestors from Palestine.
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No. Conceptually one could be come a widely respected Rabbi, but still not be a Jew by Israeli law.

    I noticed in your post 115 quote of me you changed my IFF in post 111 to IF. That implies you don't know that IFF is a standard contraction of "If and only If"
    In Israeli law you are a Jew IFF your mother was a Jew - Your father could be the Pope and that still applies. I.e. With a Jewish mother, you would be a Jew, even if dad made you a priest. Likewise, if your dad was the leading orthodox Rabbi, but mom was a non-Jew you are not a Jew by Israeli law.

    It is rather arrogant of you to tell Israel they don't know the truth as to who is a Jew. I. e. You said: "Yes there are many erroneous meanings, but only ONE true definition."
     
  22. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    I didnt link any previous study on this thread...check the posts.
     
  23. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    No just truthful...the old Nazi/Israeli conception of Jews as a distinct race has long been debunked.
     

Share This Page