[wat0n]

@Verv you seem to be confused about something.

One can perfectly want to militarily defeat Hamas to make it unable to govern and, at the same time, want to share (or divide) Jerusalem or get rid of the settlements.

Have you ever gone to Jerusalem? I have and regardless of what Israelis claim, or wish, the city is already divided anyway. There's a fairly large part of the city where Jews just don't go to and that includes even the cops. I don't see any reason not to just make that official.

There's also nothing wrong with Jews moving to Israel (the West Bank is another story). Why should they have their or their kids' arms blown off by grenades?

Not that Hersh Goldberg-Polin was the only peacenik who was kidnapped or killed on October 7 either.

[Verv]

@Verv you seem to be confused about something.

One can perfectly want to militarily defeat Hamas to make it unable to govern and, at the same time, want to share (or divide) Jerusalem or get rid of the settlements.

That is objectively true.

But that is not actually what I want - to say what I want quite succinctly:

- There should be one state, called 'Palestine'
- Total equality between all people there
- Full human rights for everyone
- Reparations and massive influx of funding to try to elevate the socieoeconomic status of Palestinians
- Trials for israeli politicians & military officers that followed orders that knowingly would likely result in the deaths of civilians
- Trials for Hamas leaders who attacked civilians or greenlit it.

Something like that.

Palestine is actually a pleasantly neutral & historic name.

Have you ever gone to Jerusalem? I have and regardless of what Israelis claim, or wish, the city is already divided anyway. There's a fairly large part of the city where Jews just don't go to and that includes even the cops. I don't see any reason not to just make that official.

There's also nothing wrong with Jews moving to Israel (the West Bank is another story). Why should they have their or their kids' arms blown off by grenades?

No, and I doubt I'll ever go. I've said enough stuff on the internet to imagine that someone would not make it possible for me to go there.

... and it is wrong for people to be part of the apartheid state, IMO. It is hard to have sympathy for people who show up to be part of an apartheid state and face some of the violence they inflict on others.

Nobody deserves to be victimized by any form of violence, but it is hard to sympathize with people who are part of a system of violence and ethnic cleansing that end up getting hit.

Since Hersh appears to have been against that and was advocating in his personal life for a Jerusalem that belongs to everyone and such, it is a loss.

I really have to eat my words here - he really was one of the good guys.

I'm sorry, honestly, for assuming anything about him. I feel embarrassed.

Not that Hersh Goldberg-Polin was the only peacenik who was kidnapped or killed on October 7 either.

I am sure he wasn't - I actually assume many at the Nova festival were progressives.

Which reiterates the problem with looking to the military as an optin.

[Pants-of-dog]

There seems to be a lack of any argument from the people opposed to the protests.

[wat0n]

You sound desperate @Pants-of-dog, I guess the fact that the protesters are antisemitic even under your own standards must be causing a major cognitive dissonance.

That is objectively true.

But that is not actually what I want - to say what I want quite succinctly:

- There should be one state, called 'Palestine'
- Total equality between all people there
- Full human rights for everyone
- Reparations and massive influx of funding to try to elevate the socieoeconomic status of Palestinians
- Trials for israeli politicians & military officers that followed orders that knowingly would likely result in the deaths of civilians
- Trials for Hamas leaders who attacked civilians or greenlit it.

Something like that.

Palestine is actually a pleasantly neutral & historic name.

Too bad neither Israelis nor Palestinians want that.

Most either want two states or a single, exclusionary state. Palestine itself defines it as an Arab state just like its neighbors, not a binational one, and it also makes Shar'ia a principal source of legislation.

Why should the will of the majority be ignored?

If, after achieving two states, the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians decided they want to live in a single state, that would be their right and would even be Zionist since it would be an expression of self-determination of the Jewish people. This intermediate step would be necessary since a single exclusionary state would not let both populations to express themselves at the ballot.

But outsiders have no right to impose an unhappy marriage on Israelis and Palestinians just because they feel entitled to tell other peoples how to run their societies and they should evidently not impose it in what is basically the leftist version of bombing Iraq to spread democracy.

Also, "Palestine" is not a neutral name for the region, it's of Greek origin and was chosen by the Romans explicitly to erase the Jewish connection to the land. It's up to the people who live there to decide how to name the land.

No, and I doubt I'll ever go. I've said enough stuff on the internet to imagine that someone would not make it possible for me to go there.

... and it is wrong for people to be part of the apartheid state, IMO. It is hard to have sympathy for people who show up to be part of an apartheid state and face some of the violence they inflict on others.

Nobody deserves to be victimized by any form of violence, but it is hard to sympathize with people who are part of a system of violence and ethnic cleansing that end up getting hit.

Since Hersh appears to have been against that and was advocating in his personal life for a Jerusalem that belongs to everyone and such, it is a loss.

I really have to eat my words here - he really was one of the good guys.

I'm sorry, honestly, for assuming anything about him. I feel embarrassed.

Do you think those Palestinian civilians who support Hamas and an exclusionary single state more generally should have their hands blown off?

Do you find it hard to sympathize with them or this standard only applies to Jews?

I am sure he wasn't - I actually assume many at the Nova festival were progressives.

Which reiterates the problem with looking to the military as an optin.

You should tell this to those Palestinian irredentists who decide to attack Israeli civilians here.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since none of my arguments, or the claims of the protesters, are dependent on me (or the protesters) not being antisemitic, the criticism is irrelevant.

The protests are continuing? At Columbia, the protesters went so far as to bang drums. chant, march, and (worst of all) threw paint on a statue.

For this, they were branded as supporters of terrorism.

[wat0n]

The claims of protesters do depend on not being antisemitic, actually. After all, if you claim to be protesting for "social justice" and "human rights" you cannot be antisemitic or support targeting civilians (the latter of which is why the protesters are accused of supporting terrorism).

Also, the Columbia protesters vandalized university property, harassed and even assaulted Israeli and Jewish students.

[Pants-of-dog]

The claims of Ziomists, centrist, and conservatives do depend on not being anti-democratic and not supporting genocide, actually. After all, if you claim to be standing for "social justice" and "human rights" you cannot be anti-democratic or support targeting civilians (the latter of which is why the states are accused of supporting genocide).

Also, the Columbia protesters were called terrorist supporters not because of their supposed vandalizing of university property, harassing or even assaulting Israeli and Jewish students, but for protesting against the actions of Israel.

[wat0n]

The claims of Ziomists, centrist, and conservatives do depend on not being anti-democratic and not supporting genocide, actually. After all, if you claim to be standing for "social justice" and "human rights" you cannot be anti-democratic or support targeting civilians (the latter of which is why the states are accused of supporting genocide).

I don't think most of these zionists, centrists and conservatives support targeting civilians or ending democracy though.

The accusations against Israel are just that, accusations, and have not been proven.

Also, the Columbia protesters were called terrorist supporters not because of their supposed vandalizing of university property, harassing or even assaulting Israeli and Jewish students, but for protesting against the actions of Israel.

Wrong. They're accused of supporting terrorism because that's what they're doing.

An example, mentioned in the report:

Students witnessed and sometimes experienced threats of violence or actual violence in these settings. Several recalled being assaulted while holding Israeli flags, which in at least one case protesters attempted to burn. One recounted having seen a student holding up a sign reading “AlQassam Brigade’s next target” standing in front of a Jewish student peacefully singing the Israeli National anthem. Students told us about chants such as, “Al-Qassam you make us proud, kill another soldier now,” “Yes Hamas, we love you, we support your rockets too,” or “We say justice you say how, burn Tel Aviv to the ground.” Another talked about fearing for their safety when, during Passover, they did not have a phone: “I don’t know how I will get around without my phone, without a video, without the ability to call the police.”43

[Pants-of-dog]

If Zionists, centrists, and others did not support the ongoing genocide and censorship, they would denounce it.

Consequently, their respect for human rights is false. Consequently, we can dismiss all claims of antisemitism.

And the advocacy of violence is distasteful, but not illegal, or terrorism, or any worse than the ongoing support for the IDF and Israeli government.

[wat0n]

If Zionists, centrists, and others did not support the ongoing genocide and censorship, they would denounce it.

Consequently, their respect for human rights is false. Consequently, we can dismiss all claims of antisemitism.

Why denounce what isn't happening?

If you're going to denounce bad things Israel actually does, go ahead. The settlements are the most obvious example.

Also, if you're trying to draw an equivalence between pro-Palestine protesters and pro-Israel protesters, you're already conceding defeat here. Their claims after all rest on claims of moral superiority.

And the advocacy of violence is distasteful, but not illegal, or terrorism, or any worse than the ongoing support for the IDF and Israeli government.

It is not illegal to rhetorically support terrorism either.

It is however illegal to trespass property, vandalize property, harass students and assault students.

[Pants-of-dog]

The most common way for many centrists to refuse to denounce the ongoing genocide is to claim it is not happening.

It is not difficult to attain moral superiority over a genocide denier. Thus, the protesters obviously feel they enjoy such superiority.

[wat0n]

What if the genocide accusation, on top of being false, is used to justify a massacre like that on October 7?

Because, yes, that is also one thing the pro-Palestine protesters are doing. Blood libels are also not a new thing in Jewish history.

[Unthinking Majority]

The most common way for many centrists to refuse to denounce the ongoing genocide is to claim it is not happening.

It is not difficult to attain moral superiority over a genocide denier. Thus, the protesters obviously feel they enjoy such superiority.

The protestors might have a good point about genocide and other human rights abuse happening.

The problem about moral superiority is that the same protestors protesting against illegally occupied land and Palestinians being segregated have been illegally occupying land on campus and segregating students based on ideology. So do they actually care about human rights, or just when it affects the people they favor?

[Verv]

Too bad neither Israelis nor Palestinians want that.

Most either want two states or a single, exclusionary state. Palestine itself defines it as an Arab state just like its neighbors, not a binational one, and it also makes Shar'ia a principal source of legislation.

Why should the will of the majority be ignored?

If, after achieving two states, the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians decided they want to live in a single state, that would be their right and would even be Zionist since it would be an expression of self-determination of the Jewish people. This intermediate step would be necessary since a single exclusionary state would not let both populations to express themselves at the ballot.

But outsiders have no right to impose an unhappy marriage on Israelis and Palestinians just because they feel entitled to tell other peoples how to run their societies and they should evidently not impose it in what is basically the leftist version of bombing Iraq to spread democracy.

See, that is where you are wrong: the Jews are total aliens in this region and have forced themselves into it through devious means and erected an apartheid state that we are the chief sponsors of. They will not survive the century if Western support is withdrawn.

They have to do what we want them to do. They have to dance our dance.

Setting up a secular, democratic state in which they can exist as equals of the Palestinians is the fairest thing we can do to the Jews who were born and grew up in this rogue nation, and it is perhaps potentially quite rewarding to the Palestinians as it facilitates them achieving independence without warfare and may also create a lot of useful economic & cultural infrastructure for them.

The two-state solution is, of course, far more likely, but it will still leave the groundwork for the destruction of the Zionist entity because the thief can never become the legal owner of the property that they have stolen.

There is no reason why the Palestinians must settle for half.

Also, the word is Palestinian. Arab is still technically correct as the Palestinians are a Levantine Arab group, but it would be strange to keep referring to specifically Polish land as 'European land,' especially when it is just part of the Zionist tricks in denying the identity (and thus statehood) of the Palestinians.

Also, "Palestine" is not a neutral name for the region, it's of Greek origin and was chosen by the Romans explicitly to erase the Jewish connection to the land. It's up to the people who live there to decide how to name the land.

No, it wasn't chosen by the Romans.

There are references in 1150 BC to Palestine in Egyptian monuments, and the word is also used by Assyrians in the 9th century. The Greeks, of course, also use it, because it is a common, neutral name for the area (Wikipedia).

"Israel" was once the political name of one of the Kingdoms there, just like Kingdom of Judah.

It may even be the case that Palestine was written in the way it was by the Greeks because they were aware that Israel also is a referene to wrestler, so they inserted a double entendre in their rendering of it to make the word not just the geonym but also referential to a Greek word related to wrestling (same link above).

Do you think those Palestinian civilians who support Hamas and an exclusionary single state more generally should have their hands blown off?

Do you find it hard to sympathize with them or this standard only applies to Jews?

No, I think what happened to Hersh is regrettable. It is logical, though, in the sense that this is a zone of armed conflict.

If there were several hundred dead Palestinian children due to a year long operation that occasionally resulted in unintentional casualties on civilians, I would consider it also regrettable but arguably within the limits of acceptability for a prolonged armed conflict with a military... But there are 16,000 or so dead Palestinian children.

Do you think that's acceptable? Do you think they should be dead? (To use the phrasing you used.)

I answer all your questions - you should also answer mine.

You should tell this to those Palestinian irredentists who decide to attack Israeli civilians here.

To also answer with the other part of your question here - yes, it is far easier to sympathize with Palestinians, even the ones with ugly views, than it is with Jewish settlers.

Palestinians have four grandparents and eight great grandparents from Palestine. They haven't come from anywhere. Their crime is staying where they are.

Jewish settlers have grandparents from all over the world - they went to Palestine as a project to ethnically cleanse a huge chunk of land from the natives and carve out their own society. Many of them went there even as atheist or agnostic Jews that reject the Torah, reject the very God and the basis for the "claim" they have on it.

There's no scenario where we can justify the creation of the state of Israel on Palestinian land, so it is hard to sympathize with any form of Zionism.

Hersh was someone who believed 'Jersualem Belongs to Everyone,[/i] and in some sense I think he was a young Israeli who rejected zionism. Probably he believes in the right of all Jews to go to Jerusalem and to be part of the community there, and he would envision one in which the Muslims and Christians and irreligious and differently religious of the world all have rights to be there, living in a free society...

I think he probably even rejected zionism if it means the building of an exclusive ethnoreligious state.

[wat0n]

See, that is where you are wrong: the Jews are total aliens in this region and have forced themselves into it through devious means and erected an apartheid state that we are the chief sponsors of. They will not survive the century if Western support is withdrawn.

They have to do what we want them to do. They have to dance our dance.

Setting up a secular, democratic state in which they can exist as equals of the Palestinians is the fairest thing we can do to the Jews who were born and grew up in this rogue nation, and it is perhaps potentially quite rewarding to the Palestinians as it facilitates them achieving independence without warfare and may also create a lot of useful economic & cultural infrastructure for them.

The two-state solution is, of course, far more likely, but it will still leave the groundwork for the destruction of the Zionist entity because the thief can never become the legal owner of the property that they have stolen.

There is no reason why the Palestinians must settle for half.

Oh so you believe Jesus was not a Jew - contrary to what the Gospel says -, you don't believe in genealogical evidence showing Jews originate from the region, you are ignorant of the existence of Mizrahi Jews and also of the communities that have lived there since antiquity and of course you believe Israelis who have no other citizenship (because they were born in Israel) are just settlers.

Not so weird given you believe in conspiracy theories regarding Jewish financiers.

Also, the word is Palestinian. Arab is still technically correct as the Palestinians are a Levantine Arab group, but it would be strange to keep referring to specifically Polish land as 'European land,' especially when it is just part of the Zionist tricks in denying the identity (and thus statehood) of the Palestinians.

Funny coming from someone who believes Jews are just squatters who control the US political system.

And even funnier that Palestine's own Constitution defines their state as an Arab state, I don't know why would you ever be so triggered about that when they seemingly have no issues with being labeled as Arabs.

No, it wasn't chosen by the Romans.

There are references in 1150 BC to Palestine in Egyptian monuments, and the word is also used by Assyrians in the 9th century. The Greeks, of course, also use it, because it is a common, neutral name for the area (Wikipedia).

"Israel" was once the political name of one of the Kingdoms there, just like Kingdom of Judah.

It may even be the case that Palestine was written in the way it was by the Greeks because they were aware that Israel also is a referene to wrestler, so they inserted a double entendre in their rendering of it to make the word not just the geonym but also referential to a Greek word related to wrestling (same link above).

The irony in this is that Pleset makes reference to Philistines, which were themselves a proto-Greek people who settled in the Middle East. You're not helping yourself here.

No, I think what happened to Hersh is regrettable. It is logical, though, in the sense that this is a zone of armed conflict.

If there were several hundred dead Palestinian children due to a year long operation that occasionally resulted in unintentional casualties on civilians, I would consider it also regrettable but arguably within the limits of acceptability for a prolonged armed conflict with a military... But there are 16,000 or so dead Palestinian children.

Do you think that's acceptable? Do you think they should be dead? (To use the phrasing you used.)

I answer all your questions - you should also answer mine.

No, I don't consider it acceptable or good for Palestinian children to die.

But I also do believe the main party responsible for their deaths is Hamas, for using them and their homes as human shields. They were not targeted by Israel and yes that is definitely important.

By the way, even a single Palestinian child killed is not acceptable, I do not like that either.

To also answer with the other part of your question here - yes, it is far easier to sympathize with Palestinians, even the ones with ugly views, than it is with Jewish settlers.

Palestinians have four grandparents and eight great grandparents from Palestine. They haven't come from anywhere. Their crime is staying where they are.

Jewish settlers have grandparents from all over the world - they went to Palestine as a project to ethnically cleanse a huge chunk of land from the natives and carve out their own society. Many of them went there even as atheist or agnostic Jews that reject the Torah, reject the very God and the basis for the "claim" they have on it.

There's no scenario where we can justify the creation of the state of Israel on Palestinian land, so it is hard to sympathize with any form of Zionism.

Hersh was someone who believed 'Jersualem Belongs to Everyone,[/i] and in some sense I think he was a young Israeli who rejected zionism. Probably he believes in the right of all Jews to go to Jerusalem and to be part of the community there, and he would envision one in which the Muslims and Christians and irreligious and differently religious of the world all have rights to be there, living in a free society...

I think he probably even rejected zionism if it means the building of an exclusive ethnoreligious state.

If that's your standard then 1) Israel just needs to wait, then very few Israelis will have grandparents who were born outside Israel, 2) whenever the descendants of Palestinian refugees return to Palestine (the West Bank or Gaza) most will also have grandparents born outside Palestine, 3) Seeing an American who lives in Korea whining about settlers is hilarious in its own right, 4) most Israelis do not, in fact, want to live in an exclusionary ethno-state.

I also find it interesting that you just ignore the fact that Palestinians themselves prefer to live in an exclusionary Arab state, one thing is to have more sympathy for that position and another is to just refuse to criticize altogether. Why is it that I suspect you actually have no real problem with it and that, in reality, your problem is not exclusionary states but only an exclusionary Jewish state?

[Verv]

Oh so you believe Jesus was not a Jew - contrary to what the Gospel says -, you don't believe in genealogical evidence showing Jews originate from the region, you are ignorant of the existence of Mizrahi Jews and also of the communities that have lived there since antiquity and of course you believe Israelis who have no other citizenship (because they were born in Israel) are just settlers.

Not so weird given you believe in conspiracy theories regarding Jewish financiers.

This is correct: Jesus Christ was a Christian, and his promulgation of Christianity actually rendered him a non-Jew, which would have made him virtually an ethnic exile from the Jewish world.

As such, a Jew who voluntarily gives up their religion and becomes another one cannot make aaliya:

The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952***, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his/her religion.[10] Law of Reutrn - Wikipedia

So, Jesus Christ today would not qualify as a Jew who can return to Israel, and is a non-Israeli, a non-Jew, though he would be an ethnic Hebrew.... Which is fascinating.

And to be fair, that might be a good definition of what a Jew is - converts to Judaism CAN do aliya, and ethnic Jews who did not become Christians can do aliya, even if they only have a single grandparent.... Yet, by this very liberal definition, Jesus Christ would not qualify, so I do not think it is a stretch to say He is not a Jew.

Nor would Mary be a Jew - which si why the Wikipedia referring to her as a Jewish woman is wrong.

The modern Israelis are certainly descended from Hebrews to some degree, though the bulk of them are less so than the modern Palestinian.

A huge amount of the Jews in the Mediterranean world were Carthaginian converts. This is, of course, debatable, but it makes a lot of sense, and I would guess that the genetic admixture of ashkenazim is significantly higher than the ethnic Hebrews, Edomites, and Samaritans of the region that progressively converted to Chrsitianity than converted to Islam.

This is one of the ironies of the conflict:

The very Western Jews who spearhead the invasion & colonization of Palestine are likely more descended from Carthaginians who are more Canaanite than Hebrew, and the Palestinians are likely far more Hebrew than the invaders, probably even more Hebrew than the Mizrahi.

I look forward to advances in genetics.

Funny coming from someone who believes Jews are just squatters who control the US political system.

They certainly are hyper-influential in US politics, but no single group controls the whole US system.

Why is that taboo to say that Jews are a powerful & influential group in the US?

Just look at the special relationship that the US has with Israel even though Zionism is an absurd philosophy that does not benefit Americans and instead weighs them down with massive problems.

And even funnier that Palestine's own Constitution defines their state as an Arab state, I don't know why would you ever be so triggered about that when they seemingly have no issues with being labeled as Arabs.

Right, they are Arab in the same sense that Poles are European.

But they are, specifically, Palestinian.

You can now drag out the idea that "Palestinian is an invented group," or hold your peace.

The irony in this is that Pleset makes reference to Philistines, which were themselves a proto-Greek people who settled in the Middle East. You're not helping yourself here.

I literally just proved you wrong...

Have a little honesty & humility in discussion.

No, I don't consider it acceptable or good for Palestinian children to die.

But I also do believe the main party responsible for their deaths is Hamas, for using them and their homes as human shields. They were not targeted by Israel and yes that is definitely important.

Should police shoot hostages when they are in the way?

By the way, even a single Palestinian child killed is not acceptable, I do not like that either.

I'm glad we agree on that.

If that's your standard then 1) Israel just needs to wait, then very few Israelis will have grandparents who were born outside Israel, 2) whenever the descendants of Palestinian refugees return to Palestine (the West Bank or Gaza) most will also have grandparents born outside Palestine, 3) Seeing an American who lives in Korea whining about settlers is hilarious in its own right, 4) most Israelis do not, in fact, want to live in an exclusionary ethno-state.

I also find it interesting that you just ignore the fact that Palestinians themselves prefer to live in an exclusionary Arab state, one thing is to have more sympathy for that position and another is to just refuse to criticize altogether. Why is it that I suspect you actually have no real problem with it and that, in reality, your problem is not exclusionary states but only an exclusionary Jewish state?

(1) So, you are very right in what you are saying in the first paragraph. The longer the Israelis stay there, the more legitimate their claim.

The Israelis born in Palestine have a very difficult situation precisely because their attachment to this land is very legitimate, but that they have come to this position through the theft of the land by their parents & grandparents.

I'd say that is why we need the US/West to dictate terms of creating a single, secular state that guarantees the basic human rights of everyone - Israeli & Palestinian.

I am very sympathetic with these people... Because I like goa trance, and the Israelis - as in Israeli Jews - are masters of the genre. And not just the big names - Blusm Tusm and Volcano on Mars are wonderful projects.

... WHich leads to this...

(2) I do have a problem with Palestine as an exclusionary state. If an extremist movement took over and wanted to kick out all Jews - including those born and who ahve lived in Israel, that would be a very big problem.

Jews born in Palestine should never be removed from it, and the US and West in general would be very right to intervene to guarantee the safety of every Jew, and then to guarantee their right to continue living in a free Palestine.

Because the omelet has been made.

It is the case that the Jews do not have a right to their own separate state that they are in charge of, nor do they have a right to become some elite that lords over the Palestinians in a single state whether by enshrining themselves by law or simply through informal means... But they certainly have a right to live there now that they have been born there en masse. The Israelis are a part of Palestine.

I also think a two state solution is not preferable because I feel liek we can actually squash the enmities through creating a single state.

(3) I am not a settler... I have permanent residency, and I could be a citizen already if I wanted to give up my US citizenship but I have decided against that for the time being... I meet the requirements to officially become a Korean, which I am proud of.

But I do recognize that the majority of Koreans view Koreanness purely as by blood, and not even half-Korean people can truly be "Korean," much less a white guy.

That is changing to some degree, though - as in the attitude is changing. It almost has to change.

I am going to be very curious to see my daughter's own sense of identity develop.

I know other 100% non-ethnic Korean children growing up in Korea, and their sense of identity can be very mixed, ranging from those who consider themselves fully Korean, to those who experience a sort of trauma over their status.

It's kind of interesting how we cannot actually get a 'yes' or a 'no' from the children who grow up in homogeneous societies as racial minorities about whether or not they can actually assume the identity. It's different for everyone.

[wat0n]

This is correct: Jesus Christ was a Christian, and his promulgation of Christianity actually rendered him a non-Jew, which would have made him virtually an ethnic exile from the Jewish world.

As such, a Jew who voluntarily gives up their religion and becomes another one cannot make aaliya:

The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952***, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his/her religion.[10] Law of Reutrn - Wikipedia

So, Jesus Christ today would not qualify as a Jew who can return to Israel, and is a non-Israeli, a non-Jew, though he would be an ethnic Hebrew.... Which is fascinating.

And to be fair, that might be a good definition of what a Jew is - converts to Judaism CAN do aliya, and ethnic Jews who did not become Christians can do aliya, even if they only have a single grandparent.... Yet, by this very liberal definition, Jesus Christ would not qualify, so I do not think it is a stretch to say He is not a Jew.

Nor would Mary be a Jew - which si why the Wikipedia referring to her as a Jewish woman is wrong.

This makes sense if, as you do, you judge this from a Halakhic or a secular Zionist perspective. But the Gospel itself says otherwise - Christianity is, after all, a different construct.

The fact that the Gospel itself says so definitely says something about Jewish presence in the region, don't you think?

The modern Israelis are certainly descended from Hebrews to some degree, though the bulk of them are less so than the modern Palestinian.

You're getting into racial purity themes here.

A huge amount of the Jews in the Mediterranean world were Carthaginian converts. This is, of course, debatable, but it makes a lot of sense, and I would guess that the genetic admixture of ashkenazim is significantly higher than the ethnic Hebrews, Edomites, and Samaritans of the region that progressively converted to Chrsitianity than converted to Islam.

This is one of the ironies of the conflict:

The very Western Jews who spearhead the invasion & colonization of Palestine are likely more descended from Carthaginians who are more Canaanite than Hebrew, and the Palestinians are likely far more Hebrew than the invaders, probably even more Hebrew than the Mizrahi.

I look forward to advances in genetics.

Two points:

1) I don't think genealogic (genetic) evidence really lets you distinguish between one Canaanite group (Hebrews) and the others.

2) Canaanites themselves descend from immigrants from the Zagros mountains in Iran.

They certainly are hyper-influential in US politics, but no single group controls the whole US system.

Why is that taboo to say that Jews are a powerful & influential group in the US?

Just look at the special relationship that the US has with Israel even though Zionism is an absurd philosophy that does not benefit Americans and instead weighs them down with massive problems.

What makes you believe that is the result of Jewish influence and not of e.g. Christian Zionists?

Jews are certainly not as powerful or influential as you think.

And this genre of conspiracy theories has a bad rep because of the way it's been used i.e. to justify genocide.

Right, they are Arab in the same sense that Poles are European.

But they are, specifically, Palestinian.

You can now drag out the idea that "Palestinian is an invented group," or hold your peace.

All groups are invented, including Jews.

But leaving that aside, I don't think Poles have written in their Constitution that they're European. Feel fee to correct me if I'm wrong here.

I literally just proved you wrong...

Have a little honesty & humility in discussion.

Pleshet (also mentioned in the Torah) refers to Philistia, which is certainly not all of Israel/Palestine. The idea to name the whole region after them was indeed a way to erase Jewish (and others') presence there.

Should police shoot hostages when they are in the way?

I'll assume you mean if police should shoot at kidnappers even if that may end up killing hostages in the way.

Ideally, no, but in reality there are plenty of situations where there is no other realistic option. For instance, if the kidnappers start sniping other people (including the cops themselves), yes, they should be shot even if that gets hostages killed.

If they start executing hostages, one may as well shoot the kidnappers in a raid to try to rescue as many hostages as possible even if that means killing some hostages.

I suppose the decision is indeed controversial in both cases, but I would not blame the police for making it. I'd see the killing of those hostages for what it is i.e. a tragic outcome caused by the kidnappers first and foremost.

(1) So, you are very right in what you are saying in the first paragraph. The longer the Israelis stay there, the more legitimate their claim.

The Israelis born in Palestine have a very difficult situation precisely because their attachment to this land is very legitimate, but that they have come to this position through the theft of the land by their parents & grandparents.

When is your cutoff here?

What criteria are you using to determine it?

I'm asking because this is a rather arbitrary line of thought. The majority of Israeli Jews are in the position you are describing, so this is actually an important question and not just some theoretical construct.

I'd say that is why we need the US/West to dictate terms of creating a single, secular state that guarantees the basic human rights of everyone - Israeli & Palestinian.

Even if most people there, both among Israelis and Palestinians, do not want to live in a single binational state? This is what most surveys suggested BTW, only ~1/5 among both Israeli Jews (specifically) and Palestinians want to live in a binational state.

I also have to ask, why does it have to be secular?

I am very sympathetic with these people... Because I like goa trance, and the Israelis - as in Israeli Jews - are masters of the genre. And not just the big names - Blusm Tusm and Volcano on Mars are wonderful projects.

... WHich leads to this...

(2) I do have a problem with Palestine as an exclusionary state. If an extremist movement took over and wanted to kick out all Jews - including those born and who ahve lived in Israel, that would be a very big problem.

Jews born in Palestine should never be removed from it, and the US and West in general would be very right to intervene to guarantee the safety of every Jew, and then to guarantee their right to continue living in a free Palestine.

Because the omelet has been made.

If this scenario was an option, just letting the Jews have their own state and means to defend themselves might just be more practical. Or, if you don't trust them to respect their neighbors, letting them their own state, with clearly demarcated its borders and a deployment of Western troops in its territory to defend it, would make more sense than a permanent Western occupation even of territory that is mainly populated by Palestinians just to guarantee the Jews' security.

You know, two states or something like that.

It is the case that the Jews do not have a right to their own separate state that they are in charge of,

Why?

nor do they have a right to become some elite that lords over the Palestinians in a single state whether by enshrining themselves by law or simply through informal means... But they certainly have a right to live there now that they have been born there en masse. The Israelis are a part of Palestine.

I don't think either has the right to do that. Palestinians also don't really have the right to become an elite that oppresses Jews in a single exclusionary state.

If a good chunk of the population would rather live in an exclusionary state or just don't trust the other enough to share citizenship, a divorce makes sense.

I also think a two state solution is not preferable because I feel liek we can actually squash the enmities through creating a single state.

I don't think so. This solution at least did not really work, not even in Europe.

It could be an option in the future, after two states have been established. Just because two states is a solution to the current conflict, it doesn't mean it has to be the end of the story. Maybe, after decades of sustained peaceful convivence, both decide to merge into a single state. As I said, I think this would in fact be compatible with Zionism since it would just be an expression of Jewish self-determination - the right to self-determination usually means having a state, but it does not have to, a confederation or a similar arrangement would also be possible if the People wants it.

The most obvious example of this actually happening is the US itself, the Constitution and the formation of the federal government was undoubtedly an expression of the self-determination of the peoples in each of the states (i.e. former colonies) and their decision to merge into a new nation - the US - and eventually a new people, Americans.

(3) I am not a settler... I have permanent residency, and I could be a citizen already if I wanted to give up my US citizenship but I have decided against that for the time being... I meet the requirements to officially become a Korean, which I am proud of.

Of course you would say that, but...

But I do recognize that the majority of Koreans view Koreanness purely as by blood, and not even half-Korean people can truly be "Korean," much less a white guy.

That is changing to some degree, though - as in the attitude is changing. It almost has to change.

I am going to be very curious to see my daughter's own sense of identity develop.

I know other 100% non-ethnic Korean children growing up in Korea, and their sense of identity can be very mixed, ranging from those who consider themselves fully Korean, to those who experience a sort of trauma over their status.

It's kind of interesting how we cannot actually get a 'yes' or a 'no' from the children who grow up in homogeneous societies as racial minorities about whether or not they can actually assume the identity. It's different for everyone.

...As you suggest, and this is something I think you cannot really disagree with, it's up to Koreans to decide if you're a settler or not.

But most importantly, some believe that as someone from the Americas with European ancestry you're already a settler (same applies to me, and most Hispanics at that). There are those who would say, then, that your lack of "indigeneity" (whatever the hell that means) makes you no better than Israeli Jews.

I think it's stupid, at least I was born and raised in the Americas (I assume so were you) and I think that matters a lot more than anything else. Yet there are those who believe this means we have some sort of original sin (a Christian doctrine that, as you probably know, is not really a thing in Judaism and indeed the very story of Noah's Arc argues against the idea) and that as such we cannot ever plant roots here. Just to confirm, do you think this applies to Israeli Jews?

[Pants-of-dog]

The protestors might have a good point about genocide and other human rights abuse happening.

The problem about moral superiority is that the same protestors protesting against illegally occupied land and Palestinians being segregated have been illegally occupying land on campus and segregating students based on ideology. So do they actually care about human rights, or just when it affects the people they favor?

If the only point of this whole discussion is to find ways to think poorly of the protesters, then this is not a logical discussion about politics.

It is, instead, about demonizing the people whom you do not favour.

I am still waiting for a logical or empirical criticism of the protests that is not based on “we do not like them”.

For example, there is logic and evidence to show that accusations of antisemitism have been used to stifle dissent about the actions of the Israeli government, and this has been targeted at the protesters.

We can use logic to show how the interests of the powerful work towards such censorship , and we can use our senses to detect the laws and wahtnot that have been passed.

But instead, centrists and liberals and conservatives all want to talk about how feelings were hurt because protests were less than polite.

[wat0n]

It seems @Pants-of-dog believes antisemitic harassment and assault of students, by themselves, aren't worthy of criticism or should be just allowed on campuses.

Showing, once again, that he believes leftists have a right to be racist if they want.

I also find it odd that he believes pointing this out is just "stifling dissent", but 1) he believes harassment and assault do not stifle the rights of Jewish and Israeli students, 2) it's coming from the same guy who would claim that those who criticized BLM protesters back in 2020 were just "agreeing with white supremacists" as if it was a valid counterargument since white supremacists often defend their own harassment and assault of Jews by saying that criticizing their own antisemitism is just a tool by the (Jewish) elites to stifle their dissent.

[wat0n]

Del