| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Jews: The Chosen People? |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 09:05 AM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Jews: The Chosen People Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 25 2004, 10:46 PM As per a recent correspondence between me, and questionlife, I felt it is important for all of us to read: QUOTE Are the Jews God's chosen people? --------------- If so- what have they been chosen for? --------------- To be the folks that history has kicked around for the past 5,000 years? -------------- Will Jews ever get a break? --------------------- While they do a pretty good job of kicking the Palastinians around, I don't think that they will ever know any sort of lasting peace. ------------ If being God's chosen people means that you have to be in a perpetual state of war- who needs it? Yes ---------- To carry the burden of God's law, and live through it, and teach it to our children. ----------- No ----------- Not likely, not until the coming of the Moshiach anyway. ----------- That's uncalled for, the palestinians are just arabs who are unwanted by other arab nations, so they have nowhere to go, and refuse any solution of land if it is not delivered 100% to them. With the prejudice today, it's not likely to end soon. ------------------------------- It's not Adonai who is declaring an eternal state of war. There are plenty of christian nations, over 50 arab nations, and 1 barely surviving Jewish homeland. Everyone has persecuted the Jews for their beliefs long before they had any homeland. The egyptians enslaved us. After struggling to get the homeland we did, Babylonians attacked us and threw us out. The greeks persecuted our single god. The romans persecuted us as we were, and threw us out again. The christian and muslim nations constantly slaughtered us by the thousands. Palestinians were suicide bombing themselves even in the 1930s before Israel even existed. The Nazi's slaughtered us by the millions, and that's not all. I, like many of my fellow Jews, will not give up our religion simply because people are always looking for new ways and reasons to stop/kill us. We are strong, and we will continue to live, waiting for the true Moshiach, regardless of the opinions of others. As always: http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002_10_13_archive.php. Posted by: pitchu Jan 25 2004, 11:30 PM SF, I understand that you're under assault with the tone of these questions. Please, though, consider not giving so simplistic and dismissive a picture of the Palestinians. There aren't enough threads on all the sites on the internet to cover this history. It's too complex, and I think you know that. I would say that more to point of what you attempted to address was this one of many points to be made: it was in the interests of the surrounding Arab nations, as they saw it, not to absorb and, in many cases, RE-absorb these people into their boundaries, deciding, instead, to leave them, like an open festering sore, in order to gain international resentment toward the Israelis. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 25 2004, 11:51 PM QUOTE (pitchu @ Jan 26 2004, 02:30 AM) I would say that more to point of what you attempted to address was this one of many points to be made: it was in the interests of the surrounding Arab nations, as they saw it, not to absorb and, in many cases, RE-absorb these people into their boundaries, deciding, instead, to leave them, like an open festering sore, in order to gain international resentment toward the Israelis. Quite right pitchu. It does make sense that they would WANT to leave them there to perpetuate a ringing sense of resentment. Even today they use their influence to constantly reprimand Israel though U.N. "resolutions" but no action is taken against any arab country. This occurs and reoccurs. http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/The_UNs_Israel_Obsession.asp QUOTE May 6, 2002 -- In 1948, when the armies of five surrounding Arab dictatorships invaded tiny, newborn Israel -- in what the secretary general of the Arab League announced was a "war of extermination" against "the Jews" -- the United Nations did nothing. And did not send a fact-finding mission. But, oh, how the U.N. has been making up for that oversight ever since. For more than 50 years now, the Jews have been its favorite subject. Among the nearly 200 nations represented at the U.N., only Israel has ever been assigned special -- reduced -- membership privileges, its ambassadors formally barred, for 53 straight years ending only recently, from election to the Security Council. The UN Security Council has devoted a third of its energy and criticism to the policies of Israel. Meanwhile, and right up to the present day, that same Security Council has devoted fully a third of its energy and criticism to the policies of a single country: Israel. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which regularly -- and unreprovingly -- accepts delegations from any number of homicidal tyrannies across the globe, has issued fully a quarter of its official condemnations to a single (democratic) country: Israel. There has been a genocide in Rwanda, an ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, periodic and horrifying communal "strife" in Indonesia's East Timor, the "disappearance" of a few hundred thousand refugees in the Congo, a decades-long and culturally devastating occupation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China... but none of those U.N. member states has ever been subjected to the rebuke of a General Assembly "emergency special session." Israel has, though, repeatedly, simply for refusing to surrender in the face of terrorist attacks that have killed hundreds and injured thousands of its citizens -- murders that no U.N. resolution has ever so much as mentioned. "RELIEF" AGENCY? No fewer than four separate administrative units within the U.N. -- two of them directly supervised by Kofi Annan's governing secretariat -- do nothing but spend millions of dollars annually on the production and worldwide distribution of propaganda questioning Israel's right to exist. The "Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories," for example, "investigates" Israel's continued "practice" of "occupying" not just the territory taken in the 1967 war, but also the land within its internationally recognized, pre-1967 borders. And it goes on like that. Before the creation of Israel, some Zionists wanted any country, so maybe Israel would come later. The british offered Uganda, which by the locals quickly was slanged as Jewganda. That let them realize the critical fact that, in the majority of the world, a Judaic homeland is a fairly one sided issue. It could matter less where Israel is, people would still seek to suppress it. Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 06:18 AM The creation of the state of Israel was one of the worst decisions of the 20th century. Posted by: Redshift Jan 26 2004, 07:48 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 04:18 PM) The creation of the state of Israel was one of the worst decisions of the 20th century. And a surprising number of Jewish people would agree. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 12:02 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 09:18 AM) The creation of the state of Israel was one of the worst decisions of the 20th century. What an antagonizing view without any posted reason. How informative. Really I thought the worst decision was hitler deciding to impliment the final solution but you really taught me. QUOTE (Redshift @ Jan 26 2004, 10:48 AM) And a surprising number of Jewish people would agree. Correct redshift. For those Jews who have a real reason to not want a Jewish state it's usually the most orthodox who believe that only the Moshiach can restore the state of Israel. Regardless, now that it exists, the support of Israel is an incredibly important action on the part of all Jews. The Jews needed a homeland, and now we have one. Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 12:27 PM SpaceFalcon2001- QUOTE What an antagonizing view without any posted reason. How informative. The past half-century has been more informative than any rationale I could outline. QUOTE Really I thought the worst decision was hitler deciding to impliment the final solution but you really taught me. I said one of the worst. Yet I do find it ironic that the decision of Hitler was just as bad as one designed, in part, to rectify it. Posted by: pitchu Jan 26 2004, 12:31 PM Zack and Red, At its root, the U.N. partition resolution of 1948 was an implementation of the internationally agreed-upon axiom that Jews should maybe not continue to be expected be killed, in a wholesale fashion on this planet, without a way, place, and means of self-defense. Are you saying that one of the worst decisions of the 20th century was that Jews should live? Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 12:41 PM Pitchu- Please don't mistake my opinions for anti-Semitism, it's terribly insulting. Whatever the ideological motivations behind it (and there was more than just ideology involved, be assured), the act of creating the state of Israel was wrong. Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Jan 26 2004, 01:00 PM I'm more interested now in understanding the complexity of the issue. I can see now that Israel is defending its perceived borders, right or wrong, and the Palestinians are doing the same. It's all too easy to say something is a bad decision unless you are born into its polarizing forces. If I had been born in Germany before WW-II, Hitler could have been a welcome recovery to a torn economy. If I had been born in Japan, the design for Empire might have made sense. Being born in America, Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be the correct decisions; the cold war could have been a byproduct of the need to combat those "commie-bastards". Had I been born in Russia, those top-hat wearing, greedy, slave-owning Capitalists would be deserving of no less than my best threats. Each side thinks they're the "good guy" who can do no wrong, and the government in each group helps to put force behind such a collective personality disorder. Are we wrong for intervening? Are we wrong for not intervening? Won't we be hated by some group, regardless of what we do? It seems to me each cause that demands action seeks to simplify the opponent's motives into base anger, greed, selfishness and justify its own grand design with the "noble" traits. When that cause makes a mistake, it was simply a misunderstanding. The cause assumes that everyone wants its solution. I would want to eat in a restaurant that is bombed as little as I would want to live in a house that is bulldozed. I would want even less for my personal cause to be mistaken for a political cause, such as if I bombed the family of a bomber, or bulldozed the house of a bulldozer. There comes a point in a wise man's life where he realizes "An eye for an eye" wears a person down to the point of weakness and despair. No man can take on the whole world. You can perform a tête-à-tête mutual exchange of arsenal, but you will have only delayed your opportunity to begin anew elsewhere, all for the noble concept of "moral balance" which really creates nothing more than continuous moral turbulence. We fight over that which we cannot possess and we try to pass it on to the next generation, who is compelled by the same motivation. We form imaginary borders in an arrogant display of how far the arm of our violence may reach, and we are angered when adversity peneterates the santicty of the void around us that we had never considered putting to any use in the first place! If there is anything that Israel and the Palestinians are guilty of, it is extending the arm of violence to grasp the void between themselves and their perceived borders, but no one can truly look at them and write them off as being wrong without looking at themselves and realizing that as a primary function, their governments are doing the same thing! Viewed through impartial eyes, it would seem the real freedom we desire is the freedom to possess, which creates as a byproduct the freedom to enslave others. When will we realize that the land owns us more than we own it? When will we realize that we don't need to be driven to possess it interminably? When will we realize that the mantle and legacy we pass on to our children becomes the burden that they must pass onto theirs? Now, I think their best chance at peace starts with either group disbanding their leadership and replacing it with nothing. It is a thousand times harder to take up arms against your opponent when you can see his humanity without the benefit of an intolerant figurehead opposite you, and the false claims to peace (gained of course, only through continuous war) of the syndicate beside you. Posted by: pitchu Jan 26 2004, 01:01 PM Zack, I don't believe I insulted you or accused you of anti-Semitism. I asked you a too-often overlooked or avoided question. I think the answer to the question is one that must be agreed upon before any discussion of the wheres and why-fors (of internationally helping Jews to continue to live) can be udertaken. Posted by: Redshift Jan 26 2004, 01:05 PM QUOTE (pitchu @ Jan 26 2004, 10:31 PM) Zack and Red, At its root, the U.N. partition resolution of 1948 was an implementation of the internationally agreed-upon axiom that Jews should maybe not continue to be expected be killed, in a wholesale fashion on this planet, without a way, place, and means of self-defense. Are you saying that one of the worst decisions of the 20th century was that Jews should live? Pitchu - Simply put, two wrongs do not make a right. The Zionist approach of disowning a million plus people of their land, based on 2000 year old claims of occupation is wrong. Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 01:06 PM Pitchu- Do Jews deserve to live? Of course. Did the Jews need a created homeland to continue to live? Of course not. Posted by: Redshift Jan 26 2004, 01:09 PM As for "the internationally agreed-upon axiom", Truman had this to say at the time: QUOTE "I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 01:13 PM But do the Jews deserve a homeland irregardless of the ongoing violence? Or should they continue to be banished to have no place to truly call home? Certainly every people should have their own place, their own land. A place to truly belong to. Why shouldn't the Jews have one? Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 01:17 PM SpaceFalcon2001- Can you point out the Gypsy homeland on a map? Posted by: pitchu Jan 26 2004, 01:17 PM Zack, Thank you. So we're agreed on the answer to the question. Jews had/have a right to live. Without a created homeland, how do you see Jews continuing to live? Posted by: JimmyDtD Jan 26 2004, 01:23 PM "If there is anything that Israel and the Palestinians are guilty of, it is extending the arm of violence to grasp the void between themselves and their perceived borders, but no one can truly look at them and write them off as being wrong without looking at themselves and realizing that as a primary function, their governments are doing the same thing! Viewed through impartial eyes, it would seem the real freedom we desire is the freedom to possess, which creates as a byproduct the freedom to enslave others." Let me see....the last time a jew blew himself up in a Palestinian resturant was........when? Posted by: Redshift Jan 26 2004, 01:23 PM QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ Jan 26 2004, 11:13 PM) But do the Jews deserve a homeland irregardless of the ongoing violence? Or should they continue to be banished to have no place to truly call home? Certainly every people should have their own place, their own land. A place to truly belong to. Why shouldn't the Jews have one? Do you mean to say that, now that they are there, they have the right to stay? I believe so. The Jews who lived in Palestine long before the the formation of Israel, lived peacefully alongside their Arab neigbours. It's analogous to the situation here in South Africa. Do I and my fellow Afrikaners (Protestant whites of European descent) deserve our own country? Sure! And we're living in it. Just not at the Expense of our Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, San, English, Jewish and mixed heritage countrymen. The notorious apartheid-era homeland system was no different from what has been going on in Israel since its formation. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 01:29 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 04:17 PM) Can you point out the Gypsy homeland on a map? Do they want one? Is their culture based on it? Did they have one thousands of years ago which they got kicked out of repeatedly? Are you saying the Jews should get kicked out again? Posted by: pitchu Jan 26 2004, 01:30 PM Jimmy, The advocacy of a fundy bent on swallowing up Jews for jesus in order to fulfill prophecy is a twist to the issue which is singularly unneeded here. Please leave us the fuck alone. Posted by: Redshift Jan 26 2004, 01:30 PM QUOTE Let me see....the last time a jew blew himself up in a Palestinian resturant was........when? Jimmy - Pictures speak louder than words, but be warned, this is very graphic imagery. http://poetry.rotten.com/jenin/ The Israeli government denied this ever happend. Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 01:30 PM Pitchu- According to the http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html, there are 4,893,226 Jews living in their homeland. Well enough, but what of all the Jews outside of Israel? According to you, Jews can expect nothing but death and destruction outside the borders of a sovereign homeland. Yet look at America- according to the same http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html, there are 5,806,851 Jews living happily there. And that's just one country. I think that's fair evidence that Jews don't need a homeland to live. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 01:34 PM Having done more research: The Roma homeland is Wallachia, aka Romania. They are exiles like the Jews. It's where Vlad the Impaler ruled, and they were kicked out by the Boyars and the Magyars. Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 01:36 PM QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ Jan 26 2004, 04:29 PM) Are you saying the Jews should get kicked out again? SpaceFalcon2001- I daresay there may be some Gypsies who would like a homeland. If there were, would you give it to them? No, I don't think it's proper to kick the Jews out of anywhere. If you pierce someone with an arrow, yanking it out will do nothing but cause more bloodshed. But that doesn't mean that the arrow is a good thing, just that it is something that has to be lived with. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 01:44 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 04:30 PM) According to the http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html, there are 4,893,226 Jews living in their homeland. Well enough, but what of all the Jews outside of Israel? According to you, Jews can expect nothing but death and destruction outside the borders of a sovereign homeland. Yet look at America- according to the same http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html, there are 5,806,851 Jews living happily there. And that's just one country. I think that's fair evidence that Jews don't need a homeland to live. You are right, that is just one country. How about before America? Constant death for Jews in all places. Even during America. Should our new world slogan become: "50 years since our last attempted genocide of the Jews" There is much more assimilation here through the majority ruling of Christianity. Jews for Jesus certainly didn't start in Israel, and the majority of Jews here are Reform. Did you realize that when reform started it looked exactly like a protestant group? They worshiped in churches with crosses and called their rabbis reverend. Certainly, if there is not a death of the Jews as people, there could just as easily be the death of the Jews as a culture. Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 01:55 PM SpaceFalcon2001- QUOTE Certainly, if there is not a death of the Jews as people, there could just as easily be the death of the Jews as a culture. Now you're talking about something which trivializes the creation of Israel even more: instead of the death of people, the death of culture. I fail to see how a homeland is justified to preserve a culture. QUOTE How about before America? Constant death for Jews in all places. Even during America. I'm not aware of any American genocide against the Jews. But yes, Americans engaged in violence with many peoples as they colonized North America. In many ways, the creation of the United States was just as wrong as the creation of Israel. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 02:03 PM QUOTE (Redshift @ Jan 26 2004, 04:30 PM) http://poetry.rotten.com/jenin/ The Israeli government denied this ever happend. http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/051902/opi_20020519005.shtml http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20020503.shtml Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 02:05 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 04:55 PM) QUOTE How about before America? Constant death for Jews in all places. Even during America. I'm not aware of any American genocide against the Jews. But yes, Americans engaged in violence with many peoples as they colonized North America. In many ways, the creation of the United States was just as wrong as the creation of Israel. I was refering to the world. True there has been no American genocide of the Jews yet, but America is still a breeding ground for hate groups just as well as anywhere else. Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 02:15 PM SpaceFalcon2001- QUOTE America is still a breeding ground for hate groups just as well as anywhere else. As well as Israel...? QUOTE I was refering to the world. Well, of course I know that Jews have been persecuted throughout history. But many peoples have been persecuted, do they all need or deserve homelands? Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 02:30 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 05:15 PM) As well as Israel...? ----------- Well, of course I know that Jews have been persecuted throughout history. But many peoples have been persecuted, do they all need or deserve homelands? There are still fundamentalist Arabs there who don't stand for Israeli presense, and I wouldn't doubt that there are fundamentalist Israelis that will not stand for any giving in to the arabs. Right wing seemes to be inflexible as always. ------------ To the same extent? Hardly. Refering to your earlier posts of america being created was also a bad move, surely what happend there was wrong with the near total extermination of the Native Americans, and they wanted (and temporarily had) a NA country independant of the states, but prejudice crushed and destroyed them. What's left of the NA is nothing more than a "joke", as are the Gypsies you also mentioned. I can't speak for the wants of either of those groups but I do speak for my own. The creation of Israel was a nessicary step in the right direction. Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Jan 26 2004, 02:34 PM QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ Jan 26 2004, 02:05 PM) QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 04:55 PM) QUOTE How about before America? Constant death for Jews in all places. Even during America. I'm not aware of any American genocide against the Jews. But yes, Americans engaged in violence with many peoples as they colonized North America. In many ways, the creation of the United States was just as wrong as the creation of Israel. I was refering to the world. True there has been no American genocide of the Jews yet, but America is still a breeding ground for hate groups just as well as anywhere else. I'm curious as to what you've experienced throughout your life with regard to your race, in other words how you've been targeted personally. Personally, I've only once been on the receiving end of racial hatred as a German, and only indirectly. We had a foreign exchange student from Germany in our class who was verbally insulted by another student who blamed Germans for creating the atomic bomb. I've been on the receiving of religous hatred for my atheism much more often, but I never considered myself as being victimized, because it was merely a verbal injustice and I am not as tied to my "heritage" as other people; anything said against me in such a fashion is meaningless. I think losing the burden of heritage is the best thing that ever happened to me, because I am part German, part American, part Irish, part Native American and I was born in Portugal. What the hell does that make me? Absolutely nothing, and I don't care either. A thousand years from now, blacks will have completely intermingled with whites, Jews with Arabs, etc and this is what we will be left with: Tom: Fuck you Jew. Bill: Fuck you - you're a Jew too, Sand nigger. James: Yeah, dumbass, well, you both are krauts Tom: So are you, you dickheaded slope James: Well, your momma's half Japanese, genius Bill: And your dad is half black! Gen-Xr: Let's face it, we're all mutts. Tom: Speak for yourself, bitch All: LOL You may find the above paragraph disturbing (and definitely un-PC, so take it ONLY in the context I'm describing) right now, but I think when everyone has become everything, they will be reduced to a mere display of foolish notions. Take it from a Generation-Xer: Heritage blows, and is worse than useless - it is the cause of many of our problems. I've no need to preserve my heritage. Indeed, seeing may beautiful women of many different cultures, I could see myself wanting any one of them who would have me! Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 02:54 PM SpaceFalcon2001- QUOTE Right wing seemes to be inflexible as always. A perennial problem, not a solution. Read Karen Armstrong's The Battle For God. QUOTE what happend there was wrong with the near total extermination of the Native Americans, and they wanted (and temporarily had) a NA country independant of the states, but prejudice crushed and destroyed them. What's left of the NA is nothing more than a "joke", as are the Gypsies you also mentioned. ...as are the Palestinians. QUOTE The creation of Israel was a nessicary step in the right direction. ...in the perspective of the Israelis. Posted by: pitchu Jan 26 2004, 03:35 PM Zack, (This will be my last post on this topic for awhile.) Again, thank you for your reasoned and reasonable approach. My response is this: The question of whether or not Jews have a right to live, and a right to a place to live safely within, isn't answered by particular numbers of Jews living and alive in any particular place at any particular time. The rise of Zionism was a response to the rise of the anti-Semitic movement which, starting in around 1880, sent millions of Jews fleeing. Most American Jews, as per the numbers you cited, are descendants of these refugees, as are many Israelis. The anti-Semitic movement crescendoed with the holocaust. Jews fleeing for their lives to Palestine for the few decades before the 1948 partition were greeted by the Arabs with attacks on their lives, and in the run-up to the holocaust (when America would not let Jews in), Jews fled Hitler's particular death machine in any way and to wherever they could -- the Jewish settlements in Palestine being a particularly swift and welcoming destination for these desperate people. The Arabs of that region, including those now called Palestinians, pressured the British government into closing off access to Palestine for Jewish refugees. There is no way to know how many Jews died as a result of this, but the number could easily be a million or more, which certainly dwarfs Palestinian losses at the hands of the Jews. When people imply that there was something wrong with the founding of Israel -- that it was racist, colonialist, imperialist, or whatever -- they conveniently forget that, all other considerations aside, the alternative for those Jews was death. Thus, fundamentally, the argument that Jews should have done something other than to establish the state of Israel is the argument, implicitly, that the Jews should have been exterminated instead. This point was always explicit as far as the Palestinians were concerned. The leader of the Palestinian people, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, spent the war years as Hitler's ally, in Berlin, exhorting Hitler to kill Jews faster and better, and welcoming Hitler's intention to eventually invade Palestine and liquidate the Zionist presence. The Grand Mufti returned to the Arabs after the war and was the most popular Arab politician in Palestine; he continued to rouse Arabs to the call of pushing the Jews into the sea, and was largely responsible for rejecting partition and starting the war on Israel. Can you imagine an avowed Nazi becoming popular in the U.S. today, let alone right after we'd fought WWII? Isn't it clear how much worse it must have been for the Jews to be confronted by this Nazi right after the holocaust? Yet today, so many people can't figure out what the historic motivation was for those Jews to have established and defended Israel unless it was something base, dark, and conspiratorial. The psychological groundwork for the extermination of Jews is still being laid by the surrounding Arab nations. Even Egypt, not at war with Israel, supports the most ugly and anti-Semitic villifications of Jews. There is no question that many Israeli policies and actions, over the ensuing years, could have been and should be better and wiser. One can debate how this occupation measures up to others. One can weigh differing land claims. The unavoidable fact, though, is that there are Palestinian refugees there because, within hours of Israel's being declared a state, five Arab nations, with the oratory to match, set about attempting to kill every recently-having-fled-from-death Jew there, and the Jews won. Those occupied territories exist because the Arabs, like people nearly everywhere else on the planet, for thousands of years, have wanted the Jews among them dead, and the Jews in the new Israel refused to courteously die. The morality of the founding of Israel was that the alternative was death. It was death. Is there a moral issue of more consequence? Anyone who says Israel had no right to be created ought to realize that implicit in this position is that Jews should just have died. Looking at the history and the on-going rhetoric from activist Arabs, one would have to conclude that to side with the Palestinians on this fundamental issue is to subcribe to their fundamental belief that Jews do not have a right to remain alive. Or, if Jews do, it is necessarily an injustice to someone else. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 04:03 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 05:54 PM) A perennial problem, not a solution. Read Karen Armstrong's The Battle For God. ------------------- ...as are the Palestinians. ---------------------- ...in the perspective of the Israelis. Never said it was a solution, just stating the fact. ------------- Palestine is mearly a place that had it's name changed and switched from British parlimentary rule to Israel. There was no mass genocide forcing them out. No pushing them out. Only their own intolerance towards an Israel. --------------- In the perspective of enough of a majority to allow it's creation, then a needlessly violent, and failed, retaliation. Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Jan 26 2004, 05:05 PM QUOTE (pitchu @ Jan 26 2004, 03:35 PM) Zack, (This will be my last post on this topic for awhile.) Again, thank you for your reasoned and reasonable approach. My response is this: The question of whether or not Jews have a right to live, and a right to a place to live safely within, isn't answered by particular numbers of Jews living and alive in any particular place at any particular time. The rise of Zionism was a response to the rise of the anti-Semitic movement which, starting in around 1880, sent millions of Jews fleeing. Most American Jews, as per the numbers you cited, are descendants of these refugees, as are many Israelis. The anti-Semitic movement crescendoed with the holocaust. Jews fleeing for their lives to Palestine for the few decades before the 1948 partition were greeted by the Arabs with attacks on their lives, and in the run-up to the holocaust (when America would not let Jews in), Jews fled Hitler's particular death machine in any way and to wherever they could -- the Jewish settlements in Palestine being a particularly swift and welcoming destination for these desperate people. The Arabs of that region, including those now called Palestinians, pressured the British government into closing off access to Palestine for Jewish refugees. There is no way to know how many Jews died as a result of this, but the number could easily be a million or more, which certainly dwarfs Palestinian losses at the hands of the Jews. When people imply that there was something wrong with the founding of Israel -- that it was racist, colonialist, imperialist, or whatever -- they conveniently forget that, all other considerations aside, the alternative for those Jews was death. Thus, fundamentally, the argument that Jews should have done something other than to establish the state of Israel is the argument, implicitly, that the Jews should have been exterminated instead. This point was always explicit as far as the Palestinians were concerned. The leader of the Palestinian people, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, spent the war years as Hitler's ally, in Berlin, exhorting Hitler to kill Jews faster and better, and welcoming Hitler's intention to eventually invade Palestine and liquidate the Zionist presence. The Grand Mufti returned to the Arabs after the war and was the most popular Arab politician in Palestine; he continued to rouse Arabs to the call of pushing the Jews into the sea, and was largely responsible for rejecting partition and starting the war on Israel. Can you imagine an avowed Nazi becoming popular in the U.S. today, let alone right after we'd fought WWII? Isn't it clear how much worse it must have been for the Jews to be confronted by this Nazi right after the holocaust? Yet today, so many people can't figure out what the historic motivation was for those Jews to have established and defended Israel unless it was something base, dark, and conspiratorial. The psychological groundwork for the extermination of Jews is still being laid by the surrounding Arab nations. Even Egypt, not at war with Israel, supports the most ugly and anti-Semitic villifications of Jews. There is no question that many Israeli policies and actions, over the ensuing years, could have been and should be better and wiser. One can debate how this occupation measures up to others. One can weigh differing land claims. The unavoidable fact, though, is that there are Palestinian refugees there because, within hours of Israel's being declared a state, five Arab nations, with the oratory to match, set about attempting to kill every recently-having-fled-from-death Jew there, and the Jews won. Those occupied territories exist because the Arabs, like people nearly everywhere else on the planet, for thousands of years, have wanted the Jews among them dead, and the Jews in the new Israel refused to courteously die. The morality of the founding of Israel was that the alternative was death. It was death. Is there a moral issue of more consequence? Anyone who says Israel had no right to be created ought to realize that implicit in this position is that Jews should just have died. Looking at the history and the on-going rhetoric from activist Arabs, one would have to conclude that to side with the Palestinians on this fundamental issue is to subcribe to their fundamental belief that Jews do not have a right to remain alive. Or, if Jews do, it is necessarily an injustice to someone else. Pitchu: I think after all this time I finally understand your position, but you must understand that some people (myself included) are not aware of the implications because they are speaking from an idealistic position; such positions are often taken up in a historical vacuum. Obviously, Israel cannot be unmade, but when the idealist says that it should never have been created, they would have no qualms about saying in the same breath that the Jews should not have been run out of their European homes either. To that I must grudgingly admit that they probably didn't have any real options. I'm 100% positive that they are not implying a a fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi (a precipice in front, wolves behind) type situation. But, we can look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict and conclude that a lot of things might have been done differently, mainly because it seems there is no way out of it now. When you hit a wall in a maze, your natural inclination is to turn around and find what brought you there. Really, when I say the Jews should not have created Israel (Israel, not as an abstract state anywhere embodied by Jews, but at that specific choice of location), I am saying it in the same spirit I would say that a man should not pitch a tent in a swamp, not because I don't want them to have their own state - It wouldn't be my choice (being an anarchist), but that's their business, not mine - but because I don't want to see anyone embroiled in a neverending war to which complete and utter destruction of one race or another seems the only solution, especially to one group with so complex a history of persecution! Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 05:33 PM Pitchu- I appreciate your position, but... QUOTE Thus, fundamentally, the argument that Jews should have done something other than to establish the state of Israel is the argument, implicitly, that the Jews should have been exterminated instead. Hitler died in 1945. Israel was founded in 1948. QUOTE The Grand Mufti returned to the Arabs after the war and was the most popular Arab politician in Palestine; he continued to rouse Arabs to the call of pushing the Jews into the sea, and was largely responsible for rejecting partition and starting the war on Israel. Yes, and he wouldn't have had that oppurtunity if there was no Israel. QUOTE The morality of the founding of Israel was that the alternative was death. I disagree, and the fact that American Jewish refugees have flourished even more than Israeli Jewish refugees proves it. I also resent your implied accusation that I would rather see Jews die than have created a homeland. QUOTE Looking at the history and the on-going rhetoric from activist Arabs, one would have to conclude that to side with the Palestinians on this fundamental issue is to subcribe to their fundamental belief that Jews do not have a right to remain alive. I'm not siding with any side in this issue. The actions of the Palestinians and allied Arabs have been just as horrible as the actions of the Israelis. But the fact is that none of this horribleness would have happened if the state of Israel had not been created, and that is what I find offensive. QUOTE I don't want to see anyone embroiled in a neverending war to which complete and utter destruction of one race or another seems the only solution, especially to one group with so complex a history of persecution! Could'nt have said it better myself, JJackson! Posted by: pitchu Jan 26 2004, 05:38 PM Jjackson, I'm very grateful for your words, and I'm in constant astonishment, since your return here, at the difference in your perceptions, conclusions, and tone. Few would argue that (all biblical reasons aside -- which actually can't be put aside by the followers of religion on both sides of this problem), the location of the state of Israel was bound to precipitate horrors. Pragmatically, though, there were, as you've recognized here, no options. Before the holocaust, various places for a safe haven for the world's Jews were discussed, and were under discussion at the time of Hitler's rise. The madness and immediacy of the holocaust, as well as the closing of doors to Jewish immigration by many nations, left Palestine immediately viable for the saving of Jewish lives. I guess, out of all of this examination of the history behind it, if I, personally, could ask one thing of the Palestinians, it would be a statement of recognition of the precipitating factors which made the establishment of Israel right and necessary. Not even that any single thing the Israelis have done since then has been right or necessary. I believe that such a Palestinian statement would go so very far toward healing wounds and softening Israeli hearts (let alone bringing copious tears to Israeli eyes), that solutions to today's problems could begin to unfold at a head-spinning rate. Look at how Israelis have welcomed real overtures of peace and understanding. Look at how they turned out, decorating their streets and buildings for that breathtaking surprise visit from Saddat. And look at how that one overture of his brought about Israel's release of the Sinai. It's just really damn hard to make a peace with people who think you should all have died in the holocaust to begin with, and who have vowed to rid the world of the despicable dogs of your people who are still left. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 05:52 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 08:33 PM) Hitler died in 1945. Israel was founded in 1948. ----------- Yes, and he wouldn't have had that oppurtunity if there was no Israel. ---------- I disagree, and the fact that American Jewish refugees have flourished even more than Israeli Jewish refugees proves it. I also resent your implied accusation that I would rather see Jews die than have created a homeland. ----------- I'm not siding with any side in this issue. The actions of the Palestinians and allied Arabs have been just as horrible as the actions of the Israelis. But the fact is that none of this horribleness would have happened if the state of Israel had not been created, and that is what I find offensive. Interesting how you find that the idea of killing the Jews died with Hitler. --------- so the Israelis are to blame for people hating them and wanting them off their land? ----------- American Jewish refugees are not constantly under attack, but the numbers of religious Jews here are below the religious numbers in Israel. ------------ The "horribleness" of the holocaust wouldn't have happend if the economy of Germany had not died as a result of the vast war reperations required by the french. Are they at fault for the holocaust? Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 05:59 PM SpaceFalcon2001- QUOTE Interesting how you find that the idea of killing the Jews died with Hitler. The Holocaust died with Hitler. QUOTE so the Jewish people are to blame for people hating them? I'm not placing blame or responsibility on anyone. But the fact is a lot of violence could have been avoided if Israel had not been created. QUOTE the numbers of religious Jews here are below the religious numbers in Israel. You seem to be continually implying that non-religious Jews don't count. That is so disturbing, and it trivializes your own argument. QUOTE The "horribleness" of the holocaust wouldn't have happend if the economy of Germany had not died as a result of the vast war reperations required by the french. That's not directly true, but I do believe that the Treaty of Versailles is also one of the worst decisions of the 20th century. Posted by: I Broke Free Jan 26 2004, 06:21 PM I am 43 years of age and I have been watching, reading and listening to the Palestinian/Jewish problem ALL my life. It is one of those issues I wish would just go away. I sick of watching the violence and even more sick of the finger pointing on both sides. All of the regular posters on this forum have given valid reasons for holding their opposing positions regarding this conflict and it is no closer to being resolved here than in the Middle East. I have nothing to offer but this far fetched solution. Invite every Palestinian and Israeli who wishes to leave, a window of opportunity to move to the U.S. Then the let madmen duke it out with all they’ve got! Posted by: pitchu Jan 26 2004, 06:27 PM Zach, Please don't have resentment over implied accusations that don't exist. I'm proceeding in this discussion with you because you replied in the affirmative to my original question, and I have no reason to doubt that response. What I've been doing, here, is defining existing positions on this issue and extrapolating on the moral underpinnings and consequences of those positions. You, in turn, are trying to show me where I'm wrong. I've not said anything to you, personally, about what you do or don't believe about my statements. I suppose you're free to infer whatever you please, but I have implied nothing about you. Now I'm hoping you'll clarify something. Is it your opinion that Jews had a right to flee to and settle in Palestine, but that the "evil", for want of a better word, was the granting of Israeli statehood by the U.N.? That all horrors of the Jewish/Palestinian conflict proceeded from that action? Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 06:35 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 08:59 PM) The Holocaust died with Hitler. ----------- I'm not placing blame or responsibility on anyone. But the fact is a lot of violence could have been avoided if Israel had not been created. -------------- You seem to be continually implying that non-religious Jews don't count. That is so disturbing, and it trivializes your own argument. ----------------- That's not directly true, but I do believe that the Treaty of Versailles is also one of the worst decisions of the 20th century. Once again, the idea of killing Jews was neither started, nor finished by Hitler. He just managed to take it to the next level. ----------- You are completely blaming Israel's own existence for the cause of all violence in the middle east. A lot of violence could be avoided if people just lay down and were lethargic about everything. The thing is that people do take initiatives in history. Good or Bad, they have been taken. Even upon people who don't want anything to do with it. When people just lay down and take it you get 1940's America "don't know, don't care" attitude about the rest of the world. You get the 1930's embrace of Hitler by the German people. Lethargy never solved anything and only leads to Apathy and Entropy. I get the feeling that is just your position. Why do something that might incite violence when you can be passive about it? ----------- I am not implying that they don't count, I am talking about the problem of assimilation and cultural degradation as compared to Jews in Israel. ------------- Isn't it? The horrible economy in Germany at the time is one of the main reasons Hitler was so able to grab power. Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 06:57 PM SpaceFalcon2001- QUOTE the idea of killing Jews was neither started, nor finished by Hitler. He just managed to take it to the next level. And it's that 'next level' which is used as the reason for the creation of Israel! Were there any movements to create a Jewish homeland in the Middle Ages? QUOTE You are completely blaming Israel's own existence for the cause of all violence in the middle east. I'm not placing blame. But if you drop a match in a barrel of paper, you get fire. If you're going to be throwing matches around, at least douse the tinder first. QUOTE Lethargy never solved anything and only leads to Apathy and Entropy. I get the feeling that is just your position. There's a huge difference between apathy and conscientiousness. Violence, while it is often an effective solution, is always the last solution. QUOTE I am talking about the problem of assimilation and cultural degradation as compared to Jews in Israel. What does that matter? Jews are a people, not just a culture. The fact that you dismiss American Jews as non-cultural is a huge insult to them. Careful, your fundamentalism is showing. QUOTE The horrible economy in Germany at the time is one of the main reasons Hitler was so able to grab power. Yes, but you can play that game all the way back to William the Conqueror and before. Did the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand cause the Holocaust? Maybe we should blame the Serbians! Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 07:12 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 09:57 PM) And it's that 'next level' which is used as the reason for the creation of Israel! Were there any movements to create a Jewish homeland in the Middle Ages? ------------------------ I'm not placing blame. But if you drop a match in a barrel of paper, you get fire. If you're going to be throwing matches around, at least douse the tinder first. --------------- There's a huge difference between apathy and conscientiousness. Violence, while it is often an effective solution, is always the last solution. --------------- What does that matter? Jews are a people, not just a culture. The fact that you dismiss American Jews as non-cultural is a huge insult to them. Careful, your fundamentalism is showing. ----------------- Yes, but you can play that game all the way back to William the Conqueror and before. Did the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand cause the Holocaust? Maybe we should blame the Serbians! The next level of murder being the foundation of israel? Hardly. The reason for Israel's creation was the constant Jew abuse already in existance. It took another 6 Million dead to convince anyone to actually do anything about it. The average Jew in the middle ages was secluded by themselves, to be occasionally raided or forced out by local christians or mulsims. As for the creation of a Jewish homeland, See Maimonides. ---------- You specifically are placing blame by saying without Israel there would be no violence in the area. If that's not blame, I don't know what is. --------------- Your are showing a clear lack of concern that the Jews need anything, much less a place to call home. Either you are a dedicated Pacifist, or you are Apathetic. Violence is not always the last "solution", but often the first action. --------------- What does it matter? What are Jews but their religion? Without it, it's about as important as your own distant cultural heritage. Not all american Jews are non-cultural, but not all are cultural. Ignoring the culture of which you are derived is pretty shameful. Your religion defines you, and to hold it to carry as much water as any other title is just wrong. What do you think Jews for Jesus are? They call themselves Jews too. ----------------- You came up with the blame game. Now you are grasping for excuses. You remind me of a whiny German I once knew who insisted that a metaphor is not a legitimate argument... Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 07:16 PM Pitchu- QUOTE What I've been doing, here, is defining existing positions on this issue and extrapolating on the moral underpinnings and consequences of those positions. You've been pretty explicit about those moral consequences: QUOTE The morality of the founding of Israel was that the alternative was death. By your statement, either I support the creation of Israel, or I support the death of the Jews. I don't think I'm remiss in my assesment of your implications. QUOTE Is it your opinion that Jews had a right to flee to and settle in Palestine, but that the "evil", for want of a better word, was the granting of Israeli statehood by the U.N.? Jews, as well as any human on earth, have the right to self-preservation. After the war, they went all over the world. Some even stayed in Germany (albeit very few, about 55,000 in 1995)! My point is, the Jews had (more or less) the whole world to choose from, why pick a country that had been religiously Muslim and ethnically Arab for over 1200 years? They believed that God led them there. And I don't think, on these forums, that I need to provide any examples of the travesty that is humanity's legacy with divine mandates. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 07:35 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 10:16 PM) Jews, as well as any human on earth, have the right to self-preservation. After the war, they went all over the world. Some even stayed in Germany (albeit very few, about 55,000 in 1995)! My point is, the Jews had (more or less) the whole world to choose from, why pick a country that had been religiously Muslim and ethnically Arab for over 1200 years? They believed that God led them there. And I don't think, on these forums, that I need to provide any examples of the travesty that is humanity's legacy with divine mandates. Once again, no, the Jews did not really have the whole world to choose from, as seen in Uganda (Jewganda). Why take a place that means nothing where people would resent us just the same? The return of Israel after thousands of years to the Jewish people was incredibly important. It restored the land to the people who were kicked out much longer ago, and placed a stable democratic society in the middle east. Arab's seem to be intolerant of the Western Idea of a democracy, much more so of one ruled by Jews. God doesn't command them to continue with war on either side. Only men and intolerance. Was it God that asked the arabs to begin the attempt to push Jews in the sea? Is it God that askes arabs to throw themselves attatched with bombs into the heart of Jerusalem? Is it God at all? No. Calling the place Israel did not inherintly do anything to the arabs, only their own insistance that Jews not have it and that Jews die in the process. Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 07:44 PM SpaceFalcon2001- QUOTE The reason for Israel's creation was the constant Jew abuse already in existance. It took another 6 Million dead to convince anyone to actually do anything about it. From U.N. Resolution 181: QUOTE [The General Assembly] Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations; The U.N. recognized that Palestine was unstable, and they took steps to remedy it. There's nothing in the language of the resolution about 'Jew abuse'. Certainly the Holocaust was fresh on their minds, and it's still bright in our memory, but their actual motivation (on paper) was to resolve the region's conflict. Unfortunately, it didn't work. QUOTE As for the creation of a Jewish homeland, See Maimonides. Did Maimonides buy land in Palestine? QUOTE You specifically are placing blame by saying without Israel there would be no violence in the area. If that's not blame, I don't know what is. I do not 'blame' a match for starting a fire. But that doesn't mean that I am neutral regarding the fire. QUOTE Your are showing a clear lack of concern that the Jews need anything, much less a place to call home. No Jew is homeless. And no Jew needs to be in Palestine to be a Jew. QUOTE Either you are a dedicated Pacifist, or you are Apathetic. Or maybe I like to think things through before I act. QUOTE What are Jews but their religion? Spoken like a true fundamentalist. QUOTE The return of Israel after thousands of years to the Jewish people was incredibly important. Oh? QUOTE It restored the land to the people who were kicked out much longer ago translation: religion QUOTE and placed a stable democratic society in the middle east. translation: politics QUOTE Arab's seem to be intolerant of the Western Idea of a democracy, much more so of one ruled by Jews. What about one ruled by Jews that displaced Arabs? QUOTE Was it God that asked the arabs to begin the attempt to push Jews in the sea? Is it God that askes arabs to throw themselves attatched with bombs into the heart of Jerusalem? Is it God at all? No. Was it God that led the Jewish people back to Palestine after 2000 years? I suspect you'd answer differently. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 07:56 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 10:44 PM) The U.N. recognized that Palestine was unstable, and they took steps to remedy it. There's nothing in the language of the resolution about 'Jew abuse'. Certainly the Holocaust was fresh on their minds, and it's still bright in our memory, but their actual motivation (on paper) was to resolve the region's conflict. Unfortunately, it didn't work. ------------------------- Did Maimonides buy land in Palestine? ----------------- I do not 'blame' a match for starting a fire. But that doesn't mean that I am neutral regarding the fire. -------------- No Jew is homeless. And no Jew needs to be in Palestine to be a Jew. ------------ Or maybe I like to think things through before I act. --------------- Spoken like a true fundamentalist. --------------- Excuses? I'm not trying to excuse an act which resulted in turmoil and bloodshed, you are! Convince people to do something about it, not say it's directly because of the holocaust. Paper motivation does not always reflect actual motivation. ----------------------- Is it really that hard for you to look anything up yourself? Maimonides is the Chief Rabbi of about the years 1100-1200. He lived amoung the Islamic courts in egypt as advisor and doctor. He is also the most influential figures of Judaism in the middle ages. His opinions reflect the greater opinion of the Jews in the time period. ----------- Why do you run from the fact that you have clearly stated that without Israel there would be no violence, then say this is not blame? ----------- So it's completely wrong to have a place for Jews by Jews? ----------- If you act at all? ------------------- Do you go around claiming to be Celtic? Or Goth? Or even christian? While you clearly do not share anything remotly like a belief? You would not say you are christian because you do not believe in god or other aspects of the religion, but you support other people doing the same and claiming they are Jews? ------------------ You are the one stating it is Israel's own fault for this and everything brought upon it has been deserved. Did you really drop your own fundamental belief when you left christianity? Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 26 2004, 08:00 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 10:44 PM) What about one ruled by Jews that displaced Arabs? --------------- Was it God that led the Jewish people back to Palestine after 2000 years? I suspect you'd answer differently. Last time I checked, Israel isn't forcing anyone out. There is retaliation, but that is that. ----------------- Would it matter to you if he had? Posted by: moorezw Jan 26 2004, 08:13 PM SpaceFalcon2001- QUOTE Is it really that hard for you to look anything up yourself? I know full well who Maimonides was, what I don't know is that he moved to Palestine and tried to set up a Jewish state. If you have information to the contrary, is it so hard for you to post it yourself? QUOTE Why do you run from the fact that you have clearly stated that without Israel there would be no violence, then say this is not blame? When have I said that I blame Israel? I said that the creation of the state of Israel was wrong. QUOTE So it's completely wrong to have a place for Jews by Jews? Of course not. The continued existence of the state of Israel is not under discussion. But the creation was wrong. QUOTE Do you go around claiming to be Celtic? Why yes, I do. My family has been in America since before it was a country, and I'm about as removed from Ireland as possible, but I revel in my heritage. I own a kilt, play the tinwhistle and bodhran, and dye my hair red every March 17th. And I don't have to go to Mass, either. If I feel Irish, I am. The same is true for Jews. Jewish heritage is more than just religion. Posted by: pitchu Jan 26 2004, 08:25 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 26 2004, 07:16 PM) Jews, as well as any human on earth, have the right to self-preservation. After the war, they went all over the world. Some even stayed in Germany (albeit very few, about 55,000 in 1995)! My point is, the Jews had (more or less) the whole world to choose from, why pick a country that had been religiously Muslim and ethnically Arab for over 1200 years? They believed that God led them there. And I don't think, on these forums, that I need to provide any examples of the travesty that is humanity's legacy with divine mandates. Zack, I think you've missed that I was putting forth arguments which I thought you might not have considered. I'm only now learning much about the thinking behind what you've posted. I'm sorry for my contribution to your unease. ------- Jews have gone all over the world since the beginning of the diaspora, which, with few exceptions, has created the deaths of Jews qua Jews within the borders of their host nations. Jews have no reason to expect, even today, that that would not still be the case. Jews decidedly did not have the whole world to choose from. Hitler demonstrated that by sending the ship, The St. Louis, loaded with Jews, all around the world to prove his point that nobody wanted them. N |