• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is Why Israel is Right Not to Sacrifice Its Security

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apocalypse said:
Death toll isn't murders and that's the entire point. The US killed more than ISIS, so ISIS is worse than the US? As I said laughable and you perfectly demosntrated why. Question your entire world view if that is the kind of logic you are able to achieve.
Click to expand...

Just using your logic, man. This is the problem with being a hypocrite, it's easy to get tripped up.

And by the way, I qualified: innocent lives. So, yes it is murder.

The reality, of course, is that when a person or a nation takes an innocent life, they no longer have a claim to innocence. They are murderers. There is no "special standard", this is widely accepted, and every country, including America, including Canada, have been criticized for the number of civilian casualties they accumulate. And yes, the number, along with the degree of care (or lack thereof) to avoid those casualties most certainly plays into the intensity of that criticism...of course.

I think I need a better explanation of your America / ISIS comparison, as you were a little klutzy with that bit.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A pretty accurate summary of most of your beliefs.



By the law of return standard its closer to 30 million. Are you the decider of who's genetically pure enough to be considered Jewish?
Click to expand...

Right...

Actually the nazis are. See Israel made their law to protect people who were murdered because they were Jews. So Jewish enough to be gassed, Jewish enough to be saved by Israel, even if you are not Jewish under Jewish law.

And of course allowing in people who are not technically Jewish doesn’t do the Jewish majority of the state any favours (see the large influx of non-Jews from the Soviet Union) but it’s still part of the law because people who hate Jews don’t usually base their hatred on technical Jewish law.

So basically whatever argument you were trying to make, you ended up making the opposite one. Oops?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Right...

Actually the nazis are. See Israel made their law to protect people who were murdered because they were Jews. So Jewish enough to be gassed, Jewish enough to be saved by Israel, even if you are not Jewish under Jewish law.

And of course allowing in people who are not technically Jewish doesn’t do the Jewish majority of the state any favours (see the large influx of non-Jews from the Soviet Union) but it’s still part of the law because people who hate Jews don’t usually base their hatred on technical Jewish law.

So basically whatever argument you were trying to make, you ended up making the opposite one. Oops?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nope. My argument was that the line between "Jew" and "Non-Jew" is completely arbitrary and your subjective definition does not at all match the subjective definition of the state of Israel. Thanks for confirming though that for you it is 100% about preserving a racial demographic majority, as an ethnocentric state would.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Nope. My argument was that the line between "Jew" and "Non-Jew" is completely arbitrary and your subjective definition does not at all match the subjective definition of the state of Israel. Thanks for confirming though that for you it is 100% about preserving a racial demographic majority, as an ethnocentric state would.
Click to expand...

Only it's not "arbitrary," because it was by UN Resolution way back in 1947, that decided the lands from the Balfour would be divided into Arab and Jewish states.

The problem we're seeing today, especially in Europe, where they're seeking to further define certain criticism of Israel as "antisemitic" is that the true antisemites are out in force and convincing those who repeat propaganda that Israel is almost certainly at fault.

The problem is not so great here, where most anti-Israeli sentiment is relegated to the Far Left and to White Supremacists, and neither of those groups really have a clue as to what's happening.

Those who are pushing for Israel to give up its Jewish status either don't understand that this tiny nation is the only Jewish homeland in the world where Jews were supposed to be able to live without fear of attack -- or they actually would like to see the Jewish state fail -- and lose its ethnocentric status.

But, all one needs to do is study the history of aggression agaisnt Jews for the past 2,000 years to understand the need for the ethnocentric status.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Nope. My argument was that the line between "Jew" and "Non-Jew" is completely arbitrary and your subjective definition does not at all match the subjective definition of the state of Israel. Thanks for confirming though that for you it is 100% about preserving a racial demographic majority, as an ethnocentric state would.
Click to expand...

Ok, so your argument is not based on facts. Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
HowardBThiname said:
Only it's not "arbitrary," because it was by UN Resolution way back in 1947, that decided the lands from the Balfour would be divided into Arab and Jewish states.

The problem we're seeing today, especially in Europe, where they're seeking to further define certain criticism of Israel as "antisemitic" is that the true antisemites are out in force and convincing those who repeat propaganda that Israel is almost certainly at fault.

The problem is not so great here, where most anti-Israeli sentiment is relegated to the Far Left and to White Supremacists, and neither of those groups really have a clue as to what's happening.

Those who are pushing for Israel to give up its Jewish status either don't understand that this tiny nation is the only Jewish homeland in the world where Jews were supposed to be able to live without fear of attack -- or they actually would like to see the Jewish state fail -- and lose its ethnocentric status.

But, all one needs to do is study the history of aggression agaisnt Jews for the past 2,000 years to understand the need for the ethnocentric status.
Click to expand...
Yes it is arbitrary. There is no objective standard of who is Jewish and who isn't. Israel's definition differs from CJ's by a lot. You're not even talking about the same thing. Totally clueless as usual.
CJ 2.0 said:
Ok, so your argument is not based on facts. Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're the one who thinks he's the decider of who's a Jew and who isn't, and contradict Israel's definition. Totally arbitrary.
 
Apocalypse said:
Another meaningless strawman argument.
My point remains that racists need to be opposed. Everywhere, always.
Click to expand...

That's why you regularly call out the Israeli leaderships for their Jews only roads , military courts for West Bank Palestinians but civil Israeli courts for illegal Jewish settlers , planning permission for Jews only etc etc...........and all in another peoples territory , right of return for Jews only in your own country..........correct ?
 
CJ 2.0 said:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/jorda...eal-haifa-should-be-taken-by-force-if-we-can/


It really isn’t complicated. The Israelis are justified, after decades of the Arabs trying to destroy them, to maintain any and all territory needed to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Because if you have the guy who signed a peace deal saying yah that peace thing, if we ever have enough power we are going to seize one of Israel’s major cities, well that tells you what peace treaties with the Arabs are worth.

Peace through strength and defensive positions and economic prosperity is the only way in the middle east.

Sorry not sorry

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

CJ 2.0:

What do you mean by the word "maintain" bolded by me in the quote above? Does it mean to acquire by force of arms new terrirory which is implied by your choice to use the phrase "any and all" soon after using maintain? Does it mean retain what has already been taken from others by force such as the occupied territories and the Golan Heights? Does it mean hold onto that territory which was granted to proto-Israel by international agreement before Israel declared itself an independent state?

Until you define your terms your statement is too vague to be discussed meaningfully.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes it is arbitrary. There is no objective standard of who is Jewish and who isn't. Israel's definition differs from CJ's by a lot. You're not even talking about the same thing. Totally clueless as usual.


You're the one who thinks he's the decider of who's a Jew and who isn't, and contradict Israel's definition. Totally arbitrary.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? You are aware the state of Israel isn’t a religious authority and that the Rabbinate has their own criteria? Which differs from the criteria established in the Law of Return? Such that if a person is aware of the differences (not you, obviously), there is a group of people that satisfies the criteria for the Law but the rabbis do not view as halachically Jewish?

Nothing wrong woth ignorance, per se, but the tangents that the ignorance is pulling you down are illuminating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Evilroddy said:
CJ 2.0:

What do you mean by the word "maintain" bolded by me in the quote above? Does it mean to acquire by force of arms new terrirory which is implied by your choice to use the phrase "any and all" soon after using maintain? Does it mean retain what has already been taken from others by force such as the occupied territories and the Golan Heights? Does it mean hold onto that territory which was granted to proto-Israel by international agreement before Israel declared itself an independent state?

Until you define your terms your statement is too vague to be discussed meaningfully.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

It means the territory they currently control. I do think if they are attacked again and they need additional positions to better defend themselves they would be justified in holding those too, but maintain is different than acquire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CJ 2.0 said:
What in the world are you talking about? You are aware the state of Israel isn’t a religious authority and that the Rabbinate has their own criteria? Which differs from the criteria established in the Law of Return? Such that if a person is aware of the differences (not you, obviously), there is a group of people that satisfies the criteria for the Law but the rabbis do not view as halachically Jewish?

Nothing wrong woth ignorance, per se, but the tangents that the ignorance is pulling you down are illuminating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Since you're the self declared decider of who's Jewish and who isn't, at exactly what percentage of pure Jewish blood is the threshold for being a Jew to you? 13%? 37%? 98%?

That's the problem with you people obsessed with racial identity. Genetics are messy and people interbreed. It's very unlikely you're purely Jewish unless your ancestors were incredibly dedicated to breeding within the tribe. We're all a spectrum of different races, genetics and cultures and there is no objective line where one begins and the other ends. Just be a ****ing human ffs.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/jorda...eal-haifa-should-be-taken-by-force-if-we-can/


It really isn’t complicated. The Israelis are justified, after decades of the Arabs trying to destroy them, to maintain any and all territory needed to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Because if you have the guy who signed a peace deal saying yah that peace thing, if we ever have enough power we are going to seize one of Israel’s major cities, well that tells you what peace treaties with the Arabs are worth.

Peace through strength and defensive positions and economic prosperity is the only way in the middle east.

Sorry not sorry



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

93 year old guy talking nonsense. Obviously speaks for all the Arab states.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Except that’s literally what you’ve stated with your constant shrieks of “anti semitism” every time anyone criticizes Israel. It is pathetic, and I’m not surprised that you can’t comprehend why.

Not claiming noncombatants are terrorists without the slightest shred of evidence—-even we’ll after the fact— is not a “special standard”. It is basic human decency—-something which you are apparently incapable of.

Yes, I think it’s quite clear you aren’t capable of creating an actual argument and will always resort to lazily screaming “anti semitism”.
Click to expand...

What was made clear to you is that judging the obsession with the only Jewish nation in the world and the judgement of it with special standards is antisemitic.
For example comparing the civilian casualties of war to Israeli victims of terror yet claiming that it's incomparable to non-Israeli victims of terror, well guess what motivates that pathetic and hypocritical thinking? Yep, that good old Jew hatred that never departed from this planet.
 
OlNate said:
Just using your logic, man. This is the problem with being a hypocrite, it's easy to get tripped up.

And by the way, I qualified: innocent lives. So, yes it is murder.

The reality, of course, is that when a person or a nation takes an innocent life, they no longer have a claim to innocence. They are murderers. There is no "special standard", this is widely accepted, and every country, including America, including Canada, have been criticized for the number of civilian casualties they accumulate. And yes, the number, along with the degree of care (or lack thereof) to avoid those casualties most certainly plays into the intensity of that criticism...of course.

I think I need a better explanation of your America / ISIS comparison, as you were a little klutzy with that bit.
Click to expand...

So you think America is worse than ISIS by that logic because they killed more civilians going after ISIS than ISIS killed and you consider that to be "murders". Good for you. I follow human logic and morality.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread has some problems and is going to be closed for moderator review. All posts are still subject to moderation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom