[RawPower]

So? You have to be insanely insensitive to have massive population transfers after the trauma of WWII, just because maps were redrawn. Yet it happened in Europe.

False equivalency. Being encouraged to settle in Israel/Palestine is not the same as being forced into train cars and shipped to death factories.

They picked Palestine because that's what they wanted all along, they also picked it because they could more easily get it against the will of the local people (ain't colonialism great?)and they had a successful terror campaign already in progress.

This is true. Things could have been carried out far better than they were. The only thing that can be done now is to try and stop further cruelty.

[Instigator]

False equivalency. Being encouraged to settle in Israel/Palestine is not the same as being forced into train cars and shipped to death factories.

Then make up your mind. Are we still in WWII or in the immediate aftermath? I thought we were talking about the latter. I didn't mention anything about death trains going to Auschwitz.

[RawPower]

Then make up your mind. Are we still in WWII or in the immediate aftermath? I thought we were talking about the latter.

We were talking about the latter. Yes.

I didn't mention anything about death trains going to Auschwitz.

Ahem....

So? You have to be insanely insensitive to have massive population transfers after the trauma of WWII, just because maps were redrawn. Yet it happened in Europe.

Not explicitly, but you implied it.

[Instigator]

Not explicitly, but you implied it.

No, I was talking about those millions of Germans and Poles who had to move after WWII. Maps were redrawn. The Soviet Union swallowed up eastern Poland, Poland got parts of Germany, local German minorities were kicked out of other places in Eastern Europe. This was a messy affair.

[RawPower]

In case it got lost on the last page.

Gee, give the Roma a homeland then. Or any other maligned group for that matter. Just because.

I wouldn't be against this, personally.

Well, the majority of Jews still live outside of Israel. You do too as far as I can tell. They've made their choice then, and they're still making that choice now.

I probably could have phrased that better.

The Jews who emigrated to Palestine were foreigners by the most conservative definition of the word. They were not returning "home" but to a land were their ancestors used to live long ago. They had little in common with the local population and carved out a piece of territory to live a mostly Western way of life.

Some Jews chose to retain the customs of their host populations, others didn't. Some choose to identify more closely with their Middle Eastern heritage. This is why many Israeli immigrants "Hebraicized" (is that a word?) their names when they arrived. I could be considered part of the latter grouping.

No, I was talking about those millions of Germans and Poles who had to move after WWII. Maps were redrawn. The Soviet Union swallowed up eastern Poland, Poland got parts of Germany, local German minorities were kicked out of other places in Eastern Europe. This was a messy affair.

I thought you were talking about the Jews.

[Instigator]

I wouldn't be against this, personally.

But the problem is, which land do they get? All the valuable real estate on Earth is already occupied. No countries want to give an inch. It's a nice sentiment to have, but it's not grounded in reality.

Aside from being against the very principle of it, I think it sets a bad precedent too. There are a lot of Europeans who would like nothing better than to ship all the Romas to a small territory and then close their borders to it.

How about learning to live with one another instead?

[RawPower]

There are a lot of Europeans who would like nothing better than to ship all the Romas to a small territory and then close their borders to it.

Well at least now you understand why many Jews would balk at the prospect of settling in Europe again.

How about learning to live with one another instead?

Indeed. I don't see why Israel needs to be abolished for this to happen, though.

[Instigator]

Well at least now you understand why many Jews would balk at the prospect of settling in Europe again. Indeed. I don't see why Israel needs to be abolished for this to happen, though.

I never said I didn't understand it, I just don't agree with Israel being the alternative. While it's still possible for people to move around, at one point, you still have to deal with people around you wherever you settle.

With Israel content with the status quo and people moving and living there in tacit agreement, I'd rather treat the country like a pariah state, a bit like South Africa under apartheid and force a comprehensive peace agreement through isolation and sanctions. And yes, their "right to exist" should be conditional. With America as a staunch ally, this makes things difficult, though America once stood with isolated South Africa before giving in.

[RawPower]

I never said I didn't understand it, I just don't agree with Israel being the alternative.

And yet you said a state in Germany made more sense.

With Israel content with the status quo and people moving and living there in tacit agreement, I'd rather treat the country like a pariah state, a bit like South Africa under apartheid and force a comprehensive peace agreement through isolation and sanctions. And yes, their "right to exist" should be conditional. With America as a staunch ally, this makes things difficult, though America once stood with isolated South Africa before giving in.

But didn't South Africa start treating their white minority like shit afterwards?

[RawPower]

Somehow I missed this one. Blame my inattentiveness.

I know it's oft repeated, but no one actually ever said this. The language it was claimed to have originated from (Farsi) doesn't even contain the idiom "wipe off the map" (per Juan Cole). The real quote was something like "the Israeli regime will vanish from the pages of time". As Clipjoint noted, it was the equivalent of endorsing One State. Or "regime change" if you like MEMRI (or somebody) got creative and came up with the infamous 'map' translation. And now literally every American and European news organization repeats this line every time there's a story about Israel. "Wipe off the map", language emotionally locked and loaded.

But they did say they wanted to send the Israelis "back to Germany or wherever they came from". That's pretty damning, imo.

[Instigator]

And yet you said a state in Germany made more sense.

The maps were redrawn then, the Jews were native Europeans and Germany was the main guilty party behind the holocaust. It makes sense they've have the burden to do something about it (and they did, in forms of reparation payments, for example). That is, if a Jewish state had to be created at all.

But didn't South Africa start treating their white minority like shit afterwards?

The well-off still live in gated communities. The poorer ones are not given preferential treatment anymore and the country's main ressources are aimed at lifting the majority of poor blacks who have been living a poverty since the apartheid days.

It's not Zimbabwe.

[RawPower]

The maps were redrawn then, the Jews were native Europeans and Germany was the main guilty party behind the holocaust. It makes sense they've have the burden to do something about it (and they did, in forms of reparation payments, for example). That is, if a Jewish state had to be created at all.

Most wanted little or nothing to do with Europe after the war. Also, I think Jews have the right to identify themselves as Middle Eastern rather than native European. I certainly don't agree with you calling them indigenous Europeans. For further clarification, I would consider Roma to be native to India, not Europe.

The well-off still live in gated communities. The poorer ones are not given preferential treatment anymore and the country's main ressources are aimed at lifting the majority of poor blacks who have been living a poverty since the apartheid days. It's not Zimbabwe.

I will have to research this more.

[Tribes of Trusty]

It's so fun to read a topic on Israel in an american-centric board. Funny how perspectives go. At least here we can criticize Israel without being instantly labelled as an "antisemitic".

For me the conditions behind Isreal's creation makes it an illegitimate state, and bound to vanish someday. The only viable solution now would be the creation of a unique state where all the population would live there, be it jewish/muslim/christian/pastafarian/whatever. But I strongly doubt Israeli would agree to that and to return the despoiled lands.

[el retorno]

I know it's oft repeated, but no one actually ever said this. The language it was claimed to have originated from (Farsi) doesn't even contain the idiom "wipe off the map" (per Juan Cole). The real quote was something like "the Israeli regime will vanish from the pages of time". As Clipjoint noted, it was the equivalent of endorsing One State. Or "regime change" if you like MEMRI (or somebody) got creative and came up with the infamous 'map' translation. And now literally every American and European news organization repeats this line every time there's a story about Israel. "Wipe off the map", language emotionally locked and loaded.

That changes nothing in the statement besides the fact that it is using different wording and possibly could not be used as stupidly for the threat of Iran's nuclear program.

He said he doesn't want israel to exist. And before you try to play up the regime change card and claim the west does the same to Iran they don't. They are not calling for the end of Iran and it to accept millions of new citizens and drop its ethnic character. Iran was calling for the end of "israel" not just the end of the occupation. He doesn't feel Israel has a right to exist. Nobody really in any position of power thinks Iran doesn't have the right to exist.

For me the conditions behind Isreal's creation makes it an illegitimate state, and bound to vanish someday.

How? And I very much doubt a nuclear power is bound to vanish someday.

They picked Palestine because that's what they wanted all along, they also picked it because they could more easily get it against the will of the local people (ain't colonialism great?)and they had a successful terror campaign already in progress.

No they picked that area because it was an area which they had a historical attachment too. You know jewish prayers say "next time in jersualem" and have been for 1000s of years? That and the fact they were legally allowed to move there did so and formed a comunity and then asked for statehood. And I love how you insinuate the founders of Israel were terrorist (but you (or people like you, i'm not calling you in particular out) will in a roundabout way defend those that fight against colonialism as people fighting against an injustice as not terrorist but if you disagree, like with Israel its easy to call them terrorists). Most of those people didn't accept the legitimacy of the state and the religious people didn't come around for a few more years. Israel was founded by a bunch of secular socialists.


That being said the statement was pretty stupid though I see no problem with Israel warning hezbollah about a counter attack. Just not the we'll screw up villages crap.

[RawPower]

Israel vanishing is unlikely to happen any time soon. I could be wrong though.

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

That changes nothing in the statement besides the fact that it is using different wording and possibly could not be used as stupidly for the threat of Iran's nuclear program.

Please don't be coy. It's always used to infer Iran's existential nuclear threat to Israel. Always. And in that sense it continues to be incredibly deceitful.

He said he doesn't want israel to exist. And before you try to play up the regime change card and claim the west does the same to Iran they don't. They are not calling for the end of Iran and it to accept millions of new citizens and drop its ethnic character. Iran was calling for the end of "israel" not just the end of the occupation. He doesn't feel Israel has a right to exist. Nobody really in any position of power thinks Iran doesn't have the right to exist.

Correct, it's not the same. For one it's not the inherently violent threat many deceitfully frame it to be (which is why they rely on the fallacious Map quotation). If there's any threat in the real quote it's one of demographics, politics and time. And it's a result that is likely inevitable in the long term (thanks to Israel's colonial blinders)

When the US implies "regime change", part of that language includes the threat of violent invasion, occupation and overthrow of the country's ruling order. Any cursory glance at the modern history of US intervention would have to concede this. So there's a pretty big distinction there, no matter how you want to spin it. One call for regime change is necessarily violent, the other is not.

"Drop it's ethnic character", or acknowledge the actual reality on the ground? Where people live? As it stands we're talking about the difference between apartheid and real democracy.

[RawPower]

I believe the question he's asking is why is Israel held to a higher standard than any other nation, especially its neighbors. Is it because of the way it was formed? In that case, America, Canada, etc should all be abolished as well. But that would be ridiculous.

[SMT]

I believe the question he's asking is why is Israel held to a higher standard than any other nation, especially its neighbors. Is it because of the way it was formed? In that case, America, Canada, etc should all be abolished as well. But that would be ridiculous.

Watch it pal, don't compare unless you want one-sided debates.

[RawPower]

Watch it pal, don't compare unless you want one-sided debates.

Why? The comparison is perfectly valid, imo.

[Stet]

Well this particular threat is actually very valid thing to criticize them about. It is obvious that they probably can't/won't attack and that the whole nuclear situation in Iran is going to most likely reach an agreement soon. But it's still disgusting that members of the Israeli government are willing to make such a threat and expect people to believe it.

Ladies and gentlemen, someone who never lived through the Cold War.

[Dude Abides]

I believe the question he's asking is why is Israel held to a higher standard than any other nation, especially its neighbors. Is it because of the way it was formed? In that case, America, Canada, etc should all be abolished as well. But that would be ridiculous.

Unfortunately for Israel, it came into existence right as the kind of thing that led to the establishment of America was starting to be widely frowned upon. Another of Israel's problems is that while the American colonists and their progeny were able to virtually eradicate the natives and their progeny, the immigrants to Palestine/Israel were not.

[Azih]

I believe the question he's asking is why is Israel held to a higher standard than any other nation

Because it was, unlike most other nations, formed after the World Wars, events which changed the consensus of what is acceptable and what is not.

[SMT]

Isn't that what this thread already is?

Yes, but when the leaders of a country state they are going after the defenseless women and children first, what do you expect? Who does that man?

Hopefully it doesn't materialize, I support your country's right to exist, but not what Netenyahu and his stooges have to say.

Oh wait, now you changed your reply lol, having a hard time gravitating between 'helpless' and 'justified just because' ?

Why? The comparison is perfectly valid, imo.

If you want to compare, at least Canada and Lebanon's political leaders don't threaten the innocent and force racism upon their people, that sort of stuff is Nazi-like, the antithesis of your people, non? Your government is hypocritical.

Habibe, listen, what is happening is not something anyone would condone.

Though, I still question why Israel was placed in the Middle-East in the first place, with so many people claiming European descent (I blame Xenophobic Britain and U.S. of the 40's), but that's all in the past. Israelis and Palestinians should make amends, then we can solve this nuclear crisis, or at least postpone it until the U.S. decides to go on a crusade in Iran.

I'm not gonna sugarcoat it, the Middle-East could be where WWIII starts.

[RawPower]

Unfortunately for Israel, it came into existence right as the kind of thing that led to the establishment of America was starting to be widely frowned upon. Another of Israel's problems is that while the American colonists and their progeny were able to virtually eradicate the natives and their progeny, the immigrants to Palestine/Israel were not.

I think the Native American analogy is flawed, for reasons I already explained. Either way, why not just let the Palestinians have their own state?

[RawPower]

Yes, but when the leaders of a country state they are going after the defenseless women and children first, what do you expect? Who does that man? Hopefully it doesn't materialize, I support your country's right to exist, but not what Netenyahu and his stooges have to say. Oh wait, now you changed your reply lol, having a hard time gravitating between 'helpless' and 'justified just because' ? If you want to compare, at least Canada and Lebanon's political leaders don't threaten the innocent and force racism upon their people, that sort of stuff is Nazi-like, the antithesis of your people, non? Habibe, listen, what is happening is not something anyone would condone.

I never said I did condone any of it. It's really just the hypocrisy surrounding these debates that stuck in my craw. That's all.

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

So give the Palestinians their own state. Problem solved.

Their own contigious state? The problem just begins. That cookie cut formation is what's called bantustanization. There is no plan for two states.

[RawPower]

Their own contigious state? The problem just begins. That cookie cut formation is what's called bantustanization. There is no plan for two states.

There needs to be some sort of peace treaty then.

[Dude Abides]

I think the Native American analogy is flawed, for reasons I already explained. Either way, why not just let the Palestinians have their own state?

You think the comparison is valid for certain purposes at least. You just said so.

Why not let the Palestinians have their own state indeed? Israel seems to lack the political will to offer one that would be acceptable to the Palestinians.

[Azih]

There needs to be some sort of peace treaty then.

How can a peace treaty be negotiated when Israeli settlers keep grabbing land and the Israeli state keeps funding them, subsidzing them, protecting them, etc.

[Forsete]

I wanted to see what the West Bank looked like in Street View and I noticed that a car is constantly following the Google Car when they are in the West Bank. Security guys? :P

[RawPower]

How can a peace treaty be negotiated when Israeli settlers keep grabbing land and the Israeli state keeps funding them, subsidzing them, protecting them, etc.

Wouldn't a peace treaty imply that Israel stops grabbing land and all that other shit? Doesn't that go without saying? Why is it that you seem to think I want Israel to oppress Palestinians?

You think the comparison is valid for certain purposes at least. You just said so.

Yes, that's why I called it flawed, and not 100 percent invalid and without merit.

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

There needs to be some sort of peace treaty then.

I'm not sure I follow. If a two state solution is no longer viable, what would the treaty entail? If a two state solution is viable, hundreds of thousands of radically devoted settlers have to leave illegally annexed land of their own volition. Or be forcible removed. Either option seems unlikely to me.

From my vantage point, the State of Israel created a monster of their own undoing.

[RawPower]

I'm not sure I follow. If a two state solution is no longer viable, what would the treaty entail? If a two state solution is viable, hundreds of thousands of radically devoted settlers have to leave illegally annexed land of their own volition. Or be forcible removed. Either option seems unlikely to me. From my vantage point, the State of Israel created a monster of their own undoing.

What you suggested sounds fine to me. Better than dismantling the state altogether.

[Dude Abides]

Yes, that's why I called it flawed, and not 100 percent invalid and without merit.

Ok. But you said it was an appropriate comparison for this purpose. If I am wrong then the appropriate thing to do, would be to explain why its flaws do or do not relate to what I said, rather than just being dismissive.

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

What you suggested sounds fine to me. Better than dismantling the state altogether.

Forcibly removing the legion of settlers squatting on other peoples land? Good luck with that.

The thing is we already have one state in Israel. It just happens to include an oppressive apartheid. I don't see how having real democracy in its stead is necessarily "dismantling the state". There will still be a state. There will still be strong Jewish heritage in this state. But it'll no longer be a racist state.

[RawPower]

Ok. But you said it was an appropriate comparison for this purpose. If I am wrong then the appropriate thing to do, would be to explain why its flaws do or do not relate to what I said, rather than just being dismissive.

My issue with the Native American comparison is it implies that Israeli Jews are not native at all to that region, when it is widely known that they are largely descended from groups who were indigenous to that area. To me, it is the same as saying a Roma is no longer Indian, and thus no longer has the right to consider themselves as such, because they happened to settle in Europe since the late Middle Ages. You can't make this sort of argument for a British colonizer in America.

I realize this is somewhat nitpicky, but it's a comparison usually made by people who have no understanding whatsoever of Jewish culture or history. Either that or they just don't care.

Forcibly removing the legion of settlers squatting on other peoples land? Good luck with that. The thing is we already have one state in Israel. It just happens to include an oppressive apartheid. I don't see how having real democracy in its stead is necessarily "dismantling the state". There will still be a state. There will still be strong Jewish heritage in this state. But it'll no longer be a racist state.

Fair enough.

[Dude Abides]

My issue with the Native American comparison is it implies that Israeli Jews are not native at all to that region, when it is widely known that they are largely descended from groups who were indigenous to that area. To me, it is the same as saying a Roma is no longer Indian, and thus no longer has the right to consider themselves as such, because they happened to settle in Europe since the late Middle Ages. You can't make this sort of argument for a British colonizer in America. I realize this is somewhat nitpicky, but it's a comparison usually made by people who have no understanding whatsoever of Jewish culture or history. Either that or they just don't care.

While there undoubtedly has been a Jewish presence in the Levant since Biblical times, most of the immigrants who actually came to the mandate and founded the state had no traceable ancestry to the place on an individual basis. I think it is just as disingenuous to ignore the fact that the vast majority of those who were living there at the founding of the state had only arrived recently as it is to ignore the long-standing connection. When does the statute of limitations run on this kind of thing?

[RawPower]

While there undoubtedly has been a Jewish presence in the Levant since Biblical times, most of the immigrants who actually came to the mandate and founded the state had no traceable ancestry to the place on an individual basis. I think it is just as disingenuous to ignore the fact that the vast majority of those who were living there at the founding of the state had only arrived recently as it is to ignore the long-standing connection. When does the statute of limitations run on this kind of thing?

From my understanding, most if not all European Jews have ancestry there, unless they had converted in the decades prior to WWII which is highly unlikely. Perhaps it was distant, but it still counts imo. You act as if conversion was widespread over the centuries, when it was anything but that. You could argue that proselytism in the early days of the Roman Empire resulted in an influx of European blood, but it coalesced over time and as a result, a majority of ethnic Jews have a good deal of both.

Overall, I think European Jews have the right to identify themselves as Middle Easterners, Palestinians, Semites, or whatever else.

[theignoramus]

Forcibly removing the legion of settlers squatting on other peoples land? Good luck with that. The thing is we already have one state in Israel. It just happens to include an oppressive apartheid. I don't see how having real democracy in its stead is necessarily "dismantling the state". There will still be a state. There will still be strong Jewish heritage in this state. But it'll no longer be a racist state.

most of those settlers would leave if the IDF simply pulled out and stopped protecting them from Palestinians. Only the hardcore settlers have the stomache for a fight. The rest are called "quality of life" settlers who are there for the benefits provided by the Israeli government.

[Dude Abides]

From my understanding, most if not all European Jews have ancestry there, unless they had converted in the decades prior to WWII which is highly unlikely. Perhaps it was distant, but it still counts imo. You act as if conversion was widespread over the centuries, when it was anything but that. You could argue that proselytism in the early days of the Roman Empire resulted in an influx of European blood, but it coalesced over time and as a result, a majority of ethnic Jews have a good deal of both. Overall, I think European Jews have the right to identify themselves as Middle Easterners, Palestinians, Semites, or whatever else.

They can identify themselves however they like, and conversion is not the issue. But my point is that most people living in the Jewish diaspora in the late 19th-mid 20th century would not be able to say "oh yes, my great great great grandfather Levi lived in Jerusalem."

[crazy monkey]

Just one question wouldn't it be easier to target Jews if they are all in the same place? This in reply to person who was saying usa is not safe enough.

[BosSin]

This thread has been intriguing and I have found that I agree with instigator's views.

Here's some e-respect instigator, you may take it if necessary

[RawPower]

They can identify themselves however they like, and conversion is not the issue. But my point is that most people living in the Jewish diaspora in the late 19th-mid 20th century would not be able to say "oh yes, my great great great grandfather Levi lived in Jerusalem."

That's fair, I guess. But here's how I see it.

Let's say someone of purely Irish descent is living in America right now, and for the next 1000 years (assuming the Earth isn't a lifeless furnace by then) he and his descendants intermarry exclusively with other American citizens of purely Irish descent. Does this mean that his distant relative living 1000 years in the future is now a Native American? No, he's still an American citizen of Irish descent whose ancestors settled in America long ago.

On another note, if I am to use my own family as a possible reflection of the overall Jewish mindset at the time, it's probable that a good many Jews back then saw the return to their native land and adoption of Hebraic names as a wholesale rejection of Europe or any identity they may have had in common with native Europeans. In other words, a straight up "fuck you" to their European oppressors. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is how many Palestinian Arabs feel right now, hence why many of them refuse to see the Israelis as anything other than foreigners. However, this is simply conjecture based on personal experiences.

I think posters such as Instigator and a few others seem to have misread my arguments as "I hate Arabs, this is Jewish land, so get the fuck out!", whereas all I'm really arguing for is:

1. The right of Israel to exist, albeit not as an exclusively Jewish state.
2. Jewish right to self-determination, independence, and dignity.
3. The right of European Jews to identify themselves as Middle Easterners, regardless of the countries their ancestors recently inhabited, or whether or not they made Aliyah (aka returning to Israel/Palestine). Your post that I'm quoting implies that you agree with me, somewhat.

That is all.

[RawPower]

Just one question wouldn't it be easier to target Jews if they are all in the same place? This in reply to person who was saying usa is not safe enough.

Well, it should go without saying that not every Jew is going to want to live in Israel. Most Jews still live outside of the Levant, but having a safe haven like Israel is always a good option to have in case antisemitism ever breaks out in America or any other country.

[Clipjoint]

Wouldn't it be great if we could all have a spare country, just in case?

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

My issue with the Native American comparison is it implies that Israeli Jews are not native at all to that region, when it is widely known that they are largely descended from groups who were indigenous to that area. To me, it is the same as saying a Roma is no longer Indian, and thus no longer has the right to consider themselves as such, because they happened to settle in Europe since the late Middle Ages. You can't make this sort of argument for a British colonizer in America. .

I don't think any sane person would ever argue that the Roma have a right to a home-land in India. I don't think anyone, least of all the Roma, consider the Roma to be Indian.

[RawPower]

Wouldn't it be great if we could all have a spare country, just in case?

Well Israel is already there, so you're a little late. We can argue until we're blue in the face about the morals surrounding its creation, but why would abolishing it entirely be any better? That would just create more problems.

I don't think any sane person would ever argue that the Roma have a right to a home-land in India. I don't think anyone, least of all the Roma, consider the Roma to be Indian.

Let's ask Wikipedia.

The Romani are an ethnic group living mostly in Europe, who trace their origins to the Indian Subcontinent.

Linguistic and genetic evidence indicates the Romanies originated from the Indian subcontinent, emigrating from India towards the northwest no earlier than the 11th century. The Romani are generally believed to have originated in central India, possibly in the modern Indian state of Rajasthan, migrating to the northwest (the Punjab region, Sindh and Baluchistan of modern-day Pakistan and India) around 250 BC. In the centuries spent here, there may have been close interaction with such established groups as the Rajputs and the Jats. Their subsequent westward migration, possibly in waves, is believed to have occurred between AD 500 and AD 1000. Contemporary populations sometimes suggested as sharing a close relationship to the Romani are the Dom people of Western Asia and North Africa and the Banjara of India.

Genetic evidence supports the mediaeval migration from India. The Romanies have been described as "a conglomerate of genetically isolated founder populations",[48] while a number of common Mendelian disorders among Romanies from all over Europe indicates "a common origin and founder effect".[48][49] A study from 2001 by Gresham et al. suggests "a limited number of related founders, compatible with a small group of migrants splitting from a distinct caste or tribal group".[50] The same study found that "a single lineage ... found across Romani populations, accounts for almost one-third of Romani males."[50] A 2004 study by Morar et al. concluded that the Romani population "was founded approximately 32–40 generations ago, with secondary and tertiary founder events occurring approximately 16–25 generations ago".

That's all I'm going to say on the matter, because continuing in this direction would be thread derailment.

[Clipjoint]

That's fair, I guess. But here's how I see it. Let's say someone of purely Irish descent is living in America right now, and for the next 1000 years (assuming the Earth isn't a lifeless furnace by then) he and his descendants intermarry exclusively with other American citizens of purely Irish descent. Does this mean that his distant relative living 1000 years in the future is now a Native American? No, he's still an American citizen of Irish descent whose ancestors settled in America long ago. On another note, if I am to use my own family as a possible reflection of the overall Jewish mindset at the time, it's probable that a good many Jews back then saw the return to their native land and adoption of Hebraic names as a wholesale rejection of Europe or any identity they may have had in common with native Europeans. In other words, a straight up "fuck you" to their European oppressors. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is how many Palestinian Arabs feel right now, hence why many of them refuse to see the Israelis as anything other than foreigners. However, this is simply conjecture based on personal experiences. I think posters such as Instigator and a few others seem to have misread my arguments as "I hate Arabs, this is Jewish land, so get the fuck out!", whereas all I'm really arguing for is: 1. The right of Israel to exist, albeit not as an exclusively Jewish state. 2. Jewish right to self-determination, independence, and dignity. 3. The right of European Jews to identify themselves as Middle Easterners, regardless of the countries their ancestors recently inhabited, or whether or not they made Aliyah (aka returning to Israel/Palestine). Your post that I'm quoting implies that you agree with me, somewhat. That is all.

First of all, if the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe intermarried exclusively with other Jews, they would look more like the Sephardic Jews than Europeans. As it stands, Ashkenazi Jews have more in common racially with Europeans than they do with the Middle Easterners. That indicates thousands of years of intermarriage with the native Europeans, making them European. If there is no statute of limitation on ancestry, then we're all Africans who deserve to have a homeland in Africa. My issue is with any claim that says a Jew whose only connection to the land is through biblical stories has more of a right to that land than the Palestinian whose entire lineage can be traced back to the same olive grove. Any state that believes the former trumps the latter is a state that cannot morally be supported.

To follow your points:

1. The right of Israel to exist, albeit not as an exclusively Jewish state.

In this case, you can't support Israel in its current form, because it's designed to be an exclusively Jewish state. That's why the only two options are apartheid, or a one-state solution. Two states is off the table, nor should it have ever been on the table. By saying Israel should not be exclusively a Jewish state, you've already rejected Israel's #1 demand for negotiations.

2. Jewish right to self-determination, independence, and dignity.

Why single out Jewish? Shouldn't we desire all people to have self-determination, independence, and dignity? Singling out Jews just reeks of racism to me.

3. The right of European Jews to identify themselves as Middle Easterners, regardless of the countries their ancestors recently inhabited, or whether or not they made Aliyah (aka returning to Israel/Palestine). Your post that I'm quoting implies that you agree with me, somewhat.

Again, this just sounds like classic 20th century European anti-Semitism to me. The entire basis for that movement was linked to the fact that the Jews of Europe were "other" and genetically unclean. Saying that they belong to the region where they hadn't lived for millennia just sounds wrong to me. Europe was their home, and their community. It was anti-Semitism that first singled them out as Middle Eastern, and Zionism that picked it up and ran with it. I can't be comfortable with that type of thinking.

[Clipjoint]

Well Israel is already there, so you're a little late. We can argue until we're blue in the face about the morals surrounding its creation, but why would abolishing it entirely be any better? That would just create more problems.

More problems for who? The Palestinians already have plenty of problems. The Israelis are going to go through a civil war if in your dream scenario a two-state solution occurs. There will be population transfers, ethnic cleansing, and plenty of bloodshed. Why wouldn't a one state solution be better? Let Jews and Palestinians live in equality and peace in one state. South Africa tried unity, the Balkans tried separation. Neither was painless, but I would certainly favor the South African model.

[RawPower]

First of all, if the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe intermarried exclusively with other Jews, they would look more like the Sephardic Jews than Europeans.

Sephardic Jews were also less isolated and spent more time amongst Moorish people.

As it stands, Ashkenazi Jews have more in common racially with Europeans than they do with the Middle Easterners. That indicates thousands of years of intermarriage with the native Europeans, making them European.

Admixture during the early Roman Empire, as I've already said. Why don't you take a look at this link and get back to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews

If there is no statute of limitation on ancestry, then we're all Africans who deserve to have a homeland in Africa. My issue is with any claim that says a Jew whose only connection to the land is through biblical stories has more of a right to that land than the Palestinian whose entire lineage can be traced back to the same olive grove. Any state that believes the former trumps the latter is a state that cannot morally be supported.

That would be fine if the only connection to the land was through biblical stories, but it's not. They are genetically, historically, and culturally Middle Eastern in origin. Mixing with Europeans doesn't change that. Also, Arab tribes didn't even arrive in the Levant until the 8th century.

To follow your points: 1. The right of Israel to exist, albeit not as an exclusively Jewish state. In this case, you can't support Israel in its current form, because it's designed to be an exclusively Jewish state. That's why the only two options are apartheid, or a one-state solution. Two states is off the table, nor should it have ever been on the table. By saying Israel should not be exclusively a Jewish state, you've already rejected Israel's #1 demand for negotiations.

How is it off the table? Can you point out where I said that I explicitly support Israel in its current form?

2. Jewish right to self-determination, independence, and dignity. Why single out Jewish? Shouldn't we desire all people to have self-determination, independence, and dignity? Singling out Jews just reeks of racism to me.

I'm not singling them out. If other groups want these things, then that's perfectly fine.

3. The right of European Jews to identify themselves as Middle Easterners, regardless of the countries their ancestors recently inhabited, or whether or not they made Aliyah (aka returning to Israel/Palestine). Your post that I'm quoting implies that you agree with me, somewhat. Again, this just sounds like classic 20th century European anti-Semitism to me. The entire basis for that movement was linked to the fact that the Jews of Europe were "other" and genetically unclean. Saying that they belong to the region where they hadn't lived for millennia just sounds wrong to me. Europe was their home, and their community. It was anti-Semitism that first singled them out as Middle Eastern, and Zionism that picked it up and ran with it. I can't be comfortable with that type of thinking.

Just because it was used by the Nazis to persecute them doesn't make it false. The Nazis were also staunch environmentalists, does that mean we have to condemn that too? Honestly, if the Jews feel like they belong to the Middle East, then that's perfectly fine. Who are you to say that it's wrong? Who are you to tell other people how to see or feel about themselves?