[Dr.Guru of Peru]

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

Huh?

My comment was about cultural identity, I don't need to be told where the Roma originated from. My point was that your analogy makes no sense, because no one would ever refer to the Roma as Indians nor would they argue that the Roma have a right to a homeland in India.

[LaserBuddha]

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 going to interject on this one statement.

He never said any of that was only for Jews. The guy is arguing against the idea of abolishing the Jewish state and having them leave Israel. Don't try to do a scummy character attack with your implications and suppositions, when you know damn well the context of what he's saying. It's really a shameful tactic.


EDIT: still not taking a side here (except against terrible reasoning), but I also don't see an explanation for how a 2-state system is off the table. It sounds like your reason is that the government's actions/intentions so far preclude them from agreeing to it? Well their previous actions preclude any kind of peaceful resolution, so by your logic all options are off the table and we should sit back and watch the explosions. If you've got an actual argument to support your opinion then please state it, because your talk of how the Jewish state is "designed" explains nothing.

[RawPower]

I don't want my post to get lost on the last page.

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. Many of them also went with the Moors to North Africa after both were expelled from the Iberian Penninsula.

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 us 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 us how to see or feel about ourselves? How fucking dare you.

Huh? My comment was about cultural identity, I don't need to be told where the Roma originated from. My point was that your analogy makes no sense, because no one would ever refer to the Roma as Indians nor would they argue that the Roma have a right to a homeland in India.

I never said that they should try to carve out a Gypsy exclusive state in India. You're putting words in my mouth.

As far as cultural identity goes, it's really up to the Roma which part of their heritage they choose to identify with.

[RawPower]

One more thing I should add: a lot of Ashkenazi Jews DO look quite Middle Eastern, or at the very least, close to Sephardic Jews. Brad Garrett, Theodor Herzl, and Jeff Goldblum, to name a few, are great examples of what I'm talking about.

[Al-ibn Kermit]

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

In the cold war, both sides actually had the means to destroy each other. Or to just wage conventional war at least. In this case, only Israel has any WMDs and knows they would be destroyed by their neighbors if they actually used them against a Muslim country. And neither Israel nor Iran can wage a conventional war beyond missile strikes. Even airstrikes are unlikely as they are out of the range of each other's bombers. And don't say that the US will get involved, there is no willingness at all to start one more war right as the other two are finishing up.

It's been clear for a while that there is no real desire from Israel to attack Iran. Or ability. Take your pick.

[RawPower]

I'm going to interject on this one statement. He never said any of that was only for Jews. The guy is arguing against the idea of abolishing the Jewish state and having them leave Israel. Don't try to do a scummy character attack with your implications and suppositions, when you know damn well the context of what he's saying. It's really a shameful tactic. EDIT: still not taking a side here (except against terrible reasoning), but I also don't see an explanation for how a 2-state system is off the table. It sounds like your reason is that the government's actions/intentions so far preclude them from agreeing to it? Well their previous actions preclude any kind of peaceful resolution, so by your logic all options are off the table and we should sit back and watch the explosions. If you've got an actual argument to support your opinion then please state it, because your talk of how the Jewish state is "designed" explains nothing.

Just saw this now. It's good to see that I'm not alone for once, haha.

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

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.

True enough, but don't you think it would require some amazing political revolution for that to happen? And the fanatical elements seem to be getting stronger every year. Can you imagine such a confrontation? Politically who's going to stomach that? The situation is so ugly. Demographically it looks like a time bomb, and the idea of two-states is becoming more fantastical by the day.

[Heshinsi]

The sad fact is that the only fair answer to the Israel / Palestine issue is so obvious. One democratic state, Palestinians get right of return, citizenship and equal rights. With Israel taking more and more of the west bank and Jerusalem day by day, it's too late for a two state solution.

Totally agree. Keep telling my pop this is the only viable solution, but his head is stuck with the pipe dream of pan-arab nationalism. Non of this two state bullshit. Palestinians and Israelis living together in the same country with equal rights as citizens.

[RawPower]

Totally agree. Keep telling my pop this is the only viable solution, but his head is stuck with the pipe dream of pan-arab nationalism. Non of this two state bullshit. Palestinians and Israelis living together in the same country with equal rights as citizens.

Jews and Arabs, hand in hand. Semites unite. <3

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Jews and Arabs, hand in hand. Semites unite. <3

Only if we get to call it Semitestan. ;)

But are you really in favor of full Palestinian citizenship?? Because that is the one state solution, not two.

Enjoying the genetic and ethnic lineage discussion very much, I'm learnin' thangs...

[Heshinsi]

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.

Are you kidding me? You do know that there were Christian Arab kingdoms in that region, who were vassals for the Byzantines long before Muhammed was even born? You do know that Abraham, the historic patriarch of both the Jews and Arabs, was born it what is now modern Iraq? Yo do know that when the children of Israel took the holy land, they took it from the Canaanites and Philistines?

Arabs and Jews have no right to claim any of that land as theirs over each other. Fuck what the politicians say and what the nutjobs want. That land belongs to both of us, this bloodshed needs to fucking end.

[SMT]

Phoenicians/Canaanites have the right to claim that land as theirs, their DNA shows them as being native to that area. Hahaha.
Phoenicians invented the modern-day alphabet all yous are using to post on this forum.
Phoenicians invented the Phoenix, it is symbolic of their current countries.

Lebanese, Jews, and coastal Syrians are Phoenicians/Canaanites.

Palestinians are 'sea peoples', but judging the genetic make-up, came from Iraq.

Now that all is settled, let's kiss and hug.

[RawPower]

But are you really in favor of full Palestinian citizenship??

Yes.

Are you kidding me? You do know that there were Christian Arab kingdoms in that region, who were vassals for the Byzantines long before Muhammed was even born? You do know that Abraham, the historic patriarch of both the Jews and Arabs, was born it what is now modern Iraq? Yo do know that when the children of Israel took the holy land, they took it from the Canaanites and Philistines?

My bad. I'll have to recheck my facts on that.

Arabs and Jews have no right to claim any of that land as theirs over each other. Fuck what the politicians say and what the nutjobs want. That land belongs to both of us, this bloodshed needs to fucking end.

No disagreement here. I've been saying this for pages now.

Phoenicians/Canaanites have the right to claim that land as theirs, their DNA shows them as being native to that area. Hahaha. Phoenicians invented the modern-day alphabet all you are using to post on this forum. Phoenicians invented the Phoenix, it is symbolic of their current countries. Lebanese, Jews, and coastal Syrians are Phoenicians/Canaanites. Palestinians are 'sea peoples', but judging the genetic make-up, came from Iraq. Now that all is settled, let's kiss and hug.

According to one genetic study, modern Jews (save for Ethiopian and Indian Jews) all have origins in Persia (Iran) and Babylon (Iraq). I'm not sure if this is accurate, though.

[SMT]

Yes. According to one genetic study, modern Jews (save for Ethiopian and Indian Jews) all have origins in Persia (Iran) and Babylon (Iraq). I'm not sure if this is accurate, though.

For you bro http://phoenicia.org/

Read up man, it doesn't get any better than this, it lists all the official sources, not just unsubstantiated rumors.

[Heshinsi]

Phoenicians/Canaanites have the right to claim that land as theirs, their DNA shows them as being native to that area. Hahaha.

No god dammit, that's not what I meant lol. My point was that even the Israelis originally conquered the land from someone else. There are no Phoenicians/Canaanites (as nations), but there are Arabs and Jews here now. Let's stop with this "I was here first...no I was here first" crap, and fix this problem.

One thing I've always believed. The leaders of the Arab world have a vested interest in insuring no peace every comes between the Palestinians and Israelis. That conflict is used by these states as a means to placate their own populations, and prevent them from turning their anger towards their own corrupt leaders. For surely, how can the Arab be mad at Saddam, Al-Saud, Mubarak, etc, when his own brothers in Palestine suffer? What a load of horse crap. The shit committed at the hands of these regimes upon their populace, make any grievances done by Israel pale in comparison.

And on the subject of Palestinians being thrown out of their lands; which is talking point #1 in these sorta discussions. What about all the Arab Jews we forced out when the state of Israel was formed? No one I ever talk to about these things (who are Arab), ever makes note of this hypocrisy. Wrongs have been done on both sides, and pointing fingers isn't going to solve anything.

Whether they want to like it or not, Israel is here to stay. The best course of action for Palestinians is to come to terms with that, forget about this joke of a two state solution, figure shit out with the Israelis, and toss a collective one finger salute to all of the surrounding countries who thrive from there being a state of conflict between the two.

[RawPower]

No god dammit, that's not what I meant lol. My point was that even the Israelis originally conquered the land from someone else.

Interesting. Where did the Jews initially come from when they conquered Israel? I'm asking because you probably know more about this than I do.

[Heshinsi]

Interesting. Where did the Jews initially come from when they conquered Israel? I'm asking because you probably know more about this than I do.

Wait, is this a trick question? lol Well according to the stories in the bible, Moses led them from bondage in Egypt, across the Red Sea, and into the holy land. They wonder the desert for 40 years, and then the conquering begins. But someone with a better understanding of the history of that period, can answer that way better.

And sorry, I should have used the word Israelites instead of Israelis. Cause I believe the latter only refers to people from the modern state.

[RawPower]

Wait, is this a trick question? lol Well according to the stories in the bible, Moses led them from bondage in Egypt, across the Red Sea, and into the holy land. They wonder the desert for 40 years, and then the conquering begins. But someone with a better understanding of the history of that period, can answer that way better. And sorry, I should have used the word Israelites instead of Israelis. Cause I believe the latter only refers to people from the modern state.

I just took a peak at my brother's Jewish History book, which claims we started out in Arabia (modern Saudi Arabia and I'm guessing Yemen and Oman). I'm leaning more towards Persia and Babylon, but Arabia is hardly unfeasible in my opinion. I kind of enjoy the prospect of being Arabian. :P

[Heshinsi]

I just took a peak at my brother's Jewish History book, which claims we started out in Arabia. I'm leaning more towards Persia and Babylon, but Arabia is hardly unfeasible in my opinion.

I'm leaning towards ancient Mesopotamia myself. At the end of day were both semites, it doesn't matter where the origins are, we're related people. Let's just hold hands and be friends lol

[Clipjoint]

No god dammit, that's not what I meant lol. My point was that even the Israelis originally conquered the land from someone else. There are no Phoenicians/Canaanites (as nations), but there are Arabs and Jews here now. Let's stop with this "I was here first...no I was here first" crap, and fix this problem. One thing I've always believed. The leaders of the Arab world have a vested interest in insuring no peace every comes between the Palestinians and Israelis. That conflict is used by these states as a means to placate their own populations, and prevent them from turning their anger towards their own corrupt leaders. For surely, how can the Arab be mad at Saddam, Al-Saud, Mubarak, etc, when his own brothers in Palestine suffer? What a load of horse crap. The shit committed at the hands of these regimes upon their populace, make any grievances done by Israel pale in comparison. And on the subject of Palestinians being thrown out of their lands; which is talking point #1 in these sorta discussions. What about all the Arab Jews we forced out when the state of Israel was formed? No one I ever talk to about these things (who are Arab), ever makes note of this hypocrisy. Wrongs have been done on both sides, and pointing fingers isn't going to solve anything. Whether they want to like it or not, Israel is here to stay. The best course of action for Palestinians is to come to terms with that, forget about this joke of a two state solution, figure shit out with the Israelis, and toss a collective one finger salute to all of the surrounding countries who thrive from there being a state of conflict between the two.

I don't have time to address everything else, but the point about "Arab leader placating the populations with the Palestinian conflict" is such Orientalist horse shit, I cringe every time I hear it. As if the Arab people are so ignorant and so single minded that they can't recognize their own suffering while also recognizing the injustice brought upon the Palestinians. Nothing infuriates me more than this point. You really have to have a low opinion of Arabs to think they're so easily tricked into the rule of dictatorships.

We have no discussed Arab Jews being thrown out of their lands. I am fully for the right of return for Iraqi Jews to their homes in Iraq. In fact, Hezbollah has completely supported the project to rebuild the Maghen Abraham synagogue. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

"Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, welcomed the renovation, saying "This is a religious place of worship and its restoration is welcome." Also, Hussain Rahal, a spokesman for Hezbollah, said his group also supported the restoration of the synagogue: "We respect the Jewish religion just like we do Christianity. The Jews have always lived among us. We have an issue with Israel's occupation of land.""

That doesn't sound like the anti-Semites they're painted out to be. And these are supposed to be the hardest of hard line Muslims. Ask a member of the Shas party in Israel what he thinks of Muslims, and I'm sure you won't get such a nuanced answer.

[Clipjoint]

Wait, is this a trick question? lol Well according to the stories in the bible, Moses led them from bondage in Egypt, across the Red Sea, and into the holy land. They wonder the desert for 40 years, and then the conquering begins. But someone with a better understanding of the history of that period, can answer that way better. And sorry, I should have used the word Israelites instead of Israelis. Cause I believe the latter only refers to people from the modern state.

I have a better understanding of history - all those stories are completely false. No Abraham, no Jews in Egypt, no crossing of the Red Sea, no 40 years in the desert. They're all made up stories with no archaeological backing.

[RawPower]

I'm leaning towards ancient Mesopotamia myself. At the end of day were both semites, it doesn't matter where the origins are, we're related people. Let's just hold hands and be friends lol

Yup. That's actually why I created this thread, to try and inspire unity.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=473594

[Clipjoint]

Here's a good history lesson:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/bo...ted=all&src=pm

New Torah For Modern Minds By MICHAEL MASSING Published: March 09, 2002 Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation. Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. ''When I grew up in Brooklyn, congregants were not sophisticated about anything,'' said Rabbi Harold Kushner, the author of ''When Bad Things Happen to Good People'' and a co-editor of the new book. ''Today, they are very sophisticated and well read about psychology, literature and history, but they are locked in a childish version of the Bible.'' ''Etz Hayim,'' compiled by David Lieber of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, seeks to change that. It offers the standard Hebrew text, a parallel English translation (edited by Chaim Potok, best known as the author of ''The Chosen''), a page-by-page exegesis, periodic commentaries on Jewish practice and, at the end, 41 essays by prominent rabbis and scholars on topics ranging from the Torah scroll and dietary laws to ecology and eschatology. These essays, perused during uninspired sermons or Torah readings at Sabbath services, will no doubt surprise many congregants. For instance, an essay on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology,'' by Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states that on the basis of modern scholarship, it seems unlikely that the story of Genesis originated in Palestine. More likely, Mr. Wexler says, it arose in Mesopotamia, the influence of which is most apparent in the story of the Flood, which probably grew out of the periodic overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The story of Noah, Mr. Wexler adds, was probably borrowed from the Mesopotamian epic Gilgamesh. Equally striking for many readers will be the essay ''Biblical Archaeology,'' by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ''There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,'' he writes, ''and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect.'' The few indirect pieces of evidence, like the use of Egyptian names, he adds, ''are far from adequate to corroborate the historicity of the biblical account.'' Similarly ambiguous, Mr. Levine writes, is the evidence of the conquest and settlement of Canaan, the ancient name for the area including Israel. Excavations showing that Jericho was unwalled and uninhabited, he says, ''clearly seem to contradict the violent and complete conquest portrayed in the Book of Joshua.'' What's more, he says, there is an ''almost total absence of archaeological evidence'' backing up the Bible's grand descriptions of the Jerusalem of David and Solomon. The notion that the Bible is not literally true ''is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis,'' observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to ''Etz Hayim.'' But some congregants, he said, ''may not like the stark airing of it.'' Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that ''virtually every modern archaeologist'' agrees ''that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all.'' The rabbi offered what he called a ''litany of disillusion'' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have ''found no trace of the tribes of Israel -- not one shard of pottery.'' The reaction to the rabbi's talk ranged from admiration at his courage to dismay at his timing to anger at his audacity. Reported in Jewish publications around the world, the sermon brought him a flood of letters accusing him of undermining the most fundamental teachings of Judaism. But he also received many messages of support. ''I can't tell you how many rabbis called me, e-mailed me and wrote me, saying, 'God bless you for saying what we all believe,' '' Rabbi Wolpe said. He attributes the ''explosion'' set off by his sermon to ''the reluctance of rabbis to say what they really believe.'' Before the introduction of ''Etz Hayim,'' the Conservative movement relied on the Torah commentary of Joseph Hertz, the chief rabbi of the British Commonwealth. By 1936, when it was issued, the Hebrew Bible had come under intense scrutiny from scholars like Julius Wellhausen of Germany, who raised many questions about the text's authorship and accuracy. Hertz, working in an era of rampant anti-Semitism and of Christian efforts to demonstrate the inferiority of the ''Old'' Testament to the ''New,'' dismissed all doubts about the integrity of the text. Maintaining that no people would have invented for themselves so ''disgraceful'' a past as that of being slaves in a foreign land, he wrote that ''of all Oriental chronicles, it is only the Biblical annals that deserve the name of history.'' The Hertz approach had little competition until 1981, when the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the official arm of Reform Judaism, published its own Torah commentary. Edited by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, it took note of the growing body of archaeological and textual evidence that called the accuracy of the biblical account into question. The ''tales'' of Genesis, it flatly stated, were a mix of ''myth, legend, distant memory and search for origins, bound together by the strands of a central theological concept.'' But Exodus, it insisted, belonged in ''the realm of history.'' While there are scholars who consider the Exodus story to be ''folk tales,'' the commentary observed, ''this is a minority view.'' Twenty years later, the weight of scholarly evidence questioning the Exodus narrative had become so great that the minority view had become the majority one. Not among Orthodox Jews, however. They continue to regard the Torah as the divine and immutable word of God. Their most widely used Torah commentary, known as the Stone Edition (1993), declares in its introduction ''that every letter and word of the Torah was given to Moses by God.'' Lawrence Schiffman, a professor at New York University and an Orthodox Jew, said that ''Etz Hayim'' goes so far in accepting modern scholarship that, without realizing it, it ends up being in ''nihilistic opposition'' to what Conservative Jews stand for. He noted, however, that most of the questions about the Bible's accuracy had been tucked away discreetly in the back. ''The average synagogue-goer is never going to look there,'' he said. Even some Conservative rabbis feel uncomfortable with the depth of the doubting. ''I think the basic historicity of the text is valid and verifiable,'' said Susan Grossman, the rabbi of Beth Shalom Congregation in Columbia, Md., and a co-editor of ''Etz Hayim.'' As for the mounting archaeological evidence suggesting the contrary, Rabbi Grossman said: ''There's no evidence that it didn't happen. Most of the 'evidence' is evidence from silence.'' ''The real issue for me is the eternal truths that are in the text,'' she added. ''How do we apply this hallowed text to the 21st century?'' One way, she said, is to make it more relevant to women. Rabbi Grossman is one of many women who worked on ''Etz Hayim,'' in an effort to temper the Bible's heavily patriarchal orientation and make the text more palatable to modern readers. For example, the passage in Genesis that describes how the aged Sarah laughed upon hearing God say that she would bear a son is traditionally interpreted as a laugh of incredulity. In its commentary, however, ''Etz Hayim'' suggests that her laughter ''may not be a response to the far-fetched notion of pregnancy at an advanced age, but the laughter of delight at the prospect of two elderly people resuming marital intimacy.'' In a project of such complexity, there were inevitably many points of disagreement. But Rabbi Kushner says the only one that eluded resolution concerned Leviticus 18:22: ''Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.'' ''We couldn't come to a formulation that we could all be comfortable with,'' the rabbi said. ''Some people felt that homosexuality is wrong. We weren't prepared to embrace that as the Conservative position. But at the same time we couldn't say this is a mentality that has been disproved by contemporary biology, for not everyone was prepared to go along with that.'' Ultimately, the editors settled on an anodyne compromise, noting that the Torah's prohibitions on homosexual relations ''have engendered considerable debate'' and that Conservative synagogues should ''welcome gay and lesbian congregants in all congregational activities.'' Since the fall, when ''Etz Hayim'' was issued, more than 100,000 copies have been sold. Eventually, it is expected to become the standard Bible in the nation's 760 Conservative synagogues. Mark S. Smith, a professor of Bible and Near Eastern Studies at New York University, noted that the Hertz commentary had lasted 65 years. ''That's incredible,'' he said. ''If 'Etz Hayim' isn't around for 50 years or more, I'd be surprised.'' Its longevity, however, may depend on the pace of archaeological discovery.

[Heshinsi]

I don't have time to address everything else, but the point about "Arab leader placating the populations with the Palestinian conflict" is such Orientalist horse shit, I cringe every time I hear it. As if the Arab people are so ignorant and so single minded that they can't recognize their own suffering while also recognizing the injustice brought upon the Palestinians. Nothing infuriates me more than this point. You really have to have a low opinion of Arabs to think they're so easily tricked into the rule of dictatorships. We have no discussed Arab Jews being thrown out of their lands. I am fully for the right of return for Iraqi Jews to their homes in Iraq. In fact, Hezbollah has completely supported the project to rebuild the Maghen Abraham synagogue. Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, welcomed the renovation, saying "This is a religious place of worship and its restoration is welcome." Also, Hussain Rahal, a spokesman for Hezbollah, said his group also supported the restoration of the synagogue: "We respect the Jewish religion just like we do Christianity. The Jews have always lived among us. We have an issue with Israel's occupation of land."" That doesn't sound like the anti-Semites they're painted out to be. And these are supposed to be the hardest of hard line Muslims. Ask a member of the Shas party in Israel what he thinks of Muslims, and I'm sure you won't get such a nuanced answer.

And yet until the Arab springs this past year, what exactly have the population in the Arab World done to empower themselves from their shit eating leaders? From the Maghrib, to Iraq, from the Gulf to the Levant, we are ruled by despots, two bit monarchs, corrupt Sheiks, and maniacal military governments. The local populations, regardless of the shit they endure at the hands of these asshats, hate Israel more than they hate their governments; who have done far more to harm them than Israel ever has. The only bright spot is Lebanon, but they just seem to like to shit themselves every few decades and the cycle of build and destroy starts anew.

Not just Iraq. What about the Jews of Libya, the Jews of Morocco, etc?

[RawPower]

"Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, welcomed the renovation, saying "This is a religious place of worship and its restoration is welcome." Also, Hussain Rahal, a spokesman for Hezbollah, said his group also supported the restoration of the synagogue: "We respect the Jewish religion just like we do Christianity. The Jews have always lived among us. We have an issue with Israel's occupation of land."" That doesn't sound like the anti-Semites they're painted out to be. And these are supposed to be the hardest of hard line Muslims. Ask a member of the Shas party in Israel what he thinks of Muslims, and I'm sure you won't get such a nuanced answer.

Are you fucking kidding me, dude? You cherry picked one quote and tried to paint it as conclusive proof that antisemitism is mild amongst Muslims. There are so many quotes that exemplify what I'm talking about that I don't even know where to begin.

Here's a good history lesson: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/bo...ted=all&src=pm

Genetics, linguistics, historical records all point to a Middle Eastern origin for the Jews. Just because several mythical figures and stories were falsified doesn't mean that modern Jews have no Semitic origin.

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Yes.

Whether they want to like it or not, Israel is here to stay. The best course of action for Palestinians is to come to terms with that, forget about this joke of a two state solution, figure shit out with the Israelis, and toss a collective one finger salute to all of the surrounding countries who thrive from there being a state of conflict between the two.

Huh. The government of Israel views one state as the existential threat. It would no longer be an exclusively Jewish State. If I read you correctly you're basically saying Palestinians have to "come to terms" with the end of Zionism as we know it? I'm not sure they'd have too much trouble with that, lol. Figuring shit out indeed.

[goomba]

Are you fucking kidding me, dude? You cherry picked one quote and tried to paint it as conclusive proof that antisemitism is mild amongst Muslims. There are so many quotes that exemplify what I'm talking about that I don't even know where to begin.

Antisemitism is not the same thing as anit zionism (occupation).

[phosphor112]

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.

You obviously haven't seen "Ultimate Zionists." These guys are convinced EVERYONE else in the world is wrong, while they have a right to live there no matter what.. Sure, they can easily be killed by people once protection leaves, but we don't want that.

[RawPower]

Antisemitism is not the same thing as anit zionism (occupation).

He used that quote as a means to insinuate that there isn't widespread hatred of Jews in the Arab world. Obviously, he is wrong. Very wrong.

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

[Clipjoint]

And yet until the Arab springs this past year, what exactly have the population in the Arab World done to empower themselves from their shit eating leaders? From the Maghrib, to Iraq, from the Gulf to the Levant, we are ruled by despots, two bit monarchs, corrupt Sheiks, and maniacal military governments. The local populations, regardless of the shit they endure at the hands of these asshats, hate Israel more than they hate their governments; who have done far more to harm them than Israel ever has. The only bright spot is Lebanon, but they just seem to like to shit themselves every few decades and the cycle of build and destroy starts anew. Not just Iraq. What about the Jews of Libya, the Jews of Morocco, etc?

The idea that Arabs were content with despotism until the Arab spring is completely absurd and shows a distinct lack of historical perspective. Each of the countries you have mentioned has had a history of uprisings and opposition movements that have been crushed violently. Syria had the Hama uprisings in the 80's. Iraq has been a hotbed of political eruptions until Saddam (with Western help) brutally cracked down on his people. Egypt was a thriving political arena up until the end of Nasser's regime, when the anti-Semite Sadat took over and began brutal crackdowns, to be continued by Mubarak (both again with Western help.) Jordan was politically volatile until the West installed the Hashemite kingdom. Bahrain has had turmoil long before the Arab spring. Name me a decade and I can find uprisings in each and every Arab country trying to depose of the despots that ruled them, only to be put down by brutal regimes with the aid of the West. The idea that the Arab populations had been laying dormant until 2010 is completely absurd.

For the record, I am for the right of return of all Arab Jews to their lands, no matter which country it is.

[phosphor112]

He used that quote as a means to insinuate that there isn't widespread hatred of Jews in the Arab world. Obviously, he is wrong. Very wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_and_antisemitism

I have several Jewish friends =D.

Also, good read on all the genetics and stuff... anyway, there will never be peace, so that thought is just banished from my mind. No need to get optimistic for something that will never realistically happen. =/

[Heshinsi]

Huh? The government of Israel views one state as the existential threat. It would no longer be an exclusively Jewish State. If I read you correctly you're basically saying Palestinians have to "come to terms" with the end of Zionism as we know it? I'm not sure they'd have too much trouble with that, lol. Figuring shit out indeed.

What I meant by come to terms, is that the notion held by some Palestinians that a button can be pressed and everything can reset to how things used to be, is delusional. The past is not going to change. A two state solution is non-viable, whether either side wants to admit it or not. Either Israel annex the West Bank and Gaza and Palestinians get equal citizenship; or we sit here holding our dicks forever while settlers take more land, and Hamas keep firing missiles.

[Clipjoint]

He used that quote as a means to insinuate that there isn't widespread hatred of Jews in the Arab world. Obviously, he is wrong. Very wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_and_antisemitism

My point is that the hatred of Jews is not for the sake of their Judaism. It's completely tied to the atrocities committed by Jews against Muslims. Before the establishment of the state of Israel, Muslims have historically protected the Jews from Christian tyranny. Anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world is a relatively new phenomenon that is more political than entrenched in religiosity. Otherwise, a Muslim figurehead like Nasrallah would not be able to support a project aimed at inviting Jews to return to their homes in Lebanon.

[RawPower]

My point is that the hatred of Jews is not for the sake of their Judaism. It's completely tied to the atrocities committed by Jews against Muslims. Before the establishment of the state of Israel, Muslims have historically protected the Jews from Christian tyranny. Anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world is a relatively new phenomenon that is more political than entrenched in religiosity. Otherwise, a Muslim figurehead like Nasrallah would not be able to support a project aimed at inviting Jews to return to their homes in Lebanon.

Good. Now can you prove to me that modern Jews do not have Middle Eastern heritage/origin? I notice that you never even tried to refute the evidence I provided for that.

[Heshinsi]

The idea that Arabs were content with despotism until the Arab spring is completely absurd and shows a distinct lack of historical perspective. Each of the countries you have mentioned has had a history of uprisings and opposition movements that have been crushed violently. Syria had the Hama uprisings in the 80's. Iraq has been a hotbed of political eruptions until Saddam (with Western help) brutally cracked down on his people. Egypt was a thriving political arena up until the end of Nasser's regime, when the anti-Semite Sadat took over and began brutal crackdowns, to be continued by Mubarak (both again with Western help.) Jordan was politically volatile until the West installed the Hashemite kingdom. Bahrain has had turmoil long before the Arab spring. Name me a decade and I can find uprisings in each and every Arab country trying to depose of the despots that ruled them, only to be put down by brutal regimes with the aid of the West. The idea that the Arab populations had been laying dormant until 2010 is completely absurd. For the record, I am for the right of return of all Arab Jews to their lands, no matter which country it is.

I never said they were content. I never said there were no uprisings. Only that it wasn't until recently that this movement to overthrow dictators gripped the whole of the Arab world, instead of it just being isolated from country to country. That wasn't even my original point. If you talk to people on the street in ME, as to who they hate more; [insert the name of random Arab dictator] versus Israel, more often than not, Israel comes up on top. Why? Because we're brain washed into thinking that way. Go to a mosque, and on the minbar, who is the Imam calling out most of the time, who is he cursing and asking God's wrath on, is it the dictators, or is it Israel and the west?

[RawPower]

I never said they were content. I never said there were no uprisings. Only that it wasn't until recently that this movement to overthrow dictators gripped the whole of the Arab world, instead of it just being isolated from country to country. That wasn't even my original point. If you talk to people on the street in ME, as to who they hate more; [insert the name of random Arab dictator] versus Israel, more often than not, Israel comes up on top. Why? Because we're brain washed into thinking that way. Go to a mosque, and on the minbar, who is the Imam calling out most of the time, who is he cursing and asking God's wrath on, is it the dictators, or is it Israel and the west?

Pretty much on point here.

[RawPower]

I have several Jewish friends =D. Also, good read on all the genetics and stuff... anyway, there will never be peace, so that thought is just banished from my mind. No need to get optimistic for something that will never realistically happen. =/

Obviously, not all Muslims hate Jews. Either way, I was speaking mostly in regards to the Middle East, and you're American.

[magash]

How can there be peace when Israel keeps on illegally stealing Palestinian homes?

[Heshinsi]

How can there be peace when Israel keeps on illegally stealing Palestinian homes?

How can there be peace when Hamas keeps firing missiles into Israeli towns and cities? We can keep this circle jerk going for as long as you want.

[magash]

How can there be peace when Hamas keeps firing missiles into Israeli towns and cities? We can keep this circle jerk going for as long as you want.

When was Hamas created? Hamas is nothing but a symptom. When you forcefully evict a group of people from their homes and place them on someone's land you know you are asking for trouble.

People are deluded if they really think that the people ruling Israel will ever allow the Palestinians a state.

[RawPower]

I have a better understanding of history - all those stories are completely false. No Abraham, no Jews in Egypt, no crossing of the Red Sea, no 40 years in the desert. They're all made up stories with no archaeological backing.

So what? Many cultures had superstitious beliefs. This doesn't really mean that their origins were outside the Middle East.

[RawPower]

Hopefully, this bit from Wikipedia will put the issue to rest once and for all.

Genetic studies on Jews show that most Jews worldwide do indeed bear a common genetic heritage which originates in the Middle East, and that they bear their strongest resemblance to the peoples of the Fertile Crescent, with only minor contribution from their host populations[14] (historically due to the taboo on intermarriage in Jewish tradition, the low number of converts to Judaism, as well as the general isolations and persecutions of Jews throughout history). According to some Biblical archaeologists, however, Israelite culture did not overtake the region, but rather grew out of Canaanite culture.

[Instigator]

Discussion still going?

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.

Yep. Rawpower goes into silly territory with "Jews are middle-eastern". Gee, Europeans belong deep in Eurasia because they descend from nomadic tribes from that region thousands of years ago. Or better yet, we all belong in Africa because we all evolved from apes millions of years ago. Yeah, let's all carve ourselves a piece of that ancestral land.

Who cares how they, or by extension Rawpower, view themselves? Rawpower was most likely born in a hospital in America, went to a local daycare, learned the language, lived and breathed the ambient culture, went to school, developed a guilty pleasure for bacon, dated/mingled with gentiles, got a college degree, got a job, will get a NRA card, pays taxes, will retire in Florida, will collect Social Security, will be buried/cremated in a cemetary. Just because he got his foreskin cut, enjoys bagels on occasion and doesn't go to church on sundays, it doesn't make him more (antiquity) middle eastern than American. The guy doesn't make a tough living on a desert land, herding goats and stoning adulterers when necessary. Stop kidding yourself.

[RawPower]

Yep. Rawpower goes into silly territory with "Jews are middle-eastern". Gee, Europeans belong deep in Eurasia because they descend from nomadic tribes from that region thousands of years ago. Or better yet, we all belong in Africa because we all evolved from apes millions of years ago. Yeah, let's all carve ourselves a piece of that ancestral land.

They were isolated from the European populations they lived with, rarely intermingled after the early Roman Empire, spoke a heavily Semitic influenced language, rarely assimilated into their host cultures, and retained many of their Semitic genes from the old days. All that being considered, it is hardly unreasonable of them to call themselves a Semitic group. The connection to the Levant is undeniable, and quite recent compared to the indigenous European groups who had inhabited Europe since 2000 BC or earlier. Comparing it to humans evolving out of Africa is disingenuous and you know that.

Who cares how they, or by extension Rawpower, view themselves? Rawpower was most likely born in a hospital in America, went to a local daycare, learned the language, lived and breathed the ambient culture, went to school, developed a guilty pleasure for bacon, dated/mingled with gentiles, got a college degree, got a job, will get a NRA card, pays taxes, will retire in Florida, will collect Social Security, will be buried/cremated in a cemetary. Just because he got his foreskin cut, enjoys bagels on occasion and doesn't go to church on sundays, it doesn't make him more (antiquity) middle eastern than American. The guy doesn't make a tough living on a desert land, herding goats and stoning adulterers when necessary. Stop kidding yourself.

You know that this is not what I meant. I meant Middle Eastern by descent, the same way that one is "Middle Eastern American". If we want to identify ourselves in that way, it is our right to do so.

I'm not religious, by the way.

[Instigator]

They were isolated from the European populations they lived with, rarely intermingled after the early Roman Empire, spoke a heavily Semitic influenced language, rarely assimilated into their host cultures, and retained many of their Semitic genes from the old days. All that being considered, it is hardly unreasonable of them to call themselves a Semitic group. The connection to the Levant is undeniable, and quite recent compared to the indigenous European groups who had inhabited Europe since 2000 BC or earlier. Comparing it to humans evolving out of Africa is disingenuous and you know that.

You can call them Semitic if talking about genetics, archeology or any other academic talk, but no matter how they "kept to themselves", they still had jobs, interacted and did business with others, followed trends, adopted customs and enjoyed the latest technological achievements. Jews in general are not like the Amish or Gypsy travellers, they were and are still are an integral part of the main culture. I find it preposterous to claim the opposite considering the amount of Jewish entertainers, authors, philosophers, scholars and scientists, not just in America but elsewhere in the Western world.

It's like you're arguing all Jews are Orthodox Hassidic jews living in ghettos and reading the Torah all day.

[RawPower]

You can call them Semitic if talking about genetics, archeology or any other academic talk, but no matter how they "kept to themselves", they still had jobs, interacted and did business with others, followed trends, adopted customs and enjoyed the latest technological achievements. Jews in general are not like the Amish or Gypsy travellers, they were and are still are an integral part of the main culture. I find it preposterous to claim the opposite considering the amount of Jewish entertainers, authors, philosophers, scholars and scientists, not just in America but elsewhere in the Western world. It's like you're arguing all Jews are Orthodox Hassidic jews living in ghettos and reading the Torah all day.

Fair enough. All I've been arguing is that ethnic Jews are genetically, ancestrally Middle Eastern (partly, at least).

[RawPower]

For what it's worth, these are all Ashkenazi Jewish families circa WWI.

http://tinyurl.com/849r3pq

http://tinyurl.com/7tzvgna

http://tinyurl.com/7o8el2q

http://tinyurl.com/6pzescv

http://tinyurl.com/7dllxqe

http://tinyurl.com/88rbsqq

http://tinyurl.com/753qfth

Plenty more where that came from, too.

[ruttyboy]

As I live in the UK, nobody around here seems to care about 'Jewish affairs', it just isn't a talking point. As a consequence this thread has been very informative as well as eye-opening for me.

Firstly, all this talk about genetics entitling you to land is hilariously racist. We have a fascist political party here called the British National Party (BNP) and they have very similar views that are quite rightly dismissed as ludicrous.

I'm from the North of England and consequently there's quite a bit of Viking blood in me, as far as I know this was far more recent than the Jewish diaspora, and as presumably the more recent a displacement was the stronger the claim, look out Scandinavia, you owe me land!

Using genetics to determine societal advantages (right to land, rights in law, access to protection and support etc.) is inherently racist, I can't see how people could possibly defend it.

The only way I could see a glimmer of hope of justifying a violent colonisation is if it was the Palestinians who kicked out the people in the first place, but it wasn't. Get pissed at the Romans if you like, but fucking let it go.

[Enosh]

As it stands, Ashkenazi Jews have more in common racially with Europeans than they do with the Middle Easterners.

I'd like a source for this because everything I have read says the opposite

[nib95]

How can there be peace when Hamas keeps firing missiles into Israeli towns and cities? We can keep this circle jerk going for as long as you want.

How often do Hamas do that and how many fatalities does it actually cause? Not that someone firing pesky misiles is justification for you stealing people's land or worse.

So yea, the circle jerk isn't really circular at all. One side is clearly far more heinous and uses infinitely more disproportionate violence and takes infinitely more casualties and lives.