Forum:Is Zionism Missional

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is Zionism missional? If so, which part of our mission statement covers it?[edit]

I know this question might sound stupid, but... What If Zionism as such is not exactly part of our mission? Sure some Zionists (and especially most anti-Zionists) may be on mission. But the topic as such? It's not exactly any type of (pseudo)science or creationism, is it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Historical woo has always been a part of the RW mission. The trip to the Moon happened, the government didn't cover up an Area 51 alien incursion, etc.--ADtalkModerator 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I dunno. Zionism is frequently misused and misapplied by conspiracy nuts to blame their shiit on some International Jewish Conspiracy™ out to take our guns. But that's about as far as it goes. (・_・ヾ Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
You'd never know it to read the current remedial English version of the article, but Zionism has played a key role in a variety of historical woos. For one thing, it's tied up with the serious problem of identifying a people with a land with a religion with a nationality: the mapping isn't neat, and so those who insist on complete equivalence between them all are forced to elide the rough edges. It also tangles up different motivations -- a great deal of the modern support of Christians in America for the Zionism movement comes from the pre-millenial dispensationalist version of apocalyptic events. A coherent discussion of these issues and exposure of the various historical falsehoods used to justify some insanity would be welcome and on-mission, and wouldn't be an attempt to replicate Wikipedia.--ADtalkModerator 20:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Which is not, in short, what the article currently does to any significant degree, correct? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is missional. --Castaigne (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, the others here have covered good reasons it's missional, I'd like to charge that there is a hefty pseudoscientific element we don't even cover, as a direct response to your assertion that it's not pseudoscience. A lot non-materialist justifications, like biblical prophecy bullshit goes into it. There's some racist pseudoscience involved in both sides of the debate, like implicit essentialist assertions about Palestinians that tends not to be focused on. Israel having a eugenics program for non-white Jews being another. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh shut up. There's no goddamn citation needed for there being pseudoscience elements present. They pop up all over the place and it's not particular unreasonable to say that the American Zionist crowd is very into the biblical prophecy flavor, e.g.. As to the "less believable" eugenics claim, Forbes is a suitably reliable source. So, really, stop being a baby. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up the topic in the bar, Avenger. Apparently there's still so much more to cover on this issue. A eugenics program even. My my. (talk) 16:29, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'd say it's completley on mission since Zionism is absolutely central to the state ideology of Israel, which is a pretty good case study for religion, militarism, and racism being used as a systematic means of legitimising authority and control over a dehumanised other. it's about as on-mission as it gets TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 23:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Zionism is largely secular, the IDF receives it's orders from a civilian government, no Zionist of note did define the Jews as a race and Arabs in Israel have more rights in Israel than anywhere else in the Middle East. TheEgyptian, you're full of shit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's creationism and homeopathy. They're more on mission. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly missional. Please note that the Zionism article has been significantly supplemented, streamlined and a bit copy- and line-edited in the last 24 hours (but with a good deal of content and editing work yet to do). The section on the lunatic and antisemitic Xtian Zionists has been filled out quite nicely.
ADDING: Yes, there are eugenics impulses in Israel. I had read the Forbes piece and some of that topic can be included if the mob wants to.---Mona- (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Zionism is as relevant to the mission as the one-half to two-thirds of the wiki that is dedicated to electoral politics, history and several other areas that are missional ony if one takes a really broad interpretation of "crank ideas" or some other term of art from the original mission statement. If it goes, in the interest of consistence, hundreds of other articles should go too. Not gonna happen. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's marginal, and a good demonstration of why RW fails when it strays too far outside of areas related to science or outrageous authoritarianism. Still it would be more difficult to purge the wiki of this content than just let it be. Tielec01 (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like someone didn't read the rest of this section... And I'd say outrageous authoritarianism certainly applies. That it mostly only happens to certain groups of non-citizens shouldn't make it non-authoritarian or non-outrageous. (talk) 08:25, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
YMMV regarding authoritarianism, I wouldn't consider Zionism much more authoritarian than other political ideologies. In terms of pseudo science, we should have an article on eugenics, common canards in racism etc... What does Zionism add to these articles? That's why I think it's marginal - yes there are elements of woo, but almost any belief system will have them, that doesn't mean we need an article on it. Tielec01 (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the goal of this wiki? The goal is to debunk or refute pseudoscience, conspiracies, crank ideas, and logical fallacies. We here also cover other things that come close to that category and are related sometime (politics, philosophy, etc.) So whether or not we devote time to analyzing and debunking Zionism depends on whether it is religious or fallacious in some way. A group of humans thinking they have a divine right to own a parcel of land and 'remove' anyone else who happens to be 'occupying' it at the moment sounds like a crank idea and religious bunk to me. I think Zionism is part of our mission. RationalWiki needs to look at the philosophy and deliver on-point, logical criticisms of Zionism, because it could use it. There is plenty of material to cover, spanning religion to politics to ethnic and social division. That's exactly the sort of stuff we like to discuss here, lay out, and refute. I myself was surprised at the lack of material here on the Palestine/Israel conflict, and I think there should be more. Absolutely analyzing Zionism is part of our mission. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not all Zionists believe they have a divine right to the land so much as a historical connection, and believing that you are somehow 'connected' to the land that you or your ancestors occupy is a widely held belief among many cultures. How do we convince, for example, the Australian Aboriginie that their feelings of custodianship of land are wrong? A belief very similar to a Zionist who claims a religious connection to land belonging to Palestine. RW's remit is to occasionally stray into arguments based in morality, or political beliefs, but these are not factual arguments like, say, that the earth revolves around the sun or whether AGW is occurring.
When we do stray into political or moral areas it should only be to point out the logical inconsistency of certain stances within the structures of that belief system. For example, the absurdity of pro-lifers supporting war or Libertarians suing people in court. As well as any factually incorrect claims that they make, eg. more guns equals less murder or it's OK to kill animals because they don't feel pain.
If you think there is an article to be made on Zionism within this remit, then go ahead and create it. Tielec01 (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Not all Zionists believe they have a divine right to the land so much as a historical connection," In practice, the two are inseparable. The "connection to the land" is laid out in their sacred text which tells their history. They are a people made distinct by their religion and its history in that particular land a very, very long time ago. This is the national anthem of Israel:

As long as the Jewish spirit is yearning deep in the heart,

With eyes turned toward the East, looking toward Zion,

Then our hope - the two-thousand-year-old hope - will not be lost:

To be a free people in our land,

The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

That's all mystical stuff about the land of their religion's origins and places. A notion of their hearts belonging in that sacred space and on that soil.---Mona- (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not everything has to be taken at face value. I am more in line with Tieleco1's line of thought. It's not like, say, a native of Nevada would say that in such a literal way. It's more of a metaphor that their memories, their history, their heritage, all belong there.Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
The people of Nevada, as far as I know, don't believe they are exclusively called to the land of Nevada because of their status as God's Chosen people and the religious significance of the land in their tribal history. They don't invoke imagery from the sacred text of Nevadans.---Mona- (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Mona. I didn't say at any point in that comment that Nevadans or other residents of the 50 states ever felt that way. I merely meant to include an example; an analogy if you will. I think I should put up disclaimers on my comments from now on... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

O ye of lowest wattage! Of course it's on mission. With the banner & all I thought this was a serious discussion. If you want to proscribe certain topics within the article, make your case (such as it is) in the article's talk section. MatsFan (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that any religious movement with a specific goal, like Zionism (which is obviously a religious movement) should be covered here, as we have generally agreed that fundamentalism\t religion is baloney. Therefore, Zionism should be covered by us and treated as a fundamentalist religious movement which can be dangerous, as it is (thousands of intentional civilian deaths by Zionists). We should also recognize that although 'Zionist' can be used as an insult, that in our case, the use of the word is permitted and should not be viewed as insulting, similar to the term Jew. If used in the proper context, that is. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You say Herzl started a religious movement? What the fuck did you smoke???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a movement with a religious component, in that it has mistaken the book of Genesis for a title deed. SmartFeller (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Herzl did not base Zionism on religion. He didn't give much of a shit about religion and was non-observant himself. Some Zionists have a religious motivation (e.g. daati leumi, chardal and other similar), but to call Zionism a religious movement is completely retarded.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, in the early years of Zionism, religiosity correlated negatively with Zionism. And some Jews still oppose Zionism on religious grounds... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch to say Religious Zionism doesn't exist is retarded, you have Zionism, Labor Zionism, Religious Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Neo-Zionism, and Christian Zionism to give examples, Christianity being a Jewish religion, Jesus was King of the Jews, King of Israel according to the Bible Matthew 2, Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, John 18, John 19. In my opinion, Zionism is a form of Jewish Fascism, it has a similar ideology and methodology as Nazism. 155,000 Jews worked for Hitlers army, at least 3 million of Hitlers army were registered as either Roman Catholic or Evangelical Protestant Christian. Judaism came first, then Christianity offshoot from Judaism, then Catholicism offshoot from Christianity. Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic, according to his sister he never left the Catholic Church although it is theorised though not confirmed, he used the church for social engineering purposes. Hitlers father Alois was possibly born from a Jewish relationship according to Nazi official Hans Frank, Alois mother, Hitlers grandmother allegedly had a sexual relationship with 19 year old Jewish male Leopold Frankenberger while she worked as a housekeeper for a Jewish family. This would explain why when a DNA study was done on 39 of Hitlers relatives, it found a chromosome found in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. “Reverting to the case of Dr Kissinger, the traditional, long-term penetration of the Soviet intelligence sector by German Nazi ‘Black’ operatives provides the known context for this operative’s use of his suspected Soviet connections as cover for his real affiliation – service to the Nazi International. At this point, we can hear some argue that any such allegiance would be surreal, since, as a Jew, Dr Kissinger would be ‘sure’ to be antagonistic towards Nazism. However, that would be a shallow, knee-jerk reaction. For the reality is that Zionism is a form of Nazism” (Christopher Story). “As for why Jews collaborate de facto with Nazis, this mystery is resolved when one understands that Zionism is Jewish Fascism” (Christopher Story). The Zionist state of Israel forced Palestinians off their land and have murdered countless men, women and children to achieve their objective, a homeland for the Jews apart from everyone else's country. The Zionist state of Israel are guilty of war crimes. Now do I agree that the Jews deserve a country of their own, yes I do, but do I agree with their methodology to get that state, no I do not. To infiltrate other countries governments in order to sway opinion of the public mind is a crime in itself. To then silence debate of said issue is another crime. According to Zionist Jew Anton LaVey “Some people that come from Jewish backgrounds, where Judaic traditions were really emphasized in the home, are the most rabid anti-Semitic people I know” (Barton, 1992). “I felt a culmination of that whole episode in my life many years later, shortly after The Satanic Bible came out. I met with Assaf Dayan, actor son of Israel’s legendary Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, and he was glowing about the book, agreed with every in it. He said it was exactly the philosophy they practiced, were forced to practice, in modern Israel” (Barton, 1992). “Those Zionist gunrunners could best be called ideological mercenaries. They had a sense of, ‘Well, what I’m doing may not make a hell of a lot of difference, but at least I’m doing what I know best.’ Many seemed more concerned about refining and perfecting innovative weapons technology they were experimenting with than who their new relay or explosive was blowing up, though. I met Zionists that were right out of European prisons–not Nazi concentration camps, other prisons–that had lines of bullet scars up the backs of their legs from machine gun fire. By that time they were sort of ambivalent about the Nazis. Many of them had been decorated in World War I on the side of Germany, then fought in Spain against Germany, only to form dubious alliances with Nazis against the British in Palestine, then were fighting to affirm the new state of Israel. There was always a lot of that–more than people have, until recently, even wanted to hear. There’s a book called Zionism in the Age of the Dictators that confirms many of my suspicions about exactly what was going on between Zionism and Nazi Germany” (Barton, 1992). “Augusta LaVey and her husband Joe, a liquor distributor, raised Tony as they would any other bright, even-tempered boy, attempting to instill useful middle-class values without pressing any particular religious dictates on him. By the time he was seven, he grew absorbed with tales of the supernatural and occult which would obsess him for the rest of his life. Unable to fully understand what he read because of his younger age, he consulted his maternal grandmother, Luba Kolton (born Lupescu – Primakov, from a Gypsy father and a Jewish mother), who regaled Tony with the mysteries of her Transylvanian homeland — superstitions passed from generation to generation and incorporated in the greatest vampire legend of all, Dracula” (Barton, 1992). --XOxJonDoexOx 14:54, 4 October 2015 (GMT)
I didn't deny the existence of Religious Zionism and please shove your Nazi comparisons where the sun doesn't shine.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Why do Antisemites always feel the need to quote obscure pieces of text and obscure people who no-one in the mainstream has ever heard? I mean... Baron Rothschild, some words allegedly said at the Zionist conference of 1753, an adviser to the prince of some place in the 13th century... Why does it always have to be so obscure? Can't you for once make up stuff about people that matter? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The same reason, why photos of UFOs, the Yeti or alien from the 27th moon or Uranus are soooo unsharp.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Christopher Story was Margaret Thatchers former economics advisor and the author of multiple intelligence journals, as for Barton, she was Anton LaVeys wife and it was taken directly from his official biography. As for the antisemite junk, that old chestnut is worn out, nobody with any education takes that line serious anymore. Got no argument bring out the antisemite line pffft. As for the UFO alien line, the Defence Intelligence, the NSA, CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world have already admitted that the existence of UFOs is indisputable, and fatalities have occurred. "That UAP exist is indisputable. Credited with the ability to hover, land, take-off, accelerate to exceptional velocities and vanish, they can reportedly alter their direction of flight suddenly and clearly can exhibit aerodynamic characteristics well beyond those of any known aircraft or missile - either manned or unmanned" (UK Defence Intelligence). "Attempts by other nations to intercept the unexplained objects, which can clearly change position faster than an aircraft, have reportedly already caused fatalities. However, there is no indication that deliberate 'UAP chasing' has caused this in the UKADR" (UK Defence Intelligence). "The very fact that UFO phenomena have been witnessed all over the world from ancient times, and by considerable numbers of reputable scientists in recent times, now indicates rather strongly that UFOs are not all hoaxes" (NSA, 1968). "Unidentified Flying Objects do exist, and that some of them are unconventional craft that (1) pose a threat to national security and (2) perform beyond the 'range of present-day technological development. Furthermore, there is evidence that out government has continually misinformed the public concerning the true significance of the 'UFO problem'" (Multiple Intelligence Agencies, 1981). As for the existence of Extraterrestrials, you would have to be extremely small minded to not believe in the existence because of the size of the universe. Lets not forget that water has been found on Mars recently and tests done on Mars by NASA scientists found microbial life. “the number of communicating civilizations in our galaxy likely depends on a number of factors which must combine to yield a habitable planet where life has the chance develop to a certain level of technological know-how. These factors include the rate of formation of stars like the Sun, the fraction of those with planets, the fraction of Earth-like planets, the fraction of such planets where life develops, the fraction of those where the life becomes intelligent, the fraction of intelligent species who can communicate in a way we would detect, and the lifetime of the communicating civilizations. As you may imagine, there is a lot of debate about reasonable values for most of these factors. As we learn more about the likelihood of planets around other stars, we are able to better estimate one of these parameters. For the other parameters, the estimates vary widely. Frank Drake’s own current estimate puts the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy at 10,000“ (NASA Astrophysicist Padi Boyd). “mutations are an inevitable part of living on a planet like Earth. They’re the first hint at how DNA and the genes that code for every living thing change from generation to generation. Mutations are the spring from which innovation in the living world flows. But cosmic rays are not the only way in which DNA can be altered. There’s natural background radiation from the rocks, there’s the action of chemicals and free radicals. There can be errors when the code is copied“. “And then all those changes can be shuffled by sex, and indeed whole pieces of the code can be transferred from species to species. So, bit by bit, in tiny steps from generation to generation, the code is constantly randomly changing. Now, whilst there’s no doubt that random mutation does alter DNA, evolution is anything but random. It can’t be, because the chances of something with DNA as complex as this appearing by luck alone are vanishingly small“. “Imagine you just changed one position in the code at random, a random mutation. There are four letters, A, T, C and G, so there are four possible combinations. If there are two places in the code, there are four combinations for each one. So that makes 16. If there are three, then there are 64 possibilities. By the time you get to a code with 150 letters in it, then there are more possible combinations in the code than there are atoms in the observable universe“. “Now, a hippo has a code with around three billion different letters. So the number of combinations of those letters, the chances of producing that code at random, are absolutely, infinitesimally small. It’s impossible. So there must be a non-random element to evolution… ..a natural process, which greatly restricts this universe of possibilities, and shapes the outcome. We call it Natural Selection“ (Professor Brian Cox). So what people with any ability to critically analyse will see is the old methodology of, if you can't defeat the data, attack the person. This post confirms by point below. --XOxJonDoexOx 15:50, 4 October 2015 (GMT)
And pro-Hamas activist, peddler of the old Neo-Nazi canard of the Jews being responsible for the Nazis and/or antisemitism and also a UFOlogy kook? crank magnetism at full throttle!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch your actions and words clearly fall under the following category from a religious perspective "Extremism means, literally: driving (something) to the limit, to the extreme. Nowadays, the term is mostly being used in a political or religious sense, for an ideology that is considered (by the speaker) to be far outside the (acceptable) mainstream attitudes of society.[citation needed] But extremism can, for example, also be meant in an economic sense. The term "extremism" is usually meant pejorative: to express (strong) disapproval, but it may also be meant in a more academic, purely descriptive, non-condemning sense. Extremists are usually contrasted with centrists or moderates. For example, in contemporary discussions in Western countries of Islam or of Islamic political movements, the distinction between extremist (= 'bad') and moderate (= 'good') Muslims is typically stressed. Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the far left or far right, as well as radicalism, reactionism, fundamentalism, and fanaticism". Your actions and words also clearly fall under the following category "Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict.[1] Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets. Rationalizations for such behavior sometimes include differences of social class, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, appearance, behavior, body language, personality, reputation, lineage, strength, size or ability.[2][3] If bullying is done by a group, it is called mobbing.[4] Bullying can be defined in many different ways. The UK has no legal definition of bullying,[5] while some U.S. states have laws against it.[6] Bullying is divided into four basic types of abuse – emotional (sometimes called relational), verbal, physical, and cyber.[7] It typically involves subtle methods of coercion, such as intimidation. Bullying ranges from simple one-on-one bullying to more complex bullying in which the bully may have one or more "lieutenants" who may seem to be willing to assist the primary bully in his or her bullying activities. Bullying in school and the workplace is also referred to as peer abuse.[8] Robert W. Fuller has analyzed bullying in the context of rankism. A bullying culture can develop in any context in which humans interact with each other. This includes school, family, the workplace, home, and neighborhoods. In a 2012 study of male adolescent American football players, "the strongest predictor [of bullying] was the perception of whether the most influential male in a player's life would approve of the bullying behavior".[9]". It will be clear to any free thinker that you personally have issues with difference of opinion, anyone who doesn't fit in with your view of the world is bullied, which is extremism. --XOxJonDoexOx 16:27, 4 October 2015 (GMT)
TL;DR.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch you said that 'to say Religious Zionism exists is retarded', but you have cowardly edited your comment to make it appear like you didn't say that in order to fit in with your argument. As for being a pro-Hamas activist, German Abwehr (the German Intelligence, who were the father of the DVD, who created the OSS, who created the CIA) started to create the Muslim Brotherhood which was taken over by the Waffen SS. It was the Muslim Brotherhood who created Hamas, just like they created Hezbollah and Al Qaeda which is where ISIS came from. What we are actually witnessing with groups like you mentioned is a Nazi & Zionist collaborative proxy war against everyone else. We need to go back to Project Paperclip to see how the Nazis continued on once they were rescued by American and British Intelligence as well as the Catholic Church through the Rat Lines. As for being antisemitic, no Im just an Atheist. --XOxJonDoexOx 21:06, 5 October 2015 (GMT)

Personally as an Atheist Realist I believe your argument is flawed from the outset, you're all giving your opinion on a subject without giving your religious and spiritual beliefs. Because nobody knows the actual religion of the peoples in the conversation the authors could be anyone. The conversation can be swayed in favour of one belief over another if there is more of one belief system than another, it's called religious bias. Because readers of the conversation know not the religious beliefs of authors and authors true motivation, one can not make a true informed decision on the conversation in hand. It is a point that should be made and reinforced so people who may come in on the conversation understand this point and are not swayed by group psychology and herd mentality. --XOxJonDoexOx 12:19, 4 October 2015 (GMT)

I disrespectfully disagree. Arguments are best judged by whether their premises are true and their reasoning valid. I don't care if you're in a Pentecostal ska band or you live on an ashram of like-minded Lutherans. Religious bias (or fear thereof) has more to do with rhetoric than logic. If you are swayed by it, that's your problem to overcome. Asking everyone to give their tribal affiliation will encourage not weaken the bias you describe. But this is the Bar, so I suspect less rigor. That's why a) this silly-ass question was asked in the first place and b) why it wasn't immediately laughed into oblivion. It's a crock, but an entertaining crock that keeps me checking back in to see what silliness has dared show its face in public. And isn't that the greater truth? No. No it is not.MatsFan (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear MatsFan you are entitled to disagree, it's called freedom of choice, you said "Arguments are best judged by whether their premises are true and their reasoning valid", you forgot to say in your personal opinion, it is not the opinion of everyone and with respect you do not speak for anyone else but for yourself as do I. You went on "I don't care if you're in a Pentecostal ska band or you live on an ashram of like-minded Lutherans", dear sir, the world doesn't revolve around you, I do care about a persons religious beliefs, we have religious extremism which exists and will continue to exist. "Asking everyone to give their tribal affiliation will encourage not weaken the bias you describe", you said, again dear fellow, in your personal opinion. I happen to disagree that asking people to give their religious belief will encourage not weaken the bias, it will give people a clear understanding from which perspective an author is speaking from and allow contributors to the conversation to make a more informed decision on a comment. If you have lots of Christian Zionists and Jewish authors, while no or little Palestinian authors, then you are getting a warped perspective of the reality and not input from all sides. It makes sense given the subject that people can see just how biased this conversation really is. --XOxJonDoexOx 14:23, 4 October 2015 (GMT)
Oh pip pip old bean, I didn't realize I was in corresponding with such an accomplished tauro-scatalogician.
Exampli gratia: were I to propound the following argument:

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, all men are Socrates. ...that would be what is called in the vulgate a "crock of shit". Its conclusion does not follow from its premises. This does not depend on one's over-arching philosophical world view. It is not an opinion. There is an objective reality, my boon companion, which is not best understood by asking everyone's opinion and taking a suitably weighted average. Certainly, the present author would not dispute that there are questions of taste and differences in received sets of axioms which result in diametrically opposed opinions being equally valid. That is not, however, the case in the question at hand. If not for religion, "Jews" and "Palestinians" would be indistinguishable groups of Semitic people. (If, that is, one insists on dividing people into "races" - itself a dubious undertaking, but that's easy for a white boy to say and outside the current scope of discourse.) It is then trivial to conclude that Zionism is missional. Similarly, old cock, objective facts can be phrased in divers ways for so much as to place one party or another in a favorable light. This sort of obfuscation is best eschewed by right-thinking people and those who undertake it should be prepared to have their motives scrupulously examined. But that's just my opinion; I may be wrong. K byeMatsFan (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to be of a particular ethnicity or religion to have any given stance on the state of Israel. I for one am an atheist leftist who - as far as I know - has not an ounce of Jewish blood. Yet still I support Israel. And I support Israel's right to self defense. And I think most of the enemies of Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the Saudis, ISIS...) are among the worst human being that ever walked this fine earth. But according to Mona (who is not - as far I know - Palestinian) that makes me a "hyper-nationalist" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a nitpick, but I don't know if you can specifically categorize ISIS as an "enemy of Israel" like these others you mention, considering they have actively declared themselves enemies of every single one of these other organizations and nations you list as enemies of Israel as well, and plan the same fate for anyone of those groups or nations who do not submit to their authority.
Also, I think Mona's consideration of you as a hyper-nationalist has more to do with how specifically devoted you are to Zionism-it has little to do with your opposition to the killing of Jewish people, which I would think Mona shares, but more to do with a somewhat callous disregard for Palestinian lives that were lost in the advancement of Zionist causes against other forces, such as Hamas, in a way that starts to resemble special pleading on Israel's behalf.
But anyway, I'll go back to lurking for now. I'm not too fond of the idea of getting into a wiki-war, let alone on a wiki I've not yet edited on. Quirk (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
ISIS is openly anti-Zionist and antisemitic. So Yes, I guess it's fair to call them enemies of Israel. And as can be observed from my comments on German victims of the second world war, I don't particularly cry for people who brought their suffering upon themselves. Certainly some innocent Palestinians have died in the course of Hamas' and the PLO's war to destroy Israel. But it should be mentioned that Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon (in the past) and different forces in the Syrian civil war have killed and mistreated far more Palestinians thaen Israel ever could even if it tried to. And that is not even mentioning the horrible human rights abuses that UNRWA and the Arab nations engage in in order to artificially create a "refugee" problem. What UNRWA does is very close to the original meaning of "concentration camps" in the Boer Wars, if I may say so. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
"I don't particularly cry for people who brought their suffering upon themselves", leftist indeed. A noble sentiment. Perhaps I should say the Jews of Israel brought the suicide bombings onto themselves for voting in the right-wing Likud governments with a hard-line stance on settlements and the occupation, unless we can't apply equal standards. And you're full of crap. Israel killed more Palestinians along in the 1982 Lebanon War than any of the Arab countries have. And that's just concerning the 1982 war (reference: compared to say the 1948 war, the 1950s border wars, the intifadas, the Gaza Wars, etc. Stop trying to get Israel off the hook by pointing to other countries' human rights abuses and stop trying to gloss over the Palestinian casualties Israel has caused; it's disturbing and creepy. And you know why the refugees are in the camps in the first place but to acknowledge the aggressor who put them there would be inconvenient. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, you kind of just proved my point about the callous disregard for Palestinian lives. And the special pleading. Which ChrisAmiss seems to have put into much more detail. Quirk (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Not a single Palestinian would have died if the Arab countries had accepted the partition plan. Many Arab and Palestinian lives could have been saved if at any point the Arabs had recognized Israel. And of course that's not even counting the ethnic cleansings and political purges that happened during the various Intifadas and after the Hamas takeover of Gaza. And of course all real or imagined crimes that have happened in the Middle East in the last seventy years pale in comparison to things you are conspicuously silent about. Be it Darfur, East Timor, Rwanda or even the various Central American dictatorships civil wars and gang wars that can even be conveniently be blamed on the US because they are not in fact blameless in that area.... But of course raising said issue is "whataboutism". So I may indeed not ask: "Why Israel?" Why do you focus on a conflict that is neither particularly nasty, nor particularly intractable nor has a particularly high number of casualties. And unlike other conflicts like the domestic violence in Colombia (that has been going on for more thaen half a century now) there is a very clearly "better" side in this conflict. In all objective measurements. One side is openly antisemitic and wants to kill all that don't agree with them. The other is an open democracy that grants equal rights even to its enemies. One side couldn't run a country if it were made of gold and oil. The other literally made the desert bloom and turned a barren land where nothing would grow but superstition into one of the most advanced places in our fine world. One side are notorious crybabies who only know war war war. The other side has reached out a hand for peace on rhetoric as well as policy since the conflict begun. One side wants to deny the other its mere existence and wages war for this purpose. The other has repeatedly affirmed the other's right to live in peace - if only they recognize the same for them. And we all know that there already is a Palestinian state: Jordan. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, lot of myths to be debunked here. If you actually read the diaries of prominent Zionists, they did not accept the boundaries of the partition plan as final and instead used its implementation to gain more territory. Ben-Gurion mentioned months before the 1947 vote that the borders were not final and subject to change; in 1937 he wrote a letter to his son that expanding the Jewish was not an end but a beginning. There's more to this you'll find in the New Historians such as Avi Shlaim and Simha Flapan, who generally come to the conclusion that Zionists were prepared to use the partition plan as a opportunistic lever. From example, from Shabtai Teveth, biographer of Ben Gurion, notes of what Ben-Gurion said in 1936: "We do not seek an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs in order to secure the peace. Of course we regard peace as an essential thing. It is impossible to build up the country in a state of permanent warfare. But peace for us is a mean, and not an end. The end is the fulfillment of Zionism in its maximum scope. Only for this reason do we need peace, and do we need an agreement." That's just one quote, there are many others worth merit. Ah yes, the appeal to motive fallacy. Strange for you to use that when you yourself downplay Israel's war crimes compared to say Palestinian war crimes, but I digress. Frankly, I don't need to entertain the notion because it's changing the subject and a red herring at that. In any of those conflicts, if I were to criticize say China's occupation of Tibet or Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, an apologist like you could rebut that I give too much focus to it and that I should focus on other countries' violations. I don't need to tell you that that's not really an argument at all and is more or less conceding the point that you can't make any rebuttals. And your objective measurements are flawed, to say the least, and is frankly laced with xenophobia and old-fashioned colonialism (I quote "one side couldn't run a country if it were made of gold and oil). First, Israel hardly is a democracy if you consider its military occupation of a people over nearly 50 years and the military laws Arabs citizens had to live through between 1949 and 1966. Second, Israel hardly affords equal rights to the inhabitants its lives they ultimate control through a system of apartheid in the occupied territories that privileges Jewish settlers over Palestinian inhabitants (see the apartheid article for more information in terms of discrimination with regard to resources, travel, systems of law, etc). Third, Israel did not make the "Desert" bloom. That was more the results of Ottoman advances in technology in the 19th and early 20th centuries. You seem to have gotten this argument from Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial, a psuedo-historical hoax that says the Jews made the desert bloom and that the Palestinians were not truly Palestinians. Fourth, Israel hasn't reached its hand out for peace. All you need to do is look at the UN resolution on peaceful settlement of the Palestine question where Israel along with the US and some South Pacific Islands vote against the overwhelming consensus of the international community on a two state solution on the June 1967 borders, an overwhelmingly 166-7 vote where practically the whole world agrees on the fair, proper soluion. Fifth, the Likud party platform of 1999 flatly rejects the existence of the Palestinian west of the Jordan River and through its actions of settlement building seems to follow through on this promise. And the international resolution I mentioned above confirms Israel has no intention of recognizing a Palestinian state on fair terms, but rather on its own terms that will inevitably result in annexation of territories that will bisect the West Bank. Sixth, if you're going to use that argument, then should we really have a Jewish state in the Middle East? Does Brooklyn not have a large Jewish population? Why do Jews need a Jewish state in Israel if they have one in Brooklyn? ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By the way, Palestinians actually made the desert bloom in pre-state Israel. Consider: "Dr. Nahum Karlinsky, from Ben-Gurion University’s Research Institute for the Study of Israel and Zionism, has studied citrus growing in pre-state Palestine.'The citrus industry is perceived in the Israeli consciousness as an exclusively Zionist pioneering effort. In fact, the Palestinian-Arab citrus industry predated it, and for most of the period, until 1948, exceeded it in both physical area and quantity of exports,' Karlinsky and co-author Prof. Mustafa Kabha, from the Open University, wrote in an article recently published in the historical journal Zmanim". Source: But please Avenger, keep endorsing the colonial narrative that the inhabitants were just savages living in a virgin land who were too stupid to make good of their resources. It's flattering to see you on common ground with the likes of Theodore Roosevelt and proponents of Manifest Destiny who said the white settlers could be the only people who redeemed the land from its native inhabitants and make it bloom. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary division of is Zionism missional?[edit]

Zionism is missional, since it's an expression of a far-right, religious fundamentalist movement that steals land from indigenous population. --Gh1900 (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You are assuming that the other side isn't also indigenous. The whole thing would be like if the Cherokee returned to Georgia but ended up in a never-ending war with the local Rednecks. CorruptUser (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The other side (excluding Jews who lived in Palestine before Zionism) isn't indigenous, they are European or from other countries of the Middle East. --Gh1900 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
They are probably not even descendants of the Jews who left the region thousands of years ago, at least according to Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People. --Gh1900 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Then how do you explain the genetic studies showing that Jews have a mid-eastern origin and the Cohen y-haplogroup studies? CorruptUser (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
[1] --Gh1900 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
As Shlomo Sand said:
"This attempt to justify Zionism through genetics is reminiscent of the procedures of late nineteenth-century anthropologists who very scientifically set out to discover the specific characteristics of Europeans. As of today, no study based on anonymous DNA samples has succeeded in identifying a genetic marker specific to Jews, and it is not likely that any study ever will. It is a bitter irony to see the descendants of Holocaust survivors set out to find a biological Jewish identity: Hitler would certainly have been very pleased! And it is all the more repulsive that this kind of research should be conducted in a state that has waged for years a declared policy of "Judaization of the country" in which even today a Jew is not allowed to marry a non-Jew"
In his book, Shlomo Sand shows that the idea of a "Jewish nation" is nothing but a myth created by Zionists to justify taking Palestinians' land. There is a Jewish religion, just like there's a Christian religion, an Islamic religion, a Hindu religion, etc. Imagine if the Christians wanted to reclaim Jerusalem and territories conquered during the Crusades? --Gh1900 (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You haven't contradicted the Y-haplogroup studies; most show that the Palestians and Jews, including Ashkenazi Jews, are patrilinearly VERY closely related, to the point that BOTH are indigenous. Your only claim is that most of the women were converts, which also disputes all the other studies. Do you want to claim that African Americans aren't the descendants of slaves because of all the rapes? CorruptUser (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The Zionist colonists were not indigenous to Palestine. Jews made up less than 5% of the population of Palestine when Zionism was founded. The indigenous Arabs, who had been there for many generations, were displaced by European settlers. Their land stolen by people from, e.g., Poland.---Mona- (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This may be a first. I agree with Arisboch that Zionism per se is not a religion, and certainly not a "fundamentalist" one. With the caveat that I mean not a religion in the sense of being about worshiping -- or even believing in -- a deity. Of course, good arguments are made supporting that civil religions exist (including, maybe especially) in the U.S. Only in that sense would Zionism be a religion. (In my undergrad Intro to Religion course we did watch Triumph of the Will and consider Nazism as a type of civil religion.)---Mona- (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There may even be some genetic links to Middle East, but most Jews had mainly European DNA. Trying to create a Jewish state in a land populated by Arabs was the same as trying to create a Christian state in Palestine because they once owned it. Jews were inhabiting Europe for centuries, the Zionists had no legitimate connection to Palestine. --Gh1900 (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
So how long do the Palestinians have to be kicked out of the area before they lose their claim to the land too? CorruptUser (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestinians still inhabit the land in areas such as Gaza and West Bank. 20% of Israel's population is Palestinian. They have been living in Palestine for generations, which is not true for the Jews (excluding a very small minority). --Gh1900 (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The ones in Israel are still in Israel. The ones who are not in Israel are not. You haven't answered my question. You claimed that the Jews hadn't lived in Israel for generations, therefore they have no claim to the land. So my question is, how long do the Palestinians outside of Israel have to be forced to stay out of Israel before they lose their claim to the land? Remember, one of the 7 tenets of nationalism is "these rules apply to me but not to you". As I've told most people here, I'm not exactly a Zionist, but I'm not against Israel's right to exist; the WB settlements need to go, the Palestinians need to agree to a peace deal, the Israelis need to allow Palestinians access to some of the water, the surrounding countries (and Iran) need to stop funding proxy wars, the US needs to stop giving Israel Carte Blanche as part of its own proxy wars, everyone needs to be spanked and sent to bed without dinner. But one can only dream... CorruptUser (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Israel has no right to exist, it's an illegal state. It's not just the West Bank settlements, the entire country is land theft the Palestinians' land. --Gh1900 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It's no more and no less "illegal" than any other country, it just came a little late, that's all.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Whether this happened in other countries or not is irrelevant, it doesn't justify the creation of a state by Europeans to exterminate the indigenous population. --Gh1900 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
exterminate the indigenous population- Gh1900 What drugs are you on??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Israel has been deliberately killing Palestinians since the last century. One example is the Gaza conflict last year, when Israel killed thousands of Palestinians targeting civilians. --Gh1900 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Civilians? Well, a Hamas combatant has to just drop his AK or mortar to become a totally and absolutely innocent civilian.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Are Palestinian children Hamas combatants? --Gh1900 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is perfect and the IDF has still not developed a magic bullet, that avoids civilians.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
IDF is targeting civillians. 70% of deaths were from Palestinian civillians. --Gh1900 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] for both sentences.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
[2] --Gh1900 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If I'd be even a lil paranoid than I am in fact, I'd say, you're Mona's sock.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a sockpuppet, you are the one making accusations without proof. --Gh1900 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That was somewhat of an insiderjoke.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The Palstinains in the occupied territories are refugees or their descendants and are in limbo. As for periods of time, the U.S. made reparations to Indian tribes right after WWII, and still respects Indians as semi-sovereign nations on their reservations.---Mona- (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Israel's right to exist" Where does the "right" of countries to exist come from? Did the USSR lose it's rights?---Mona- (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Zionism had a good intention of restoring the injustices inflicted on Jews historically. The problem was it set out to create a Jewish majority in an area that was overwhelmingly non-Jewish and had not been inhabited by a Jewish majority for some 2000 years (going back to the temple cleansing). Though the ethnic cleansing of 1948 was a major crime and atrocity, as is the cleansings in the 50's and 60's and settlement building, that injustice cannot be remedied unfortunately. It's been 67 years, and in all likelihood, not all Palestinians are going to return to their former place of residence without creating problems for the Jewish population living there. It would be wrong to displace the Jews inside Israel, so the right of return should be provided for a limited set of refugees that wouldn't create a civil war instantaneously. Remember, the reason the Arabs rioted against the Balfour declaration and the partition plan was because they were a majority and their political independence was denied by giving a land to a minority. We cannot do the same by having all 5 million refugees return to Israel proper; it would be deja vu. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
First, I note you didn't reply to the question of where the right for states to exist comes from. Or whether the USSR has a claim that its rights were violated. For the very good reason that you are Chris and not CorruptUser. But to move on to what you did say, I don't endorse displacing all kinds of Israeli Jews as a remedy for Palestinian refugees. The 2-state solution is dead -- Israel has killed it with settlements such that there is nearly no land left for a Palestinian state that would not require evicting tens of thousands of Jews. No, what Israel has created is a de facto 1-state, an apartheid state in which Arabs in Gaza and the West bank are not enfranchised; they are unrepresented in the government that occupies and controls them. That must end: these Arabs must be enfranchised and the State of Israel will have to have a constitution that precludes Jewish ethno-religious supremacy. There is no other way to end the apartheid. ---Mona- (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, the USSR didn't lose its right to exist, so much as it imploded on itself. You are also conveniently leaving out the republics that would have 'earned' their so-called right to exist. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
How does a nation-state, including a republic, earn a "rgiht to exist?" What can it even mean to say a state has a "right" to exist?---Mona- (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I meant for that post to be independent and my opinion rather than a response to you Mona, sorry. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

One of my points on my user page is roughly "even bogus rights have to apply to everybody". So if we agree that a state's "right to exist" is bogus, why do we only ever argue whether it applies to Israel? Nobody is questioning the right of Gabon to in fact exist, or is there? And as to the water point: Israeli per capita water consumption has been shrinking for a couple of decades now, whereas Palestinian per capita water consumption has increased rapidly. Nowadays a Palestinian on average uses as much water as the average German. And no German in their right mind would decry their access to water being hampered by the "occupiers" (which actually is an accurate term, at least until the 4+2 treaty of 1990) in the British or American barracks... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"why do we only ever argue whether it applies to Israel?" Because Zionists insist that various parties admit it has a "right to exist." As you now seem to understand, that's a bullshit demand. Aint no such thing as a country's "right" to exist.---Mona- (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The "right" to exist of no other country is ever questioned. If the American Congress were to pass a resolution affirming the right of Mexico to in fact exist, this would cause major diplomatic incident or confusion at the very least. Why is Israel - a country that is surrounded by people that wish it nothing but death and destruction - treated so differently? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI Israel's "right to exist" comes from UN Resolution 181(II). Just saying......--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it does not. Aside from the fact that the UN cannot decree a nation's "right to exist," that Resolution is a mere pre-state proposal and doesn't recite the word "Israel" except to identify a neighborhood that has the word in its name. This mere proposal was rejected by the Palestinians. So the Zionists took a bunch of land by force (and executed a UN representative while they were at at it). Not only does Israel vastly exceed the area for a Jewish State nominated in the proposal, settlements have left almost none for a Palestinian state. ---Mona- (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't cite that resolution in Israel's favor because in accordance with the principle of it being inadmissible to acquire territory by war, that would entail Israel withdrawing to the borders of the 1947 partition plan, which is totally unrealistic now. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
the principle of it being inadmissible to acquire territory by war- ChrisAmiss All borders are drawn by war, (almost) no exceptions. This "rule" is enforced highly selectively.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, OK, but so what? The point is: if Israel had any kind of mandate to exist that came from the UN, it has now vastly exceeded that mandate by thousands of square kilometers. If the UN and international law is our standard here (which all parties except Hamas agree about), then it is Israel that is in the wrong for expanding beyond its allotted territory in the 1947 partition plan and the 1967 borders. Since you don't seem to mind acquisition of territory by war, then I assume you would not have supported the Gulf War, whose purpose was to force the Iraqis to withdraw from Kuwait? I guess you wouldn't mind ISIS's expansion, because territory is acquired by war, so what can you do? Russia can have Crimea, the Donbass, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria because they conquered it, according to your principle. If you are willing to allow countries to occupy other countries, particularly ones of different ethnicity, language, religion, and culture, you are setting a terrible precedent for international relations. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
My support or opposition to wars is not dependent on what the UN says and the precedent was set by more or less the whole human history since eva until... Nope, today it still works (cause e.g. no-one gives a fuck about what happens in Tibet and about Crimea everone is more or less No action, talking only). The countries only enforce this rule, when it suits their interests (sometimes using the UN as a fig leaf, sometimes not bothering with that), and when it doesn't, no-one does anything significant. A law treaty article only selectively enforced is a joke.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, so do you think Israel should withdraw from the Palestinian Territories? Should they end the blockade of the Gaza Strip?— Unsigned, by: Pbfreespace3 / talk / contribs
A country's lack of willingness to abide by the law (indeed openly violating it) doesn't make it any less moral or legitimate. The US' abrogation of Geneva Conventions doesn't make laws prohibiting torture any less legitimate regardless of how much political power/might makes right mindset they wage (which you yourself mentioned in another discussion Arisboch, which curiously you seem to dodge when I mention bring up the subject of legal borders in the IP conflict). ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
legal borders in the IP conflict- ChrisAmiss What are legal borders?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Legal borders are the one's deemed licit by the international community.---Mona- (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In what international law treaty? Chris was talking about "legal"...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What treaty? Why are you asking about treaties?---Mona- (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Chris was talking about "legal borders", so I'm a bit curious, what part of the international law (resp. treaties system, that is IMNSHO mistakenly called international law) defines, what borders are legal and what not?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you claim Israel is entitled to all the land it has taken, and can take, by conquest of the indigenous Arabs? What is your basis for accepting that there exists a nation-state called Israel?---Mona- (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Entitled by what or whom?
The basis? Reality.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You have many times written of a purported nation-state called "Israel." Why do accept this nation exists?---Mona- (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Why believe, that the Earth is mostly spherical?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I mean to refer the 67 borders where in the preamble of UN Resolution 242 which states that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war, the annual UNGA resolutions that call for Israel to withdraw to the 67 borders, and the ICJ ruling in 2004 that stated that Israel's construction of the West Bank Barrier was in contravention of international law because it infringed on Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and should cease further construction of it. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Despite everyone having done it, many doing it and presumably many continue doing it?
And who or what established the UN's right to call borders legal or illegal (and on what ground did they called it "inadmissible" (not admissible to what?)), on what ground does the UNGA call Israel to retreat to the 67 borders and did Israel even ask the ICJ? Who asked the ICJ about that? On what grounds? There are military analysts, who claim, that the 67 borders are indefensible for Israel.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch writes as if there exists a country called "Israel." He must have some concrete idea of what that is and how he determined it exists?---Mona- (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Good question. According most of the world, the country called "Taiwan resp. ROC" does not exist, so that stuff is kinda fickle.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
So it's just arbitrary? Good. Then we can set aside demands of anyone, including Hamas, to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Who's to say it exists at all? Apparently, not you!---Mona- (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Shystering again today, huh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The 67 borders didn't seem to produce much trouble for Israel between 1949 and 1967 (don't say the Suez Crisis, that fell on Britain and France's part for trying to negate Nasser's nationalism after decades of colonialism). Well Arisboch, after Nazi Germany invaded Poland and conquered the rest of Europe while annexing some of the territory, the UN decided waging wars based on some form of pan-nationalism/expansion (right to conquest) was a major threat to peace in general and frankly an insult to any sense of people's self-determination. UN Resolution 242 calls for "guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area" and the UN Charter Chapter 1 Article 2 mentions "all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations". The international community has referred to UN Charter Article 2 that there can be no title by conquest. That's why the international community nowadays almost always condemns annexations by countries like Iraq, Russia, and even non-state actors like ISIS. Conquering territory is generally not acceptable nowadays for historical reasons. And the only persons claiming that it's indefensible are generally Israeli military officials who have a self-serving stake in the matter, not the most reliable source. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Really? So to what state do the West Bank and Gaza belong to? Egypt and Jordan (and the disapproval of Iraq's, Russia's or DAESH's stems from politics, not from law. If the country is big and powerful enough, it can get away with ANYTHING (USA or China), but Israel came much too late to the game and is rather tiny, so stuff like BDS and so on exists without being ignored by everyone (it is ignored by almost everyone) or laughed out of the room)? And since when does the UN really gives a fuck about such things like "people's self-determination"?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
And every country that seeks to conquer a territory always argues that their conquests are for "defensive" or "security" reasons. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Abuse doesn't negate use.--Arisboch ☞✍☜

☞✉☜ 03:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An example of its abuse to be precise. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch translated: "I do not, will not, cannot answer that kind of question. It would put me and Zionism in an intolerable bind, so I'm gonna once again shriek: "shyster!'" I understand. Oh yes, I understand.---Mona- (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand. Oh yes, I understand- -Mona- Do You Believe That? Ah, vraiment?!?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch incoherently spews:
If the country is big and powerful enough, it can get away with ANYTHING (USA or China), but Israel came much too late to the game and is rather tiny, so stuff like BDS and so on exists without being ignored by everyone (it is ignored by almost everyone) or laughed out of the room)?

What "Israel?" You keep writing as if this country called that exists. How do you know it does? And why do Zionists keep saying this BDS boycott of "Israel" -- that this country's purported "government" has now called an "existential threat" -- is "antisemitic?" BDS could be boycotting a pure figment of their collective imagination! How is anyone to know? ---Mona- (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Jordan and Egypt's occupation and annexations were illegal. The UN, ICJ, human rights organizations, and the general international community have determined that Palestinians have a right to a sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza as they do to Israel's right to self-determination. Self-determination is a tricky business because it inevitably contradicts with other people's right to self-determination, but I generally defer to the arguments that two states is the fair and just way of resolving the conflict. Well, actually, the UN drafted some security council resolutions declaring that Russia and Iraq's annexations wouldn't be recognized under the law. The UN isn't perfect, but it's a good body for setting peaceful international relations and they thankfully have not had a major world war on their hands. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
"Israel's right to self-determination." Gee, I took International Human Rights Law back in the day and do not recall anything about nation-states being vested with a "right to self-determination."---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
What we call 'rights' really are just wishes. Nation states have no rights, nor do people. That doesn't change whether we should respect them or not, but it does clear up the reality of the situation. Israel exists. As does the entity known as Palestine. ISIS exists. According to me, any nation of people ought to be independent as long as the majority of people living there agree they should be. This applies to Israel as well as Palestine. Borders should be drawn based on ethnoreligious and linguistic differences. That said, some of the settlements in Palestine that were created recently (Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel) would be better off if they were repopulated by Palestinians, but that's my opinion. The point is people should be left alone in peace, and forming one's own nation is part of that. If the people of Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Scotland, Catalonia, the Donbass, Israel, and Palestine want to be independent, let them. Hold a popular referendum in these areas and if the majority agrees, let them form their own state.
I would love to have a discussion with anyone who disputes my above points. These are pretty deeply-held beliefs of mine, and I would love to have them challenged so I can analyze whether they are rational or not. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah but thaen we have an interesting problem: If there is a referendum, who draws the boundaries? And who gets to vote? According to some discussions on some other subject some people believe "colonizers" should not count. Which of course means only Jews are allowed to vote in any vote on Israeli independence as there were Jews in the area before the Arab colonization. Right? Or did I get something wrong? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's what I think, Avengerofthe BoN. A vote should be held, for example in the West Bank and Gaza. Conduct it through the Palestinian Authority along with the UN. If the majority votes for an independent, autonomous Palestinian state independent from Israel, then a second referendum should be held, with the following question: How should the borders of Palestine be drawn? Choices:
1-along current Palestinian Authority lines
2-along 2008 Proposal lines
3-along 1967 borders (internationally recognized)
This would be an instant-runoff election. Any person living inside the West Bank and Gaza would be allowed to vote in the election. Honestly, the 1967 borders would probably win due to the Arab majority in the West Bank. Assuming this scenario occurs, the most important mandatory condition is that all Jews and Israeli citizens living in the West Bank must be given Palestinian citizenship status, or offered the option of leaving to Israel. Also, Israel must allow all Arabs and Muslims living in Israel proper to leave to the West Bank. Because of these conditions, Jewish settlements would not be demolished, and intentional ethnic cleansing would not occur. Rather it would be voluntary. To be entirely honest, most Jews would probably leave the West Bank for fear of their lives, and vice-versa. It would all work out though. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tangent about African Americans[edit]

Say CorruptUser, earlier you brought up African Americans. Whether or not they should still be considered indigenous to Africa isn't my question, but would you say their historical connection with Africa would justify them carving out a nation and suppressing whoever happened to be inhabiting the land before they took control of it by political or military force (except when they assimilate into their culture)? (talk) 00:40, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Also, according to most mainstream theories, Europeans came out of AfricaWikipedia's W.svg. If European colonizers had considered Africa as an ancient homeland, would that have justified European colonialism? (talk) 00:45, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

You mean Liberia?
Anyway, it depends. Were they attempting to immigrate and live alongside the remaining inhabitants? Were they escaping ethnic cleansing in America and didn't really have a choice as where to go? Were the locals constantly calling for genocide against the African Americans?
Also, the history itself is interesting; most of the slaves were people captured in war and ethnically cleansed from Africa, so a lot of the African countries do owe them something, citizenship at the very least.CorruptUser (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You could certainly argue that the pre-colonial African regimes that collaborated with European colonial powers (and would eventually all be taken over by the latter) and sent them off to be American slaves would owe them something. Any of the modern African nations, though? I dunno. (talk) 01:09, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
The African nations sued the US for reparations, so they do believe that not enough time has passed to make it "too late". Well, alright then, I agree with them. For the crime of selling their brethren, the African countries should pay reparations to African Americans. And since 3% of the slaves ended up in what is now the US but 30% ended up in Brazil, whatever is decided, Brazil gets 10 times as much. CorruptUser (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Come now, don't be obtuse. The amount of years that's passed and which amount of slaves ended up in which country certainly aren't the only and also not the most important factors here. (talk) 20:09, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Thaen which are the most important factors? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)