Israel gave birth control to Ethiopian Jews without their consent

He's a Wall Street boy, he knows everything.

 

Where did I say that everyone passed through that area? I didn't say that all.

I said that 'half the people in Europe and Asia', (that bits probably an exaggeration but not by much), passed through there and there's thus a genetic diaspora of those groups.

Ah, bingo

Oh, really! Well, maybe you'd like to explain it to the various geneticists and historians that are examining the matter and DON'T give us the cast-iron guarantees you seem prepared to make.

It's NOT a 'pretty easy story to figure out' as you put it... not by ANY means. Why do you think there are geneticists and many other people studying the matter.

Oh, BTW... don't think I've forgotten you've ignored the other question I raised as to the basis of the decisions in the late 40's and 70's DECADES before DNA was available as a tool to examine the matter.

Yes, they do, as I think I've already said.




There's nothing special about me.. it's me and a few billion OTHER people. The difference is the period of time any particular group were at any particular point on the map.

Bear in mind the population of the world 3000 years ago was only about 50m IN TOTAL, (the human race having almost died out approximately 70,000 years ago and having taken an ENORMOUS amount of time to recover), and that they were mostly concentrated in North Africa, the middle east and eastern Europe so when you ask someone, 'Do your genetic markers indicate you come from from the middle east', you're likely to get a lot of replies saying 'yes'.

One of the other matters I've examined for myself is, at what genetic distance people can be said to be related to others. It turns out that, once you go above about 100-150 generations the probabilities go over 90% for almost everyone and if there's a even a few Y-DNA or mtDNA markers that are the same, the 100-150 generations comes down to less than 50 generations for the same, 90% probability. At the same Y-DNA and mtDNA 'settings', at the same 100-150 generations as before, it goes to over 99% probability.

Of course, as you suggest, there are important reasons to say that these figures will be considerably altered when we look at common language, culture and a belief system.

To be clear, I'm NOT saying that your family or anyone else's DOESN'T have some connection to any particular area at any particular point in history... how the hell would I know?! What I'm saying is that with many others being able to say something similar, giving a right of return to specific individuals based on 'nationhood', or whatever, isn't the simple choice it's being presented as.

 

Er... I don't think I did actually. I think I specifically said there were powerful reasons for it TO be where it is. My point is that it's not a simple matter in quite the way it's being presented..

I HAVE said I think the original UN decision was wrong and created more problems than it solved, (they could have just let the various parties sort themselves out), but that's a different matter. In any event the decision's already made so we're going to have to make the best of it.

 

Sorry, I got that part wrong. You didn't ask why it was there, but you said that it's only located where it is because of religious beliefs. Which is not the case.

 

What the hell does it mean to claim to have some inalienable tie to a piece of land but that doesn't necessarily mean to have any rights to that land? What the hell is that? That's limbo. To have a tie to a piece of land directly implies a sense of having some rights to that land. Otherwise we're just talking about memory ... as in ancient history. I try to be open minded and just assume your argument is some vague emotional POV, but instead you double down.

The Jews I know that don't care about Israel or perhaps are even against Israel don't go around talking about some deep bond they feel to the land of Israel. Talking about those "historic, religious" bonds that diaspora Jews feel towards Israel directly implies a sense of some level of ownership. People in the real world don't go around claiming some bond to a piece of land unless they feel some level of claim over that land. You insist that those 2 things have nothing in common, but really you just want to make the first statement and wash your hands of all the negative outcomes that come out of that thinking like the various Aliyahs. In fact this "historic, religious" tie to the land is the central core of Aliyah ...

Who cares about identity? We're talking about fecking land here not identity. Unless you think that land is their identity in which case I'll go back to exhibit A : 2000 years. The world goes on. Life evolves. Nations come and go. That land didn't stay frozen in time while the Jews were away. You have 2 choices : Either you cherish the memory of your ancient homeland as part of your ancient history ... Or you still feel that that bond with the land is permanent and still exists today in which case you're still making a claim on that land.

Jobbik? You're truly an idiot. My whole exercise here is against nationalism and the myths that fuel it like "historical and religious ties to land". I come from a background of being an unliked minority in the country I was born in. I had two choices. Band together with my ethnic group to double down on our claim to the land. Or reject all claims to the land unilaterally in the hope that we can just live in peace and not shape our cultures based on superficial differences like religion and language.

If after all these exchanges you still can't see that I'm coming from the far left, then there's no point in posting anymore.

 

I'm not going to rehash my post to nicephoras, but those 2 things are not as different as you claim. I try to be open minded and grant you the difference on some vague emotional/nostalgic level ... as in

A connection doesn't necessarily imply political or military rights to the land. But a connection does directly imply some cultural ownership. If you claim to be connected to a piece of land it's inevitable that the land becomes part of your culture.

And yes by my standards it is totally ludicrous for a group of people to claim a connection to a piece of land they haven't seen in 2000 years. For you it's not. For you it's perfectly normal and natural. Whatever. There's no point in me arguing with someone that has such an opposing world view to mine.

No it wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the people that feel the way you described. I never asked you what your specific position was. So yeah the last sentence in your paragraph nails my position perfectly ... "that's stupid and that shouldn't be the case"

That's some impressive intellectual acrobatics. The historical homeland claim is exactly the justification to whatever claims there may be today. This "historical claim" is exactly what I find stupid. What exactly is a historical claim. History either is or isn't. Nobody denies that Jews once lived in Israel. That point should have no further relevance to the present. History is history as in past tense.

Again this isn't directed at you ... just at people in general that like to use history as ways to justify actions in the present especially in the context of conflicts.

Even if I made an assumption on the meaning of your original post that doesn't mean I regret what I said once the conversation evolved. We're not having a factual disagreement anyways. We're having a disagreement of opinion. I said something is stupid. You seem to think it's not. I was just trying to give your opinion room to coexist alongside mine. I'm perfectly comfortable sharing the world with the religious, the nationalists and their apologists.

 

I don't remember saying it in quite that way... but maybe I did. Hey, I'm old, give me a break TBH I don't think I'm the only one that's slipped into hyperbole in this discussion, (I don't mean you)

Anyway, I don't think it's ONLY because of that, just that it was given more import than it should have been in the UN's decision making process when, in truth, if they'd have left religion out of it, the decision would have been very different That's all.

As I say, my interest is mainly in terms of how the rest of us should react when claims are made.

Also, IIRC, QB* asked, (I assume rhetorically), if he could go to Israel as a Jew who was also atheist. Well, for me, the short answer is 'yes', of course he can, (assuming they let him in of course ). However, if he's asking me for my approval, (although quite why he should I'm not sure), then I'd say he should think carefully about whether he thinks that's justifiable bearing in mind it puts ever more pressure on the Israeli state to expand into areas occupied by others who DON'T want him be to.

Put more simply, maybe he shouldn't be asking me, (not that he was, obviously, but you know what I mean),... maybe he should be asking THEM.


* Actually I'm not sure it was him but, whatever...

 

Well it kind of is, American Christians since the Independence of the USA have tried to get the Jewish people "back to Israel" and that has a lot to do with religious beliefs (the return of Jesus in the minds of Christian nut jobs).

With out that religious fever, I doubt the USA government would back Israel so much.


Edit: I see the only part, yes I agree with you then, it is not the only reason, just one of the bigger reasons.

 

Man this thread is all over the place. In the present moment Israel does exist, accept it and move on.

 

I doubt that. Israel has enormous strategic value.

 

We're not that far apart. I think your national, ethnic, racial or religious identity is stupid too.

 

So would a Zoroastrian and/or Baha'i Home land somewhere in the Persian gulf made out of land that now belongs to Iran; But the Jesus freaks do not believe that is necessary to bring on the end of the world.

I was mostly talking about the beginning and the creation of the state of Israel.

Now Israel is a democratic country with good relations so they should get our support.

Their mistreatment of people in Gaza/West Bank and their racist ideas towards blacks and Black Jewish women are a black eye but is not like we here in the USA have a perfect record dealing with our own racist practices.

At the end as we all saw, this story did not even make a blip in the main stream media here in the USA.

I did hear about some Australian Jewish guy that was working for Mossad that committed suicide in prison on NPR.

 

In related news, Hamas might be moving away from Iran sponsorship:

John Kerry’s declaration that he intends to renew the push for peace between Israel and the Palestinians received a predictable roll of the eyes from diplomats around the world.

Many talented secretary of state predecessors failed at this mission. Nor could the timing seemingly be worse: Hamas rules Gaza, while Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government is in office in Jerusalem.

Nor does the old incentive for pushing peace exist anymore. Some used to claim that solving the conflict was central to dealing with other problems in the region. But the Arab Spring challenged that view: People revolted against and overthrew their corrupt rulers with no mention of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

But Kerry isn’t necessarily wasting his time. Today, there is a unique and not commonly understood opportunity to move toward peace.

To grasp why, it’s instructive to look at the ceasefire negotiated between Israel and Hamas in November 2012. That was achieved because regional powers pushed Hamas to stop firing rockets at Israel. This not only averted a full-fledged war, but also signaled in a very public way that Hamas had shifted from Iran’s camp. Previously, Iran had been Hamas’ chief patron and weapon supplier. But under the guise of the Arab Spring, the Sunni powers of Turkey and Egypt, as well as Qatar and the Gulf States, sought to weaken their rival Iran.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/push-peace-middle-east-article-1.1265685#ixzz2LAj5Klrc

 

I am quite sure that the religous right/Jesus freaks had no role in the Zionist movement and the creation of the state of Israel.

Until the latter part of the 20th century, the religious right in the US did not exist as a political entity. In the 1940's - 1950's the Republican party was the party of the Eastern elite and blacks of the south. Not only did the religious right have no political party to align with during this time, they had no national political ambitions or coordination at all.

It is interesting to note that currently as a group, the staunchest US supporters of the Israeli right wing government are NOT American Jews, but rather right wing neo-cons/republicans and the religious right. American Jews as a group are more liberal, less in favor of military intervention, and solidly in favor of a two state solution.

 

That I can agree with. Not a fan of what Israel does in regards to the Palestinians and other ethnic groups. They should be punished and ridiculed accordingly.

This is nothing new. There is certainly that fundamentalist element in the background, but it's not nearly as strong as many people think. We support Israel first and foremost because they are our most important ally in the region. If the Jews all lived in Florida you probably wouldn't hear about them as much.

 

You realize how politically impossible and unnecessary this would be? The Kurds cannot even get their own homeland and they probably have a better case than the Jews. The problem is you would be pissing off several countries (Turkey is never going to give up their eastern land because of the oil). This is way more complicated than Jesus freaks wanting the temple rebuilt so the end of the world will come.

 

LOL. Strawman

We're talking about those things as they relate to land claims. Especially land claims that require 2000 years of time travel to justify

But yeah ... keep on missing the point ... it's easier if you convince yourself you're arguing against some racist fascist.

 

"Racist fascist" but I'm the one arguing with a strawman.

 

Not good for PR:

An Israel Defense Forces soldier has posted an Instagram photo of what appears to be a Palestinian boy in the crosshairs of a sniper's rifle, prompting angry criticism after it was picked up by The Electronic Intifada and other news sites around the world over the weekend.

"This is what occupation looks like," representatives of Breaking the Silence, a group of IDF combat veterans who aim to raise public awareness of what happens in the territories, said on the group's Facebook page. "This is what military control over a civilian population looks like."

The advocacy group said the image shows that not much has changed in the decade since a similar photograph taken by a soldier was displayed in the organization's first public exhibit in 2003.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...an-boy-in-crosshairs-of-sniper-rifle-1.504117

 

Isaiah 14


The Lord will have compassion on Jacob;
once again he will choose Israel
and will settle them in their own land.
Foreigners will join them
and unite with the descendants of Jacob.
Nations will take them
and bring them to their own place.
And Israel will take possession of the nations
and make them male and female servants in the Lord’s land.
They will make captives of their captors
and rule over their oppressors.