America's ills.

[Svartalf]

I'll have to Ramlah down your throat the fact that I recularly practice deadsea humor

[Coito ergo sum]

I'll have to Ramlah down your throat the fact that I recularly practice deadsea humor

That pun was a real Turkey.

[MrJonno]

The difference between Israel and the other countries in the Middle East is while all the 'Arab' countries were created by the locals kiling and stealing of each other Israel was created by non-locals ie European refugees and American settlers stealing it from the locals. The number of Jews in Israel/Palestine before WW2 really was tiny

There is a reason most Israeli's speak fluent English with Australian, Canadian, American, South African and British accents and its not their brilliant education system

[Coito ergo sum]

The difference between Israel and the other countries in the Middle East is while all the 'Arab' countries were created by the locals kiling and stealing of each other Israel was created by non-locals ie European refugees and American settlers stealing it from the locals. The number of Jews in Israel/Palestine before WW2 really was tiny

That is not correct. The others were created by European countries hashing out the lines and borders. There was no difference.

And, the lands that became Israel in 1947 were predominantly Jewish.

When you use the term Israel/Palestine, that includes, when referencing the demographics, lands which were not included within Israel -- i.e. the greater Palestine area. The lines were drawn all squiggly and weird to make sure that the part that became Israel was mostly Jewish.

The rest were mostly Muslim.

I don't see how this can be a complaint, reasonably. I mean, Lebanon, until it was overrun and the Christians driven out mostly by force, was majority Christian. Israel, majority Jewish. The rest of the middle east, representing several hundred times the square footage of dirt, were Islamic. The Muslims, however, can't bear to have a Rhode Island and New Jersey size chunk carved out for anyone but themselves.

There is a reason most Israeli's speak fluent English with Australian, Canadian, American, South African and British accents and its not their brilliant education system

The fact that they had an open immigration policy after they were formed into a new nation is nobody's business but their own, is it not?

Or, ought the middle east prefer Muslims and Arabs only? I mean -- the whole middle east, except for tiny Israel, does in fact prefer Muslims and Arabs, and they make no bones about it.

[MrJonno]

And, the lands that became Israel in 1947 were predominantly Jewish.

Timing is somewhat crucial Jews were around 10% at the beginning of the 20th century and around 30% before WW2, I'm sure in parts of Palestine/Israel they were 100% in 1947 as it wouldnt be safe for any Arab to be there

As for borders of other Arab countries sure imperial powers drawing up maps caused problems but ony between the local population,Israel is a settler state in the same way the US is a settler state but no one thinks (I hope) that wiping out/expelling the natives of North America was a good thing just that its irreversible

[mistermack]

I've never read such pathetic bollocks as Coito is spouting here.

While other countries have changed their borders, and had borders imposed, the people living there have largely remained the same.

Israel is totally different. It involves the flood of immigration of foreign people, motivated by a foreign religion, stealing land from the residents and imposing an apartheid policy based on religion.

Anyone who doesn't recognise that, is just parading their stupidity for all to see.

[Santa_Claus]

Israel will get the fate it creates for itself.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, the lands that became Israel in 1947 were predominantly Jewish.

Timing is somewhat crucial Jews were around 10% at the beginning of the 20th century and around 30% before WW2, I'm sure in parts of Palestine/Israel they were 100% in 1947 as it wouldnt be safe for any Arab to be there

It wasn't safe for any Jew to be there either.

However, the idea that Arabs were in particularized danger from Jews is utter and complete nonsense, witness the increase in population of Arab Israelis from 1947 to the present. In other words, there are many more Arabs in Israel now than there were in 1947. 20% of Israel's population is Arab.

As for borders of other Arab countries sure imperial powers drawing up maps caused problems but ony between the local population,Israel is a settler state in the same way the US is a settler state but no one thinks (I hope) that wiping out/expelling the natives of North America was a good thing just that its irreversible

Nonsense.

The suggestion that the Jews "wiped out" the Muslims in "Palestine" is simply counterfactual.

The bottom line is, Israel as precisely the same right to exist as Lebanon or Jordan. The only group that was "wiped out" in the middle east since 1948 were the Christians - from Lebanon. They really were wiped out, and those that were not killed were driven out of Lebanon. That was overt and concerted. Any thoughts on that? Or, does that not matter?

[Coito ergo sum]

I've never read such pathetic bollocks as Coito is spouting here.

The truth? Let's see if you actually point out why you think something I said was wrong.

While other countries have changed their borders,

Not "changed their borders." Created out of whole cloth. There were no Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia prior to their arbitrary formations between the 1920s and the 1940s and Israel was just one of those arbitrary formations. The Muslim states are Muslim, and I can't see how it can be claimed that a Muslim state is a-okay but a Jewish State is unacceptable.

and had borders imposed, the people living there have largely remained the same.

Not entirely correct. It depends on the area you're talking about. The early part of the 20th century involved a good deal of migration in that area.

Moreover, the lands allocated to Israel in the 1940s were majority Jewish areas. So, what is the objection? If it's o.k. to create a state in an area that is majority Muslim and make it Muslim, why can't one make a state majority Jewish where most folks are Jews?

Israel is totally different. It involves the flood of immigration of foreign people,

So? Most of that has occurred after 1947.

Last time I checked, people are allowed to immigrate, and there was nothing illegal about the immigration that occurred, by and large, was there?

Are you suggesting that that the US might have a valid objection to a "flood" of Mexicans coming to the US, if they come here legally and then have a lot of children and grandchildren, exploding the population? That is the argument you're making, at bottom.

motivated by a foreign religion,

Not - total and complete bollocks. Judaism is not a "foreign religion" to flippin Jerusalem. There have been Jews there since Roman times. The Romans were pretty will pissed off at the Jews much of the time for their refusal to worship or even acknowledge the Roman gods.

stealing land from the residents and imposing an apartheid policy based on religion.

Again - total and complete nonsense. Land wasn't "stolen." (I'll leave it to you to identify any specific homes that were stolen, rather than make the generalized allegations - the mere fact of Jews moving to Israel and buying or building houses is not theft of land. Find land that was owned by someone else, and then stolen)

Apartheid? That is an insult to Africans who were actually subjected to apartheid in South Africa. The Arab Muslim population in Israel lives and works freely, and represents 20% of the total population. They are represented in the Knesset and have a voice in government. That's not apartheid.

Anyone who doesn't recognise that, is just parading their stupidity for all to see.

Personal attack. That one is specifically noted in the forum rules as an "indirect personal attack." Not surprising, coming from you. You're so wrong, you have to resort to such nonsense.

[mistermack]

Lets have an independent Mormon state in Utah. There are large areas of the US that are mostly Mormon.
Lets make it an independent country. Fuck the US government. What's it got to do with them?
Bring in all of the Mormons from around the world, and make life impossible for non-Mormons.
Why consult the US people? It's a mostly Mormon area. That's all the justification needed. Apparently.

Or lets have a Catholic state. Pick an area in New Mexico that is nearly all Catholic, and build a fucking big wall to keep out any troublesome non-Catholics who object to having their houses bulldozed, and their kids shot.

Isn't it funny how Americans can see NO problem imposing this sort of thing on other people?

[Coito ergo sum]

Lets have an independent Mormon state in Utah. There are large areas of the US that are mostly Mormon.
Lets make it an independent country. Fuck the US government. What's it got to do with them?

I don't think any country should be a religious state. But, I'll worry about 8,000,000 Israelis on a strip of desert in an oil-free Rhode Island sized section of the middle east being a Jewish state when there is a call for Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, etc., etc. etc. to refrain from being Muslim states and to allow Jews and Christians to live freely, practice their religions in peace and equality, and built houses of worship as they see fit, and to allow atheists and agnostics to advance their nonbelief as well.

Find me a Muslim country which has 20% Jews or 20% Christians. The only one country that had non-Muslim populations of any substantial size was Lebanon, and we have seen what happened to them: murdered en masse, and driven from the country to establish a Muslim state.

We also have Muslim States with unabashed and unapologetic statements of a desire to destroy Israel, and they have attempted to do so more than once, with massive invasions -- 1948, and 1967ish, etc.

Bring in all of the Mormons from around the world, and make life impossible for non-Mormons.
Why consult the US people? It's a mostly Mormon area. That's all the justification needed. Apparently.

That is all Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia needs to make life impossible for non-Muslims. You make a great point. Those countries should not be Muslim states at all. We need to oppose that.

Or lets have a Catholic state.

We do. It's called "Vatican City." And, Brazil is officially a Catholic country.

Pick an area in New Mexico that is nearly all Catholic, and build a fucking big wall to keep out any troublesome non-Catholics who object to having their houses bulldozed, and their kids shot.

If there was a concerted effort in the US for people to exterminate the Catholics, that might be necessary. Luckily, we have freedom of and from religion here, and people aren't trying to exterminate Catholics. On the other hand, in the middle east, a lot of Muslims want to exterminate the Jews. What else can the Jews do? Move to Saudi Arabia and live lives in freedom and equality? If you demand that for the people of the US and Europe, why aren't the people of Saudi Arabia allowed that.

You talk about Israel making life impossible for Muslims. That is plainly false. 20% of Israel's population - not counting the Palestinian Authority, just Israel proper - are Muslims and they live and work, and their populations have been increasing over the years. That's "impossible?" Compare that to the way Jews are treated in Arab Muslim countries.

Similarly, there are atheist, gay, communist, and other radical contingents in Israel and they live and work openly, in a country that respects freedom of belief and conscience. Which Muslim country can you say that about? The ones that jail atheists and execute homosexuals, stone adulterers, etc.?

Isn't it funny how Americans can see NO problem imposing this sort of thing on other people?

We haven't imposed anything, my friend. The British are the most responsible for setting up Israel as a Jewish State. Remember, it was the British Mandate for Palestine, not the American Mandate for Palestine. Up until world War 2, the US had little to no involvement in the politics of the Middle East. France and Britain did. Israel was created as a result of that history.

Moreover, I do have a problem with religious states, theocracies.

What I don't have is a one-sided view of it. Isn't it funny how you have a big problem with Israel being a Jewish state, but I've never seen you hint that you cared whether Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, oman, etc. were Muslim states. Your arguments are exactly that the current nation of Israel should properly be a Muslim state, as a matter of fact.

I would like to see secular governments with freedom of and from religion in every country on the Earth, but i see no reason why Israel ought to go first. A fair way to do it would be to say that all the countries in the middle east ought to separate Mosque and Temple and Church from State. Deal?

[Ronja]

mistermack, this post by you contains an indirect personal attack on a RatZ member. Please keep your posting within our rules in the future.

[mistermack]

mistermack, this post by you contains an indirect personal attack on a RatZ member. Please keep your posting within our rules in the future.

Just so that I know the difference, is this sort of stuff direct or indirect? :

If you aren't able to see the obvious fact that I was responding to your moronic generalization about Americans as gun nuts, and your conclusions based on your preconceived notions that Mr. Zimmerman just wanted to go out and shoot someone, then you're stupider than I thought you were.

You only see what YOU want to see, which is American gun nuts who want to run around shooting black people. You're a brainwashed fool and you couldn't be objective if you tried. You're so simple-minded that your view on any topic, and any news item, is known before you even type

I can't see why you're so hot on indirect. Perhaps I should try to be a bit clearer?

[Coito ergo sum]

Nice way to not provide context mistermack:

Here is a post you made which personally attacked me: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... w#p1151148 - your unlinked cut-and-paste was my response to your typical slur.

I'd prefer just to talk about the issues, but you never miss an opportunity to make it personal. That tends to be an incentive for people to treat you similarly in return.

[Ronja]

Please cool it, CES and mistermack.

mistermack, this post by you contains an indirect personal attack on a RatZ member. Please keep your posting within our rules in the future.

Just so that I know the difference, is this sort of stuff direct or indirect? :

If you aren't able to see the obvious fact that I was responding to your moronic generalization about Americans as gun nuts, and your conclusions based on your preconceived notions that Mr. Zimmerman just wanted to go out and shoot someone, then you're stupider than I thought you were.

You only see what YOU want to see, which is American gun nuts who want to run around shooting black people. You're a brainwashed fool and you couldn't be objective if you tried. You're so simple-minded that your view on any topic, and any news item, is known before you even type

I can't see why you're so hot on indirect. Perhaps I should try to be a bit clearer?

mistermack, you should have reported that post. As nobody else did, either, we missed it. Staff members posting in a thread does not mean that we are "on patrol" all the time or that we could notice everything that might need staff attention. So please report posts that you think are against the rules, preferably promptly.

Nice way to not provide context mistermack:

Here is a post you made which personally attacked me: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... w#p1151148 - your unlinked cut-and-paste was my response to your typical slur.

I'd prefer just to talk about the issues, but you never miss an opportunity to make it personal. That tends to be an incentive for people to treat you similarly in return.

CES, last I checked, our rules did not condone a "treat you similarly in return" approach to insults. Report when you believe that our rules have been broken, and leave it at that, please.