And what is Aleppo?

[Blakenzy]

OK I'll take the bait.

So Israel is not about religious supremacy? The whole theme behind the creation of the state of Israel in that historically screwed up, hotspot part of the world is about fulfiling religious prophecy. Believe me there were far better places to create a new country. It is no where near a secular state as its flag so proudly shows. The patronage it offers extremist  "settlers" speaks for itself.

And an ally? How is that? Explain to me how Israel's interests, expansion and region destabilizing effects align with that of the American people (PEOPLE, not neocon Government). As far as I can see, one of the main reasons "they hate us" is because of the actions the US Government takes in order to serve that one way relationship. What is gained from all that?

[Perd Hapley]

Again, not an Israel expert here. Please explain if I'm wrong, but I don't think religious prophecies are required for people to want to occupy their culture's home ground. Are you conflating ethnic/cultural Judaism with the religion?

From what I understand, there is a hard-line, religiously conservative element in Israeli politics, but it is not dominant. Then again, I don't know. Does the Israeli government require things like circumcision? I mean, what's the religious zealotry part?

[Blakenzy]

Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.

Conflating religion and culture... that is confusing. I would argue that most people of the Jewish persuasion are of a european-east european descent, not middle eastern. Their relation to the actual soil (or rocks) being disputed is based more on religious text than actually having a grandfather or great grandfather or great great grandfather or great great great grandfather or grandmother coming from there. How far back can you go and still have a reasonable claim to a piece of land?

[MechAg94]

Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.

Conflating religion and culture... that is confusing. I would argue that most people of the Jewish persuasion are of a european-east european descent, not middle eastern. Their relation to the actual soil (or rocks) being disputed is based more on religious text than actually having a grandfather or great grandfather or great great grandfather or great great great grandfather or grandmother coming from there. How far back can you go and still have a reasonable claim to a piece of land?

What were the other options?  Where would you have set up a new country where there were no other people?  And what reason for occupying a particular patch of land does one need?  "My devine book says so" is just as good as "we were here first" or "the UN says it was okay".  The original reason was "God commanded we kill everyone over there and occupy their land" so they did (mostly). 

My understanding is that Jewish immigration back to present day Israel had been increasing since before 1900.  I saw one source that said the area wasn't very heavily populated before that time, but someone else might have better figures.  If that is where they want to be, then there they are.  They have fought and spilled blood to stay there.  Why is that still debated? 

Religious zealotry is better defined by people who teach their children that those other people over there sacrifice children in religious rituals and drink their blood among other really silly stuff.  

[makattak]

Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.

Conflating religion and culture... that is confusing. I would argue that most people of the Jewish persuasion are of a european-east european descent, not middle eastern. Their relation to the actual soil (or rocks) being disputed is based more on religious text than actually having a grandfather or great grandfather or great great grandfather or great great great grandfather or grandmother coming from there. How far back can you go and still have a reasonable claim to a piece of land?

Ah, so history is suspect because it's about TEH JOOS!!, then?

I'm fairly certain every historical work, not just the Bible and Jewish texts, locate the Jewish people in the areas they now occupy. The have been spread all over the West (and the Arab east!) since the time that they lived there. Further, many of the people now living in Israel immigrated from other Middle Eastern countries from which they were EXPELLED*. From that link:

The first large-scale exoduses took place in the late 1940s and early 1950s, primarily from Iraq, Yemen and Libya. In these cases over 90% of the Jewish population left, despite the necessity of leaving their property behind.[4] Two hundred and sixty thousand Jews from Arab countries immigrated to Israel between 1948 and 1951, accounting for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded state

So, yes, no connection to that area or the middle east at all. Just a bunch of fake JOOS from Russia and Germany who were really just Russian and Germans, but pretended to be Jews because it obviously made their lives so much easier.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries

[RevDisk]

Just glanced into this thread. Basically, I agree with Fitz. My only comment is that he is understating the matter. And not using enough profanity to accurately describe the current situation.

Syria is a minimum of a six way civil war with zero chance of a clean outcome. The United States is not functionally able to win a political war, and haven't since WW2 except for rare flukes or incredibly tiny enemies. We can defeat any actual army on the planet on the field of battle. Possibly all of them combined. But we have functionally lost nearly every war due to politics. Having the US involved in the Syrian civil war would be like sending a toddler to fix a running chainsaw with the throttle stuck open. Or sending a crippled kid with developmental disorders to play in the NFL.

So keep that in mind. Any significant war we get involved with, there's about a 90% chance we will lose it. Probably closer to 95%, but I don't want to sound demoralizing. We will spend billions, or hundreds of billions, or trillions, and ultimately have little to nothing to show for it. I'd welcome any counterexamples since Korea. Even a single counter example would be nice.

[makattak]

Just glanced into this thread. Basically, I agree with Fitz. My only comment is that he is understating the matter. And not using enough profanity to accurately describe the current situation.

Syria is a minimum of a six way civil war with zero chance of a clean outcome. The United States is not functionally able to win a political war, and haven't since WW2 except for rare flukes or incredibly tiny enemies. We can defeat any actual army on the planet on the field of battle. Possibly all of them combined. But we have functionally lost nearly every war due to politics. Having the US involved in the Syrian civil war would be like sending a toddler to fix a running chainsaw with the throttle stuck open. Or sending a crippled kid with developmental disorders to play in the NFL.

So keep that in mind. Any significant war we get involved with, there's about a 90% chance we will lose it. Probably closer to 95%, but I don't want to sound demoralizing. We will spend billions, or hundreds of billions, or trillions, and ultimately have little to nothing to show for it. I'd welcome any counterexamples since Korea. Even a single counter example would be nice.

We certainly have all the capabilities necessary to win a war, which is why it is such a difficult discussion.

What we don't have is the will or the perseverance as a people to do what IS necessary to win such a war. I'm not sure what will be necessary to change that, either.

I've been learning about the later Roman and the Byzantine period lately and learned that the native Romans effectively lost the ability to pursue warfare (moral aptitude, not physical) and outsourced it all to the Germanic tribes. It's eye opening, to say the least, to see a people "evolve" out of the ability to defend themselves. 

[MechAg94]

We certainly have all the capabilities necessary to win a war, which is why it is such a difficult discussion.

What we don't have is the will or the perseverance as a people to do what IS necessary to win such a war. I'm not sure what will be necessary to change that, either.

I've been learning about the later Roman and the Byzantine period lately and learned that the native Romans effectively lost the ability to pursue warfare (moral aptitude, not physical) and outsourced it all to the Germanic tribes. It's eye opening, to say the least, to see a people "evolve" out of the ability to defend themselves.  

I would add that part of the problem is we accept poor political definitions of what "Winning" is.  We have to select from things like "regime change" and "implementing democracy".  Easier war goals like "destroy everything" and "kill everyone" are frowned upon.  I sometimes wonder how Iraq would have been different if W. Bush had just destroyed a bunch of stuff and pulled out after defeating Iraq's army in that first year.  Hard to believe it would have been worse.  It still would have been his fault, but better than a 10 year occupation. 

[dogmush]

The average US citizen hasn't been genuinely afraid for the continued existence of the US since WWII.  It's hard to push the idea that we should do the kind of things you have to do to win a war when no one* really cares or is invested in the outcome.

*or not enough people anyway.

[RevDisk]

I'm of the opinion the Millennials got it right.  When I was in boot,  they harped on us being of the 1%  who cared enough to serve.  More fool us,  I guess.  Can you blame them for not giving a *expletive deleted*it about pointless wars we're not even trying to win?  Why even bother?


*please forgive the gratuitious cropping of your quote,  just wanted to address this point.

I concur with you. And that Millennials got it right. Maybe for the wrong reasons. But most of the best soldiers I knew, regardless of rank, have come to the same conclusion and got the hell out. Or are planning on putting in their 20 and getting out. We fight war for domestic politics or emotions rather than logic or reason. Within a couple years, no one cared about Afghanistan. Iraq, aside from the initial propaganda campaign of now questionable accuracy and the fun of blowing up couple thousand bucks worth of former Soviet gear with millions of bucks worth of 21st century munitions, was forgotten even quicker.

We could have achieved realistic goals in weeks or months. Kill everyone we deem bad and leave. The semi stated mission goal of turn Iraq and Afghanistan into modern civilized democracies was impossible. We're still in both countries and we're still failing at that goal. The last mostly successful war was our intervention into the Balkans. Shockingly, that went rather well. Goal was to physically separate parties from murdering each other, and bomb anyone who disagreed. On the semi near term (ie decades rather than centuries), it was achieveable and we relatively were successful at it. We killed enough people for the enemy forces to agree it wasn't worth continuing, and suckered plenty of other parties to helping out of their own free will. We're still there, but it's a small enough force to essentially be training rotations. 

I would add that part of the problem is we accept poor political definitions of what "Winning" is.  We have to select from things like "regime change" and "implementing democracy".  Easier war goals like "destroy everything" and "kill everyone" are frowned upon.  I sometimes wonder how Iraq would have been different if W. Bush had just destroyed a bunch of stuff and pulled out after defeating Iraq's army in that first year.  Hard to believe it would have been worse.  It still would have been his fault, but better than a 10 year occupation. 

It is possible to have realistic war goals of "kill people until they give up". See Balkans. In public we lied appropriately and called it "stabilization" or whatever. But we killed Serbs until they agreed to stay in their own borders. It was successful. Kuwait war? Killed people until Saddam gave up. Also successful.

Admittedly, we have lots of little operations that can be successful. Solely because no one cared about them.

[Perd Hapley]

Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.

Conflating religion and culture... that is confusing. I would argue that most people of the Jewish persuasion are of a european-east european descent, not middle eastern. Their relation to the actual soil (or rocks) being disputed is based more on religious text than actually having a grandfather or great grandfather or great great grandfather or great great great grandfather or grandmother coming from there. How far back can you go and still have a reasonable claim to a piece of land?

As makattak pointed out, one need not be a Torah-thumper (or even a theist) to acknowledge that present-day Israel (give or take a few acres) was the site of a Jewish state, in ancient times. Also, if you want to quibble about genetics - well, I don't. That's why I talked more of culture than ethnicity. Whatever the derivation of European Jewry, the culture they're a part of regards that parcel of ground as their homeland. And again, my point was not that they do or do not deserve to live there. I'm just skeptical of your claim that Zionism is (necessarily) "religious zealotry."

[makattak]

Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.

Conflating religion and culture... that is confusing. I would argue that most people of the Jewish persuasion are of a european-east european descent, not middle eastern. Their relation to the actual soil (or rocks) being disputed is based more on religious text than actually having a grandfather or great grandfather or great great grandfather or great great great grandfather or grandmother coming from there. How far back can you go and still have a reasonable claim to a piece of land?

I've had another thought. 

Is there some area of the world NOT known for a tumultuous past?

Was Australia offered to them?

[MillCreek]

^^^Madagascar was, but by the Reich government.  See: The Madagascar Plan.

[Blakenzy]

Makattak I'm not contesting the history of who lived where at some point in time, or calling anyone "JOOS" whatever you are hinting at with that. 

I do say that using ancient history as justification for claiming something you have been alien to for centuries is capricious at best, and when it comes to following religious text into violence, then yes that makes you a zealot.

If history has anything to tell, it's that whenever that part of the world gets claimed by someone, bloodshed follows. Ignoring that fact and forcefully inserting yourself into that very area because of religion, culture, ethnicity, tradition or what have you makes you a zealot.

FWIW there was the option of creating a Jewish state in Uganda.

[makattak]

Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.

I do say that using ancient history as justification for claiming something you have been alien to for centuries is capricious at best, and when it comes to following religious text into violence, then yes that makes you a zealot.

Ah, so now it's not the divine book, it's ancient history.

So, what we're seeing is there is a long litany of reasons for the Jewish people to feel a connection to their historical homeland, hmm? Because you just seem to keep adding reasons they might want to be there and dismissing them as "capricious" or "religious zealotry".

Instead, I'm seeing a list of reasons the Jewish people might desire to live there.

Incidentally, Israel was a sparsely populated area not really all that important until the Jews returned there. Population of Jerusalem in 1905 (near the beginning of the return to Israel): 32,400

Population in 1932: 62,578. 2/3 of the increase was Jewish people returning to their "divine book's" homeland.

Population in 1944: 157,000 Again, the VAST MAJORITY of the increase (over 2/3) was Jews returning to their "ancient" homeland.

All this was BEFORE the creation of the state of Israel.

You can mock them for their historic, cultural, and religious ties to Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple mount, but it's pretty clear the Jewish people are connected to their land.

Incidentally, Uganda as an alternate site? Well, it's a good thing they wouldn't be confronted by murderous Muslim neighbors there. No history of violence and turmoil at all.

[brimic]

People have the right to live wherever they want so long as they have the ability to defend their piece of land.

[Monkeyleg]

People have the right to live wherever they want so long as they have the ability to defend their piece of land.

Does that include Muslims moving into US cities and setting up their own governments?

[brimic]

Does that include Muslims moving into US cities and setting up their own governments?

Yes, if the US government fails in its duties.

[wmenorr67]

Does that include Muslims moving into US cities and setting up their own governments?

Yes, if the US government fails in its duties.

Well there are a lot of people who believe they have already done that.  So can the states and/or cities that believe so start leaving and telling the feds to *expletive deleted*ck off?

[makattak]

Well there are a lot of people who believe they have already done that.  So can the states and/or cities that believe so start leaving and telling the feds to *expletive deleted*ck off?

The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do.

They can not do that until they can.

[Blakenzy]

Makattak you accused me of trying to deny history because "JOOS". Now you are taking issue with me for mentioning history.
The numbers and dates you show are not indicative of a native population growing in size organically over time. So, a group of people consider a certain patch of land they "theirs" for WHATEVER reason. However they haven't occupied that land for centuries. They flood it, no matter what violence is a result of their choice? That is very extreme. If religion plays a main role in that choice that indicates religious zealotry. If a person allows religion to lead him to violence I say that person is a zealot.

[makattak]

(1)Makattak you accused me of trying to deny history because "JOOS". Now you are taking issue with me for mentioning history.
(2)The numbers and dates you show are not indicative of a native population growing in size organically over time. So, a group of people consider a certain patch of land they "theirs" for WHATEVER reason. However they haven't occupied that land for centuries. (3) They flood it, no matter what violence is a result of their choice? That is very extreme. If religion plays a main role in that choice that indicates religious zealotry. If a person allows religion to lead him to violence I say that person is a zealot.

(1)No, the point I was making is that there are reasons beyond religious zealotry that can connect a people (and DOES connect this specific people) to a historic homeland.

(2) And you completely miss the point. My point was NO ONE LIVED THERE. 32,000 people in JERUSALEM in 1905 means it wasn't important to anyone. It only became important because the Jews returned.

(3) No, they are only responsible for the violence that they initiate. They are not responsible for people getting angry that they have a homeland after purchasing the land.

Or were the Cherokee just asking for it when they repurchased their ancestral homelands in North Carolina and moved back there?

[dogmush]

(1)No, the point I was making is that there are reasons beyond religious zealotry that can connect a people (and DOES connect this specific people) to a historic homeland.

(2) And you completely miss the point. My point was NO ONE LIVED THERE. 32,000 people in JERUSALEM in 1905 means it wasn't important to anyone. It only became important because the Jews returned.

(3) No, they are only responsible for the violence that they initiate. They are not responsible for people getting angry that they have a homeland after purchasing the land.

The bolded point doesn't really follow.  Pretending it wasn't important to anyone because no one lived there is disingenuous.  Lot's of places in the world are important to folks without a huge population.  There is the additional "It was our, even if we weren't using it!!" issue.  I doubt the US would be very calm is La Raza just moved into the Mojave and said it was theirs because Americans didn't live there.

Also, pretending that Israel purchased the land freely is glossing over quite a bit.  It was more like an eminent domain grab at the national scale.


That said, Mak is right.  They've got it.  the land is there's until they can't hold it anymore.  Sentimentality aside, that's how the world works on the Nation Scale, and has for millennium.  The right of conquest is a very real thing.  Ask Putin.

[makattak]

Also, pretending that Israel purchased the land freely is glossing over quite a bit.  It was more like an eminent domain grab at the national scale.

ISRAEL didn't purchase the land because Israel didn't exist.

You notice those numbers quickly increasing from 1905 to 1948? Those were Jews who BOUGHT the land and moved back to Israel.

The didn't use "eminent domain" to grab up the land because they had no power. The Ottomans (in 1905) wouldn't be bowing to the great Jewish Overlord conspiracy and, later, the British had their own animosity towards Jews as well.

The fact that (1) a lot of Jews had already begun congregating in Israel BEFORE the Nazi holocaust, and the (2) the whole world was ashamed that they had ignored it for so long, meant that (3) when they were looking for a place to try to ensure "Never Again" actually meant "never again", they saw:

"Hey, here's a place the Jews all claim as their home AND a lot of Jews have already moved back there. Let's use that place."

It's disingenuous to claim that there were no Jews in Israel prior to 1948 and then the world just decided to kick millions of Arabs out and give it to the Jews. The "land grab" you claim was taking AUTHORITY for the land that is now Israel away from THE BRITISH and giving that authority to the Jews who were the majority in that area. (Look at the population numbers.)

That the Muslims hate the Jews and want them all dead would be the case WHEREVER the Jews live.

Unless, as I suggested, they were offered Australia. Of course, I have a feeling that Indonesia would suddenly not be as friendly to Australia were that to happen.