Why can't people just leave the Jews alone?

[rosends]

I did not confuse anything. I made a specific comment about a specific group. Hence why I specified Israeli and made specific points about Israeli. Just as many others made specific points about Israeli. I have no issue with Canadian Jews for the most part as they support secularism to the point of disbanding their own civic courts granted by the government. That is a huge step for any group which still maintains it's identity. I question those that provides funds for Israeli from their own pockets but it is their money not tax payers money. I am not the one giving my dollar away. The government is using my tax money to support a questionable government. I want funding from Palestine cut as well due to their questionable government. Any funding should be done by an organization that is foreign and independent from both governments so not a dollar touches the hands of either government. This is not the case with my government. When a government accepts my tax payer money yet does question acts or even is headed by a questionable organization I have the right to question this as a citizen. Your whim does not override my rights as a citizen.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specific

Maybe you should read the OP again when it makes specific remarks about "their land" and "their Temple".... The OP already includes specific remarks about the same group I did so my comment is not out of line or off-topic.... The OP already is talking about Israeli....

Yeah...I read it again. It asks about the oppression of Jews from ancient times, not about Israel. Are you saying that the Greek invasion thousands of years ago wasn't into "their land" and "their temple"? You transplant a religious argument into your political schema and relate the local question "Have Jews left other people alone?" to your feeling offended about American foreign policy. You specified "Israeli" because it answered a completely separate question you wanted to answer. That doesn't make it relevant. The Israeli government includes non-Jews, thus you cannot conflate the two.

 

[Lyndon]

Why is the Greek or Babylonian oppression of Jews any more important than the Greek or Babylonian oppression of any other people or culture.

 

[rosends]

Why is the Greek or Babylonian oppression of Jews any more important than the Greek or Babylonian oppression of any other people or culture.

I don't think it is. Why would you wonder? You should start a thread about the destruction of others' antiquities and the quashing of other cultures by those empires historically.

 

[Shad]

Yeah...I read it again. It asks about the oppression of Jews from ancient times, not about Israel. Are you saying that the Greek invasion thousands of years ago wasn't into "their land" and "their temple"? You transplant a religious argument into your political schema and relate the local question "Have Jews left other people alone?" to your feeling offended about American foreign policy. You specified "Israeli" because it answered a completely separate question you wanted to answer. That doesn't make it relevant. The Israeli government includes non-Jews, thus you cannot conflate the two.

"I just don't understand why people can't leave them alone and let them have their land and their Temple. The Jews never really were interested in converting others. They tended to have a "live and let live" approach to their religion and culture. They don't complain about the practices of the other people around them. They just carried on doing their own thing. (I think we could all learn from that rather mature approach to things, honestly.)"

For them to have their Temple now, capitalization hence the Temple, is about the Temple in Jerusalem set in the present. The use of their lands is set in the present as they not longer had lands between set periods as per conquest examples. There is a clearly shift from antiquity to medieval to the present. Hence I was specific about a group of since there are specifics in the OP. Israeli is the Jewish nation, which is leaders never forget to remind everyone, so lets not pretend it is not a Jewish state. Lets not ignore the Law of Return... I agree that non-Jews of the state should be questioned as well. However lets not forgot that it's leaders love to use religious and ethnic rhetoric as such with Netanyahu has not put his foot in his mouth using such rhetoric in which he specifically calls it a Jewish state.

You are ignoring the present and using antiquity as a shield in order to silent valid concerns about people in the present. Also it is a general argument not a religious one otherwise it would be in the religious section. It is talking about more than just a religion since it starts involving state structures.

You emotional overreaction has been noted and dismissed as the bluster it is.

I would also note you used present examples of Muslims in Sweden as a counter-argument so already you have set part of the topics in the present. Unless you are talking about the Muslims from the 14th century that chanted "slaughter Jews" oh wait... that never happened..... I love your double-standards.

 

[rosends]

For them to have their Temple now, capitalization hence the Temple, is about the Temple in Jerusalem set in the present. The use of their lands is set in the present as they not longer had lands between set periods as per conquest examples. There is a clearly shift from antiquity to medieval to the present. Hence I was specific about a group of since there are specifics in the OP. Israeli is the Jewish nation, which is leaders never forget to remind everyone, so lets not pretend it is not a Jewish state. Lets not ignore the Law of Return... I agree that non-Jews of the state should be questioned as well. However lets not forgot that it's leaders love to use religious and ethnic rhetoric as such with Netanyahu has not put his foot in his mouth using such rhetoric in which he specifically calls it a Jewish state.

Except -- Jews have no Temple now so no one can "let them have their Temple" in the current sense. There is nothing to be let to have. As there are Jews who, currently in Israel and out are being forced out of where they live by violence, there is a current notion of "their lands." I don't see you answer why it is so bad to let people live where they live. Israel is a Jewish country but not one that belongs exclusively to Jews, nor is the government (or the governmental policies) exclusively representative of Jews and Judaism so to conflate Jews and Israel is wrong unless you like to disempower other stakeholders. The Law of Return is immaterial as it does not stop anyone else from becoming a citizen so it doesn't make Israel an exclusively Jewish land. Netanyahu is not putting his foot in his mouth when he is quoting from the foundational doctrine of the country. You are when you confuse theology in practice from politics in the present.

You are ignoring the present and using antiquity as a shield in order to silent valid concerns about people in the present. Also it is a general argument not a religious one otherwise it would be in the religious section. It is talking about more than just a religion since it starts involving state structures.

You like to claim your concerns are valid. They might be, but they are also irrelevant to a question about Jews because they are focused on Israel. They are irrelevant because they are about America's relationship with a foreign country, not about any Jew's intrusion into someone else's life. If you focused on the question instead of flying off the handle and derailing conversation, you might see this. Your emotions have taken hold of you. Take a step back and see what you are doing. The placement of this question in a "General" section doesn't change the wording of the question.

You emotional overreaction has been noted and dismissed as the bluster it is.

I can see you don't like precise language and factual arguments, and prefer to shift focus and blame because you are angry. You might want to deal with your anger issues before you further embarrass yourself.

I would also note you used present examples of Muslims in Sweden as a counter-argument so already you have set part of the topics in the present. Unless you are talking about the Muslims from the 14th century that chanted "slaughter Jews" oh wait... that never happened..... I love your double-standards.

I am talking about the practices of current people enmeshed in one religion when discussing the attitudes of present religions. The question uses historical information and precedent and asks about the present time. You focus on the fact that the past is mentioned and then move to a separate current construct, the state. That's a flaw in your approach. You should be looking at the religion and answering if the religion now intrudes on others and why others insist on still intruding on the religion. That's what the discussion is -- note that I brought up an example of religion, not nationality. Sorry you can't see how that addresses a question about the current practices of a religion.

 

[Shad]

Except -- Jews have no Temple now so no one can "let them have their Temple" in the current sense. There is nothing to be let to have. As there are Jews who, currently in Israel and out are being forced out of where they live by violence, there is a current notion of "their lands." I don't see you answer why it is so bad to let people live where they live. Israel is a Jewish country but not one that belongs exclusively to Jews, nor is the government (or the governmental policies) exclusively representative of Jews and Judaism so to conflate Jews and Israel is wrong unless you like to disempower other stakeholders. The Law of Return is immaterial as it does not stop anyone else from becoming a citizen so it doesn't make Israel an exclusively Jewish land. Netanyahu is not putting his foot in his mouth when he is quoting from the foundational doctrine of the country. You are when you confuse theology in practice from politics in the present.

Muslims didn't exist during when the Temple did as well. Thus already the OP has created a disconnect between the time frame you wish to imposed on the OP and the OP in question. Again ignore the subject I specified from the greater subject in the OP. Ignore your own modern context counter-arguments found posted by you in this very thread. I love your double-standards. Netanyahu rhetoric is useful as it shows just how connect the religion and Jewish identification is to the nation to the point that is in the foundation of the nation. Thanks for supporting me point unwittingly. Israeli is not leaving other people alone. Israeli is not acting in isolation but willing accepting money from other nations. If you want Israeli to be lefts alone maybe you should consider they should have a government that refuses foreign aid. Foreign aid a part of which is from my tax payer money.

Theology is irrelevant as there are a group of Jews in a specific nation committing questionable acts. You are attempting to shift this to a field of your choice since it is convenient as if peoples acts are of no matter. Yet you have no issues when people, Christians and Muslims, are used as examples of acts against another group of people. I can use your own flawed argument against you. The acts of Christians and Muslims is irrelevant. You must address their theology blah blah blah. Yet you didn't bother since it not a concern since you are neither Muslim nor Christian. Yet when it is about Jews you put forward this defense since it is convenient and a flawed attempt at dodging an issue.

Your point is irrelevant tripe in the end given the rhetoric used by Israeli founders and current leaders. You just want people to ignore the very religious rhetoric and Zionist ideology since it is not convenient. Too bad, get over it.

You like to claim your concerns are valid. They might be, but they are also irrelevant to a question about Jews because they are focused on Israel. They are irrelevant because they are about America's relationship with a foreign country, not about any Jew's intrusion into someone else's life. If you focused on the question instead of flying off the handle and derailing conversation, you might see this. Your emotions have taken hold of you. Take a step back and see what you are doing. The placement of this question in a "General" section doesn't change the wording of the question.

Yes my concerns are since my government provides aid to Israeli the state. Are you saying I have no right to speak out against my very own government. When did you become the leaders of Canada, the arbiter of it's laws and my rights. Oh wait this didn't happen. Again I was being specific about a group of not the whole of. I clearly stated this and repeated it. You inability to deal with a specific point is not my problem but your own. More irrelevant tripe.

Flying of the handle? You mean like you did by strawman specific points into a generalization? Colour me impressed. I'm sure it is a shade of purple

I can see you don't like precise language and factual arguments, and prefer to shift focus and blame because you are angry. You might want to deal with your anger issues before you further embarrass yourself.

I can see you do not understand specific points about specific people out of a general group. Thus you must ignore the specific to treat my comment as a general view on all Jews. Congratulations on your strawman followed by more of your irrelevant tripe. I am impressed. Perhaps you should take a step back from your fanatical devotion to your ideology for a minute and realize that not every Jew is some peaceful individual. Nor that addressing these individuals specifics acts within a government system is not about every individual that happens to be Jewish. Never did I say because of Israeli every Jew should be killed or kicked out of Canada. My point was you can not leave a group of people in isolation as a whole when part of that group is doing anything but promoting isolation. One can leave those that do not commit nor support such acts in peace. However for those committing said acts we are free to talk about them as much as we like. Just as I did. Hence a specific never turned into a generalization. Get over that fact and you won't have to struggle so much with your emotional outrage when someone pokes at a part of your group.

I am talking about the practices of current people enmeshed in one religion when discussing the attitudes of present religions. The question uses historical information and precedent and asks about the present time. You focus on the fact that the past is mentioned and then move to a separate current construct, the state. That's a flaw in your approach. You should be looking at the religion and answering if the religion now intrudes on others and why others insist on still intruding on the religion. That's what the discussion is -- note that I brought up an example of religion, not nationality. Sorry you can't see how that addresses a question about the current practices of a religion.

While you only focus on the past when it is helpful but have no issues references modern events when it suits your argument. I love your double-standards. Why do I need to talk about the religion when the topic is about the people. Jew is not a religion, Judaism is. There are secular Jews that do not have a religion but identify along ethnic and cultural lines. Can you tell the difference? Let me know when you figure it out....

The hilarious fact is you had no issues when I took to task Palestine, yet you never said anything about this being out of line. Yet as soon as I criticize Israel you come out of the woodwork with excuses and deflection.

 

[columbus]

They might be, but they are also irrelevant to a question about Jews because they are focused on Israel.

Something I have noticed about you and lots of other Jewish Zionists is how you flip between Judaism and Zionism.
When someone criticizes Israel, you accuse them of being anti-Jewish.
When you get called on that, you revert to the vague term "antisemitism".

I've watched you do this more than once.
Tom

 

[rosends]

Something I have noticed about you and lots of other Jewish Zionists is how you flip between Judaism and Zionism.
When someone criticizes Israel, you accuse them of being anti-Jewish.
When you get called on that, you revert to the vague term "antisemitism".

I've watched you do this more than once.
Tom

The question asks about Jews. Why must the answer be about Israel? I switch when the question demands I switch. In this case, is there any reason to discuss Israel? I also rarely if ever invoke something called anti-semitism. If you have watched me do this, please show me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For OP: Have Jews left other people alone?

For the most part.

 

[columbus]

So, according to what you're saying, Abraham and Sarah never had an official marriage ceremony?

It is impossible to understand scripture if you don't have a working knowledge of the culture it came to be in. The authors and audience all had a worldview that was the context, and it wasn't the same worldview modern people have.

You know why the ancient Israelites did not wonder where Cain, Abel, and Seth got wives, without boinking their sisters? It's because they didn't think of non Israelites as human. Women either. So, naturally, the boys just went out and acquired women like all real men do when they want some.
Tom

 

[godnotgod]

Well do you have any for it in the scripture?

It is impossible to understand scripture if you don't have a working knowledge of the culture it came to be in. The authors and audience all had a worldview that was the context, and it wasn't the same worldview modern people have.

You know why the ancient Israelites did not wonder where Cain, Abel, and Seth got wives, without boinking their sisters? It's because they didn't think of non Israelites as human. Women either. So, naturally, the boys just went out and acquired women like all real men do when they want some.
Tom

Admittedly, am not familiar with ancient customs, but I did come across this:

http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/marriage.html

 

[rosends]

Muslims didn't exist during when the Temple did as well. Thus already the OP has created a disconnect between the time frame you wish to imposed on the OP and the OP in question.

No, the OP is asking about a historical trend. Other groups are mentioned first. I don't impose anything -- I discuss the continued trend. Nazis didn't exist in Temple times but they are part of the same trend.

Again ignore the subject I specified from the greater subject in the OP. Ignore your own modern context counter-arguments found posted by you in this very thread. I love your double-standards.

You are dancing among time and place in an illogical scattershot approach. The subject asks about Jews. You answer about Israel. It is really pretty straightforward.

Israeli is not leaving other people alone.

So therefore the Israeli political machine is a problem for you. That's fine, just uninteresting. The Knesset has non-Jews in it. They receive American aid. Are you calling them Jewish also? They are part of the Israeli system which doesn't "leave people alone."

Israeli is not acting in isolation but willing accepting money from other nations.

Which, again, has nothing to do with the question of whether Jews are leaving people alone.

If you want Israeli to be lefts alone maybe you should consider they should have a government that refuses foreign aid. Foreign aid a part of which is from my tax payer money.

I don't ask for Israel to be left alone, nor do I wonder if Israel leaves anyone alone. The question is about Jews
.

Theology is irrelevant as there are a group of Jews in a specific nation committing questionable acts.

How can theology be irrelevant when the question is one of religion?

You are attempting to shift this to a field of your choice since it is convenient as if peoples acts are of no matter. Yet you have no issues when people, Christians and Muslims, are used as examples of acts against another group of people.

Yes, when the question is one of religion. You took a question about religion and moved to the venue of nationality. That you can't see how that doesn't follow is sad.

Your point is irrelevant tripe in the end given the rhetoric used by Israeli founders and current leaders. You just want people to ignore the very religious rhetoric and Zionist ideology since it is not convenient. Too bad, get over it.

You can't distinguish between a question about Jews and one about Israel. That's even more sad.

Yes my concerns are since my government provides aid to Israeli the state. Are you saying I have no right to speak out against my very own government.

Strawman much? I never said anything of the sort. That sad part is that you think that those complaints are relevant in a thread abut a religion.

Again I was being specific about a group of not the whole of.

Yes, erroneously.

Flying of the handle? You mean like you did by strawman specific points into a generalization? Colour me impressed. I'm sure it is a shade of purple

Yes, you are flying off the handle, shouting out of some misplaced emotion about an issue irrelevant to the question asked. You hide behind some weird "specific/general" line which means nothing because "Israeli government" is not a specific instance of "Jew." You keep repeating this without considering that it is simply false. Israel is a country of many religions and plenty of non-Jews endorse the actions of the government. You call them a subset of "Jew"? Pity you can't see the illogic of your position.

 

[columbus]

The question asks about Jews. Why must the answer be about Israel? I switch when the question demands I switch.

No you don't. Go back and look at your exchange with Shad.
He specifically said Israeli, and you responded with Jew. Maybe his post was a bit off topic. But he was clear about who he was referring to, and you changed the subject to Jews.
Tom

 

[rosends]

No you don't. Go back and look at your exchange with Shad.
He specifically said Israeli, and you responded with Jew. Maybe his post was a bit off topic. But he was clear about who he was referring to, and you changed the subject to Jews.
Tom

No, he changed it to Israeli when the question was about Jew. I just reminded him of what the question asked.

 

[columbus]

Admittedly, am not familiar with ancient customs, but I did come across this:

http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/marriage.html

Where in this link do you see anything limiting a man to one wife?
There isn't, that's where.
Abraham was poor. So poor, that when poverty forced him to go to Egypt he rented the only wife he had to the Egyptians.
Tom

 

[Shad]

No, the OP is asking about a historical trend. Other groups are mentioned first. I don't impose anything -- I discuss the continued trend. Nazis didn't exist in Temple times but they are part of the same trend.

A historical trend. You know what this means right. A pattern over time. Do you know what time is pumpkin? How time also involved the present and the not so distant past? Thanks for further supporting my point of reference unwittingly. You are attempting to impose a specific time reference all while using present examples of Muslim acts as per your Sweden comment. Again using a double-standard when it helps you yet denying it when it is against your ideology. Nazi acts can be counted but Israeli doesn't. Hilarious. Your tripe is amusing.

You are dancing among time and place in an illogical scattershot approach. The subject asks about Jews. You answer about Israel. It is really pretty straightforward.

Nope. I am talking about a specific point in time. If it was a scattershot approach I would be making random points about random times and random people. Much as you have done with Muslims in Sweden and Nazi. Greatt job in highlighting your projection it is hilarious. Jews happens to be within the nation of Israeli, a Jewish nation build from the concept of Zionism a Jewish national ideology. If you wish I can point out in the Bible that Jew had no problems invading other peoples lands, enslaving them killing them when God ordered them to do so. However doing is will shatter this myth that Jews left people alone. Never mind if it a fiction people happen to accept as fact.

So therefore the Israeli political machine is a problem for you. That's fine, just uninteresting. The Knesset has non-Jews in it. They receive American aid. Are you calling them Jewish also? They are part of the Israeli system which doesn't "leave people alone."

Who happens to be a Jew expressing Jewish ideologies in a Jewish state. Is it uninteresting or is it just claimed as such since it shatter this myth of Jewish isolation assumed by the OP? Americans can talk about their issues. I am being specific about my governments involvement with a specific group of people that form the majority of the Jewish nation. I already acknowledged non-Jews are part of the system. However this doesn't magically make the Jews within it disappear nor does it sever all ties to the nation and government of the Jewish state. Lets not forgot that they are still members of a nation founded by Zionists when the partition plan fell apart. You seem to ignore the religious and Zionist rhetoric from Israeli when convenient then attempt to replace it as with a minority as if it had power over the majority of the population which are /drum roll Jewish.

Which, again, has nothing to do with the question of whether Jews are leaving people alone.

The state was formed by Jews. The state's population is a majority Jewish. So actions by people in a political system doesn't matter. You should of said this to the OP as this applies to Romans and Greeks. Both conquests were done by a political entity but since political entities do not count no one can complain about what Rome nor Greek kingdom did in the past. This applies to Christians and Muslims as well as they were acts of the state /End thread.

I don't ask for Israel to be left alone, nor do I wonder if Israel leaves anyone alone. The question is about Jews

Which is missing the point. There is a nation comprised of Jews as the majority making questionable decisions and acts. Hence one can not leave all Jews alone, as in 100% of Jews, when a portion of Jews are not leaving other people/groups, etc, alone. We can leave the portion that are not part of Israeli alone but this does not mean Israeli's votes and support of different acts of their government is immune from criticism. Tough luck, get over it.
.

How can theology be irrelevant when the question is one of religion?

The question is one of people not religion. Greek is not a religion. Rome is not a religion. Read the OP again. You missed non-religious identification in your haste to cherry pick.

Yes, when the question is one of religion. You took a question about religion and moved to the venue of nationality. That you can't see how that doesn't follow is sad.

No it was about people as per the OP. It was not about Judaism. You also ignore the fact that the nation was built upon a national and religious ideology. You can keep making up BS all you want but the OP is clear that it is not about religion but about a people by including non-religious groups.

You can't distinguish between a question about Jews and one about Israel. That's even more sad.

Incorrect as Jews happen to be the founders of this nation using Jewish ideologies. Your ignorance or unwillingness to accept this fact it not a counter but an excuse used as a shield to protect this group from criticism. Your shield is paper thin and irrelevant. Keep going with your ideological tripe, it is amusing.

Strawman much? I never said anything of the sort. That sad part is that you think that those complaints are relevant in a thread abut a religion.

By ignoring my specific points and attempting to use it as a generalization is to create a strawman. Again the thread is about a people not a religion. a portion of these people are committing questionable acts and electing people that do so. It is sad that you think Rome and Greek is a religion. You must of missed on studies in antiquity.

Yes, erroneously.

Nope. I was showing this facade of leaving a whole group of people along is untenable when a portion of that group are committing questionable acts. Your excuse is no more than demanding other people ignore these acts but this is only done so since it shatters this facade of the OP and is inconvenient

Yes, you are flying off the handle, shouting out of some misplaced emotion about an issue irrelevant to the question asked. You hide behind some weird "specific/general" line which means nothing because "Israeli government" is not a specific instance of "Jew." You keep repeating this without considering that it is simply false. Israel is a country of many religions and plenty of non-Jews endorse the actions of the government. You call them a subset of "Jew"? Pity you can't see the illogic of your position.

Actually I am not. I made calm statements. It is your ideological drive tripe which clearly displays how you can support a view when agrees with your views yet if this same person turns the tables now everything is out of line. This is nothing more than a reaction of a fanatic mindset clouded by their ideology. Israeli's population is a majority Jewish, 75% of it. Yet I can not talk about a majority population which all but has complete control of their state, elects people that forward their ideology beyond reason to the point of placing settlements in lands they agreed no to by the Oslo Accords. Beside the minority populations accepts being members of the Jewish state, it's goals, it's government and it's ideology. They are willing participants but lets not pretend the 25% dictate policy in the Jewish state.

How many Muslims fought for Israeli in the war of independence?

Again I will make it simple. A group of people out of the greater whole make leaving the whole group alone impossible since this group is not doing so in return. This group happens to be Jewish in a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. This is a fact. Hence the demands to be left along are invalid. Get over it.

 

[rosends]

A historical trend. You know what this means right. A pattern over time. Do you know what time is pumpkin? How time also involved the present and the not so distant past? Thanks for further supporting my point of reference unwittingly. You are attempting to impose a specific time reference all while using present examples of Muslim acts as per your Sweden comment. Again using a double-standard when it helps you yet denying it when it is against your ideology. Nazi acts can be counted but Israeli doesn't. Hilarious. Your tripe is amusing.



Nope. I am talking about a specific point in time. If it was a scattershot approach I would be making random points about random times and random people. Much as you have done with Muslims in Sweden and Nazi. Greatt job in highlighting your projection it is hilarious. Jews happens to be within the nation of Israeli, a Jewish nation build from the concept of Zionism a Jewish national ideology. If you wish I can point out in the Bible that Jew had no problems invading other peoples lands, enslaving them killing them when God ordered them to do so. However doing is will shatter this myth that Jews left people alone. Never mind if it a fiction people happen to accept as fact.



Who happens to be a Jew expressing Jewish ideologies in a Jewish state. Is it uninteresting or is it just claimed as such since it shatter this myth of Jewish isolation assumed by the OP? Americans can talk about their issues. I am being specific about my governments involvement with a specific group of people that form the majority of the Jewish nation. I already acknowledged non-Jews are part of the system. However this doesn't magically make the Jews within it disappear nor does it sever all ties to the nation and government of the Jewish state. Lets not forgot that they are still members of a nation founded by Zionists when the partition plan fell apart. You seem to ignore the religious and Zionist rhetoric from Israeli when convenient then attempt to replace it as with a minority as if it had power over the majority of the population which are /drum roll Jewish.



The state was formed by Jews. The state's population is a majority Jewish. So actions by people in a political system doesn't matter. You should of said this to the OP as this applies to Romans and Greeks. Both conquests were done by a political entity but since political entities do not count no one can complain about what Rome nor Greek kingdom did in the past. This applies to Christians and Muslims as well as they were acts of the state /End thread.



Which is missing the point. There is a nation comprised of Jews as the majority making questionable decisions and acts. Hence one can not leave all Jews alone, as in 100% of Jews, when a portion of Jews are not leaving other people/groups, etc, alone. We can leave the portion that are not part of Israeli alone but this does not mean Israeli's votes and support of different acts of their government is immune from criticism. Tough luck, get over it.
.



The question is one of people not religion. Greek is not a religion. Rome is not a religion. Read the OP again. You missed non-religious identification in your haste to cherry pick.



No it was about people as per the OP. It was not about Judaism. You also ignore the fact that the nation was built upon a national and religious ideology. You can keep making up BS all you want but the OP is clear that it is not about religion but about a people by including non-religious groups.



Incorrect as Jews happen to be the founders of this nation using Jewish ideologies. Your ignorance or unwillingness to accept this fact it not a counter but an excuse used as a shield to protect this group from criticism. Your shield is paper thin and irrelevant. Keep going with your ideological tripe, it is amusing.




By ignoring my specific points and attempting to use it as a generalization is to create a strawman. Again the thread is about a people not a religion. a portion of these people are committing questionable acts and electing people that do so. It is sad that you think Rome and Greek is a religion. You must of missed on studies in antiquity.



Nope. I was showing this facade of leaving a whole group of people along is untenable when a portion of that group are committing questionable acts. Your excuse is no more than demanding other people ignore these acts but this is only done so since it shatters this facade of the OP and is inconvenient



Actually I am not. I made calm statements. It is your ideological drive tripe which clearly displays how you can support a view when agrees with your views yet if this same person turns the tables now everything is out of line. This is nothing more than a reaction of a fanatic mindset clouded by their ideology. Israeli's population is a majority Jewish, 75% of it. Yet I can not talk about a majority population which all but has complete control of their state, elects people that forward their ideology beyond reason to the point of placing settlements in lands they agreed no to by the Oslo Accords. Beside the minority populations accepts being members of the Jewish state, it's goals, it's government and it's ideology. They are willing participants but lets not pretend the 25% dictate policy in the Jewish state.

How many Muslims fought for Israeli in the war of independence?

Again I will make it simple. A group of people out of the greater whole make leaving the whole group alone impossible since this group is not doing so in return. This group happens to be Jewish in a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. This is a fact. Hence the demands to be left along are invalid. Get over it.

You really don't get it, do you? You really see a question about Jews and the historical oppression Jews suffer at the hands of others (other religions and other nations) as a question about a modern political state. You really think that because there are Jews in Israel, you can speak about Israel as if it is a subset of Jews and ignore every other person in the country. You really can't see that a question asking about whether Jews have intruded upon others should be answered in the light of the religion, not of the nationality. You really can't comprehend that a question asking about Jews over being oppressed can be answered by citing all oppressors over that time and still be talking about Jews.

Really?

Then that's sad. There is nothing more I can do for you. Your anger will keep pushing you to a discussion of Israel. OK, have fun with that.

just a side note


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Sword_Battalion

 

[Shad]

You really don't get it, do you? You really see a question about Jews and the historical oppression Jews suffer at the hands of others (other religions and other nations) as a question about a modern political state. You really think that because there are Jews in Israel, you can speak about Israel as if it is a subset of Jews and ignore every other person in the country. You really can't see that a question asking about whether Jews have intruded upon others should be answered in the light of the religion, not of the nationality. You really can't comprehend that a question asking about Jews over being oppressed can be answered by citing all oppressors over that time and still be talking about Jews.

No I get it. I just dismiss your tripe due to your double standard. There is a difference.

Did you notice that you just used nations which oppressed Jews. Yet if I put forward a Jewish nation comprise of 75% Jews doing the same damn thing you call it out of line. Hence you just used a double standard. You draw a line in the sand in which at a certain point certain people and event do not count. Nazi count, Rome counts, but modern times are to be ignored. I wonder why..... Could it be that Israeli reflects poorly on your facade of a position. Too bad so sad, get over yourself. Look up double standards if you need help understanding your fallacious reasoning.

Have you read the Bible recently? Did you miss out the stories about Jews invading others lands by order to God since God did not like these people's religious practices and customs? You can remove your foot from your mouth now.

Then that's sad. There is nothing more I can do for you. Your anger will keep pushing you to a discussion of Israel. OK, have fun with that.

The only sad thing is your double standards driven by your fanatical devotion to an ideology in which you can use specific events and specific political entities but when the tables are turned you cry foul. True there is nothing you can do since I refuse to accept your double standards and excuses. That is your problem. Deal with it.

Cry more pumpkin...

 

[rosends]

No I get it. I just dismiss your tripe due to your double standard. There is a difference.

Did you notice that you just used nations which oppressed Jews. Yet if I put forward a Jewish nation comprise of 75% Jews doing the same damn thing you call it out of line. Hence you just used a double standard. You draw a line in the sand in which at a certain point certain people and event do not count. Nazi count, Rome counts, but modern times are to be ignored. I wonder why..... Could it be that Israeli reflects poorly on your facade of a position. Too bad so sad, get over yourself. Look up double standards if you need help understanding your fallacious reasoning.

Have you read the Bible recently? Did you miss out the stories about Jews invading others lands by order to God since God did not like these people's religious practices and customs? You can remove your foot from your mouth now.



The only sad thing is your double standards driven by your fanatical devotion to an ideology in which you can use specific events and specific political entities but when the tables are turned you cry foul. True there is nothing you can do since I refuse to accept your double standards and excuses. That is your problem. Deal with it.

Cry more pumpkin...

You keep whining about some double standard because the question was asked about Jews and the question about why other peoples (religions and nations) oppressed the Jews. Yes, the fact is, the Greek, The Romans, The Babylonians, The Nazis -- these were national groups (not solely religions) which isolated Jews -- not Israelis, not some other group. And yes, some groups which attacked Jews were centered by their religion (Crusaders, Muslims et alia). But when the question is flipped, it is centered on whether the Jews, not the ancient Hebrews, not the political entity of Israel (and its Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Bahai etc citizens) but the Jews intrude on others. And if you wanted to find proof that SOME JEWS have intruded (even if not as practitioners of theological imperative) have, but you don't want to make for an honest answer. You want to derail and talk about Israel.

So go ahead. Ramble on about Israel and how unfair life is to you because of your tax burden. Someday, you might want to answer a question as asked.

 

[Shad]

You keep whining about some double standard because the question was asked about Jews and the question about why other peoples (religions and nations) oppressed the Jews. Yes, the fact is, the Greek, The Romans, The Babylonians, The Nazis -- these were national groups (not solely religions) which isolated Jews -- not Israelis, not some other group. And yes, some groups which attacked Jews were centered by their religion (Crusaders, Muslims et alia). But when the question is flipped, it is centered on whether the Jews, not the ancient Hebrews, not the political entity of Israel (and its Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Bahai etc citizens) but the Jews intrude on others. And if you wanted to find proof that SOME JEWS have intruded (even if not as practitioners of theological imperative) have, but you don't want to make for an honest answer. You want to derail and talk about Israel.

So go ahead. Ramble on about Israel and how unfair life is to you because of your tax burden. Someday, you might want to answer a question as asked.

There is a double standard since examples of political and ideological movements that oppressed Jews was already included in the OP but if a group happens to be comprised of Jews or have a Jewish majority these do not count. You have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand in which political groups count as hits for you but as none for those opposing your view. Too bad so sad pumpkin. You continue to draw arbitrary lines in the sand in which one can not use Hebrews and/or ancient Israelites as example yet the OP can use examples from antiquity for their view.

No I am talking about specific people within this group to show that the whole OP is a facade since these people are part of the Jewish group. You wish to separate peoples choices, their actions their votes as if this does not represent the individuals which are members of a group. In the end you wish to ignore the negative examples since it makes the OP's generalization untenable.The Bible contains mythological and historical proof of Jews interfering with other cultures and nations but it your ideological blinded mind this does not count as I believe you have construct a mythos that Jews can do no wrong. It's sad when one has to ignore reality to fulfill their ideology or even their own scripture. Your cognitive dissonance is amazing and hilarious.

I never said life was unfair. I said I have a right to complain about how my tax dollar is spend. Your whims do not override that right. You are not Queen of Canada, get over yourself and stop whining.

I derailed nothing. I made specific points about a subgroup of Jews thus have refuted the generalization of the OP. Nothing more, nothing less.

People hate other people for a number of rational and irrational views. In some cases it is due to isolated cases used for a whole group. Views become traditions thus culture norms. I amazed you need me to answer this. This is basic history from high school.

I would point out the reverse is being done here in which specific cases of Jews acting poorly should be ignored. Which is amusing since both sides are using generalization in order to construct a rational which is fallacious in the end. Those that oppressed Jews used fallacious reasoning likewise this facade of Jews never getting into anyone business is a generalization based on fallacious reasoning. However this fact seems lost on you along with the fact that the question is invalid itself. No one is obligated to answer an invalid fallacious point based upon a fiction. A fiction which I shed light upon. In the end it is ethnic/religious centrism which could the hits and misses for both views. Which is hilarious as this is the exact same method used by the oppressors. Pot meet Kettle.