Originally Posted by Dusty1000

Exactly. Jews have been getting a raw deal wherever Christians have been the majority.

Almost anyone, really.

Persians, Babylonians, Philistines, Assyrians, Romans, British, Americans, Europeans, some of whom weren't Christian.

They only started getting ''a raw deal'' in the middle east when Zionist Jews from Europe started immigrating to Palestine at the end of the 1800s.

Romans, Babylonians, Assyrians.

Much like the white European settlers in Africa got a ''raw deal'' from the natives when they started colonising land.

So, if my ancestors were kicked off their land in the "Scouring", which was very likely, you would sign a petition so I could get it back?

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

After surviving the war, my grandfather (as were many others) was unable to get his home back, nor his money from banks in Switzerland.

The question isn't whether or not I am banned from going back; the question is whether or not what should have been his can now be mine.

No I don't believe so, just as I don't believe Palestinian refugees should have the right to expel any Israelis from land in Israel which used to belong to them or their ancestors.

But I don't see why anyone should be prevented from pursuing compensation through a legal process if they choose to do so.

And yes, the question is whether or not you are banned from going back, because that equates to the situation the Palestinian refugees face with Israel.

Dusty

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Almost anyone, really.

Persians, Babylonians, Philistines, Assyrians, Romans, British, Americans, Europeans, some of whom weren't Christian.

Romans, Babylonians, Assyrians.

Since the advent of Christianity, it's generally been Christians who have given Jews a raw deal, not Muslims - until European Zionist settlers began immigrating to Palestine at the end of the 1800s.

So, if my ancestors were kicked off their land in the "Scouring", which was very likely, you would sign a petition so I could get it back?

No. What makes you think I would?

Dusty

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

Since the advent of Christianity, it's generally been Christians who have given Jews a raw deal, not Muslims - until European Zionist settlers began immigrating at the end of the 1800s.



No. What makes you think I would?

Dusty

Fairness

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Fairness

Why would that be fair?

Who voted for Palestine map:

http://israelandpalestine.org/who-vo...palestine-map/

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

I don't believe either state should have the right to have a majority of any one religion. I believe all people should have equal rights, regardless of race or religion.

Dusty

Good for you.

Please excuse me for a bit while I search for and read for all those posts where you've advocated equal rights regardless of religion for all those Islamic states.

Of course you'd excuse me if I felt your position was insincere if I find you want to start this secular quest with little ole Israel first.

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

Good for you.

Please excuse me for a bit while I search for and read for all those posts where you've advocated equal rights regardless of religion for all those Islamic states.

Of course I advocate equal rights for Islamic states. Including the right to call it an Islamic state if that's what the majority of the population (i.e. the people they rule over, including any refugees, and not just people they award citizenship to) wants.

Of course you'd excuse me if I felt your position was insincere if I find you want to start this secular quest with little ole Israel first.

No, I won't excuse you. Can you name an Islamic state which only allows Muslims to immigrate, or which keeps any religious minority section of their population such as Christians and Jews under military occupation, denies them citizenship, sends planes round to bomb Christians' and Jews' houses if they are suspected of having committed a crime, or forces Christians and Jews from their land and homes to make way for Muslim settlers?

Even if it isn't their government's policy?

Dusty

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

Of course I advocate equal rights for Islamic states. Including the right to call it an Islamic state if that's what the majority of the population (i.e. the people they rule over, including any refugees, and not just people they award citizenship to) wants.

No, I won't excuse you. Can you name an Islamic state which only allows Muslims to immigrate, or which keeps any religious minority section of their population such as Christians and Jews under military occupation, denies them citizenship, sends planes round to bomb Christians' and Jews' houses if they are suspected of having committed a crime, or forces Christians and Jews from their land and homes to make way for Muslim settlers?

Even if it isn't their government's policy?

Dusty

Is there a situation where you would be as comfortable calling Israel a Jewish state?



Jews are unwelcome in most Islamic countries - in various degrees, officially and unofficially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisem...the_Arab_world

(Note also the several contemporary reasons (other than Zionism) for Arab antisemitism.)

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

Can you name an Islamic state which only allows Muslims to immigrate, or which keeps any religious minority section of their population such as Christians and Jews under military occupation, denies them citizenship, sends planes round to bomb Christians' and Jews' houses if they are suspected of having committed a crime, or forces Christians and Jews from their land and homes to make way for Muslim settlers?

Dusty

After Gaddafi was killed, one Jew returned to what he considered was his home; Libya.

He was immediately accosted and then rescued and taken away by Italians. Libya remains free of Jews. As does Gaza. As does any municipality under Palestinian Authority.

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

Of course I advocate equal rights for Islamic states. Including the right to call it an Islamic state if that's what the majority of the population (i.e. the people they rule over, including any refugees, and not just people they award citizenship to) wants.

I don't. I'm not sure how you can support the idea of a state denying half it's citizens basic human rights. I only support states that protect religious freedom (and of course freedom from religion). This includes the UK should seperate the C of E from all aspects of government, specifically the bishops in the House of Lords. Charles almost got it right when he said that as monarch he would protect all religions, he just forgot the "and none" bit.

Originally Posted by Dusty1000

I don't believe either state should have the right to have a majority of any one religion. I believe all people should have equal rights, regardless of race or religion.
Dusty

But THEY don't! What part of "Kill All The Jews" and "Push The Jews Into The Sea" don't you GET? Not to mention the abuse of everyone from Christians to Hindus in most of the Arab world.

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

Is there a situation where you would be as comfortable calling Israel a Jewish state?

Of course, if the majority of the population (as defined above) wants Israel to be a Jewish state.

Jews are unwelcome in most Islamic countries - in various degrees, officially and unofficially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisem...the_Arab_world

(Note also the several contemporary reasons (other than Zionism) for Arab antisemitism.)

It's not as if there haven't been pogroms etc in Islamic countries, but before Zionism, Jews were welcome in most Islamic countries particularly in the middle east, for most of history, whereas that situation has now reversed. Which is the main reason why even though the one state solution might seem to be fairer, and in my opinion is what will more than likely eventually happen, two states learning to live side by side in peace, with Israel having a Jewish majority, would seem to be the best solution at this time. So the sooner Israel starts dealing with the refugees as I mentioned, the better.

One thing worth noting is that most anti-semitism throughout history in both Christian and Muslim countries, seems to have been religious based. I had never heard of the term ''Jewish deicide'' before reading that article. That's something that won't happen again in Christian countries in the west, due to the death of Christianity. For most of the remaining fundamentalist Christians in the west, Muslims are the new devil, as we see expressed here on this forum. While Jews are generally considered to be ''people like us,'' and people talk about ''Judeo-Christian values'' etc. I certainly don't recall ever seeing any Christian post anything anti-semitic on this forum, based on Christianity. While such anti-Muslim posts by Christians are prevalent, some even comparing Islam to devil worshiping, just like Christians used to do with Judaism. A fear even among some non-Christians, is that Muslims want to take over western countries by becoming the majority and to instill their own laws, as we also see expressed on this forum, which is another fear that never existed with Jews.

So while there may once have been good reason for Jews to have their own state, somewhere, those reasons don't seem to exist anymore, and Jews can now live quite comfortably throughout the west. Can you think of any reasons why there might be any widespread anti-semitism in the west in the future, other than because of Israel?

Dusty

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

After Gaddafi was killed, one Jew returned to what he considered was his home; Libya.

He was immediately accosted and then rescued and taken away by Italians. Libya remains free of Jews. As does Gaza. As does any municipality under Palestinian Authority.

Yet there were plenty of Jews living in Libya, prior to modern Zionism (as described previously). Similarly to most Arab countries, many Jews fled from Libya shortly after 1948, and those who remained fled in 1967. So it's mostly if not wholly thanks to Israel, that there are no Jews in Libya.

So out of all Muslim countries, there isn't one which keeps any religious minority sections of their population under military rule, denies them citizenship, sends planes round to bomb their houses if they are suspected of having committed a crime, or forces Christians and Jews from their land and homes to make way for Muslim settlers?

I wonder what the reaction would be in the West if any Muslim country in the middle east did so. Yet somehow, it's acceptable to many westerners when Israel does the same to a mostly Muslim population.

Dusty

Originally Posted by mortato

I don't. I'm not sure how you can support the idea of a state denying half it's citizens basic human rights. I only support states that protect religious freedom (and of course freedom from religion). This includes the UK should seperate the C of E from all aspects of government, specifically the bishops in the House of Lords. Charles almost got it right when he said that as monarch he would protect all religions, he just forgot the "and none" bit.

Only if the majority of a population wanted to deny women equal rights to men would I support any decision to do so, which would entail some women also wanting to deny themselves equal rights.

While we consider our way of life to be more moral than the way of life in Islamic countries, they generally see us as being the immoral ones. We are the ones who have ''godless'' societies full of single parent families, lacking in ''traditional family values,'' which they see themselves as the upholders of. But just as I expect them to respect the way that we have chosen to live, I do the same for them. If a women wants to spend her life at home, and obey her husband, who are we to tell her otherwise?

Societies in Islamic countries today aren't too different from what western societies were like, not so long ago. Just as women have more or less now gained equal rights in the west, the same is happening in Muslim countries in the middle east. Even though most of them still have a long way to go, they are generally moving in the same direction as we did. If one thing's been proven, it's that invading countries to instill our way of life on them, and propping up secular dictators over religious populations, does nothing for women's rights etc in those countries, as they descend back into the dark ages as radicals always end up taking over. Such actions also help to radicalise the populations, making matters even worse.

So I believe the best thing to do is to respect that people choose to live their lives as they see fit, and give them positive encouragement to help their societies modernise, as we have done. Rather than spend vast amounts of money attacking other countries, we could give a fraction of it to women's rights groups in those countries instead.

Dusty