Basically, what I was suggesting is that there were all kinds of places for a proposed Jewish Homeland. Madagascar, Canada, Argentina, Uganda.

Any one of those places would have been better than Israel because Jews would not have been surrounded by people who could potentially pose a threat to their existence and we wouldn't have to listen to the warmongers today tell us how we have to send young americans to die to make sure the Persians don't get a nuke which they might use to kill the Jews.

ptown_trojans_1;1714184 wrote:Be careful, yes Iran has not advanced past enriching beyond 20%, but there are still many unresolved issues with the IAEA regarding the military aspects of the program. Plus, Iran has been shady in the past. I agree they have not taken the step towards an active bomb, but they are still not to be trusted and need to answer to the IAEA.

On Israel, the whole point of the modern Jewish state was to reclaim the Holy land for the Jewish people. It is irrational for them to leave at all. It would go against everything the modern Jewish state was founded on. They are not going anywhere. And, that is the reality that Arab states need to acknowledge in public. (Many already do in private)

They have always complied with the IAEA! They are not a radical state. We are not talking about Mao Zedong here willing to sacrifice his own people for the good of communism. They are surrounded by people with nukes and called members of the axis of evil. They have been invaded over and over again and yet they never invade anyone. They are surprisingly rational under the circumstances beyond pure bluster and speculation.

And my whole point was that Zionists originally didn't even want to go to the Holy Land to end the Jewish Diaspora and history has proven that it was an epic failure to do so because he were are today talking about how Americans might have to go to war with Iran to preserve the existence of the Jews when the whole point of the Jewish State was to make sure Jews "never again" would have to worry about existential threats.

Of course we have to take the world is and not as it should have been but a guy can dream.

jmog;1714189 wrote:While the last thing I want is another war, the bolded part is hilariously inaccurate.

"we are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor" - General Martin Dempsey. February 7th, 2012.

And for the record, I am aware that neo-nazi's and fascists have all kinds of conspiracy theories about ideas for alternative jewish homelands, etc. THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT before anybody tries to chime in with that!

BoatShoes;1714220 wrote:There was nothing insensitive about my remark. It was a suggestion that we should have placed the Jewish State in a place where Jews would not be surrounded by hostile threats as was originally advocated by Theodor Herzl and the very first zionists who sought to end the Jewish Diaspora.

But thanks to people such as yourself who think a book of myths has bearing on reality, the world chose the land of milk and honey thereby leaving jew and gentile alike to have to suffer in future generations for no good reason.

You seem to be forgetting that the Jews, as a race, originally come from that region, Israel/Mesopotamia/Arabian Peninsula. So yes, it was rather insensitive.

I am also not sure what the Bible has to do with where the Jews are from. That is historical fact, outside of any religious book.

BoatShoes;1714215 wrote:Provide some examples of Iran acting like an irrational state. I will wait.

Do we really want to go down that road with Ahmadinejad?

How about the Iran Hostage Crisis when they held 52 American citizens hostage for OVER A YEAR?

How about when they stormed the US Embassy in Tehran?

How about when they have called for the complete destruction of Israel?

I could keep going, but I'll let you google the rest.

BoatShoes;1714221 wrote:Basically, what I was suggesting is that there were all kinds of places for a proposed Jewish Homeland. Madagascar, Canada, Argentina, Uganda.

Any one of those places would have been better than Israel because Jews would not have been surrounded by people who could potentially pose a threat to their existence and we wouldn't have to listen to the warmongers today tell us how we have to send young americans to die to make sure the Persians don't get a nuke which they might use to kill the Jews.

Hypothetical situation...

Let's say India didn't have a billion people and it was more like a million.

Let's say that due to many reasons over decades the country of India ceased to exist and Indians were spread across the globe.

Let's say that some dictator based on some dumb religious or genetic reasoning wants to eliminate all Indians from the planet and kills millions of Indians.

Now, the world stops the dictator, and as a good faith gesture the world wants to give Indians a place to call home.

Why in the WORLD would anyone NOT choose land in current India (even if not as big as the country is now)?

It would be a similar argument since Pakistan, Bangladesh, and a couple other countries hate India/Indians.

You wouldn't create a country in freaking Canada for Indians because they are from that area of the world. You wouldn't do it to Jews either, unless you are a liberal who thinks Iran is "rational" and Israel is a terrorist type state (ok, I added the last one for effect).

BoatShoes;1714215 wrote:Provide some examples of Iran acting like an irrational state. I will wait.

They are, or are among, the greatest exporters of terrorism in the world. Not that there is anything irrational about that.

jmog;1714230 wrote:You seem to be forgetting that the Jews, as a race, originally come from that region, Israel/Mesopotamia/Arabian Peninsula. So yes, it was rather insensitive.

I am also not sure what the Bible has to do with where the Jews are from. That is historical fact, outside of any religious book.

No actually it wasn't insensitive you just missed the point. To a pragmatist that wants to make sure Jews are not exterminated, creating a Jewish State in the middle of people who would try and exterminate said state is stupid regardless of whether or not that was their original homeland centuries before the diaspora.

And the Bible has something to do with it because Christians were heavily involved in the project of making modern day Israel the home of the Jewish State instead of a safer more rational place that would allow Jews to live in peace without existential threats because they believe it to be part of biblical prophecy.

jmog;1714232 wrote:Do we really want to go down that road with Ahmadinejad?

How about the Iran Hostage Crisis when they held 52 American citizens hostage for OVER A YEAR?

How about when they stormed the US Embassy in Tehran?

How about when they have called for the complete destruction of Israel?

I could keep going, but I'll let you google the rest.

The events of the Islamic Revolution gave birth to the modern Iranian state and those revolutionary acts do not count as "irrational acts" of the state because they toppled the secular state. Beyond that the bluster you speak of has not been followed by irrational actions like Suddam Hussein's actions.

So you need to try again.

QuakerOats;1714237 wrote:They are, or are among, the greatest exporters of terrorism in the world. Not that there is anything irrational about that.

They and the Saudi's use what we call terrorists like we use proxy warriors. These are not "irrational" actions. We are morally opposed to them and they are contrary to our interests but they are not irrational.

jmog;1714234 wrote:Hypothetical situation...

Let's say India didn't have a billion people and it was more like a million.

Let's say that due to many reasons over decades the country of India ceased to exist and Indians were spread across the globe.

Let's say that some dictator based on some dumb religious or genetic reasoning wants to eliminate all Indians from the planet and kills millions of Indians.

Now, the world stops the dictator, and as a good faith gesture the world wants to give Indians a place to call home.

Why in the WORLD would anyone NOT choose land in current India (even if not as big as the country is now)?

It would be a similar argument since Pakistan, Bangladesh, and a couple other countries hate India/Indians.

You wouldn't create a country in freaking Canada for Indians because they are from that area of the world. You wouldn't do it to Jews either, unless you are a liberal who thinks Iran is "rational" and Israel is a terrorist type state (ok, I added the last one for effect).

If the scenario like you speak of were to happen to any other small minority yes it would be stupid to put them back in a place where they could be exterminated and would be under the threat of extermination. If Pakistan conquered India and there was only a small minority of Indians scattered across the world it would be utterly stupid to create an Indian state in the middle of Pakistan.

BoatShoes;1714258 wrote:No actually it wasn't insensitive you just missed the point. To a pragmatist that wants to make sure Jews are not exterminated, creating a Jewish State in the middle of people who would try and exterminate said state is stupid regardless of whether or not that was their original homeland centuries before the diaspora.

One would have thought Europe would be a great place to make sure the Jews were not exterminated. The Jews have pretty much drawn peoples ire wherever they show up.

BoatShoes;1714258 wrote:And the Bible has something to do with it because Christians were heavily involved in the project of making modern day Israel the home of the Jewish State instead of a safer more rational place that would allow Jews to live in peace without existential threats because they believe it to be part of biblical prophecy.

So this is what has got you so unsettled about the Jews in Israel. The fulfillment of Biblical prophesy.

BoatShoes;1714220 wrote:There was nothing insensitive about my remark. It was a suggestion that we should have placed the Jewish State in a place where Jews would not be surrounded by hostile threats as was originally advocated by Theodor Herzl and the very first zionists who sought to end the Jewish Diaspora.

Your use of the word advocated is misleading. You have the suggested part right though. Suggested alternative options to achieving statehood in the the homeland would be more accurate. The suggested alternatives were never pursued nor advocated in earnest. Statehood in the Jewish homeland is what was advocated and what was eventually achieved by the movement.

BoatShoes;1714220 wrote:But thanks to people such as yourself who think a book of myths has bearing on reality, the world chose the land of milk and honey thereby leaving jew and gentile alike to have to suffer in future generations for no good reason.

The Jews were forcibly removed from the land of milk and honey for nearly 2000 years in recent history and scattered around the earth. This did nothing to alleviate the suffering of Jew nor the Gentile.

BoatShoes;1714220 wrote:people such as yourself

=you people

BoatShoes;1714219 wrote:Actually nothing about that remark was anti-semitic but I'm not surprised you would see it that way. However it was anti-religion in general. When the world wanted to end the Jewish diaspora it was an epic mistake by mankind to end it by having the world powers declare the place where it would end would be the one place on earth where Jews would permanently face threats to their very existence. Indeed, originally zionists planned for the safe Jewish state to be in Argentina. But no, the world stupidly chose to place the Jewish State right in the middle of Arabs.

Nobody is threatening the very existence of blacks. But, it would have been epically stupid for the world to decide that Birmingham, Alabama was the one place where blacks could permanently call their homeland during Jim Crow.

If the west hadn't itself been fairly anti-semitic 60 years ago and deluded by the Abrahamic religions we could have ended the Jewish diaspora rationally and created a Jewish state in a place where they would not have been under constant existential threat as Theodor Herzl, the founder of the World Zionist Organization, originally advocated.

So in other words, as I said earlier, we in northern Ohio would be grateful to accommodate the Jewish people and would never threaten their existence.

Hopefully next time you will think a little more critically.

Actually nothing about that remark was anti-semitic but I'm not surprised you would see it that way.

Actually, everything about that remark was anti-Semitic, BUT I"M NOT SURPRISED THAT YOU WOULD SEE IT THAT WAY.
Most certainly everyone on this site would recognize that the suggestion to move blacks, victimized by personal and institutionalized racism in this country, back to Africa where they would be "accepted" and wanted...is a highly racist and provocative assertion. If nothing else, this illustrates that the world of politics is 'round', much like the physical world. Just as if travelling east far enough will eventually land you in the west....if you go 'progressive' far enough you find yourself not all that different than right wing fascists

...and why Beachwood? Is it because lots of Jews live there, so the 'other' people in the community would just cede their land? How about Westlake...or East 55th and Hough?
The Rule of Holes states that when you find yourself in a hole and you want to get out...quit digging. I suggest you do that.

...and Herzl???...who died 40+ years BEFORE "the world's epic mistake" of placing the Jewish homeland appropriately in Palestine.....advocated for a temporary asylum for persecuted Russian Jews in East Africa. The attempt at making a Jewish state permanently in Argentina was a myth started and pepetuated by neo Nazis upset at the high rate of Jewish emmigration there. Why does that not surprise me that you would bring that up in this manner?

The most fascinating thing to me is how uniformly people line-up on this Palestine according to their political leanings. It's a great example of being a sheeple, especially for progressives as their position largely goes against what their values are supposed to be (whatever those are).

And the other interesting thing is this is somewhat of a reversal...led by Dear Leader. Which just goes to show how blindly the left still worships Obama despite his entirely unremarkable (some would say "terrible") legacy as POTUS completely bereft of leadership.

What's really comical to me is how history will inexorably link the view of the Bush and Obama presidencies on what happens in the Middle East...liberals will be passionately arguing over what to blame Bush for and what to credit Obama for. And it seems appropriate given, even now, Obama himself can't help blaming Bush and comparing his administration to him.

majorspark;1714272 wrote:One would have thought Europe would be a great place to make sure the Jews were not exterminated. The Jews have pretty much drawn peoples ire wherever they show up.

No, Europe was a cesspool of anti-semitism for a long time.

majorspark;1714272 wrote:
So this is what has got you so unsettled about the Jews in Israel. The fulfillment of Biblical prophesy.

No...the hubris of Christian zionists to do everything they could to conform reality to fairy tales the cost have which has been enormous for innocent Jews, Christians and Muslims.

majorspark;1714309 wrote:
The Jews were forcibly removed from the land of milk and honey for nearly 2000 years in recent history and scattered around the earth. This did nothing to alleviate the suffering of Jew nor the Gentile.

What is your point? The world got together to end this diaspora and chose the worse possible way to do so.

HitsRus;1714378 wrote:Actually, everything about that remark was anti-Semitic, BUT I"M NOT SURPRISED THAT YOU WOULD SEE IT THAT WAY.
Most certainly everyone on this site would recognize that the suggestion to move blacks, victimized by personal and institutionalized racism in this country, back to Africa where they would be "accepted" and wanted...is a highly racist and provocative assertion. If nothing else, this illustrates that the world of politics is 'round', much like the physical world. Just as if travelling east far enough will eventually land you in the west....if you go 'progressive' far enough you find yourself not all that different than right wing fascists

...and why Beachwood? Is it because lots of Jews live there, so the 'other' people in the community would just cede their land? How about Westlake...or East 55th and Hough?
The Rule of Holes states that when you find yourself in a hole and you want to get out...quit digging. I suggest you do that.

...and Herzl???...who died 40+ years BEFORE "the world's epic mistake" of placing the Jewish homeland appropriately in Palestine.....advocated for a temporary asylum for persecuted Russian Jews in East Africa. The attempt at making a Jewish state permanently in Argentina was a myth started and pepetuated by neo Nazis upset at the high rate of Jewish emmigration there. Why does that not surprise me that you would bring that up in this manner?

First of all, you must have missed where I said this:

And for the record, I am aware that neo-nazi's and fascists have all kinds of conspiracy theories about ideas for alternative jewish homelands, etc. THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT before anybody tries to chime in with that!

I am aware that neo-nazi's turned Herzl's suggestion of Argentina in The Jewish State into something that it was not! I never said that they actually tried to do it! You are turning my comment into something I did not say. But you are wrong to suggest that he, the progenitor of the idea of A Jewish State, did not put forward the idea.

And no, again, I am sorry that you are incapable of having a discussion but I did not express hatred or animosity toward Jewish people which is what anti-semitism is. I mean we have broached this topic before and I wonder what makes you so sure that I am not a Jew in any case?

I expressed my opinion that I think the location of the Jewish State is stupid for pragmatic reasons..particularly because it fails the major test of trying to prevent existential threats to Jews.

And I never said anything about moving blacks to Africa. I really don't understand the analogy you're making so let's try and help you out:

Let's supposed the U.S. rounded up and murdered millions upon millions of blacks and the world had to invade the U.S. to put a stop to it. Because of this, African-Americans get together and decide that want a single Black State where blacks can avoid an existential threat. It would be stupid to make that state back in a place where blacks would still face an existential threat.


This is not an expression of racism against blacks. It is comment on whether this decision would make practical sense to avoid the problem of existential threats. If blacks wanted a black state only it would have been stupid for the world to place that black state right in the middle of people who wanted to kill them. How is this difficult to understand?

In other words, mine was simply an expression of exasperation at how Jews still face existential threats to their existence. You just want to see anti-semitism where there is none. You sound like Al Sharpton. Countless Jews and arabs and Americans have had to die over a stupid decision of where to place the Jewish State.

And I said Beachwood because that is where a majority of my Jewish friends are from. I was half joking. But because you're calling me an anti-semite I am sure you won't see it that way. Indeed, it never occurred to me that somebody would find those remarks hostile against Jews but why should I be surprised?

I would have preferred a Jewish state anywhere in northern, Ohio...Bay Village, Medina, Lorain County...doesn't matter...over right in the middle of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.

majorspark;1714309 wrote:Your use of the word advocated is misleading. You have the suggested part right though. Suggested alternative options to achieving statehood in the the homeland would be more accurate. The suggested alternatives were never pursued nor advocated in earnest. Statehood in the Jewish homeland is what was advocated and what was eventually achieved by the movement.

You are right that I used the wrong word in "advocated."

Before I was called an anti-semite my whole point was that mankind has clearly failed at preventing existential threats to the Jewish People after the holocaust. Here we are, more than half a century after word, and the gears of the war machine that we are all too familiar with are beginning to churn to send young American men to die in Iran to prevent a potentially existential threat to the Jewish State.

It is just a sad state of affairs.

If Jews fear their existence in that patch of land surrounded by Muslims how's about they all just move to Beachwood, Ohio. They will be safe here and we no longer have to send young people to die for nothing. Instead of a right to return to a place that has caused problems for centuries we will have a right to migrate to Cleveland's east side. Cleveland can become the new Tel Aviv.

Problem solved.

Equivocate all you want.
Further, there never was anything more than than a suggestion of temporary asylum for the Jews any where but the natural Jewish homeland of Palestine.

The only thing I get from what you say is the typical progressive rhetoric that the white Europeans are to blame for everything. ...They were "epically" stupid to put the Jews in the middle of people who hate them...they are a 'cesspool' of antisemitism....they made africans slaves and brought them to the new world....they drove the native Americans off their land...they kiiled the Mayans and Aztecs with their disease.

Oh, we can go on and on heaping guilt on the white Europeans.

What's your point? White Europeans are guilty? We should move the Jews to some other place because their neighbors are hostile? That because of this inconvieience they are no longer worthy of our support?

...and Iran is rational? Ahmadinejad called the holocaust a myth.

BoatShoes;1714481 wrote:What is your point? The world got together to end this diaspora and chose the worse possible way to do so.

Point is the world will never end the plight of the Jews nor the Gentiles that seek to defend them or kill them. You could put the Jews in Antarctica and they would find a way to prosper and some people would still want to kill them. Only the King of the Jews can end their plight.