Discussion:
Israel Q&A (60th Anniversary Edition)
(too old to reply)
m***@walla.co.il
2008-05-06 15:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Israel Q & A

A Special Questions and Answers Session for the 60th Anniversary of
the State
of the Jews

Q:
What is the Israeli-Arab conflict all about?

A:
It's about the Arabs and Muslims not willing to tolerate the existence
of a
single Jewish state in the world. There are many "narratives", but
this is the
truth, no matter how much it is said otherwise.

Q:
Isn't it about the Palestinian nation trying to keep their land?

A:
No. The Phakestinian nation is just the marketable front-end for the
Arab
struggle to wipe out the Jewish state and the Jews in it. That fictive
nation
was conceived for that purpose: to market an otherwise indefensible
and
barbaric struggle as a "resistance movement".

Q:
Why is it inconceivable that this is just a land dispute between two
nations?

A:
The evidence points otherwise. Whereas the Jews built most of the
institutions
of their state-to-be while still living under foreign rule (the
British
Mandate), the Phakestinians use whatever land they are given as
terrorist
training grounds and rocket launching bases. The Jewish struggle
against the
British was for the setting up of a Jewish state; the Arab
("Palestinian"
falsely so marketed) struggle is for the elimination of said state.

Q:
Aren't the Arabs fighting against occupation just as the Jews fought
for the
British? Is there no equivalence between them and such groups as the
IRA?

A:
The Jews fought to drive out the British out of the Land of Israel,
while the
Arabs are fighting to drive the Jews out of their homeland. For there
to be an
equivalence, the Jews would have had to fight to liberate Britain from
British
rule. Similarly, the IRA had the purpose of freeing Ireland from
British/Protestant presence; a purpose of fighting to liberate all the
Occupied
Celtic Territories (meaning all of Britain too) would have made them
equivalent
to the Phakestinians.

Q:
I'm of Welsh descent, with a family tree in Britain going thousands of
years
back. Also, the sacred book the Mabinogion says all of Britain belongs
to me.
Does this mean I'm entitled to take the land and treat its people like
trash,
walling them off and putting checkpoints all around them?

A:
Hmmm, I'd think it would entitle you to don a belt of explosives and
blow
yourself up in a mall full of Anglo-Saxon colonial men, women and
children, but
that's just me.

Q:
Instead of maintaining an occupation, why not pursue peace with the
more
moderate elements of Palestinian society?

A:
The "moderates" among the Phakestinians are those who just wish to
postpone the
Right of Return to a later period. All of them are sworn to the
eventual
destruction of the Jewish State. It's just that some are more adept at
hiding
their intentions at others.

Q:
Is an eternal occupation of another people (Arabs, Palestinians,
whatever name
you give them) a goal for the Jewish State?

A:
No. I agree the occupation must be ended. But not by giving up our
lands, for
that only moves more Jewish towns into rocket range (cf. Sderot), and
won't
please the world anyway, which is now fixated on the "Jewish State =
Apartheid
South Africa" equation. The occupation must be ended by expelling all
the Arabs
from our lands.

Q:
Isn't ethnic cleansing against Jewish values?

A:
No. Occupation is against Jewish values; expulsion of an enemy
population from
our lands is not. On the contrary, it is explicitly enjoined in the
Torah, and
was carried out by Joshua upon the Jews' first entry into the Land of
Israel.
If people are worried about "sullying Judaism" by such deeds, I can
only inform
them that they're too late.

Q:
Do you think the persecution of the Jews throughout the ages,
culminating in
the Holocaust, entitles you to act in such a way?

A:
Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel isn't bought by past
persecution, not
even the Holocaust, any more than it was in Joshua's day. In his day,
it was
not the four hundred years of slavery in Egypt that gave him the right
to take
the land from the seven pagan nations inhabiting it, but HaShem's
word.

Q:
So the Palestinians are the modern Canaanites?

A:
In some ways. They're not pagans, but they sure take after the
Canaanites in
the practice of child-sacrifice. If anything, it is by raising their
children
upon the "heritage" of jihad (suicide-terrorism) alone that the
Phakestinians
have no right to inhabit this land.

Q:
Aren't you worried about the dehumanization of the Palestinians?

A:
No, they're dehumanizing themselves pretty well without any external
help. Just
a tiny look at how their children are raised to be suicide-terrorists
and
genocidal murderers is enough to realize that here is a perverted,
death-worshiping society. I'm more worried about the dehumanization of
the
Jews--the portrayal of every Jewish man, woman and child as land-
thieves who
are deserving of what they get (cf. "The people of Sderot had it
coming because
their town is located on the ruins of an Arab village").

Q:
Isn't Judaism a religion of moderation, a religion that abhors shows
of power
and cruelty?

A:
That is correct. However, Judaism is not a religion of wimps. We are
forbidden
cruelty, but we are not forbidden--nay, we are commanded--unpleasant
acts when
they are the only way to ensure our peaceful survival. We value our
children,
and we must do the utmost to protect them against a society that
doesn't value
theirs.

Q:
I thought Judaism was about being a moral person. Was I wrong?

A:
No, you weren't wrong. However, being a moral person is only a part of
the
package deal of Judaism, and furthermore, "moral" is defined according
to what
the Torah says, not what humans opine.

Q:
Isn't Zionism a colonial settler movement?

A:
No, if only for the reason that it lacks the basic requirement of a
colonial
settler movement: a motherland as a background to the colonies. For
example,
Algerian colonists, even of the third generation, were tied to the
French
motherland (and fled there when French rule ended); for the Jews, in
contrast,
the Land of Israel is not a colony but the motherland (the Diaspora
being only
a temporary location, even if by "temporary" two millennia are meant),
and
there is no other land that Jews can truly call home.

Q:
Is the One-State Solution workable?

A:
No more than it was in Rwanda or Yugoslavia. To be an advocate for the
One-State Solution is to call for a second Holocaust.

Q:
Is the Two-State Solution workable?

A:
In practice, no. The Arabs don't want it, they want the Jewish State
gone. Even
if a functional (as opposed to dysfunctional, which is the reality)
Phakestinian state were set up in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the Arabs
within the
1949 borders ("Israel proper", in revisionist international parlance)
would
push for the demise of the Jewish character of the state.

Q:
Why should I support a Jewish state? I didn't support South Africa as
a White
state.

A:
You don't have to support the Jewish state, just don't support those
who wish
to destroy it and massacre all its Jewish inhabitants. A Jewish state
is the
ancient Jewish dream. We Jews did not return to the Land of Israel
after 2000
years in order to set up a state of all its citizens.

Q:
Zionism is like Manifest Destiny. How could I support something like
that?

A:
Manifest Destiny was based on a creative interpretation of the Bible.
Zionism,
in contrast, is based on a plain reading of the Bible: the Land of
Israel, on
the eastern coast of the Mediterranean sea, to the Israelites (Jews).
We Jews
are not to blame for how other people have used the Bible.

Q:
How can your conscience permit you to live on the land of other former
inhabitants?

A:
I'll answer that when the European-Americans evacuate their American-
Indian
lands; when the Anglo-Saxons leave the Celtic territories they're
occupying;
when the Arabs give Egypt back to the Copts; when the Turks get out of
Constantinople; and so on.

Q:
So you're arguing on the lines of "Others are just as bad, or even
worse". What
happened to being the light unto the nations?

A:
"Light unto the nations" doesn't mean what most people think it means.
It means
the Jewish nation, by its history, whether for good or bad, will show
all the
other nations the existence of HaShem (G-d as described in the Torah).

Q:
Don't you think you ought to moderate your positions for the sake of
peace?
Israel is destabilizing the world!

A:
The main cause of turmoil in our day is Islam. Appeasement will only
postpone
the attack, and not for very long. I'd think you'd have learned this
from last
century's history, but I fear Santayana was right.

Q:
So Israel has no role to play in their hatred toward us?

A:
It does, but not a substantial one. Its role is that of scapegoat; of
which the
instances are legion, such as the Mohammed Cartoons most famously. If
Israel
did not exist, another (illegitimate) grievance would fill its place.

Q:
You see yourselves as good and the other side as evil, but the other
side does
the same, the other way round. Shouldn't you consider that point of
view?

A:
Engaging in thought-experiments is a leisurely activity; where lives
are at
stake, it must be deferred. Besides, the other side (Arabs,
Phakestinians) have
never taken the time to consider our point of view, except for the
purpose of
condemning it.

Q:
When will the state of Israel have permanent peace?

A:
As soon as the opposition to its existence, as a Jewish State, is no
more.

60 years of the Jewish State!
Ever may she prosper, and fast may her enemies go to hell!

"HaShem will give strength unto His people; HaShem will bless his
people with
peace." (Psalms 29:11)
m***@walla.co.il
2008-05-06 16:05:25 UTC
Permalink
(take 2 because of bad formatting)

Israel Q & A

A Special Questions and Answers Session for the 60th Anniversary of
the State of the Jews

Q:
What is the Israeli-Arab conflict all about?

A:
It's about the Arabs and Muslims not willing to tolerate the existence
of a single Jewish state in the world. There are many "narratives",
but this is the truth, no matter how much it is said otherwise.

Q:
Isn't it about the Palestinian nation trying to keep their land?

A:
No. The Phakestinian nation is just the marketable front-end for the
Arab struggle to wipe out the Jewish state and the Jews in it. That
fictive nation was conceived for that purpose: to market an otherwise
indefensible and barbaric struggle as a "resistance movement".

Q:
Why is it inconceivable that this is just a land dispute between two
nations?

A:
The evidence points otherwise. Whereas the Jews built most of the
institutions of their state-to-be while still living under foreign
rule (the British Mandate), the Phakestinians use whatever land they
are given as terrorist training grounds and rocket launching bases.
The Jewish struggle against the British was for the setting up of a
Jewish state; the Arab ("Palestinian" falsely so marketed) struggle is
for the elimination of said state.

Q:
Aren't the Arabs fighting against occupation just as the Jews fought
for the British? Is there no equivalence between them and such groups
as the IRA?

A:
The Jews fought to drive out the British out of the Land of Israel,
while the Arabs are fighting to drive the Jews out of their homeland.
For there to be an equivalence, the Jews would have had to fight to
liberate Britain from British rule. Similarly, the IRA had the purpose
of freeing Ireland from British/Protestant presence; a purpose of
fighting to liberate all the Occupied Celtic Territories (meaning all
of Britain too) would have made them equivalent to the Phakestinians.

Q:
I'm of Welsh descent, with a family tree in Britain going thousands of
years back. Also, the sacred book the Mabinogion says all of Britain
belongs to me. Does this mean I'm entitled to take the land and treat
its people like trash, walling them off and putting checkpoints all
around them?

A:
Hmmm, I'd think it would entitle you to don a belt of explosives and
blow yourself up in a mall full of Anglo-Saxon colonial men, women and
children, but that's just me.

Q:
Instead of maintaining an occupation, why not pursue peace with the
more moderate elements of Palestinian society?

A:
The "moderates" among the Phakestinians are those who just wish to
postpone the Right of Return to a later period. All of them are sworn
to the eventual destruction of the Jewish State. It's just that some
are more adept at hiding their intentions at others.

Q:
Is an eternal occupation of another people (Arabs, Palestinians,
whatever name you give them) a goal for the Jewish State?

A:
No. I agree the occupation must be ended. But not by giving up our
lands, for that only moves more Jewish towns into rocket range (cf.
Sderot), and won't please the world anyway, which is now fixated on
the "Jewish State = Apartheid South Africa" equation. The occupation
must be ended by expelling all the Arabs from our lands.

Q:
Isn't ethnic cleansing against Jewish values?

A:
No. Occupation is against Jewish values; expulsion of an enemy
population from our lands is not. On the contrary, it is explicitly
enjoined in the Torah, and was carried out by Joshua upon the Jews'
first entry into the Land of Israel. If people are worried about
"sullying Judaism" by such deeds, I can only inform them that they're
too late.

Q:
Do you think the persecution of the Jews throughout the ages,
culminating in the Holocaust, entitles you to act in such a way?

A:
Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel isn't bought by past
persecution, not even the Holocaust, any more than it was in Joshua's
day. In his day, it was not the four hundred years of slavery in Egypt
that gave him the right to take the land from the seven pagan nations
inhabiting it, but HaShem's word.

Q:
So the Palestinians are the modern Canaanites?

A:
In some ways. They're not pagans, but they sure take after the
Canaanites in the practice of child-sacrifice. If anything, it is by
raising their children upon the "heritage" of jihad (suicide-
terrorism) alone that the Phakestinians have no right to inhabit this
land.

Q:
Aren't you worried about the dehumanization of the Palestinians?

A:
No, they're dehumanizing themselves pretty well without any external
help. Just a tiny look at how their children are raised to be suicide-
terrorists and genocidal murderers is enough to realize that here is a
perverted, death-worshiping society. I'm more worried about the
dehumanization of the Jews--the portrayal of every Jewish man, woman
and child as land-thieves who are deserving of what they get (cf. "The
people of Sderot had it coming because their town is located on the
ruins of an Arab village").

Q:
Isn't Judaism a religion of moderation, a religion that abhors shows
of power and cruelty?

A:
That is correct. However, Judaism is not a religion of wimps. We are
forbidden cruelty, but we are not forbidden--nay, we are commanded--
unpleasant acts when they are the only way to ensure our peaceful
survival. We value our children, and we must do the utmost to protect
them against a society that doesn't value theirs.

Q:
I thought Judaism was about being a moral person. Was I wrong?

A:
No, you weren't wrong. However, being a moral person is only a part of
the package deal of Judaism, and furthermore, "moral" is defined
according to what the Torah says, not what humans opine.

Q:
Isn't Zionism a colonial settler movement?

A:
No, if only for the reason that it lacks the basic requirement of a
colonial settler movement: a motherland as a background to the
colonies. For example, Algerian colonists, even of the third
generation, were tied to the French motherland (and fled there when
French rule ended); for the Jews, in contrast, the Land of Israel is
not a colony but the motherland (the Diaspora being only a temporary
location, even if by "temporary" two millennia are meant), and there
is no other land that Jews can truly call home.

Q:
Is the One-State Solution workable?

A:
No more than it was in Rwanda or Yugoslavia. To be an advocate for the
One-State Solution is to call for a second Holocaust.

Q:
Is the Two-State Solution workable?

A:
In practice, no. The Arabs don't want it, they want the Jewish State
gone. Even if a functional (as opposed to dysfunctional, which is the
reality) Phakestinian state were set up in Judea, Samaria and Gaza,
the Arabs within the 1949 borders ("Israel proper", in revisionist
international parlance) would push for the demise of the Jewish
character of the state.

Q:
Why should I support a Jewish state? I didn't support South Africa as
a White state.

A:
You don't have to support the Jewish state, just don't support those
who wish to destroy it and massacre all its Jewish inhabitants. A
Jewish state is the ancient Jewish dream. We Jews did not return to
the Land of Israel after 2000 years in order to set up a state of all
its citizens.

Q:
Zionism is like Manifest Destiny. How could I support something like
that?

A:
Manifest Destiny was based on a creative interpretation of the Bible.
Zionism, in contrast, is based on a plain reading of the Bible: the
Land of Israel, on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean sea, to the
Israelites (Jews). We Jews are not to blame for how other people have
used the Bible.

Q:
How can your conscience permit you to live on the land of other former
inhabitants?

A:
I'll answer that when the European-Americans evacuate their American-
Indian lands; when the Anglo-Saxons leave the Celtic territories
they're occupying; when the Arabs give Egypt back to the Copts; when
the Turks get out of Constantinople; and so on.

Q:
So you're arguing on the lines of "Others are just as bad, or even
worse". What happened to being the light unto the nations?

A:
"Light unto the nations" doesn't mean what most people think it means.
It means the Jewish nation, by its history, whether for good or bad,
will show all the other nations the existence of HaShem (G-d as
described in the Torah).

Q:
Don't you think you ought to moderate your positions for the sake of
peace? Israel is destabilizing the world!

A:
The main cause of turmoil in our day is Islam. Appeasement will only
postpone the attack, and not for very long. I'd think you'd have
learned this from last century's history, but I fear Santayana was
right.

Q:
So Israel has no role to play in their hatred toward us?

A:
It does, but not a substantial one. Its role is that of scapegoat; of
which the instances are legion, such as the Mohammed Cartoons most
famously. If Israel did not exist, another (illegitimate) grievance
would fill its place.

Q:
You see yourselves as good and the other side as evil, but the other
side does the same, the other way round. Shouldn't you consider that
point of view?

A:
Engaging in thought-experiments is a leisurely activity; where lives
are at stake, it must be deferred. Besides, the other side (Arabs,
Phakestinians) have never taken the time to consider our point of
view, except for the purpose of condemning it.

Q:
When will the state of Israel have permanent peace?

A:
As soon as the opposition to its existence, as a Jewish State, is no
more.

60 years of the Jewish State!
Ever may she prosper, and fast may her enemies go to hell!

"HaShem will give strength unto His people; HaShem will bless his
people with peace." (Psalms 29:11)
f***@verizon.net
2008-05-07 06:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@walla.co.il
(take 2 because of bad formatting)
Israel Q & A
A Special Questions and Answers Session for the 60th Anniversary of
the State of the Jews
What is the Israeli-Arab conflict all about?
Who gives a shit? Most of us jews don't want to live in the G-ddam
place anyway!

Susan

Loading...