Jewish Organizations Oppose Stifling Criticism of Israel

a reply to: JBurns

Yea I am sure it has NOTHING to do with the fact they agreed to be a small community beholden to the surrounding region. Then they took over..

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

You realize Israel was the Jewish homeland before the Arabs forcefully removed the Jews?

They returned to the land post-occupation, and it wasn't taken by force. Israel was returned to the Jewish people by the British empire, who controlled that territory after the Ottomans. The Jewish peoples' claim is evidenced by the Islamic holy site build on top of the Jewish one.

I was referring to the far distant past.

Abraham was originally from Ur of the Chaldees (modern day Iraq), traveled up to Haran (modern day Turkey), following the Euphrates River, then down to Canaan via Damascus (modern day Syria) and lived there for a bit, near where Modern Jerusalem is located. His descendants stayed (roughly) in the area until his grandson (who had taken the name Israel) and family moved to the Nile Delta as guests of the Egyptians.

It was here that the family became the tribes of Israel, over a period of about 490 years.

Changes in political attitudes turned the Egyptians against the tribes of Israel and it culminated in a rapid mass migration of those tribes back to their previous homeland in Canaan. Arguably, the migration was what made a nation out of the tribes and was also where God proposed that the lands near Canaan was their promised land.

When they re-entered their 'promised land' they had to displace the people/s who were already living there. This they did by a fairly rapid and successful city by city conquest under their leader Joshua. It was this conquest of 'taking' their 'promised land', in approximately 1250 BC, that I was talking about in my previous post.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: JBurns

Yea I am sure it has NOTHING to do with the fact they agreed to be a small community beholden to the surrounding region. Then they took over..

They were given more land by the British mandate than they now occupy. They gave a chunk to Egypt and a chunk to Jordan.

The size of the land that they have 'taken over' is tiny. Israel is about the same size as the state of New Jersey.

Honestly, every country around them is bigger.

The whole case for pushing them out of their tiny bit of land is just stupid.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Then they took over..

*Were invaded by Arab League military forces

May 15th, 1948:

Members of the Arab League – Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Transjordan, the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army, marched their forces into what had the previous day ceased to be the British Mandate for Palestine.

After that, they've been steadily invaded/attacked and infiltrated continually.

Israel has no choice but to exercise its sovereign right to self-defense. It is facing a morally corrupt enemy that seeks its total annihilation and eviction from their rightful land. Something the United States will never permit, along with Israel's formidable military (including a rumored thermonuclear strike force)

This isn't a civil war. It is an invasion by a recognized nation (Palestine, within current borders) against another sovereign nation (Israel)

a reply to: chr0naut

Thank you for clarifying that

Appreciate the level of research and historical detail in your post

a reply to: chr0naut

But they have become the dominant force in the region which was NEVER part of the plan..

The Arab countries agreed to a smallish Jewish settlement.. not that they would become THE dominant military power in the region..

All of that said “right by conquest “ IS the oldest form of justification for a state.. and the Jews “fairly” (as fair as any war ever is) won that land..

However , if their basis for existence is “right by conquest “ then you can’t get really mad when people try and conquer you back..

I just have a problem with simpletons or the uninformed pretending like the Jewish state is the most justified state in the region or pretend like they always had a right to kick anyone they wanted out.

I have yet to see a nation state that is totally just or above reproach.

a reply to: JBurns

Isreal launched a PREEMPTIVE STRIKE..

That means isreal fired first..

They surprised the Arab states who didn’t think there was gonna be a full scale war..

In April 1967, Syria shot at an Israeli tractor ploughing in the demilitarized zone, which escalated to a prewar aerial clash. In May 1967, following misinformation about Israeli intentions provided by the Soviet Union, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers who had been stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since the Suez conflict,[1] and announced a blockade of Israel's access to the Red Sea (international waters) via the Straits of Tiran, which Israel considered an act of war. Tension escalated, with both sides' armies mobilising. Less than a month later, Israel launched a surprise strike which began the Six-Day War.

Now I have zero problem with “right by conquest “, but isreal was in no way , shape form or fashion the “poor baby who was being picked on”..

The original plan was for isreal to be a small Jewish community beholden to the larger surrounding Arab countries. Once they were settled in they decided “screw that. We are taking over..”


Which if you have the ability to take over and hold the land. Then by every law of every culture. That means you get to keep it.. well atleast untile someone can take it from you and hold it themselves..

That situation is in no way good vs. evil..

It is way more akin to WW1 than it is WW2..

It would be the same if Chinatown decided to make itself an independent state and the Chinese government helped them conquer New York to do it..

Would Americans stop fighting to reclaim New York??

Or would they say “well you beat us. So no hard feelings..”???

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut

But they have become the dominant force in the region which was NEVER part of the plan..

The Arab countries agreed to a smallish Jewish settlement.. not that they would become THE dominant military power in the region..

All of that said “right by conquest “ IS the oldest form of justification for a state.. and the Jews “fairly” (as fair as any war ever is) won that land..

However , if their basis for existence is “right by conquest “ then you can’t get really mad when people try and conquer you back..

I just have a problem with simpletons or the uninformed pretending like the Jewish state is the most justified state in the region or pretend like they always had a right to kick anyone they wanted out.

I have yet to see a nation state that is totally just or above reproach.

On the very first day of the creation of the official state of Israel, it was attacked by the armies of a coalition of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Iraq, with additional troops from Lebanon. Israel never had time to do anything against these states or against any Palestinians living in the newly minted Jewish state. The attack was entirely unprovoked and had obviously been planned in secret for some time.

None the less, Israel defended itself and repelled the attackers. If Israel is a powerful regional military force, it is because it was of necessity. Constant military actions against Israel have trained the Israeli military to their position.

In the process of the attack, between 700,000 and 750,000 Palestinians fled from Israel. Something that the Palestinian side is happy to blame on Israel. The truth is, that at the same time, 856,000 Jews fled from where they were living in Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa. The land abandoned by those Palestinians who left Israel was transferred to state ownership, just as other states did to the land owned by Jews who left those countries.

Israel while at war, was under martial law and considered many non-Jewish people living within its borders as potential combatants. Now the war is over, Israel has also offered those non-Jewish residents Israeli citizenship.

As I said previously. Israel is tiny.

There is no un-justification for it to survive as a sovereign state of the Jewish people.

Much like US not giving California and parts of Texas back to the Mexicans from whom they won it in battle.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: JBurns

Isreal launched a PREEMPTIVE STRIKE.

That means Israel fired first..

No, from your own post, Syria fired first and Egypt put up a blockade against Israeli trade. It was two countries of the same Arab confederation that attacked Israel in 1948.

Both armies were mobilized and ready for attack for over a month.

How could you in any honesty say Israel instigated it?

They surprised the Arab states who didn’t think there was gonna be a full scale war..

In April 1967, Syria shot at an Israeli tractor ploughing in the demilitarized zone, which escalated to a prewar aerial clash. In May 1967, following misinformation about Israeli intentions provided by the Soviet Union, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers who had been stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since the Suez conflict,[1] and announced a blockade of Israel's access to the Red Sea (international waters) via the Straits of Tiran, which Israel considered an act of war. Tension escalated, with both sides' armies mobilising. Less than a month later, Israel launched a surprise strike

So, the Egyptian army had been sitting there facing off the Israeli army for over a month NOT expecting any action, and all the while, Israeli trade was blocked and the Syrians were taking potshots?

How was Israels response a "surprise attack"?

which began the Six-Day War.

Now I have zero problem with “right by conquest “, but Israel was in no way , shape form or fashion the “poor baby who was being picked on”.

The original plan was for Israel to be a small Jewish community beholden to the larger surrounding Arab countries. Once they were settled in they decided “screw that. We are taking over.”

Israel, having been attacked by these same guys on Israels first day of statehood, wasn't a mitigating circumstance in their eventual response?

Which if you have the ability to take over and hold the land. Then by every law of every culture. That means you get to keep it.. well at least until someone can take it from you and hold it themselves.

That situation is in no way good vs. evil.

It is way more akin to WW1 than it is WW2.

It would be the same if Chinatown decided to make itself an independent state and the Chinese government helped them conquer New York to do it.

Would Americans stop fighting to reclaim New York?

Or would they say “well you beat us. So no hard feelings..”???

What?

Perhaps it is more like when Marvin the Martian attacks Bugs Bunny with a disintegrator ray gun, which disintegrates because Marvin is... a little inept (like those Arab states seem to have been in their military capability).

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
a reply to: myselfaswell
I have learned quite a bit from Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro's point of view in that article.

The following video gives the point of view of other Jews, Yitz Farkas and Samuel Steinberg:

Adrenaline Video
Published on May 31, 2018

Orthodox Jews from the New York area will convene at the Nassau Coliseum on Sunday, June 3, 2018 starting at 4 PM to hear speeches on the fundamentals of Jewish religious opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The conference is being organized at the behest of Satmar Grand Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum. Among other topics, speakers will address the opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem, as well as the new Israeli draft law that requires many Orthodox boys and girls to serve in the army.

The guest of honor and keynote speaker will be the famed authority on Jewish law, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, who is arriving from Jerusalem for a week-long tour in the United States. Rabbi Sternbuch, who is more than 90-years-old, last visited this country 20 years ago. He serves as a leader of the Eidah Chareidis anti-Zionist rabbinical court of Jerusalem, and has authored in excess of 50 books.

www.youtube.com...

It's clear to me now that Jews are believers in a religion, only, and are not advocates of a political philosophy, nor are they a race.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: intrepid

He owns his choices and actions 100%, yes. But it is Congress that passed the law to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

I've now heard the left complain about Trump ignoring Congress and others complaining about him listening to Congress. Which is it?

Should he defy the law or discharge his office/oath by enacting/enforcing the laws passed by Congress?

Well past presidents of both parties have left this alone for a reason. THAT congress is long gone. Passing even a smidgen of what happens here off to them is a cop out. This is on Trump.

It is actually Christian conservatives who are the “isreal can do no wrong “ group in the US

Correct, but usually Jewish groups are against free speech for anyone who disagrees with them. This is a welcome change.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

then you can’t get really mad when people try and conquer you back..

But no one is getting angry about it. We retaliate, sure, but according to that same "right by conquest" principle, there is no "there" there. To be clear, no one is angry in the least. It happens (happens here too). But you won't find me crying any tears for some dead terrorists.

I have yet to see a nation state that is totally just or above reproach.

You and I both. Which is exactly why I have an issue with folks droning on about "Russia this, KGB that" when we do precisely the same BS. Despite the denials (all governments are perpetually IN denial), history tells us otherwise

But attempting to hold Israel to a different standard is wrong. We should accept the fact that a pre-eminent military power isn't going to let a less-powerful force push them around or dictate things to them. If the arab nations have a problem with it, they should've focused more on civilization building/defense spending rather than coming up with 1001 ways to vilify the West/Jews/"non-believers" or making excuses for why women have less rights in their society, I guess

a reply to: JoshuaCox

They may have indeed fired first, but they no doubt had reason to be concerned about forces massing near/around their territory which were marched in on Day 1. Preemptive strikes makes sense when you're absolutely certain a conflict will arise - simply because, tactically, the first person to get "shots on target" wins the initiative, which is key to achieving victory in an engagement

Take someone who carries a firearm for self-defense. You don't wait until the other person actually shoots/stabs you before defending yourself. You do wait until you're certain a deadly attack is credible/imminent before defending yourself though (differences between preemptive and preventative)

The original plan was for isreal to be a small Jewish community beholden to the larger surrounding Arab countries.

When you listen to some of the crap that comes out of the state mouthpiece for these Arab nations do you really have to wonder why? No sovereign state should be "beholden" to anyone, especially when the rightful owner of that territory (ie: British) legally turns over the territory to another owner (the Jews). And especially not when those neighboring states have the stated policy of wiping your people off the map.

The arab nations sent troops into Israel on Day 1 - which is in itself an act of war. How do you think we'd react to foreign troops on our soil? I can't speak for you, but I'd preemptively attack them also. Can hardly blame Israel for defending itself against foreign aggression

The fact soldiers from the arab nations were in Israel on Day 1 suggests they planned the attack in advance. No one puts an invasion together in a day. They never intended to let Israel live in peace. Thankfully our country has backed them up over the years, ensuring arab aggression doesn't go unchecked/unpunished.

a reply to: intrepid

What happens from here?

Violence?

Violent people are solely responsible for their own action. Not Trump.

If they choose to be violent as a result of our lawful & sovereign choice to relocate our Embassy within another foreign nation, too damn bad. We'll handle them like we handle other terrorists and purveyors of violence: by thoroughly destroying/defeating/degrading them.

Regardless, it is our choice to make and no one else's. And whether it was an old congress or not, a law was passed that every single President promised to fulfill. If there was good cause to "not touch it" then why did Obama (et al) make promises to the contrary?

We've wasted decades trying to broker peace and it is clear the Arabs do not want peace. Only one party/nation/group is making threats of oblivion: not Israel. Thankfully Trump realized the "peace prospects" were nothing more than a Palestinian stall tactic.

They can either take their State and leave, or continue down the same begotten path. Either way, Israel and the United States will remain united in the face of terror and chaos. Israel has brought order and civilization to the ME, and is a shining beacon of freedom and prosperity in an otherwise inhospitable place. From where I sit, Jerusalem and Israel are inseparable. Its status is non-negotiable. However, the Palestinians would find peace if they decided to set realistic goals and make reasonable requests.

Pals aren't holding the chips, Israel is. You only get to set the terms of a negotiation when you have what the other party wants. This is why Pals have rejected statehood on numerous occasions.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: intrepid

What happens from here?

Violence?

Violent people are solely responsible for their own action. Not Trump.

That's an argument that ignores Newton's 3rd law. And all it takes is a spark to start a flame.

And whether it was an old congress or not, a law was passed that every single President promised to fulfill. If there was good cause to "not touch it" then why did Obama (et al) make promises to the contrary?

To placate people like you.

I won't go into the back and forth you are used to. It's futile and I won't waste my time and energy on what has been said a hundred times. Trump has made this move. What comes of it, good or bad, is on him. I hope you guys get what you desire. Really not sure what that is.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: intrepid

I hope you guys get what you desire. Really not sure what that is.

What do you mean by that?

(Please rephrase.)

originally posted by: LiberateEarth

What do you mean by that?

(Please rephrase.)

Huh?