Israel's Plan for its Arab citizens

We all know the plan Israel has for the occupied territories: crush, starve, isolate, destroy. But what about the 1.5 million Arabs who have Israeli citizenship? Hmm.. I suppose they need to find ways to either strip them of that citizenship or make their lives not worth living in Israel.

Quote:

---

At a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Netanyahu told his interior minister to examine ways to strip of citizenship anyone who "acted against the state" or attacked the police.

The next day,#Netanyahu told demonstrators to leave Israel and "move to the Palestinian Authority or Gaza".

His comments have consciously blurred the distinction between the legitimate anger unleashed by Hamdan's killing and the spate of recent attacks by Palestinians from the occupied territories on Israelis in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Tel Aviv.#Dangerously, Netanyahu has implied that they are all part of the same "terrorism".

---

Al Jazeera - The transfer of Israeli Arabs

Stripping citizenship should always be possible in case of terrorists but stripping citizinship from protesters even if they were agressive goes way too far. Bit hysterical to call protesting, rightfully or not, terrorism.

Wow. If even Fragony thinks it's too extreme... That's scary ;)

Europe can take them, the UN can assign a country to them somewhere in the UK, Wales for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Europe can take them, the UN can assign a country to them somewhere in the UK, Wales for example.

---

Nah, easier to put them in germany and call the locals nazis if they complain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Nah, easier to put them in germany and call the locals nazis if they complain.

---

How about the Malvinas/Falklands? Turn them into Palestine and end that dispute once and for all.

And restart the penguin wars? We're still digging up the landmines from the great sheep incursion.

Actually they can have it. Let the argies bitch about someone else for once.

Why don't we actually send all the annoying muslim immigrants to Israel and receive the resulting, more worthwhile, jewish refugees? It would certainly solve two problems with one stone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickinator9

Why don't we actually send all the annoying muslim immigrants to Israel and receive the resulting, more worthwhile, jewish refugees? It would certainly solve two problems with one stone.

---

You need to explain:
a) why jewish refugeees are "more worthwhile"
b) why you think the jews would willingly leave the land they consider themselves to have the god-given right to own

Current location and Israeli identity are fused now....too much blood and treasure spent. The only way they will leave is the way used by the Romans 19 centuries or so back. Crush them, kill them in job lots, force them to leave at weapon point or in chains. Some form of power sharing may happen instead, but a departure from their promised land? Not gonna happen.

Europe won't bleed for the Palestinians and more than they will bleed for Ukrainians, and much of Europe already treats Israel as a pariah state. So what the heck else is gonna happen? Only major change left would be to de-couple the US and Israel and Israel is long past the point at which they need our help to survive.

Seamus - us Europeans tend to see problems as complex and subtle. We don't generally stampede in thinking we know what to do, and leave behind a total mess (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

I think Seamus is right, and wrong.
Israeli's are not going to leave except as a result of annihilation; too much blood/treasure and, the residents are residents of the land now.
I don't think Israel is "long past the point" of needing US support. Economic and military support-too valuable to do without; veto in Security Council-priceless.

What might happen is if the US-Israel relations break down, they might turn to Putin for support. And I have a feeling that Putin would be happy to oblige.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Seamus - us Europeans tend to see problems as complex and subtle. We don't generally stampede in thinking we know what to do, and leave behind a total mess (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

---

I could make an argument that all three of the examples cited were problems enacted by complex and subtle Europeans....but I will defer as your real posting goal was a classic "tag" directed at we "jingoist" yanks.

You, did, however, miss the point of my post.

I was not and would not call for some sweeping pogrom. I simply said that anything less will not budge Israel, nor do the last 50 years of pariah status seem to be making much of a dent. What route for a negotiated end to this conflict do you see? As a conflict scholar I have been looking at this one for 25+ years and do not see one short of union in the face of extra-terrestrial attack.

Hop, I would agree that UN cover has been and remains the greatest service the USA does for Israel -- I simply don't class it as survival level in importance. Love them, hate them or not give a hoot, Israel isn't going anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Seamus - us Europeans tend to see problems as complex and subtle. We don't generally stampede in thinking we know what to do, and leave behind a total mess (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

---

I didn't know you were a comedian, or did it escape you that the existence of Israel as a state is because of European's making a mess of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I could make an argument that all three of the examples cited were problems enacted by complex and subtle Europeans....but I will defer as your real posting goal was a classic "tag" directed at we "jingoist" yanks.

You, did, however, miss the point of my post.

I was not and would not call for some sweeping pogrom. I simply said that anything less will not budge Israel, nor do the last 50 years of pariah status seem to be making much of a dent. What route for a negotiated end to this conflict do you see? As a conflict scholar I have been looking at this one for 25+ years and do not see one short of union in the face of extra-terrestrial attack.

Hop, I would agree that UN cover has been and remains the greatest service the USA does for Israel -- I simply don't class it as survival level in importance. Love them, hate them or not give a hoot, Israel isn't going anywhere.

---

While it is treated like a Pariah it has never been sanctioned - that is the one form of rebuke Europe might consider and would hurt Israel considerable - especially if the US can be persuaded to join in...

I dont see it ever happening personally - the US wouldn't play along and Europe doesn't care that much...

Europe already hurted the jewish people considerably. And they still do by giving money to the second richest terrorist organisation in the world,an organisation that isn't all that secretive about what they have in mind for the jewish people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Europe already hurted the jewish people considerably. And they still do by giving money to the second richest terrorist organisation in the world,an organisation that isn't all that secretive about what they have in mind for the jewish people.

---

The disney company?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Europe already hurted the jewish people considerably. And they still do by giving money to the second richest terrorist organisation in the world,an organisation that isn't all that secretive about what they have in mind for the jewish people.

---

Dont play that card - Israel is a state not a religion.

Sanctioning Israel would not be an act against the "Jewish people" but an act against a brutal regime that happens to be predominantly Jewish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The disney company?

---

I don't know. IS is the richest, next comes Hamas. Feel free to google. Let's give them more money to kill jews wherever they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

Dont play that card - Israel is a state not a religion.

Sanctioning Israel would not be an act against the "Jewish people" but an act against a brutal regime that happens to be predominantly Jewish.

---

Do you really believe that. It has everything to do with them being Jewish. The left has never changed since Hitler, yes, he was extreme left, Israel is just a safer channel for inherent antisemitism. Capitalism/Jews, there is a reason the left and islamists get along sooooooo very well. The (extreme) left and the islamists are the nazi's of our time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do you really believe that. It has everything to do with them being Jewish. The left has never changed since Hitler, yes, he was extreme left, Israel is just a safer channel for inherent antisemitism. Capitalism/Jews, there is a reason the left and islamists get along sooooooo very well. The (extreme) left and the islamists are the nazi's of our time.

---

Do some berate Israel because they are Jewish - yes, sadly Anti Semitism does still exist

Do Anti Semites make up the Majority of Anti Israel movements in the West - no, not by a long shot

I oppose Israel for the same reason I oppose Assad - they are a brutal regime that indiscriminately target civilians in order to destroy a terrorist minority - I don't care what their religion happens to be

Also Hitler "far left" - you do know what the Nazis did to communists yes? The Nazi party were a right leaning party with some Socialist policies - describing them as far left is utterly bonkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

Also Hitler "far left" - you do know what the Nazis did to communists yes? The Nazi party were a right leaning party with some Socialist policies - describing them as far left is utterly bonkers.

---

No it isn't, Hitler was a leftie, come to terms with it. He was a racist, which the (extreme) left also is today. Getting absolutily nuts about Israel while IS is sooooo much worse. United in silence.

Not jews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No it isn't, Hitler was a leftie, come to terms with it. He was a racist, which the (extreme) left also is today. Getting absolutily nuts about Israel while IS is sooooo much worse. United in silence.

---

Who is being Silent about IS? they are all over the news and finding any non Islamist organisation which supports them will be a tough.

We hold Israel to higher standard because we expect them to behave better than Terrorist organisations

As to Hitler http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...saying-he-was/

Give Fragony time. Just a couple of years ago, he believed that Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Give Fragony time. Just a couple of years ago, he believed that Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite.

---

Show me.

Some do though, Sebastian Haffner thinks of it as the greatest robbery ever, and Hitler needed the money for his expantion, could have mentioned him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No it isn't, Hitler was a leftie, come to terms with it. He was a racist, which the (extreme) left also is today. Getting absolutily nuts about Israel while IS is sooooo much worse. United in silence.

Not jews.

---

Ugh, not that one again.

Let's compare women's rights. It increased during Mao. It increased during Stalin. That about the same the time when the US choosed to delay their first person in space because it would've been a woman. Equal oppression if you like, since they were very much oppressors.

It decreased during Hitler. And Mossulini, and Franco. Nonequal oppressors.

The reason for that is fundamentally different starting drives. Some drives are indeed shared between facists and communists, but anarchists, libertarians and laissez faire also share drives, and they're somewhat different to eachother.

The left liked Israel a lot more when they were the underdog (left always give a bonus liking to the underdog) and didn't occupy a people.

So Hitler was an extreme leftist because he was racist?

Welcome to the extreme left, Frags!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So Hitler was an extreme leftist because he was racist?

---

Nope, he was a racist extreme leftist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nope, he was a racist extreme leftist.

---

In what sense was he a leftist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

In what sense was he a leftist?

---

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Adolf Hitler

Russia was just an enemy strategically (and not the master-race). A racist extreme-leftist.

What Montmorency says could be true, don't remember it but I could have said it, as some historians say it was just a heist. Jews had a lot of money, and Hitler needed it. If I said such a thing it was a reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Adolf Hitler

Russia was just an enemy strategically (and not the master-race). A racist extreme-leftist.

---

Such a socialist:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitler

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

---

...And this is directly from Mein Kampf, Frags. Your quote is not directly from a work of Hitler.

Hence national-socialism. It's a shame AdrianII isn't posting here anymore as I am pretty sure he must have read the works of Haffner. I tried looking for it but there don't seem to be any English translations of his books, if there are I recommend them.

It is Marx who wrote La question Juive. i haven't read Mein Kampf but it supposedly has references to it (I am not sure of that) but my quote is absolutily from Hitler.

Edit, fair play, http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/...rical-Myth.htm

^ other take

So why are the leftist parties so fond of immigration nowadays? Since they're supposed to be racist and all.

I'll be bored to point out that opposing capitalism or wanting to support the workers from exploitation isn't inheirently on the left. Now, talking a lot about eqaulity, rather than being part of a greater whole and you start to approach left only territory.

Edit: Ugh. I skimmed the link and its off at several places, but it also disagrees with the notion you claim.

Basically, the left is all about being equal. No matter race, gender, class etc. While class is the starting point, the rest is important enough, that those movement can attach themselves and progress even with a dictator on the top.

That type of right is all about being cared about if you're proper. It's the small town that goes and donates to their local church and take care of their own poor. Everyone greets eachother. They also find that guy who moved in 20 years ago still suspect, so and since he's poor, he clearly suspect and since he's not one of our own, he won't get any money. The girl who got pregnant at 15 and doesn't tell about the father is totally shunned and should preferbly be shunned by her own parents. But if she does a proper repentance, she might belong to the group again and be forgiven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It is Marx who wrote La question Juive.

---

Yes? What of it?

Leftists are fond of immigration because immigrants tend to vote left because that is where the clientism is. As simple as that. They are importing voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Leftists are fond of immigration because immigrants tend to vote left because that is where the clientism is. As simple as that. They are importing voters.

---

Actually Id put it round the other way - Immigrants are fond of the Left because the Right is inherently Anti-immigration.

Would you vote for someone who campaigns on the premise that you are a benefit seeking fraud who never should have been allowed in the country in the first place?

That line goes over well with Natives - but instantly alienates any potential Immigrant vote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

Actually Id put it round the other way - Immigrants are fond of the Left because the Right is inherently Anti-immigration.

Would you vote for someone who campaigns on the premise that you are a benefit seeking fraud who never should have been allowed in the country in the first place?

That line goes over well with Natives - but instantly alienates any potential Immigrant vote

---

I don't vote at all, both flavours are only interested in getting the nicest positions. If democracy would be real it couldn't exist. Who rules who is beyond our control, all that matters to me is that nobody close to me gets hurt.

Yes, I am cynical. I just don't believe in anything.

In other news, the Israeli parliament will be voting on a new bill which would formally declare Israel as a Jewish state.

Quote:

---

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, chairman of Yisrael Beytenu, said at a meeting of his party’s faction that while Israel is Jewish and democratic, “Jewish values come before democratic values if and when there is a clash between them.”

---

See, this is just :daisy:. No modern Western state can call itself a true democratic state and at the same time declare itself for a religion. If this bill is passed, Israel will forfeit any claim it has that it is a democratic country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, chairman of Yisrael Beytenu, said at a meeting of his party’s faction that while Israel is Jewish and democratic, “Jewish values come before democratic values if and when there is a clash between them.”

---

Those damn Russians cause trouble wherever they go. As soon as they reach a certain critical mass within the society, they try to turn their new host country into new mini-Russia.

Uh-oh, nasty attack on a synagogue In Jerusalem, what are we looking at, this could seriously escalate.

Since Frags is being Frags, here's a link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Since Frags is being Frags, here's a link.

---

Could only find a Dutch link sorry. Considering the recent language this be really bad news for the Arab Israeli's, I hope everyone keeps it's cools.

Such a tragedy. With this new attack claiming at least four Israeli and two Palestinian lives, things are only going to escalate. Hamas is celebrating the attack, Israel is promising a heavy handed response. Things are only going to get worse.

At some point, you know, people on both sides (macros sides, the sub-parties are myriad) of this dispute WILL recognize that killing one another is not accomplishing the objective. Just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

At some point, you know, people on both sides (macros sides, the sub-parties are myriad) of this dispute WILL recognize that killing one another is not accomplishing the objective. Just saying.

---

I wish I shared your optimism.

I am reminded of this timeless Polandball comic:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/W9ycLip.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I am reminded of this timeless Polandball comic:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/W9ycLip.png

---

Love polandball, +1 for the 40K!

There is almost always a relevant polandball. Not all the polandball comics are winners, but when they get it right, they really get it right. This is one of those cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

In other news, the Israeli parliament will be voting on a new bill which would formally declare Israel as a Jewish state.



See, this is just :daisy:. No modern Western state can call itself a true democratic state and at the same time declare itself for a religion. If this bill is passed, Israel will forfeit any claim it has that it is a democratic country.

---

At least it's a formal recognition that Israel is a racist apartheid state.

Jews aren't a race, so they're not being racist. Israel is competing for being one of the nastiest, most intolerant regimes on the planet.

Oh, but of course they are only defending themselves and if only the Palestinians would just accept being second rate citizens / subhumans (depending on where they live) everything would be fine and dandy. For the Israelis - but no one else counts, do they?

4 Israelis get killed and outrage - inhuman murderers! c. 2,600 Palestinians killed since the start of the year? Well, that was fine as they were killed by the IDF and so legal (in Israel) so what's the problem?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Ugh, not that one again.

Let's compare women's rights. It increased during Mao. It increased during Stalin. That about the same the time when the US choosed to delay their first person in space because it would've been a woman. Equal oppression if you like, since they were very much oppressors.

It decreased during Hitler. And Mossulini, and Franco. Nonequal oppressors.

---

Well of course things were different under Hitler's far left regime. Mao and Stalin were on the far right, after all. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Well of course things were different under Hitler's far left regime. Mao and Stalin were on the far right, after all. ~;p

---

Obviously, it was called "State Capitalism" after all.

Hitler promulgated "Strength through Joy", so he must have been a homosexual, right?

Nobody gets hurt because I don't like the Islam, people get beheaded for it every day though. Is there any relativationnreally required if we just kill these idiots, why are there jets, needs Apaches

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Jews aren't a race, so they're not being racist. Israel is competing for being one of the nastiest, most intolerant regimes on the planet.

Oh, but of course they are only defending themselves and if only the Palestinians would just accept being second rate citizens / subhumans (depending on where they live) everything would be fine and dandy. For the Israelis - but no one else counts, do they?

4 Israelis get killed and outrage - inhuman murderers! c. 2,600 Palestinians killed since the start of the year? Well, that was fine as they were killed by the IDF and so legal (in Israel) so what's the problem?

~:smoking:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nobody gets hurt because I don't like the Islam, people get beheaded for it every day though. Is there any relativationnreally required if we just kill these idiots, why are there jets, needs Apaches

---

They sure do their best to be one...

Talking about people who have done their damndest to keep their bloodline pure, Jews most def comes to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

They sure do their best to be one...

Talking about people who have done their damndest to keep their bloodline pure, Jews most def comes to mind.

---

Genealogy is important to them but its not race as you would think of it. As can be seen from the fact that people from white to brown to black are accepted in Israeli as Jews who inherit the 'promised land'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Jews aren't a race, so they're not being racist. Israel is competing for being one of the nastiest, most intolerant regimes on the planet.

Oh, but of course they are only defending themselves and if only the Palestinians would just accept being second rate citizens / subhumans (depending on where they live) everything would be fine and dandy. For the Israelis - but no one else counts, do they?

4 Israelis get killed and outrage - inhuman murderers! c. 2,600 Palestinians killed since the start of the year? Well, that was fine as they were killed by the IDF and so legal (in Israel) so what's the problem?

~:smoking:

---

Sorry for the newsflash, but race is a human intellectual construction. It doesn't have any scientific classification to back it up. There is more variation between individual humans than there is between specific "racial" groups. It's just culture and constructed identity. Heritage of our monkey past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

They sure do their best to be one...

Talking about people who have done their damndest to keep their bloodline pure, Jews most def comes to mind.

---

10% drift per generation is fairly normal, even for groups with a strong cultural restriction on intermarriage. Give that a millennia - and we are effectively all cousins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

10% drift per generation is fairly normal, even for groups with a strong cultural restriction on intermarriage. Give that a millennia - and we are effectively all cousins.

---

Try marrying a Druze or a Yezidi woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Sorry for the newsflash, but race is a human intellectual construction. It doesn't have any scientific classification to back it up. There is more variation between individual humans than there is between specific "racial" groups. It's just culture and constructed identity. Heritage of our monkey past.

---

That's not exactly true, is it?

As the most obvious example, people in South Africa are much darker than people in Europe - there's no cross over between a Swede and a Zulu in terms of colouration, is there?

So, clearly, there's less variation between Zulus than there is between the Zulu and Swedish groups.

Whether these differences are more than superficial is another question.

He's talking about genetic variation, not pigmental variation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That's not exactly true, is it?

As the most obvious example, people in South Africa are much darker than people in Europe - there's no cross over between a Swede and a Zulu in terms of colouration, is there?

So, clearly, there's less variation between Zulus than there is between the Zulu and Swedish groups.

Whether these differences are more than superficial is another question.

---

You need to reframe your mind a little. I will put it this way.

Imagine a room full of people, you will end up with average size, colour, height, and all those factors. Now have one between your Zulu group and your Swedish group.

So now you got two groups of averages, there would be some variation (there always is, no matter grouping), but you would be looking at similar results, they would be around similar height, etc.

Now within those two groups, look at the extremes. So you have that thin tall lanky one who is really pale as he likes reading books, then on the otherside, you got the short fat, darker skinned one, who has genetical thyroid issues.

Now thing of these two extremes and the two averages. Which would be the most similar and which would be the most different?

You could argue some 'socio-genetical' factors (I might have invented that term), which people of certain areas tend to share some characteristic, this would be like how your family might have bigger noses than mine, but my family might be predispositioned to baldness, but this doesn't make us 'different races', as the variation is not significant enough compared to examples brought up such as 'dog breeds'. Pigment is basically "we are 'less brown' than those people over there who are 'more brown'" the categorisation is a little silly and completely out of date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Genealogy is important to them but its not race as you would think of it. As can be seen from the fact that people from white to brown to black are accepted in Israeli as Jews who inherit the 'promised land'.

---

If I understand it right, Israel really doesn't like their black community much, and even ran a secret program to sterilize black people...

I know quite a few Jews who most def don't see blacks as "real Jews".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

If I understand it right, Israel really doesn't like their black community much, and even ran a secret program to sterilize black people...

---

Absolutely true. Lots of racism when I was there. Even heard a special word for them which I shall not share.

Never heard the "not really Jews" thing though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Absolutely true. Lots of racism when I was there. Even heard a special word for them which I shall not share.

Never heard the "not really Jews" thing though.

---

Did you ask them?

From what I have experienced they see it as so natural that it doesn't need to be said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

If I understand it right, Israel really doesn't like their black community much, and even ran a secret program to sterilize black people...

I know quite a few Jews who most def don't see blacks as "real Jews".

---

I've heard of that but the attitudes of some Israelis don't change the fact that the Israeli state welcomes people from what we would consider to be different racial backgrounds.

Of course the Israeli state is hugely discriminatory, but I wouldn't call it racism in the way we understand it.

Black jews are mostly from Ethiopia and they absolutily are discriminated, not proper jews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

He's talking about genetic variation, not pigmental variation.

---

The latter is a subgroup of the former. :inquisitive:

Even when ignoring genes related to pigmentation, let me guess that geneticists could tell an ethnic Swede from an ethnic Zulu in > 95% of trials based on a handful of genes only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

You need to reframe your mind a little. I will put it this way.

Imagine a room full of people, you will end up with average size, colour, height, and all those factors. Now have one between your Zulu group and your Swedish group.

So now you got two groups of averages, there would be some variation (there always is, no matter grouping), but you would be looking at similar results, they would be around similar height, etc.

Now within those two groups, look at the extremes. So you have that thin tall lanky one who is really pale as he likes reading books, then on the otherside, you got the short fat, darker skinned one, who has genetical thyroid issues.

Now thing of these two extremes and the two averages. Which would be the most similar and which would be the most different?

You could argue some 'socio-genetical' factors (I might have invented that term), which people of certain areas tend to share some characteristic, this would be like how your family might have bigger noses than mine, but my family might be predispositioned to baldness, but this doesn't make us 'different races', as the variation is not significant enough compared to examples brought up such as 'dog breeds'. Pigment is basically "we are 'less brown' than those people over there who are 'more brown'" the categorisation is a little silly and completely out of date.

---

Let me put it this way -

If skin colour is rated 1-10 with 1 being pale and 10 being dark then the Swedes will average around a 3 while the Zulu's will average an 8. The darkest Swede will still be lighter than the lightest Zulu.

Or you could compare Irish and Border collies, both are breeds of collie working dogs but they're clearly differentiated and considered to be separate. Which is not to say they're all that different, but nobody would say that a pure-bred Irish and Border collie were the same breed.

I'm not arguing with the point, that all humans are one species, I'm saying that the argument doesn't really hold up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I've heard of that but the attitudes of some Israelis don't change the fact that the Israeli state welcomes people from what we would consider to be different racial backgrounds.

Of course the Israeli state is hugely discriminatory, but I wouldn't call it racism in the way we understand it.

---

They have different policies for those they consider in-group and those they consider to be the other.

How is that not the definition of institutional racism? Do you have to go all Hitler to be worthy of the term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How is that not the definition of institutional racism?

---

It's not racism because you can actually become a Jew. Don't get me wrong, it's a rotten system, but it's not racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It's not racism because you can actually become a Jew. Don't get me wrong, it's a rotten system, but it's not racist.

---

Institutional racism isn't quite what you think it is...

See, these days extreme leftists LOVES to attach "racism" to stuff, even if it has nothing to do with races.



You don't like that Somali people cut off half the vagina and clitoris of girls? CULTURAL RACIST!!

You don't give immigrants the exact same rights as your own citizens? INSTITUTIONAL RACIST!!

You prefer to hire a guy who speak the language perfectly and are raised in your culture? SYSTEMATICAL RACIST!!

... The list goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

They have different policies for those they consider in-group and those they consider to be the other.

How is that not the definition of institutional racism? Do you have to go all Hitler to be worthy of the term?

---

The discrimination is based on ancient Jewish ideas about genealogy, not modern Western concepts of race.

From what I have gathered, the main hostility towards black Jewish groups is not based on the idea that blacks are inferior, but rather a suspicion that these black Jews are not really of Israelite descent.

I think this sort of discrimination based on complex and historical genealogy is a sort of grey area between racism and a basic acknowledgement of family realities. After all, even we in the enlightened West choose whether or not to give citizenship based on more direct genealogy - usually, a child is granted citizenship if one or more of his parents are already citizens, regardless of whether the child is resident in the country at the time. What the Israeli state does is closer to this than racism I would say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The discrimination is based on ancient Jewish ideas about genealogy, not modern Western concepts of race.

From what I have gathered, the main hostility towards black Jewish groups is not based on the idea that blacks are inferior, but rather a suspicion that these black Jews are not really of Israelite descent.

I think this sort of discrimination based on complex and historical genealogy is a sort of grey area between racism and a basic acknowledgement of family realities. After all, even we in the enlightened West choose whether or not to give citizenship based on more direct genealogy - usually, a child is granted citizenship if one or more of his parents are already citizens, regardless of whether the child is resident in the country at the time. What the Israeli state does is closer to this than racism I would say.

---

So... Historical genealogy - sure...

But not RACISM...


Heck, even I don't deem blacks as generally inferior (they do however seem to excel in some areas and lack in others, just like any other racial and/or cultural group).

I just suspect that blacks are not really of Swedish descent, see, this is where it gets quirky for me to accept them <- Oh come on, be serious. If Israel didn't play "The Jew Card" they would TOTALLY be racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The discrimination is based on ancient Jewish ideas about genealogy, not modern Western concepts of race.

From what I have gathered, the main hostility towards black Jewish groups is not based on the idea that blacks are inferior, but rather a suspicion that these black Jews are not really of Israelite descent.

I think this sort of discrimination based on complex and historical genealogy is a sort of grey area between racism and a basic acknowledgement of family realities. After all, even we in the enlightened West choose whether or not to give citizenship based on more direct genealogy - usually, a child is granted citizenship if one or more of his parents are already citizens, regardless of whether the child is resident in the country at the time. What the Israeli state does is closer to this than racism I would say.

---

Is there a difference between what a state does and the actual reality for those who live in it. Black jews are absolutily not treated as equals, they may have the same rights in theory but that is not how they are treated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

So... Historical genealogy - sure...

But not RACISM...

---

So if Kadagar Jr. gets Swedish citizenship because Mr. & Mrs. Kadagar are Swedish citizens, does that make the Swedish state racist?

As you can see, the lines between family and race are blurred, since race (or at least some concepts of it) is essentially a sort of wider family.

Jewish ideas on genealogy are like I said in a sort of grey area between direct family ties and a wider racial aspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Heck, even I don't deem blacks as generally inferior (they do however seem to excel in some areas and lack in others, just like any other racial and/or cultural group).

I just suspect that blacks are not really of Swedish descent, see, this is where it gets quirky for me to accept them <- Oh come on, be serious. If Israel didn't play "The Jew Card" they would TOTALLY be racist.

---

Israel's has justified their policies on genealogy, not race. You can surmise all you want about their real motivations, but given the depth of their Jewish heritage I'm willing to take what they say at face value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Is there a difference between what a state does and the actual reality for those who live in it.

---

Indeed there is, which is why I am talking specifically about the former.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Let me put it this way -

If skin colour is rated 1-10 with 1 being pale and 10 being dark then the Swedes will average around a 3 while the Zulu's will average an 8. The darkest Swede will still be lighter than the lightest Zulu.

Or you could compare Irish and Border collies, both are breeds of collie working dogs but they're clearly differentiated and considered to be separate. Which is not to say they're all that different, but nobody would say that a pure-bred Irish and Border collie were the same breed.

I'm not arguing with the point, that all humans are one species, I'm saying that the argument doesn't really hold up.

---

You are just describing visible phenotype variation, not genetic homogeneity.

Dogs are a poor/unfortunate example when it comes to phenotypes and visible traits. They have a uniquely plastic quality as a species, due to factors that are largely unknown. Cats would be a better example if you really had to go down that route.

Lets go back to the room of Swedes and Zulus again. Lets dramatically oversimplify and imagine they have a list of 1000 traits and genetic variables that can either be a or b. Of those variables, only, say, 25 affect the visible features of skin tone, hair type, face shape and eye colour, etc.

We would expect *some* homogeneity on those 25 traits, but even there we may still get cross over between the groups. Especially as the sample of Zulus and Swedes grows. We may also get some homogeneity on another 25-50 traits, and have another dozen traits here or there where there are novel patterns within subgroups of those groups.

But on the other 900 traits, we probably see no correlation at all, and couldn't predict who was in either group from those differences.

We are human, and from our evolutionary heritage are programmed to see visible difference, to identify "others", and to create mental and cultural groupings. This instinct is just an instinct. A pattern of social and cultural behaviour. It isn't borne out by anything scientific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You are just describing visible phenotype variation, not genetic homogeneity.

Dogs are a poor/unfortunate example when it comes to phenotypes and visible traits. They have a uniquely plastic quality as a species, due to factors that are largely unknown. Cats would be a better example if you really had to go down that route.

Lets go back to the room of Swedes and Zulus again. Lets dramatically oversimplify and imagine they have a list of 1000 traits and genetic variables that can either be a or b. Of those variables, only, say, 25 affect the visible features of skin tone, hair type, face shape and eye colour, etc.

We would expect *some* homogeneity on those 25 traits, but even there we may still get cross over between the groups. Especially as the sample of Zulus and Swedes grows. We may also get some homogeneity on another 25-50 traits, and have another dozen traits here or there where there are novel patterns within subgroups of those groups.

But on the other 900 traits, we probably see no correlation at all, and couldn't predict who was in either group from those differences.

We are human, and from our evolutionary heritage are programmed to see visible difference, to identify "others", and to create mental and cultural groupings. This instinct is just an instinct. A pattern of social and cultural behaviour. It isn't borne out by anything scientific.

---

OH MY GOD THIS IS STUPID.

Geez, I don't even know where to begin... Also, saturday eve and i already had some, so wrong time to debate.

I'll just deal with the stupid STUPID end, and deal with the rest later when I'm more sober.

Quote:

---

We are human, and from our evolutionary heritage are programmed to see visible difference, to identify "others", and to create mental and cultural groupings. This instinct is just an instinct.

---

We are, from our evolutionary heritage that has lead us to being top predators and rocket scientists exploring space - and who is the sole race in the known universe to have reached sentience enough to fight against its own destruction in case of natural disasters - programmed to identify "others" yes. Mainly because these "others" can hold our evolution back, and we want to kill them or make them submissive... Heck, at the very minimum just make others shut up and do as they are told until they have an intelligent comeback answer.

And yes, this instinct is just an instinct. But wait... "JUST" an instinct? Instincts are what ****ing DRIVES us. It is what has made humans be humans. It is what has caused us to reach this mayhaps previously never reached level of sentience.

ARE YOU ON DRUGS!? If so they must be great.... Don't hog them bro... :smoking:

Quote:

---

A pattern of social and cultural behaviour. It isn't borne out by anything scientific.

---

Uuuuh... I would call millions and millions and millions and millions of years of evolution "scientific".

Also, here is a side of me that I think few people here understand about me... I will put it in bigger letters to make it clear also for future discussions.

I BELIEVE IN DIVERSITY

Not the diversity where every culture get all jumbled up together in every nation and create one sole human race, all being more or less the same, with the same views, with the same solutions to problems.



My Utopia is a world with different nations, peacefully cooperating and sharing ideas, individually testing things to see if it's fruitful, learning from each others, respecting each others...

Which of these systems do you believe produce the steepest learning curve? Which of these systems do you really think is best on a evolutionary scale?



And as a Big thumbs up to my dear USAnian friends...

YES, I am basically saying I want the world to work like the US, or EU... Where we all agree on some basic moral principles: Let's not kill each other or go over moral and decent lines to mess with each other, and let's help each others when someone is in great need. However, let's try NOT to all be the same, as that has never been a really good solution for solving problems that might arise...


PHEW....

Hope some of you get me :soapbox:

I like how you didn't actually address any aspect of the post.