Your knowledge of macro-economics is lacking.

Lots of money have been left in many countries which squandered it, and vice versa.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In order to attempt to understand the vast layers of complexity related to this conflict, one must understand what circumstances have brought us to this point. For thousands of years, Jews have been the minority. This has not worked out well for them. This is the motivation For a Jewish state. This is part of the motives for settlements.

The 'law of return' explicitly offers citizenship to people on the basis of jewish ancestry, and everyone else has to go through a standard merit based immigration process.

And that's just a part where they explicitly give preference to the lives of jews over non jews (who're in effect realizing the benefits of US foreign aid). Can you imagine how fraught the society must be with nuanced bigotry if that's a principle that's enshrined in the foundation of the country? Not that everyone there is a fan of this policy. There're plenty of people jewish or otherwise who aren't fans of it. But because most sane, rational people if given the option would rather not live in a country that's constantly on the brink of war, you end up having a stupidly high proportion of voters who're brain dead religious 'tards who have far too much of a voice in the political process. So the local parties can't change anything or it's as if they're signing their own resignation.


Why can't they do it exactly? Is there some kind of written condition that peace negotiations are to be strictly limited to hand shaking photo ops? Negotiating is part of the peace process, and foreign aid numbers change annually for a lot of reasons.

Jews created Israel nation with right of return after 2 Millenium of massacres and evictions around the world. Further it is a a religious imperative for Jews to rescue other Jews as well as to return to the land of Israel.
Is it racist to save ourselves? It is a response to Millenium of massacres, pogroms, oppression, forced conversion, expulsions and evictions. Now Jews have a place to go and an army/intelligence service and aid organizations meant to help keep us alive.

To be Jewish anywhere but Israel is to own a passport and know that you may need to move because it becomes too violent/oppressive for Jews. There is not argument to convince a rational Jew otherwise because our cultural understanding is that as a cohesive minority in other lands, we will eventually be scapegoats for populist rage--it's just a question of how bad.

There is no peace with terrorists. They cannot be negotiated with as they cannot be trusted to uphold any terms.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it is if you prioritize yourselves (Jews) above Muslims, Christians or atheists

A huge amount of nonsense being posted by people who have no idea what they are talking about. Par for the course I suppose...

This post is unspecific, and is ironically adding to the problem it claims to be identifying.

If you wish to deride someone or many people's posts, then quote them and point out logical fallacies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if Muslims, Christians or any other group regularly oppressed Jews and nobody uses their resources to save Jews en masse we die or get evicted from homes.
As a tiny minority in the world, it is racist if we use our limited resources for self preservation when every other group has proven not to care?

Or put another way, if you are part of a minority subject to extreme racism, is it problematic to prioritize self preservation when other groups have not shown a propensity to save you be masse?
What do you recommend we do? How do you propose we not die or get expelled a couple times a century?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Man communautarism is a terrible thing, and it never ends up well for those who are too deep into it.

It doesn't matter if you are a minority against the world, or if you are the world against a minority, if you use your ressources to preserve the jews over the human race, it's kind of bad and racist yes. What happened during thousands of year, doesn't matter, and isn't an argument

I personally think that if you are a part of a minority subject to extreme racism, the best way to get out of this is to open yourself to others not the other way. In general Israel isn't going the right direction in that regard

You have yet to propose how we survive if we maintain our distinctly Jewish identity?

When we open ourselves up to assimilation we both lose our identity as Jews--and still ace eviction and expulsion (Germany in the 1940s, Spain in 1492--both were global centers of Jewish assimilation into mainstream culture to the point of many families being nearly unrecognizable as Jews).

As far as I can tell, you wish for us to use our resources on global humanitarianism and assimilate into broader society. Is that correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right of return? So if your distant relatives lived somewhere 2000 years ago you have the right to return and claim that land? ****. I didn't know that. I think I will go reclaim my childhood home. I'm only a few decades removed so my right of return must be strong.

"Someone stole my bike so now I have the right to steal yours."

Oh, it's religious imperative? Well, that trumps all law, values, and reason doesn't it? You're speaking the language of Jihadists now.

WTF dude? Not appropriate.

The right of return doesn't require that you be a religious Jew, so I'm not sure it counts as religious discrimination. Maybe you meant ethnic discrimination?

Two points. First, literally every single country (at least, any country that people want to move to) has requirements for naturalization. Israel's are not particularly onerous, certain much less than some other countries (eg Japan). Thus, what you are really criticizing here is that they make it even easier for members of a particular ethnic group to immigrate to Israel. If you generally favor more open borders like I do, this just seems like a positive. I would be more critical of the policy that bars Palestinians from the Occupied Zone from becoming citizens through the normal means of naturalization. But not very much as I don't live in Israel or really understand its internal politics.

Along these lines, I have to admit that I find this particular line of attack when made by leftists (actual leftists, not just anyone to the left of the GOP) about how the foreign aid given to Israel by the US gives the US the right to dictate policy to Israel inconsistent with other typical beliefs of leftists about the evils of imperialism, especially by the US.

Second, as I listed in a prior post, most of the countries surrounding Israel are much more restrictive of the ability of Jews to enter or immigrate to their country. Israel is notably much more welcoming to Muslims and Arabs than Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq are towards Jews.

Because if President Obama tried to significantly cut foreign aid to Israel, the GOP would raise holy hell and large numbers of Democrats in Congress and outside would be upset and publicly oppose it. Lots of Jewish voters would give more money to the GOP and switch parties. Also, Israel remains very popular among the general public and the cause of the Palestianians unpopular:



The foreign aid given to Israel is just not worth the political capital it would require to try to lower it, and so Democratic and GOP presidents and Congress generally prefer to spend what they have on more important and popular areas of the budget.

I'm strongly pro-Israel and anti-terrorist. I support Israelis and their right of self-defense. Why is this even an issue.

You convert poor people or you have babies and try to indoctrinate them from birth. Just like every other religion. But even better would be to just admit that religion is a relic of the past, and that it's primary role is to help people at the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum in ways that modern governments can't or won't.

That's a more complicated question. There's no correct answer to how generous the US should be or to who.

The money is not going to towards self preservation of the people. It's going towards the preservation of a political entity. If the state reforms policies to make it more democratic the jews inside don't magically disappear.

It's complicated to pinpoint exactly what they're favoring, but it's pretty clearly discrimination (positive or negative) on the basis of ancestry in some sense - which isn't compatible with modern western ethics.


I know enough, and have known enough people who are jewish israeli that have similar criticisms. It's controversial back there too. But the ones who have views that're more modern tend overwhelmingly to move to north america / europe. That it's better than many other countries doesn't mean anything in this context because I'm not claiming they're a barbaric country for their immigration policies.

What I am saying is that the perception of that unfairness contributes heavily on why people have the attitudes that they do. Countries are all selfish. But at least when it comes to economic nationalism people who are interested in working hard to acquire knowledge/skills can join in on the party, and there wouldn't be nearly the same degree of bitterness and hatred. When you tell a group of people a few miles away living in slums that the reason they'r being denied entry is because they weren't born into the right group - yea, that'll probably stir up a fair bit of rage.

Attitudes take a while to change.. Obama not vetoing the UN resolution was a first step.

Sure it is. Or do you think conservative defenses of the value of national or ethnic identity are not compatible with modern western ethics?

Many communitarians, by shifting the locus of political concern from the individual to a group give explicit reasons for using a state to maintain an ethnic identity. For example, here is Charles Taylor on Quebec:

Fair enough, but it does seem relevant to what the UN should choose to focus on.

As I said earlier, I don't understand Israeli politics well enough to have strong opinions. But lots of countries include a "right by blood" component to citizenship without the kind of social unrest and hostility by nearby countries that Israel experiences. So my guess would be that this doesn't have that big an impact. But sure, it sounds plausible to me that it could cause some Arab Israelis to feel like second-class citizens.

Do you have any survey data on the views by Arab Israelis on the Right of Return?

The survey I posted shows that the Israeli cause is getting more popular and the Palestinian one less so in the US over the last 15 years (although it hasn't changed much since 2010). So I'm not sure that time is on your side here.

Since you had this strong of a reaction then I'm 98% sure you misunderstood my post, which was probably my fault. But nvm, I'll leave it alone. I meant no offense to Jewish people or you personally.

Cheers.

Rite of return. All Jews are welcomed in the Jewish nation when we inevitably get expelled/oppressed/worse.

Stealing a bike is a horrible analogy.

Religion is part and parcel of law, values and reason. Jihadists use religion to justify forcibly converting or killing all infidels--that's not our game and it's an analogy that shows your sloppy thinking or attempt to make points by not seeing the difference between religious logic of any faith and indiscriminate murder.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don't attempt to convert anyone--those who want it can get it.

Religion is a living, vibrant truth that is intertwined in today's modern world. And Judaism is not just a religion for the poor--your post shows an ignorance about Judaism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FYP

I mean come on please don't associate religion with truth, all of them are build on nonsense from sci-fi books, called sacred books

Ius sanguinis usually requires a parent, not very distant supposed ancestry. And Israel applies ius sanguinis to one ethnic group while refusing it to the other, i.e. the one ethnically cleansed in the 1940s.

Thanks for part of the story, the part everyone is cool with. what about the part where that nation is built on land belonging to other people and they are subsequently not welcomed?
How so? Your logic is literally that something bad/criminal happens to me so I get to do something bad/criminal to gain restitution from a party not responsible.

Your being Jihadist again.
That is a deliberate non-distinction on my part. The problem, and the commonality between you and Jihadists, is the idea that policy is going to be determined by what some long dead paranoid schizophrenic reported that God said.

It's kinda hard to steal land that doesn't belong to anybody.

Your jihadist comment is moronic. You think jihadist are interested in policies? Do you ever hear Israelis chant death to anybody?

You should come back when you have studied this subject troll!