[Rictor]

So what you are arguing is that Utopian means are what is at fault, not the ends. Here is a question, should we as a species actively work to better our society? Yes or No? If you say yes, you support working towards Utopia. As I said, it will not come, but you can get a long way from Point A towards Point B.

I do not believe that fighting a tyranny is wrong. I do not believe that letting the weak be set upon by the strong is just. I do support war, when it is necesarry.

However, I think that war is only a temporary solution. War can bring about a short peace, 50 or a hundred years, but it can not keep the peace. Only peace can keep the peace, if that makes any sense. Basically, you have to give up the notion of war for greed or for power, and embrace peace, while at the same time being prepared to fight a war if it is necesarry to keep the peace.

However, you are under the illusion that American wars of late have been for the puropses of justice and freedom. These are just words that those leaders who want war for personal gain use to mask the truth. You work under the assumption that if Bush (or Clinton or whoever is in charge ath the moment) says something, it is true. So, they say "We are fighting to liberate Iraq", you assume it is true, even though common sense is saying that he is lying and decieving,

For example, let me ask you. For what ideal was America fighting for when they secrertly overthrew  Salvador Allende in Chile in the 70s?

Was it for democracy? He was democratically elected.
Was it for freedom? Pinochet was a tyrant and everyone knew it.
Was it for peace? A military coup, followed by years of bloody tyranny.

It was to protect Pepsi Cola's business interests. Allende was a socialist, so for no other ideal than that of unrestricted capitalism, the United States visited years of suffering upon an innocent people. Where is the justice in that?

_____

Answer the above questions, and maybe this can become more than a "I'm right!, No, I'm right" sort of deal.

[Sandwich]

First of all, I just wanted to say that I'm quite proud of you all. As inflammatory a subject as this can be, there haven't been any flame wars, virtually no name-calling, etc - quite civilized. Good job.

Originally posted by Gank
Again, Israel started the 67 war. You may claim it was a pre-emptive strike but the fact remains you started it...

Ok, granted: in a literal meaining of the word, Israel started the '67 war. However, do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated that war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?

Originally posted by Gank
...besides a defensive war does not capture land, only an offensive one does. IIRC Germanys war gainst Poland was defensive.   And conquering land does not give you the right to displace its people and colonise it, that sort of thing ended hundreds of years ago in the civilised world.

Defensive wars don't conquer land? Please don't take offense, but what the hell are you talking about? Defensive/offensive refers to the initiator of hostilities. Generally, that army has the upper hand in the battles due to preparedness and somtimes even the element of surprise. Most defensive wars are losing wars, since the aggressor has the upper hand and is able to push the battle onto their enemy's land.

Defensive/offensive wars are not defined by which side of the border they take place on. However, the reverse is generally true - the side of the border the battles take place is generally dependant on who struck first.

However, in Israel's case, the defensive wars she has fought have resulted in the IDF pushing the attacking enemy out beyond her borders and into the originating nations, thus capturing that territory.

Which, in war, is perfectly acceptable.

Originally posted by Gank
Btw there wasnt a jewish nation for about 2500 years before 1950. Sorry to burst your bubble but satans already won.

Liek I said before, the promise God made was to the Jews as a people, not a coherent nation. Otherwise it would be a blatant contradiction between that and the promises about gathering them from where they were scattered among the nations, bringing them back to their own land, etc.

Oh, and Satan lost at the cross. He just doesn't admit it yet.

Originally posted by Gank
Goober5000, militant muslims are trying to wipe out Israel, not Judaism. Theres a very big difference.

Originally posted by Gank
You're getting confused with european anti-semitism, which was rife. But your also viewing Judaism as a nationality, its not its a religion.

Clarification time. I am Jewish (nationality/ethnic group). I am not Jewish (religion).

It's very easy to get confused between the two. But the distinction must be made, otherwise you'd have secular Jews being labeled as religious.

[Liberator]

Rictor, your pursuit of a peaceful utopia is at best a pipedream.  Even if, under some bizarre happenstance, you were able to change the USA into a peaceful nation with no kind of internal strife of any kind, what about the rest of the world?

Human's cannot maintain a utopia with some kind of external influence, it's not in out nature.  You would never get everybody to agree with you, somebody, like me for instance, would believe you are wrong and work against you.  Thus is born the conflict that you're utopic ideal tries so hard to eliminate.  To establish a utopia you would have to legislate it and use military force or you would have to drug every single person in the USA and eventually the world to maintain it.  Thus is born a totalitarian state we saw in the Soviet Union.  I'll skip, thanks.

Here comes the laughter, but let's say you overturn the current world order without some kind of massive genocidal war.  On some far off day, we will figure out how to travel between the stars.  What if we come across an extraterrestrial species that followed the opposite path and is warlike?  What choice would your utopic world of peace have, but to go to war with the aliens for the very future of the species.

That was a far out scenario I'll admit, but possible.  

You continue to ignore Human Nature, that even you have.  Human nature is that part of us that have sex with every girl(or guy depending on your gender) we see.  It's that part of us that is greedy and self-centered, and would just as soon take something they want instead of earning it.  The trick is to not ignore it, it's too strong and will eventually wear you down, neither should you embrace it, because you will just as easyily become a monster of some kind.  The trick is to mitigate it and use it as a guide, temper it with wisdom and intelligence.

You seem to think that Conservatives, I'll not say Republicans because there are many Republicans who are not Conservative in any way, are selfish, stick-it-to-whoever-I-can thus and so's who's only goal is to rape the land and it's inhabitants.  I can tell you, from experience, that is not so.

Can you tell me Rictor, I mean I know already, but can you tell me what kind of behavior on the part of the American leadership would make you happy?

[Rictor]

Well, I simply don't agree with you that humanity has in its basic nature the urge to kill, exploit and benefit from the misery of others. Essentially, its the position of John Locke as opposed to the one you are taking, of Thomas Hobbes. Are humans, at their core, good or evil? I say good, and it is various forces that drive us to ignore our nature, which is to be compassionate and peaceful. BY the way, Locke helped write the American Constitution, might want to keep that in mind.

Most Conservatives, and I do make the distinction between Conservatives and Republicans, are Hobbesian in their ideals. They believe that humans are corrupt and greedy and self serving. This then justifies the "might makes right" principle, becuase most people who take the stance that people are essentially evil exclude themselves from this equation and believe that they are above their nature. Thats where you get phrases like Good vs Evil being thrown around, where everyone who subscribes to your set of ideals is good, while the rest are "merely human".

However, I think that thats a very defeatist attitude. If you believe that Humans are at their core evil, and you do not believe in God,  then there is no hope for us and I don't see why you shouldn't just kill yourself right now. If the only possible outcomes are subjugating the weak or death, whats the point in living? Then, there can be no true justice or peace, only that justice which the strong allow the weak to have, and only that peace which comes from conquering.

Thats the basic jist of it. Thats the difference between you and me. Locke or Hobbes.

_____

I think that your example of the alien race is not relevant. Everyone withing humanity shares more or less the same basic principles, so agreement can be reached. If we were to encounter an alien race, it would be very improbable that thier ideals would match our own in such a way as to allow peace. Thats like comparing apples and oranges. All the oranges can get allong, because they're all the same. And all the apples can get along, because they too are the same. But you can't have apples in agreement with oranges, because they're so different.

What you are trying to do is to use the apple/orange analogy on humanity. You say that Islam is apples and Christianity is oranges and maybe Judaism is pears, so they can't get along. But you have to reconginze that first of all, all of humanity came from a single source. This is true regardless of whether you believe in Creationism or evolution. Secondly, you have to realize that all the major religions are very, very similar. In their rituals and practices, maybe not, but in their fundemental principles, they are almost identical.

Imagine a child who has grown up in a Christian family, and knows a fair bit about the ideals of Christianity. But he has never actually read the Bibe. Just imagine that for a second. Now, you give him the Koran and tell him "This is the Bible". Upon reading it, do you think he would have any suspicions that the religion which he has been taught, and the religion described in the book were not one and the same? I think he wouldn't. If he were exceptionally well versed in Christian beliefs, he would notice a few minor contradictions, but these would be technicalities and could easily be explained away,

___________

Now, as for American leadership, I would like them to start working towards establishing peace in the world. This sounds very vague, but it actually has a very speciific set of policies that it entials, they are just too numerous for me to list. In fact, I think that it is America that is in a large degree keeping the world from achieving peace. If America simply turned isolationist (economically as well as politically) I think that we would in the next 50 or 100 years see a slow but steady move towards enlightenment and peace, worldwide.

You think this is a pipedream, but have you ever entertained the possibility that it could happen. You are taking a conclusion which you have already established, and using the evnts in the wold to justify it. Logic works the other way around. You take the circumstances in the world today, and if you do this and this and this, and that looks like it is going to bring peace, then it should be assumed that, baring any unforseen events, peace will come. There is no reason not to think that, if you believe, like me, that humans are basically good. However, I think humanity will get there despite America's efforts, its just going to take longer and be a bit more difficult.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, granted: in a literal meaining of the word, Israel started the '67 war. However, do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated that war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?

  'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.'  
Menahem Begin

Defensive wars ..... thus capturing that territory.

Yopu've already admitted it wasnt a defensive war, you're talking about something which didnt happen. 6 day war was started by Israel and fought on arab soil. It was an offensive war. If I think my neighbours going to attack me and go around and lay into him, I'm attacking, hes defending. It doesnt matter how sure I am he was going to attack me, by attacking him I've reversed the roles. Israel attacked, arabs defended. Dress it up however you like, those are the facts.

Which, in war, is perfectly acceptable.

So because you've captured it your free to settle it? Thats called ethnic cleansing sandwich, and no civilised people would consider it "acceptable"

Liek I said before, the promise God made was to the Jews as a people, not a coherent nation. Otherwise it would be a blatant contradiction between that and the promises about gathering them from where they were scattered among the nations, bringing them back to their own land, etc.

You were equating the destruction of Israel with the destruction of the jewish nation. If this isnt the case you needent worry about satan winning if Israel ceases to exist, theres more jews in america than Israel.

Clarification time. I am Jewish (nationality/ethnic group). I am not Jewish (religion).

Revelations 2:9

[Rictor]

Liberator, I answered your question, now you answer mine:

Originally posted by Rictor
For example, let me ask you. For what ideal was America fighting for when they secrertly overthrew  Salvador Allende in Chile in the 70s?

Was it for democracy? He was democratically elected.
Was it for freedom? Pinochet was a tyrant and everyone knew it.
Was it for peace? A military coup, followed by years of bloody tyranny.

It was to protect Pepsi Cola's business interests. Allende was a socialist, so for no other ideal than that of unrestricted capitalism, the United States visited years of suffering upon an innocent  

[Gank]

Originally posted by Rictor
BY the way, Locke helped write the American Constitution, might want to keep that in mind.

A good few of the writers of the constitution were slavetraders, might want to keep that in mind.

[Rictor]

And most of the founding fathers were slaveowners. I'm under no illusion that these were holy, enlightened men, who were above greed and corruption and such.

But I think that it is significant that Liberator is displaying views on humanity that run directly contrary to the beliefs of one of the most significant writers of the Constitution, which Americans (Libby included I assume) hold to be the "rulebook" for their basic values.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Rictor
Liberator, I answered your question, now you answer mine:

 

I can't, I have no knowledge of these events.  I was probably about 10 when it happened.

I will agree that I beleive the USA needs to become more isolationist, but for our own good, not the good of the world.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Rictor
Secondly, you have to realize that all the major religions are very, very similar. In their rituals and practices, maybe not, but in their fundemental principles, they are almost identical.

No, no, no, not at all.  You've got it precisely backwards.

Superficially, lots of religions are similar.  People pray/meditate, do good to others, and better themselves.  But at their core, religions are very different.  Christians believe that we can't save ourselves, that salvation is beyond reach unless God offers it to us.  Muslims believe that salvation is based on adhering to law, and they put great emphasis on rituals (c.f. the Five Pillars).  Hindus believe in a polytheistic/pantheistic god that manifests himself in many forms.  Buddhists don't even believe that there is a God.

Originally posted by Gank
So because you've captured it your free to settle it? Thats called ethnic cleansing sandwich, and no civilised people would consider it "acceptable"

If you capture land, it's yours to do whatever you want with it.  That isn't ethnic cleansing.  Ethnic cleansing is systematically deporting or exterminating those of a particular ethnicity.

Settling captured land is fair and acceptable.  Ethnic cleansing is not.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Buddhists don't even believe that there is a God.

Buddhists do believe in gods. They just don't believe that they care that much about humanity.

[Rictor]

Yes, but what if there are people already living on the captured land, as there are almost certain to be. Is deporting or moving them in order to accomodate your own setttlements, is that ethnic cleansing?

_______

Goober, what I was thinking is more along the lines of the basic values extoled by the Big 3 religions. Essentially, they each have a single God, a single pre-imminent prophet, and believe in the struggle between good and evil.  Values such as honour, justice, kindness, charity and piety are held to be indicstors of a godly person, in addition to of course being a devout man/woman.

That is more or less the basics of it. It goes so far as to recognize each oother's religious texts and even holy figures. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, though not as major as Muhamed (sp?). Christians akcowledge the whole Moses business, and even have the Old Testament as part of the Bible. Jews can't really acknowledge other religions, since Judaism predates both Christianity and Islam by a few thousand years.

In short - same car, different paintjob.

[Liberator]

Yes, but the all-important details are different.  Less so between Christianity and Judaism, since the Orginiator of Christianity was Jewish.

[Rictor]

Well, if it is as you claim, details, the do not present the three (or actually, you just went after Islam) religions to be completey irreconsilably different.  

If Bob and John and Tom all believe in the same values more or less, but each give them different names, then despite the details, they all share common ground and are in fact more likely to reach an agreement with each other than each would with say, an athiest. See what I'm getting at here? Despite the "ltter of the law", in all three cases the "intent of the law" is the same. Unless of course you want to claim that the letter is more important than the intent.

[Goober5000]

As I said, religions are superficially the same but different on a fundamental level.  People of different religions can certainly get along on a superficial basis because they aren't bringing their core values to the surface.  When the core principles come into conflict, that's when the fireworks start.

Some examples:
* You'll have a heck of a time convincing an Orthodox Jew of the divinity of Jesus, because from his perspective that's blasphemy of the highest order.
* One reason that ethnic Jews and Arab Muslims are hostile towards each other is that Jews believe God bestowed his blessing on Abraham's descendants through Isaac while Muslims believe that God bestowed his blessing on Abraham's descendants through Ishmael.
* The Christian doctrine that "it is appointed for man once to die, and then face judgement" is in direct conflict with the Buddhist and Hindu principles of bettering oneself through reincarnation.

Etc.

[Grey Wolf]

Where'd the reference to Buddhism and Hinduism come from? The conversation was on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

[Rictor]

Alright, since the Buddhists and Hindus (except for India, also China but China doesn't count) seem to be getting along just fine, lets leave them out of it.

What you think is the core values I think is superficial. Do you believe that God bestowed his blessing through Abraham or through Ishmael HIS BROTHER. Cmon how much more alike can you get.

What you call your prophet and whether he was Caucasian or Arabic or whatever, thats just tiny niggles. If you take out all the uninmportant stuff (names, places, the exact type of food you are not allowed to eat, how and how often you have to pray) etc, you are left with identical core values.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Where'd the reference to Buddhism and Hinduism come from? The conversation was on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Reread the last few posts.  The specific point I was addressing was the compatibility or lack thereof between religions in general.

Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, since the Buddhists and Hindus (except for India, also China but China doesn't count) seem to be getting along just fine, lets leave them out of it.

Well, Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, so they're more compatible with each other than with other religions.  Similar situation to Christianity and Judaism.

What you think is the core values I think is superficial.

Then you should study up on what each religion's fundamental doctrines are.  They're very much in conflict.

Do you believe that God bestowed his blessing through Abraham or through Ishmael HIS BROTHER. Cmon how much more alike can you get.

That's a serious issue in middle eastern culture, especially since the family tree is so extensive that there are literally two nations in conflict.  A cynic would say that Jews and Muslims are fighting over which nation is God's favorite.

If you take out all the uninmportant stuff (names, places, the exact type of food you are not allowed to eat, how and how often you have to pray) etc, you are left with identical core values.

Again, no.  Do some more research on this.  Check out www.comparativereligion.com or take a comparative religion course.

edited for formatting

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Rictor
Imagine a child who has grown up in a Christian family, and knows a fair bit about the ideals of Christianity. But he has never actually read the Bibe. Just imagine that for a second. Now, you give him the Koran and tell him "This is the Bible". Upon reading it, do you think he would have any suspicions that the religion which he has been taught, and the religion described in the book were not one and the same? I think he wouldn't. If he were exceptionally well versed in Christian beliefs, he would notice a few minor contradictions, but these would be technicalities and could easily be explained away,

This depends on your definition of "growing up in a Christian family", obviously. But without being more specific, I'd have to disagree.

Originally posted by Gank
'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.'  
Menahem Begin

Good quote, but we already got past this point, and you didn't answer the question:

Do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated that war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?

Originally posted by Gank
Yopu've already admitted it wasnt a defensive war, you're talking about something which didnt happen. 6 day war was started by Israel and fought on arab soil. It was an offensive war. If I think my neighbours going to attack me and go around and lay into him, I'm attacking, hes defending. It doesnt matter how sure I am he was going to attack me, by attacking him I've reversed the roles. Israel attacked, arabs defended. Dress it up however you like, those are the facts.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to the 6-Day War. I was referring to the War of '48 and the Yom Kippur War in '73.

Originally posted by Gank
So because you've captured it your free to settle it? Thats called ethnic cleansing sandwich, and no civilised people would consider it "acceptable"

Uhm, no, that's not "ethnic cleansing". "Ethnic Cleansing" is when the goal is eradicating a specific ethnic group. Ignoring the fact that you'd better not call Egyptians "Arab" to their face (they aren't Arab), Israel would have behaved much differently if her wars of self-defense had a goal of ethnic cleansing.

Israel has the ability to pretty much wipe out any of our neighboring nations whenever she wants, barring intervention from the UN, US, etc. We do have nukes, remember.

It's like that court case where a man was charged with attempted murder because he severely pistol-whipped someone. His defense was that his gun was loaded; if he'd wanted the person dead, he could have shot them. The judge accepted the defense and the man got convicted of aggravated assault.

Let me put it to you very plainly:

Israel does not want war. Israel does not want to wipe her enemies off the face of the planet. Israel does not want the Palestianians to go through such hardships, live in such crappy conditions, or feel the need to blow themselves up just to strike back.

But Israel's survival as a nation must be the top priority of her leaders. When attacked, we will defend. When threatened, we will respond.

And when we are offered a secure peace, we WILL jump at the chance.

Not before.

Originally posted by Gank
You were equating the destruction of Israel with the destruction of the jewish nation. If this isnt the case you needent worry about satan winning if Israel ceases to exist, theres more jews in america than Israel.

Here's the passage - understand what you will:

[q]Jeremiah 31:31-40

 31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."


        35 Thus says the LORD,
        Who gives the sun for a light by day,
        The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
        Who disturbs the sea,
        And its waves roar
        (The LORD of hosts is His name):


        36 "If those ordinances depart
        From before Me, says the LORD,
        Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
        From being a nation before Me forever."


37 Thus says the LORD:


        "If heaven above can be measured,
        And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
        I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
        For all that they have done, says the LORD.


38 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The surveyor's line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. 40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."[/q]

Originally posted by Gank
Revelations 2:9

[q] 8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write,
"These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: 9 "I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.[/q]

What's your point? Are you going to pull that verse out at every person you encounter who's Jewish?

No, wait, lemme guess - only the Sephardic Jews are really Jewish - the Ashkenazi Jews are from the Khazar tribe in Europe that converted wholesale to Judaisim.

That's like sayiing that the only Americans are the pureblood decendants of the Native American Indians. Besides, conversion to Judaism is quite valid, you know. Heck, even in the Bible, God makes many references in His commandments to the Jewish People that it includes the stranger that sojourns among them - the Egyptians who joined them in the exodus, for example. And they didn't even convert.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Good quote, but we already got past this point, and you didn't answer the question:

Do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated that war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?

Its irrelevant. 6 day war was an offensive war started by Israel, regardless of the reasons.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to the 6-Day War. I was referring to the War of '48 and the Yom Kippur War in '73.

Yes you sholud have been more specific, especially as it was the 6 day war we were discussing. The west bank was captured then.

Uhm, no, that's not "ethnic cleansing". "Ethnic Cleansing" is when the goal is eradicating a specific ethnic group. Ignoring the fact that you'd better not call Egyptians "Arab" to their face (they aren't Arab), Israel would have behaved much differently if her wars of self-defense had a goal of ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing would be the removal of a specific ethnic group, not eradication. Hence the settlements and the wall. Did Benjamin Netanyaho (sp) not say the palestinian is a beast with two legs

Israel does not want war. Israel does not want to wipe her enemies off the face of the planet. Israel does not want the Palestianians to go through such hardships, live in such crappy conditions, or feel the need to blow themselves up just to strike back.

But Israel's survival as a nation must be the top priority of her leaders. When attacked, we will defend. When threatened, we will respond.

And when we are offered a secure peace, we WILL jump at the chance.

Not before.

Wrong sandwich, heres some quotes from Israeli leaders

"Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . .  Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders--- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. No border is absolute. If it's a desert--- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice."

David Ben Gurion, 1949

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to live up to his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today--but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them."

David Ben Gurion

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized . . . Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever,"

Menachim Begin
Israel has never wanted to leave peacefully with its neighbours, its wanted to conquer its land.

What's your point? Are you going to pull that verse out at every person you encounter who's Jewish?

No, wait, lemme guess - only the Sephardic Jews are really Jewish - the Ashkenazi Jews are from the Khazar tribe in Europe that converted wholesale to Judaisim.

That's like sayiing that the only Americans are the pureblood decendants of the Native American Indians. Besides, conversion to Judaism is quite valid, you know. Heck, even in the Bible, God makes many references in His commandments to the Jewish People that it includes the stranger that sojourns among them - the Egyptians who joined them in the exodus, for example. And they didn't even convert.

The point behind that quote sandwich, was that it was exactly what you were saying. You are a jew but you are not a jew. I dont believe in the bible so its actually meaningless to me. And no I dont quote it to every jew I meet, I have no reason too. And given that the bible is meaningless to me its pointless using it to back up your arguements, it lends as much weight to your words as the rig veda does to a hindus. Conversion to judaism might be quite valid religiously, but it does not make you descended from the middle east, it does not give you the right to a homeland there.