Zionist Mindset

[CountValentine]

Is the argument here that the Jews right to Israel is based on the Torah?

[churnbabychurn]

Is the argument here that the Jews right to Israel is based on the Torah?

You always seem to just get it!
 The Jews are always haggling, cant deal with them. 

[CountValentine]

You always seem to just get it!
 The Jews are always haggling, cant deal with them. 

Since we are haggling can I get the Via Dolorosa for the Catholics?

[Achas Veachas]

Since we are haggling can I get the Via Dolorosa for the Catholics?

Not if Hamas has their way...

[YankyDoodle]

Ok, lets go with your argument. The Jews are basically conquerors that managed to find favor in the eyes of the british. "The mightiest win"? Fine, so according to you, the palestinian uprising against the mighty Jewish conquerors is one hundred percent legitimate. If C'V they become "mightier" they have a legitimate right to kick the Jews out.

No one is making theses arguments, they are inherently dangerous.

No, targeting innocent civilians is wrong according to all moral and legal arguments. Declaring war over a disagreement is common and is settled on the battlefield. The war generally continues until one of the sides recognizes that they are losing and chooses to make piece before they suffer greater casualties. By that point some land may have been conquered and the victorious country keeps it, "to the victor goes the spoils". The end.

[churnbabychurn]

This no hurting of civilians /geneva convention is a fairly new concept, has almost no historical precedence. Thats all the jews have to stand on?

[YankyDoodle]

This no hurting of civilians /geneva convention is a fairly new concept, has almost no historical precedence. Thats all the jews have to stand on?

That's simply not true... source? Civilian life has been respected (at the very least not specifically targeted) throughout all major wars of recent times).

The point is Israel doesn't need anything else to stand on! They are the current inhabitants of the land and have rebuffed attack after attack. What does America have to stand on? You are trying so hard to find a reason to say that it can only be based on the Torah that you are not even thinking straight. Like I said, the Bible story is great, it only enhances the claim. But it is not necessary for thinking people to recognize Israel.

[avadah]

First of all, "they" is a large and diverse group. Secondly, if they claim the right to the land based on the Bible, is it so difficult to see the Torah as a history book? I'm not going to get into the discussion about how dare they quote Torah if they don't follow it. Yes, it's ironic and maybe slightly hypocritical. Get over it. Seriously.

1) "They" are not a diverse group. "They" are secular Zionists.
2) If the Torah is C"V merely a history book then it really has no bearing on current events. The claim is based on a promise from G-D to the Jewish people. According to you, that's nothing more than an old treaty. Let the Ottomans/Turkey claim ownership because they once owned it too.

[avadah]

That's simply not true... source? Civilian life has been respected (at the very least not specifically targeted) throughout all major wars of recent times).

The point is Israel doesn't need anything else to stand on! They are the current inhabitants of the land and have rebuffed attack after attack. What does America have to stand on? You are trying so hard to find a reason to say that it can only be based on the Torah that you are not even thinking straight. Like I said, the Bible story is great, it only enhances the claim. But it is not necessary for thinking people to recognize Israel.

I'm asking you again. How often do you hear the Israelis use that claim?

[YankyDoodle]

1) "They" are not a diverse group. "They" are secular Zionists.
2) If the Torah is C"V merely a history book then it really has no bearing on current events. The claim is based on a promise from G-D to the Jewish people. According to you, that's nothing more than an old treaty. Let the Ottomans/Turkey claim ownership because they once owned it too.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Liberal_Zionism For a list of some of the many forms of Zionism.
2) For secular Zionists the claim about the biblical significance of Israel is less about what G-d promised the Jews and more about the historical, sociological significance of the land for the Jews.

I'm asking you again. How often do you hear the Israelis use that claim?

My answer was more in response to those who argue that the secular Zionists have no argument for the land and that the only conceivable argument is that G-d promised it to the Jews. I am simply pointing out that they don't have to believe in the Torah to still feel a nationalistic right to the land.

[DBK]

If someone says the Torah is a bunch of fairy tales (R"L), than how can you use it to base your claims for land?

C"V obviously that's an awful thing to say and to promote that belief. However that may be a result of ignorance or general lack of awareness.
Even within Halacha we don't deem someone who is non observant as a rasha there are many different factors that go into a person and his religious observance.
I would further posit that perhaps their attachment to the land and quoting Torah to support that is a positive because atleast they have that connection to their people. And since we are not an all or nothing religion why should their other beliefs preclude them from quoting at the very least the small part that they do believe.

[avadah]

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Liberal_Zionism For a list of some of the many forms of Zionism.
2) For secular Zionists the claim about the biblical significance of Israel is less about what G-d promised the Jews and more about the historical, sociological significance of the land for the Jews.
My answer was more in response to those who argue that the secular Zionists have no argument for the land and that the only conceivable argument is that G-d promised it to the Jews. I am simply pointing out that they don't have to believe in the Torah to still feel a nationalistic right to the land.

I'm simply pointing out that the secular Zionists (they) tend to base it on the Torah and if it's just based on history it won't get you very far. What if the great-grandchildren of the people who used to live where you live show up at your door one day and say it's their house because generations back they owned it?

BTW, were you able to name all 6 types of Zionism before you saw that on Wikipedia? 

[YankyDoodle]

I'm simply pointing out that the secular Zionists (they) tend to base it on the Torah and if it's just based on history it won't get you very far. What if the great-grandchildren of the people who used to live where you live show up at your door one day and say it's their house because generations back they owned it?

BTW, were you able to name all 6 types of Zionism before you saw that on Wikipedia? 

I hear what your saying, and if that is their only claim to the land it would indeed be a weak claim. I believe that inherent in their claim is the argument that I made.

And no, I most definitely could not name them all!

[churnbabychurn]

That's simply not true... source? Civilian life has been respected (at the very least not specifically targeted) throughout all major wars of recent times).

Civilians have been slaughtered by the millions in all wars throughout history. Traditionally more soldiers were killed because the civilians were hard to reach with a bow and arrow. Still, civilians were a fair target. The last century saw the more civilian casualties of war than ever before. Millions in the world wars and as casualties of WMD's.

[YankyDoodle]

Civilians have been slaughtered by the millions in all wars throughout history. Traditionally more soldiers were killed because the civilians were hard to reach with a bow and arrow. Still, civilians were a fair target. The last century saw the more civilian casualties of war than ever before. Millions in the world wars and as casualties of WMD's.

Nope. Every war fought by civilized countries has respected civilian life. Until very recent times war was traditionally fought on the battlefield thus sparing the chance for civilian casualties. Even when fought in city streets, such as parts of WWII everything possible was done to spare innocent lives. The only examples to the contrary were desperation moves by uncivilized societies (Syria, Terrorists, Nazi Germany etc) these are famous because they are the exception to the rule.

This is all completely irrelevant to the heart of the discussion.

[CountValentine]

Nope. Every war fought by civilized countries has respected civilian life.

Mỹ Lai?

[churnbabychurn]

"Lives deliberately extinguished by politically motivated carnage":

    167,000,000 to 175,000,000
    Including:
        War Dead: 87,500,000
            Military war dead:
                33,500,000
            Civilian war dead:
                54,000,000
        Not-war Dead: 80,000,000
            Communist oppression:
                60,000,000

Just way of mark. More civilians than soldiers were killed in the last century.

[YankyDoodle]

Fine, so according to you, the palestinian uprising against the mighty Jewish conquerors is one hundred percent legitimate. If C'V they become "mightier" they have a legitimate right to kick the Jews out.

Your argument was that if someone wins a war and conquers land as a result it is equivalent to terrorist attacks on civilians. You then went in to say that civilians have always been major targets of war (which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion). I simply stated that civilians were not the major target (again not the main point of discussion). Yes civilians get hurt during war, especially wars with rockets and the like. This doesn't prove that it is "ok" to target civilians.

Mỹ Lai?

There are unfortunately sad exceptions. Generally speaking the civilized world has looked at these as horrible lapses of judgement and often the perpetrators were held responsible in some form or another. Again the point is that this is not an accepted norm and cannot be equated to a war of self-defense nor even a war of aggression.