Understanding the Evacuation of Gaza Strip: An In-Depth Discussion

[EnumaElish]

Thats typical of any jew. Give something back and take twice as much. The jews have done more harm to the world than any other race.

It is wise to draw a distinction between jewishness and the state of Israel, not to mention the right-wing government of the state of Israel. There are honest, hard-working and compassionate jewish people everywhere and they don't deserve your simple-minded labels.

 

[Lisa!]

They shouldn't, and no one ever asked them to.

I quote from yourself:

My garndparents moved to Israel in the beginning of the 20th century bacause they realized Jews should have a homeland. This has nothing to do with religion. European Jews were persecuted at every stage of history, and so many tired to assimilate into their societies, living a secular life which imitated that of their neighbours'.

So you decide to move to Palestin because of what European did.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I quote from yourself:



So you decide to move to Palestin because of what European did.

That's okay ... He also made the statement that being a Jew has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Smurf]

That is just predjudice talking. Jews have done nothing that we have not allowed them to do. Jews are not a race.
Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. Jews do not have any genetic distinction.

Have you seen his link? He's obviously aware he's has pejudice against jews. (despite the title page boldly attempting to claim they're not a hate sight).

 

[The Smoking Man]

Have you seen his link? He's obviously aware he's has pejudice against jews. (despite the title page boldly attempting to claim they're not a hate sight).

Huh?

I didn't follow the link however I do know Sammy Davis Jr. was a jew...

It is possible to convert to Judaism however he would have found it hard to convert to 'caucasianism' (unless Michael Jackson has the secret).

 

[Lisa!]

That's okay ... He also made the statement that being a Jew has nothing to do with religion.

Yeah, at first I thought there's a close relation btw Zionist and religion.

Of course I don't agree with him about all European. I think it was only about some countries. And I don't know how it all started. Hitler decided to kill Jewish and they move to other countries. And the interesting points is that mst of Jewish scientists( like Enstein,I' not sure but I think Fermi's wife was Jewish and he had to move to US because of her) moved to US and then they made Nuclear bomb and helped US to win the ww2.

 

[loseyourname]

And I don't know how it all started. Hitler decided to kill Jewish and they move to other countries. And the interesting points is that mst of Jewish scientists( like Enstein,I' not sure but I think Fermi's wife was Jewish and he had to move to US because of her) moved to US and then they made Nuclear bomb and helped US to win the ww2.

It started well before that. Ever seen The Merchant of Venice?

 

[Smurf]

Huh?

I didn't follow the link however I do know Sammy Davis Jr. was a jew...

You should, it's pathetic. Here it is again so you don't have to scroll up:
www.jewwatch.com

 

[The Smoking Man]

You should, it's pathetic. Here it is again so you don't have to scroll up:
www.jewwatch.com

Woah ... I stand corrected.

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SCHOLARLY RESEARCH?

Who's doing the research? Mengele?

 

[Art]

It is wise to draw a distinction between jewishness and the state of Israel, not to mention the right-wing government of the state of Israel. There are honest, hard-working and compassionate jewish people everywhere and they don't deserve your simple-minded labels.

I fully agree, it is only the right-wing government of Israel that I object to. I have an abhorrance of all terrorism whether it is by a state or by a group such as Hamas and it is important to note that condemning one side's attrocites does not condone attrocities committed by the other side nor does the actions of a few merit hating all members of the racial / religious group they belong to.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I fully agree, it is only the right-wing government of Israel that I object to. I have an abhorrance of all terrorism whether it is by a state or by a group such as Hamas and it is important to note that condemning one side's attrocites does not condone attrocities committed by the other side nor does the actions of a few merit hating all members of the racial / religious group they belong to.

I'll tell you one thing though:

If I was the soldier on the top of the Synagogue who was getting doused with paint all the way through the news coverage on Fox, some little twit would be looking for his nuts under his yomulka.

Those soldiers have my utmost respect.

 

[Lisa!]

It started well before that.

Yeah, but it wasn't like 20th century. I mean in a way that forse Jewish to live their homeland and decide to live some where else like Palestin.

Ever seen The Merchant of Venice?

Not yet, but I know the story.

 

[Art]

Yeah, but it wasn't like 20th century. I mean in a way that forse Jewish to live their homeland and decide to live some where else like Palestin.

It goes back way before the 20th century,

York's blackest day
Tainted city

In the century following the massacre, York's Jewish community reformed and became more wealthy, populous and active than ever before. Between 1210 and 1250, York's Jews sometimes contributed more in taxation than London! However, all of England's Jews were expelled by Edward II in 1290, during their years in exile accounts of the massacre in York established the city's notorious reputation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/north_yorkshire/article_3.shtml

As far as I know the persecution of jews had little to do with their religion. It was more because for some reason a lot of them were involved in usury so often attacks on them were orchestrated as a way of borrowers avoiding having to repay a debt.

 

[Smurf]

Uhhhh... not to mention the whole enslaved in Egypt part... let's not forget that now.

 

[Lisa!]

It goes back way before the 20th century, http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/north_yorkshire/article_3.shtml

As far as I know the persecution of jews had little to do with their religion. It was more because for some reason a lot of them were involved in usury so often attacks on them were orchestrated as a way of borrowers avoiding having to repay a debt.

Ok, so it's time to ask why? :uhh:

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ok, so it's time to ask why? :uhh:

It was against the Jewish religion to loan money amongst themselves so they loaned to the Christians.

They often ended up owning a lot more than they originally bargained for because of defaults so it became the best tactic to outlaw their religion rather than default all their wealth for the Christians.

 

[Yonoz]

So you decide to move to Palestin because of what European did.

My grandparents, and many others - I wasn't born until some time later :)
I fail to see how that can be interpreted as "asking the Palestinians" for anything besides living peacefully beside them. There are constant allegations of land being stolen and the settlers being hostile, but truth is the settlements prior to the formation of the State of Israel were established on land legally bought. They were peaceful idealists who often employed Arabs as labourers and guards until the hostilities forced them to form defensive organisations. It's natural, however regretable, that after 30 years of hostilities some of these organisations expelled individuals with ideas that were too extreme, but as a whole the Jewish settlement in Palestine was peaceful.

 

[Yonoz]

It was against the Jewish religion to loan money amongst themselves so they loaned to the Christians.

I never heard of this. Can you direct me to the source please?

 

[Yonoz]

That's okay ... He also made the statement that being a Jew has nothing to do with religion.

What statement was that?

 

[The Smoking Man]

What statement was that?

My garndparents moved to Israel in the beginning of the 20th century bacause they realized Jews should have a homeland. This has nothing to do with religion.

So you are saying a religion requires a homeland but it has nothing to do with religion. That is what we call a c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, so it's time to ask why? :uhh:

Christianity was a tool used by the monarchies of Europe to control their populous. There were enough problems caused just by conflicts between Protestants and Catholics - Jews were just too far from "normal" to be acceptable. Since the power of the king was based on divine right, making sure everyone believed the same thing was absolutely critical to maintaining power.

 

[russ_watters]

So you are saying a religion requires a homeland but it has nothing to do with religion. That is what we call a c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n.

Swing and a miss, TSM. You may want to reread that thread where we explain it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I never heard of this. Can you direct me to the source please?

Sure ... That would be:

Usury was in fact considered immoral by Jews too. The great Jewish theologian, Maimonides, wrote "why is [usury] called nesek [biting]? Because he who takes it bites his fellow, causes pain to him, and eats his flesh." [MINKIN, p. 362] Usury was forbidden to Jews, as well as Christians, in the Old Testament. (The Islamic Quran also expressly states its prohibition of "interest.") But there was a qualifier. Jews conjured a double moral standard; usury upon others in their own community was prohibited, but usury upon non-Jews was acceptable. The Torah states that one cannot practice usury upon a brother, but can to a stranger. [DEUTERONOMY, 23:20] Who is a brother and who is a stranger? "Brother," in Jewish religious teachings means "Jew." "Stranger" is anyone else.

Well, heck if you can't trust the Torah as a source, as I always say ...

You do realize that Maimonides (1135-1204) was most considered the source of Shylock's 'Pound Of Flesh' in The Merchant of Venice? ("Because he who takes it bites his fellow, causes pain to him, and eats his flesh.")

 

[russ_watters]

It was against the Jewish religion to loan money amongst themselves so they loaned to the Christians.

They often ended up owning a lot more than they originally bargained for because of defaults so it became the best tactic to outlaw their religion rather than default all their wealth for the Christians.

Not quite.

Until the industrial revolution, wealth was tied to land ownership. As part of the persecution of Jews, they were not allowed to own land. As a result, many became merchants and bankers. That persecution led to the mercantile tradition that continues today. It is a true irony that that part of the persecution ended up helping more than it hurt them.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Not quite.

Until the industrial revolution, wealth was tied to land ownership. As part of the persecution of Jews, they were not allowed to own land. As a result, many became merchants and bankers. That persecution led to the mercantile tradition that continues today. It is a true irony that that part of the persecution ended up helping more than it hurt them.

Right...

Sorry to put it to you agin Russ but you are contradicting the Jewish Tribal review now.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/04usury.htm

Also suggest you check out Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2084352

First, say Botticini and Eckstein, the exodus from farms to towns was probably not a response to discrimination. It's true that in the Middle Ages, Jews were often prohibited from owning land. But the transition to urban occupations and urban living occurred long before anybody ever thought of those restrictions. In the Muslim world, Jews faced no limits on occupation, land ownership, or anything else that might have been relevant to the choice of whether to farm. Moreover, a prohibition on land ownership is not a prohibition on farming—other groups facing similar restrictions (such as Samaritans) went right on working other people's land.

Nor, despite an influential thesis by the economic historian Simon Kuznets, can you explain the urbanization of the Jews as an internal attempt to forge and maintain a unique group identity. Samaritans and Christians maintained unique group identities without leaving the land. The Amish maintain a unique group identity to this day, and they've done it without giving up their farms.

So, what's different about the Jews? First, Botticini and Eckstein explain why other groups didn't leave the land. The temptation was certainly there: Skilled urban jobs have always paid better than farming, and that's been true since the time of Christ. But those jobs require literacy, which requires education—and for hundreds of years, education was so expensive that it proved a poor investment despite those higher wages. (Botticini and Eckstein have data on ancient teachers' salaries to back this up.) So, rational economic calculus dictated that pretty much everyone should have stayed on the farms.

But the Jews (like everyone else) were beholden not just to economic rationalism, but also to the dictates of their religion. And the Jewish religion, unique among religions of the early Middle Ages, imposed an obligation to be literate. To be a good Jew you had to read the Torah four times a week at services: twice on the Sabbath, and once every Monday and Thursday morning. And to be a good Jewish parent you had to educate your children so that they could do the same.

The literacy obligation had two effects. First, it meant that Jews were uniquely qualified to enter higher-paying urban occupations. Of course, anyone else who wanted to could have gone to school and become a moneylender, but school was so expensive that it made no sense. Jews, who had to go to school for religious reasons, naturally sought to earn at least some return on their investment. Only many centuries later did education start to make sense economically, and by then the Jews had become well established in banking, trade, and so forth.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry to put it to you agin Russ but you are contradicting the Jewish Tribal review now.

Contradicting an anti-semetic website would not concern me, but as it turns out, I am not contradicting it:

The Jews were not forbidden in medieval Europe to become usurers. Because they refused to convert en masse to the dominant religious faith and, to Christian belief, be spiritually saved, Jews were considered outsiders. Whatever its continuously decried immoral atmosphere, usury was an economic opportunity and the Jewish community gravitated to it.

They avoid using the word "persecution", but that's what forceable conversion is. And they "gravitated" to trade because that persecution meant there wasn't much else for them to do.

So they say it with a nice, soft tone (well, not that soft - its pretty accusatory), but the facts are all still there.

The portion you quoted is a rationalization of the persecution. Yes, Jews still could have farmed and yes, they made a choice to go another route, but that doesn't change the fact that their decision was influenced by the limiting of their set of choices! It also is lucky for them that they placed such a value on literacy - and ironic that the portion you quoted makes that sound like an accusaiton. I suppose they could have chosen to be peasant farmers, but I know I wouldn't - and I'm not Jewish!

 

[Burnsys]

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/04usury.htm

Common wisdom asserted that those who had surplus money to lend in the first place were obsessed with greed and avarice and needed no more -- certainly by usury -- for their coffers. And making money for doing absolutely nothing (except having the money available) went against Christian medieval understandings of decency, justice, honest work, and morality. In essence, usury was perceived as a crass system of exponential exploitation by which the already wealthy could get increasingly wealthier for little more than the fact of their wealth in the first place.

That still valid for today.

I Want The Earth Plus 5%
http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html

 

[The Smoking Man]

Contradicting an anti-semetic website would not concern me, but as it turns out, I am not contradicting it: They avoid using the word "persecution", but that's what forceable conversion is. And they "gravitated" to trade because that persecution meant there wasn't much else for them to do.

So they say it with a nice, soft tone (well, not that soft - its pretty accusatory), but the facts are all still there.

The portion you quoted is a rationalization of the persecution. Yes, Jews still could have farmed and yes, they made a choice to go another route, but that doesn't change the fact that their decision was influenced by the limiting of their set of choices! It also is lucky for them that they placed such a value on literacy - and ironic that the portion you quoted makes that sound like an accusaiton. I suppose they could have chosen to be peasant farmers, but I know I wouldn't - and I'm not Jewish!

Sorry, I thought you stated tht the reason for their gravitation to Usury was because they were forbidden to own land?

So now you are agreeing with the article that states they were allowed to own land in many different places but CHOSE usury with Christians even prior to the prohibition on land ownership?

That doesn't make sense.

They were usurers BEFORE the prohibition on land ownership, Russ.

In your previous statement:

Not quite.

Until the industrial revolution, wealth was tied to land ownership. As part of the persecution of Jews, they were not allowed to own land. As a result, many became merchants and bankers. That persecution led to the mercantile tradition that continues today. It is a true irony that that part of the persecution ended up helping more than it hurt them.

So you are stating what? ... That they knew in the future they would be prohibited from owning land through some mystical magic of the Quaballah?

Maybe you missed the prohibition of Jew lending to Jew as expounded upon by Maimonides and echoed by the Christian Church making them ripe for each other?

Yonoz asked for a source. I gave it to him.

I don't get it.

You're trying to claim my source as yours even though Slate, quoting two Jewish scholars, says this change to money lending had nothing to do with persecution or a ban on land ownership?

Another thing ... they were not persecuting 'Jews' per se. They were persecuting Money Lenders.

 

[The Smoking Man]

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/04usury.htm


That still valid for today.

I Want The Earth Plus 5%
http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html

Do you think Bill Gates is listening?

 

[Art]

My grandparents, and many others - I wasn't born until some time later :)
I fail to see how that can be interpreted as "asking the Palestinians" for anything besides living peacefully beside them. There are constant allegations of land being stolen and the settlers being hostile, but truth is the settlements prior to the formation of the State of Israel were established on land legally bought. They were peaceful idealists who often employed Arabs as labourers and guards until the hostilities forced them to form defensive organisations.

What hostilities? You've just said how peaceful and rosy everything was.

It's natural, however regretable, that after 30 years of hostilities some of these organisations expelled individuals with ideas that were too extreme, but as a whole the Jewish settlement in Palestine was peaceful.

You have got to be kidding! The reason the Palestinians fled their land was because of incidents such as the massacre at Deir Yassin where on April 9, 1948, the Irgun and Lehi attacked the village near Jerusalem, which had had a peace pact with its Jewish neighbors, and massacred over a hundred noncombatants. And Plan Dalet which was the scheme enacted to expel all Arab civilians from what were termed 'strategic' areas. Give us a break. The Arabs aren't clean either but stop with the holier than thou crap, please

 

[Burnsys]

Do you think Bill Gates is listening?

Don't know if bill gates personaly, but sure his friends at NSA

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281411.html?page=1&c=y

 

[Yonoz]

So you are saying a religion requires a homeland but it has nothing to do with religion. That is what we call a c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n.

I view Judaism as more than just a religion. I explained this in another thread when asked how does one become Jewish. Persecutors of Jews never really disinguished between religious and secular ones.

 

[arildno]

Now, as to that damn twisting of facts Yonoz makes that most of the land was "legally bought".
Sure you would sign a contract where you sell off your lands for a pittance if your other choices are either to be forcibly expelled or be shot.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, I thought you stated tht the reason for their gravitation to Usury was because they were forbidden to own land?

So now you are agreeing with the article that states they were allowed to own land in many different places but CHOSE usury with Christians even prior to the prohibition on land ownership?

That doesn't make sense.

They were usurers BEFORE the prohibition on land ownership, Russ.

Sorry, my mistake. Your're right - the article is self-contradictory on that point. It argues both at the same time.

I guess I'll just leave it up to you - you appear to accept the contradictions. I do not.

 

[Art]

Now, as to that damn twisting of facts Yonoz makes that most of the land was "legally bought".
Sure you would sign a contract where you sell off your lands for a pittance if your other choices are either to be forcibly expelled or be shot.

Many millions of Arabs didn't sell their land at all it was simply taken from them. In fact that's the root of a lot of the trouble. They still want to return to their homes but Israel will not let them.