They are insecure and want to appear smart, and think long writing == smart.
To be contrarian isn't to be a "free thinker", it's to be led around like a dog on a leash. You're just a reactionary saying the opposite of an actual opinion.
If I had to wager, I'd say both of those points stem from being bullied in school more often than not.
Zionism is the belief that Israel should exist. This whole "one jewish nation" stuff is ridiculous. Scientologists don't have a nation and they don't have a right to go genocide indigenous people to make one.
I won't be responding anymore to this thread since you're not arguing in good faith.
I am in good faith. Nothing I said leads otherwise.
There are Native American reservations with the focus on a people and their relgion
There are Muslim nations and Christian nations.
Arab Muslims are genociding indigenous Blacks in Sudan, are you just as active/concerned?
If your only concern is what happens to be the only Jewish state, that also houses the majority of Jewish people on the planet, and you just want it to not exist, your anti-Zionist is anti-semetic. If you think that Israel has gone too far, that there needs to be a solution for the Palestinians, etc then no, that is not anti-semetic.
Your other point about Israel's actions leading to anti-semtism is no different than saying 'I'm not racist against Blacks, I just notice crime statistics'.
You are not arguing in good faith. Ashkenazis are not native to Palestine. Genetic records show they are from Eastern Europe. Building a country outside of Eastern Europe requires ethnic cleansing and genocide, which is exactly what they've been doing. If Poland or the Ukraine wanted to rename themselves "Israel" and make Judaism their country's official religion, no one would have a problem with it. It's the slaughter of Palestinians on their indigenous land that the world rightfully rejects. This will be my last comment in this thread because it's become nothing but a hasbara fest.
Good. Now that you’re gone we can factcheck some of your propaganda.
Ashkenazi Jews are descendant from ancient Israeli Jews, with European ancestry mixed in - because Judaism isn’t racist.
The majority of Israelis are from the region. Millions of Israelis are Arab.
The only ones to have actually done ethnic cleansing are the Muslim countries that have ethnically cleansed 100% of their Jews (and European countries historically, but many Muslim countries are still maintaining that ethnic purity to this day).
As the "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages" title implies the European ancestry is in regards to the maternal line specifically.
The article itself in fact clearly supports a Near East paternal lineage:
> the MSY results interpreted plausibly to suggest an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry on the Ashkenazi male line of descent
Lol that you cropped out the rest of that sentence:
> This has indeed been attempted, with the MSY results interpreted plausibly to suggest an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry on the Ashkenazi male line of descent11,18,19,20,21, albeit with much higher levels (>50%) of European (potentially east European) lineages in Ashkenazi Levites22, suggesting a possible Khazar source in that particular case.
> Lol that you cropped out the rest of that sentence:
This part of the quote appears to indicate an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry, the remaining part of the quote is simply adding more details/context:
> the MSY results interpreted plausibly to suggest an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry on the Ashkenazi male line of descent
Do you see those citation links associated with the lines you quoted in the article?
Lets follow one[0] and see what publication it is referencing[1] so we can be sure we are correctly understanding this section.
Next lets look at the referenced article[1] to get some more context.
The article being referenced by the citation also clearly supports a Near East paternal lineage(in addition to European Ancestries) from the title alone:
> Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries
So it's clearly the case that Ashkenazi Jews have Near Eastern ancestry in addition to European.
I do have a bit of a background myself in biology but research papers like this shouldn't be that hard to follow even if you don't.
This is the paper you linked to btw, just absolute mythical nonsense:
> Cohanim (plural of “Cohen,” the Hebrew word for priest) are, in Biblical tradition, the descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses; Levites are, in that tradition, considered to be those male descendants of Levi, the third son of the patriarch Jacob and paternal ancestor of Aaron, who are not Cohanim. The Cohanim have both rights and duties in religious law, as well as being subject to restrictions that do not apply to the other castes.
The evidence for a Khazar origin is apparently quite weak, it's likely any Khazar link would be relatively minor if it even exists.[0] I think the Khazar's are more from the western Eurasian steppe region as opposed to near east(middle east). The original article I think was mentioning the Khazar hypothesis more as an alternative potential explanation that others have proposed.
The genetic links to the middle east are fairly strong on the paternal line.[1]
Obviously a lot of this is ongoing research of population genetics so our understanding of some of the details may change overtime but from the looks of it the paternal line ties to the middle east are strong enough that one can be fairly confident that the Ashkenazi have at minimum at least a partial middle eastern origin.
> This is the paper you linked to btw, just absolute mythical nonsense
This appears to be describing some of the tribal background that could potentially be relevant to researchers. Especially for cross referencing historical documents.
It's confusing because "Jewish" has both a religious and ethnic meaning depending on the context, while "Scientologist" would generally only have a religious meaning. This distinction is the source of a lot of confusion.
> they don't have a right to go genocide indigenous people to make one
I don't think anyone here is arguing that any group has the right to genocide any other group of people to create a new state, that is a straw man argument.
The actual arguments would be that war is not a genocide in addition to the fact that Jews are historically indigenous to the region. Israel also already exists so this isn't a matter of making a new state.
Israel fully depends on the US fighting their wars for them. It's not just the weapons and money we send, it's also cover in the UN and elsewhere, our media running Zionist propaganda and all of the wars we've fought on Israel's behalf. Let's put it to the test. No US support, only sanctions. Let's see how far they get.
> Israel fully depends on the US fighting their wars for them. It's not just the weapons and money we send, it's also cover in the UN and elsewhere, our media running Zionist propaganda and all of the wars we've fought on Israel's behalf.
You might not be aware but the super right wing Israeli's are basically all in favor of reducing Israel's reliance on the US because they feel this reliance puts too many restrictions on Israel since that support gives the US some ability to politically moderate Israel's actions.
> Let's put it to the test. No US support, only sanctions. Let's see how far they get.
This was basically the situation immediately after the founding of Israel when Israel was at its weakest. Israel was historically the most aggressive when it had the least amount of outside support.
The vast majority of Jews do support Israel having a right to exist.
> I’m told that’s antisemitism.
You seem to be conflating Jews supporting Israel having a right to exist with Jews supporting some particular actions taken by some Israeli's or Israeli government policies. One can support Israel having a right to exist while still being against specific government policies or specific actions taken by Israeli's.
> Israel can only exist via ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide.
Ethnic cleansing did happen, but it wasn't just in one direction. Apartheid is race based discrimination, Israel mostly just has citizenship based discrimination these days(like most countries). War is also not the same thing as genocide.
> Supporting its "right to exist" is to support all of those things.
Do you think the US has a "right to exist"? You can make an equally if not more plausible claim that the US could only exist via ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide due to what happened to the Native Americans.
He’s been doing it non-stop ever since. The only reason dang even did that is because he banned an anti-genocide poster and another commenter pointed out the double standard on this site.
> Not only would it be good for the Middle East, it would be good for the entire planet.
How would Civil War and Total Collapse of a nuclear armed state be good for the entire planet? Has Civil War with a Total Collapse of the state in general led to good outcomes anywhere?
> Imagine a US without Zionist influence?
What actual difference do you think that would make?
Nuclear armed Israel? They literally stole enriched uranium from the US to make that happen. Israel is nothing but a non-stop series of crimes against humanity.
Right, I'm curious how would Civil War and Total Collapse of a nuclear armed state like Israel be good for the entire planet as you've suggested?
> They literally stole enriched uranium from the US to make that happen.
I think there's probably more evidence that the Israeli nuclear weapons program initially was developed mostly in cooperation with France. After France stopped supplying fuel in the wake of the 1967 war apparently Israel did steal yellowcake from a Belgian mining company.[0]
Yes, Israel has spied on and stolen nuclear material from many countries, answering your own question as to why the world will be better off without them.
> Yes, Israel has spied on and stolen nuclear material from many countries
I'm pretty sure most countries spy on many countries.
> answering your own question as to why the world will be better off without them.
That wasn't my question, the question was how would Civil War and Total Collapse of a nuclear armed state like Israel be good for the entire planet as you've suggested?
I'm not avoiding anything. The only country that has ever used nuclear bombs on a population is the US. Both the Soviet Union and South Africa had nuclear weapons and were successfully dissolved.
You're avoiding answering how it's supposedly a good thing for the world for there to be a civil war and total collapse in Israel as you've claimed.
> The only country that has ever used nuclear bombs on a population is the US.
This is relevant how?
> Both the Soviet Union and South Africa had nuclear weapons and were successfully dissolved.
South Africa still exists as a state last I checked. The Soviet Union was an organized dissolution and Russia retained the Soviet nuclear arsenal while invading other states unprovoked. You've asserted that "Not only would it be good for the Middle East, it would be good for the entire planet." in regards to Civil War and Total Collapse in Israel, do you actually believe this to be the case? I suspect you actually don't because when asked you are unable to say how that would be a good thing for the world.
It's always a good thing when a terrorist, genocidal country goes away. Israel is worse than Nazi Germany as it's lasted longer and has much deeper influence on the rest of the world. We'll all be better off when it's gone. No more pedophile blackmail, no more political bribes, no more stealing my tax dollars, no more manipulating my media, no more removing my rights and most importantly no more genocide of Palestinians!
> It's always a good thing when a terrorist, genocidal country goes away. Israel is worse than Nazi Germany as it's lasted longer and has much deeper influence on the rest of the world. We'll all be better off when it's gone.
Your claim was "Not only would it be good for the Middle East, it would be good for the entire planet." in regards to Civil War and Total Collapse in Israel, which is very different that claiming it would be a good thing if Israel simply magically "goes away". Civil War and Total Collapse would have a lot of additional negative implications inherently attached.
> No more pedophile blackmail, no more political bribes, no more stealing my tax dollars, no more manipulating my media, no more removing my rights and most importantly no more genocide of Palestinians!
I don't see how Civil War and Total Collapse would be good for the Palestinians or the region in general even if what you were claiming were true.
Why is this "antisemitic" when it's the clearly stated goal of Israeli leadership? We're also commenting on a post where Israel destroyed an entire city. There's a great twist of propaganda where people are more upset at people being upset about a genocide, then they are about the actual genocide. Expecting that to work is an "avalanche of stupidity".
Under-reportedly, many thousands from Russia, Europe, Asia, Africa and of course Palestine were lured in via social media, messaging platforms and job websites are offered jobs but ended up in their sex industry, do forced labor and/or have their organs sold.
Officially it isn't allowed but the police wont do anything. You can see how it works in how angry they were when raping Palestinian kids in prison wasn't allowed anymore.
Hamas has every right to resist. Unguided rockets? There's IDF in nearly every building in Israel. The excuses used to genocide Palestinians far more aptly describe Israel.
The first key feature of the Panopticon is that the guards can observe the inmate at all times and he can't hide.
The second key feature is that the inmate can't observe the guards. He can't know who they are and can't even know if they're paying attention to him or not.
Yes, an here in lies the hypocrisy of our times where tech titans can have their information removed from public data sources (anyone remember the guy tracking Musk's plane?) while amassing staggering quantities of data about everyone else. Then have the gall to call for a "compromise" on their collection and selling of this data and our privacy.
Working a McJob to make some CEO and their investors rich is not a virtue. The Protestant work ethic really is a toxic ideology that can't die soon enough. It's the very basis of exploitation.
When you choose to not work as an able-bodied person you're really insisting that your community should be forced to give you resources while you contribute nothing.
Any collectivist commune would kick you out for this.
It's also interesting you use the McJob angle, because when you consider the price of a Big Mac, labor is by far the largest contributor of cost, not profit.
A Big Mac's cost is 30% labor, 25% ingredients and only 5% net profit. The remainder is operating costs. Seems like a pretty good deal for the people making the Big Mac, they're getting 6x more than the franchisee gets.
To be contrarian isn't to be a "free thinker", it's to be led around like a dog on a leash. You're just a reactionary saying the opposite of an actual opinion.
If I had to wager, I'd say both of those points stem from being bullied in school more often than not.
reply