My thoughts on Israel

[Scott Mayers]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Israel is defined "indifferently" to fascism, but what I can say with certainty is that Israel is a free democracy, and the very opposite of a fascist state. Discussing this here is exactly what I intended.

I defined fascism earlier, I believe. "Indifferent" means 'without a difference or distinction'. If you don't like the term being defined by the original meanings, then ...

Is Israel a "state that is defined to be by and for ONE specific ethnicity." ?

And note that a VETO power automatically grants the Jewish or Semitic peoples the ONLY right to drop any bill proposed, or what is the meaning of a "Jewish" state? A "Racist" is one who believes that their own RACIALIZED ethnicity is 'superior' to SOME other ....or equally, that one that believes SOME ethnicity as 'inferior', such as the Israeli stereotypes against Palestinians.

If you again disagree, define 'racism'.

Then, define 'democracy'. My own is a 'governing system that (a) places the sovereignty to the people, not God nor to some racial class, that (b) grants ALL PEOPLE equivalence in POWER to vote and to participate as ONE PERSON, regardless of race, ethnicity, or other genetic class description. "Demo-" refers to the people, NOT a specific subset of them. And then tell me if they'd let the non-Jew be more than 49% of the population.(?)

And no need to reflect that the Palestinians are comparable. I don't support ANY theocratic factor defining a country. If one PRETENDS (and both sides do) that you can be a 'democracy' while placing the invisible magic 'superior' being at the head of a country's constitution, they are dangerous and deluded.

So?

If you're indifferent to something, it means that you don't care about it. It does not mean "not different".

I was not aware that the constitution of Israel gives the Jewish people the right to veto any bill, and, since Israel is a secular state, I'd be extremely surprised if such a clause exists. How would it even be implemented? Still, if you think it does exist, please provide a link.

It's not at all uncommon, though, for a particular state to be defined in terms of ethnicity. In fact, most states are, at least in origin. England, for example, means the land of the English. This does not mean, of course, that other people can't live there. How many should do so, and how much they should be expected to integrate, is currently the single most important issue in English politics, a pattern that is being repeated across the Western world.

In the case of Israel, as I've said before, around 20% of its citizens are Arab Muslims. Palestinians, in other words, if you prefer that term, but fully integrated into Israeli society. Arabic is one of the four main languages of Israel, along with Hebrew, English, and Russian, and all of those can be heard everywhere in the country, on the street, in shops, restaurants, and so on. It's very much a polyglot sort of place, and not a monoculture.

" Israel is defined indifferent to fascism" means that there is no difference between the meaning of 'fascism' and "a state that is by and for ONLY one ethnicity"

I think you are evading the issue for pretending that you cannot understand my meaning in context. Or tell me what it means to call this a "Jewish" state? Understand that the only reason the world encouraged to help the Jews set up a state was itself due to racists who didn't want to deal with trying to deal with postwar Europe. AND, it was a bonus to the arrogant Christians who have a belief to bring about the conditions of Armageddon.

A quick Google search defined 'fascism' in terms of a post-hoc definition and got this:

"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Do you think that when selling their political ideal that they won over those who used this popular meaning? Definitions are made up by people who use them. And the way politics puts its own influence on trying to discourage others from ever FAVORING the term for their own possible use, is to malign the term, ...redefine it on how one feels about 'fascism' not what it meant to those attracted to the ideal. Can you not see that redefining the term from its original makes the USE of the term appear to INOCULATE the general public's perception of the political ideal.

Philosophy requires respecting definitions to those arguing. I am asserting that Israel's belief is based upon pure fascism AND IS one of the number one reasons for the German Nationalists were arguing for their own 'indigenous' controls over Germany. They too let anyone 'assimilate' to the Germanic State. The discrimination that got aimed more towards the Jews in particular was about their role in framing "fascism". Germany looked to the Jewish community as a source for their movement: they were EMULATING the very ethnic pride that they thought had kept the Jewish people together and how they are successful in using their isolation to an extreme. Thus, the reason for expulsion of Jews was about the fact that you cannot have MORE THAN ONE Nationality to a 'Nationalist' ideal. In Italy, the ideals would happen to be the same IF Jewish people were not considered "Italian". This culturally MONOPOLIZES a state to ONE ethnic group by preventing any citizen that is NOT of the constitutional definition to be deemed second-class.

Now if you disagree, then why is "Israel" a "Jewish state"? What does it MEAN to be a "Jewish" state?

I was not aware that the constitution of Israel gives the Jewish people the right to veto any bill, and, since Israel is a secular state, I'd be extremely surprised if such a clause exists. How would it even be implemented? Still, if you think it does exist, please provide a link."

Are you now aware?

A 'veto' power is like how your own British-based system will have the veto power of the royalty, the Queen or King, to formally accept or deny any law, especially one that threatens their existence. That in itself is the LEGAL meaning that ENABLES the royalty to still have power, ....even if they are not actually using it at the moment. The U.S. was founded specifically upon the FEAR that the Imperial family was actually using that power and why they demanded their definition of a state to be by and for ALL people regardless of ethnicity or religion. Then the First Amendment was to assure the people are NOT ethnically biased to be ABLE to deny one their ability to speak freely.

So Yes, the constitution of Israel is 'fascist' in principle AND is the main reason for not officially asserting this in a 'Constitution' as a formal document: it would clearly spell out to non-Jews that they are SECOND-CLASS citizens. AND the 'veto' power is to Jewish only, meaning that they REQUIRE keeping the population of the non-Jews safely BELOW 51%. THIS is why they do not nor will not want to recognize the Palestinians.

But you concede that....

It's not at all uncommon, though, for a particular state to be defined in terms of ethnicity. In fact, most states are, at least in origin. England, for example, means the land of the English. This does not mean, of course, that other people can't live there. How many should do so, and how much they should be expected to integrate, is currently the single most important issue in English politics, a pattern that is being repeated across the Western world."

It does not MEAN that one cannot live in such a state. It just means that IF you live within such a state that you recognize the superior authority of specific families of people with PRIORITY. But I happen to also be against even Royalty veto power because they CAN and WOULD exercise that power when they want it. That's why it remains there. But at the moment we are talking about Israel, a state that is strictly set up FOR Jewish-Semitic supremacists AND their behavior proves their arrogance.

The citizenry inclusions of fascist states only requires that one ASSIMILATES. But they are NOT for INTEGRATION' of cultures (a definition that cannot be for one ethnicity). The British-based Commonwealth countries, like Canada, adopted a form of segregationist view that adopts integration but fosters out distinction into a 'mosaic'. This KIND of system is somewhat 'multi-fascist' in that is promotes us to align ourselves up with ethnicity rather than promote intermarriages between different IDENTITY stereotypes. It too does not make people like myself a non-citizen.... but it DOES empower us to form 'nations within nations' of equally racist peoples who just shake hands to agree to the same belief in their distaste for the other. It is 'better' than the mono-fascism that occurs in states like Israel and Saudi Arabia, both who 'shake hands' this way kind of thinking on the world stage.

I do NOT believe in segregating populations into ethnic cults, especially where they also include religion. The Jews are unique in their 'blurring' of the meanings between their genetic biased religion and their racial-biological links to supposed ancient ancestors that justifies even non-Jewish religion (Judaism) as long as it is within 'family'. Thus, they lack the full religious requirement to be 'Jewish'.

What I didn't answer specifically is still IMPLIED or included from what I've said here.

[accelafine]

A mountainous, meaningless word salad from the monumentally stupid and ignorant Aussie.

[attofishpi]

A quick Google search defined 'fascism' in terms of a post-hoc definition and got this:

"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Oh look Scott, you have just defined Islam.

Where is Christianity and Judaism of such persuasion?

The irony, that you'd be out there waving "Palestinian" flag and calling anyone waving an Australian or British flag fascist - you fuckin' muppet.

[Scott Mayers]

A quick Google search defined 'fascism' in terms of a post-hoc definition and got this:

"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Oh look Scott, you have just defined Islam.

Where is Christianity and Judaism of such persuasion?

The irony, that you'd be out there waving "Palestinian" flag and calling anyone waving an Australian or British flag fascist - you fuckin' muppet.

That is not MY definition. My definition, if you want to challenge it, is

Fascism is a state that is defined to be by and for ONE ethnicity.

Challenge that definition. While the Google definition points to details ABOUT what Fascism has 'caused' after the fact, the MEANING of how it was sold is the definition that applies.

And it is irrelevant to speak of what you think applies to Palestinians because they aren't even deemed a 'state' let alone to have any particular political idea expressed other than that the FACT that Isreal IMPOSED their Zionism on taking claim to that land.

What I and other reasonable people propose would be either a NEW SINGLE state that is actually defined as 'democratic' WITHOUT any particular constitution that is by or for some RELIGION or a TWO-STATE solution for each 'fascist' state. I've made that clear.

I know from before that you are religious and against my own strong arguments against it. But I'm fair and try to interpret people I speak to in the same light. So please try to leave out the insults or you have just 'lost' me on even trying to make sense of you in a fair light. I can't waste time on those of you who are only interested in shutting other voices down rather than concerning yourself with any logic people are presenting in argument. This is a philosophy, not a tweet or sound bite expressing ones mere feelings.

[attofishpi]

A quick Google search defined 'fascism' in terms of a post-hoc definition and got this:

Oh look Scott, you have just defined Islam.

Where is Christianity and Judaism of such persuasion?

The irony, that you'd be out there waving "Palestinian" flag and calling anyone waving an Australian or British flag fascist - you fuckin' muppet.

That is not MY definition. My definition, if you want to challenge it, is

Fascism is a state that is defined to be by and for ONE ethnicity.

Challenge that definition. While the Google definition points to details ABOUT what Fascism has 'caused' after the fact, the MEANING of how it was sold is the definition that applies.

OMG. So you want to move the goal posts to suit your own misconceived definition

What google defined is what ISLAM insists, including Palestinians, the worst of them all:-

Google definition:
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Every time I have seen a Palestinian asked whether a two state solution is the answer, they state NO - they want Israel demolished, Palestinian Muslims cannot coexist with Jews.

[Maia]

I defined fascism earlier, I believe. "Indifferent" means 'without a difference or distinction'. If you don't like the term being defined by the original meanings, then ...

Is Israel a "state that is defined to be by and for ONE specific ethnicity." ?

And note that a VETO power automatically grants the Jewish or Semitic peoples the ONLY right to drop any bill proposed, or what is the meaning of a "Jewish" state? A "Racist" is one who believes that their own RACIALIZED ethnicity is 'superior' to SOME other ....or equally, that one that believes SOME ethnicity as 'inferior', such as the Israeli stereotypes against Palestinians.

If you again disagree, define 'racism'.

Then, define 'democracy'. My own is a 'governing system that (a) places the sovereignty to the people, not God nor to some racial class, that (b) grants ALL PEOPLE equivalence in POWER to vote and to participate as ONE PERSON, regardless of race, ethnicity, or other genetic class description. "Demo-" refers to the people, NOT a specific subset of them. And then tell me if they'd let the non-Jew be more than 49% of the population.(?)

And no need to reflect that the Palestinians are comparable. I don't support ANY theocratic factor defining a country. If one PRETENDS (and both sides do) that you can be a 'democracy' while placing the invisible magic 'superior' being at the head of a country's constitution, they are dangerous and deluded.

So?

If you're indifferent to something, it means that you don't care about it. It does not mean "not different".

I was not aware that the constitution of Israel gives the Jewish people the right to veto any bill, and, since Israel is a secular state, I'd be extremely surprised if such a clause exists. How would it even be implemented? Still, if you think it does exist, please provide a link.

It's not at all uncommon, though, for a particular state to be defined in terms of ethnicity. In fact, most states are, at least in origin. England, for example, means the land of the English. This does not mean, of course, that other people can't live there. How many should do so, and how much they should be expected to integrate, is currently the single most important issue in English politics, a pattern that is being repeated across the Western world.

In the case of Israel, as I've said before, around 20% of its citizens are Arab Muslims. Palestinians, in other words, if you prefer that term, but fully integrated into Israeli society. Arabic is one of the four main languages of Israel, along with Hebrew, English, and Russian, and all of those can be heard everywhere in the country, on the street, in shops, restaurants, and so on. It's very much a polyglot sort of place, and not a monoculture.

" Israel is defined indifferent to fascism" means that there is no difference between the meaning of 'fascism' and "a state that is by and for ONLY one ethnicity"

I think you are evading the issue for pretending that you cannot understand my meaning in context. Or tell me what it means to call this a "Jewish" state? Understand that the only reason the world encouraged to help the Jews set up a state was itself due to racists who didn't want to deal with trying to deal with postwar Europe. AND, it was a bonus to the arrogant Christians who have a belief to bring about the conditions of Armageddon.

A quick Google search defined 'fascism' in terms of a post-hoc definition and got this:

"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Do you think that when selling their political ideal that they won over those who used this popular meaning? Definitions are made up by people who use them. And the way politics puts its own influence on trying to discourage others from ever FAVORING the term for their own possible use, is to malign the term, ...redefine it on how one feels about 'fascism' not what it meant to those attracted to the ideal. Can you not see that redefining the term from its original makes the USE of the term appear to INOCULATE the general public's perception of the political ideal.

Philosophy requires respecting definitions to those arguing. I am asserting that Israel's belief is based upon pure fascism AND IS one of the number one reasons for the German Nationalists were arguing for their own 'indigenous' controls over Germany. They too let anyone 'assimilate' to the Germanic State. The discrimination that got aimed more towards the Jews in particular was about their role in framing "fascism". Germany looked to the Jewish community as a source for their movement: they were EMULATING the very ethnic pride that they thought had kept the Jewish people together and how they are successful in using their isolation to an extreme. Thus, the reason for expulsion of Jews was about the fact that you cannot have MORE THAN ONE Nationality to a 'Nationalist' ideal. In Italy, the ideals would happen to be the same IF Jewish people were not considered "Italian". This culturally MONOPOLIZES a state to ONE ethnic group by preventing any citizen that is NOT of the constitutional definition to be deemed second-class.

Now if you disagree, then why is "Israel" a "Jewish state"? What does it MEAN to be a "Jewish" state?

I was not aware that the constitution of Israel gives the Jewish people the right to veto any bill, and, since Israel is a secular state, I'd be extremely surprised if such a clause exists. How would it even be implemented? Still, if you think it does exist, please provide a link."

Are you now aware?

A 'veto' power is like how your own British-based system will have the veto power of the royalty, the Queen or King, to formally accept or deny any law, especially one that threatens their existence. That in itself is the LEGAL meaning that ENABLES the royalty to still have power, ....even if they are not actually using it at the moment. The U.S. was founded specifically upon the FEAR that the Imperial family was actually using that power and why they demanded their definition of a state to be by and for ALL people regardless of ethnicity or religion. Then the First Amendment was to assure the people are NOT ethnically biased to be ABLE to deny one their ability to speak freely.

So Yes, the constitution of Israel is 'fascist' in principle AND is the main reason for not officially asserting this in a 'Constitution' as a formal document: it would clearly spell out to non-Jews that they are SECOND-CLASS citizens. AND the 'veto' power is to Jewish only, meaning that they REQUIRE keeping the population of the non-Jews safely BELOW 51%. THIS is why they do not nor will not want to recognize the Palestinians.

But you concede that....

It's not at all uncommon, though, for a particular state to be defined in terms of ethnicity. In fact, most states are, at least in origin. England, for example, means the land of the English. This does not mean, of course, that other people can't live there. How many should do so, and how much they should be expected to integrate, is currently the single most important issue in English politics, a pattern that is being repeated across the Western world."

It does not MEAN that one cannot live in such a state. It just means that IF you live within such a state that you recognize the superior authority of specific families of people with PRIORITY. But I happen to also be against even Royalty veto power because they CAN and WOULD exercise that power when they want it. That's why it remains there. But at the moment we are talking about Israel, a state that is strictly set up FOR Jewish-Semitic supremacists AND their behavior proves their arrogance.

The citizenry inclusions of fascist states only requires that one ASSIMILATES. But they are NOT for INTEGRATION' of cultures (a definition that cannot be for one ethnicity). The British-based Commonwealth countries, like Canada, adopted a form of segregationist view that adopts integration but fosters out distinction into a 'mosaic'. This KIND of system is somewhat 'multi-fascist' in that is promotes us to align ourselves up with ethnicity rather than promote intermarriages between different IDENTITY stereotypes. It too does not make people like myself a non-citizen.... but it DOES empower us to form 'nations within nations' of equally racist peoples who just shake hands to agree to the same belief in their distaste for the other. It is 'better' than the mono-fascism that occurs in states like Israel and Saudi Arabia, both who 'shake hands' this way kind of thinking on the world stage.

I do NOT believe in segregating populations into ethnic cults, especially where they also include religion. The Jews are unique in their 'blurring' of the meanings between their genetic biased religion and their racial-biological links to supposed ancient ancestors that justifies even non-Jewish religion (Judaism) as long as it is within 'family'. Thus, they lack the full religious requirement to be 'Jewish'.

What I didn't answer specifically is still IMPLIED or included from what I've said here.

If you use a word, such as "indifferent", completely wrongly, to mean something that it doesn't, then I don't think you can blame those who are debating with you for not understanding your meaning. What you actually said, in effect, is that Israel is indifferent to fascism, which didn't make any sense, in context.

But now, I'm not even sure that you understand what fascism means. The Nazis were not fascists, though they took on board certain fascist techniques, which Hitler was happy to copy from his great hero, Mussolini. Fascism, as developed by the Italians, who invented it, is all about co-ordinating society through corporatist state control, and is an offshoot of socialism. It was not anti-Semitic or racist, and Italy remained one of the safest places to be, for Jews, in Continental Europe, right up until Mussolini succumbed to German pressure, during the later stages of the war, to introduce anti-Jewish laws, but even then, they were extremely mild in comparison to what was going on elsewhere. Nazism, on the other hand, could be said to be a hybrid between fascism and anti-Semitism, using the techniques of fascism, such as uniforms, flags, marches, corporatist control, and so on, to further its own anti-Jewish agenda.

I can therefore safely say that Israel is not a fascist state. It is, instead, a liberal democracy in the modern Western mould, with elections, competing parties, freedom of speech and belief, and all the other trappings.

You seem to equate having a veto with the fact that a particular ethnic group is a majority in any given state. So, for example, that fact that the English are a majority in England implies, in your opinion, that the English people have some sort of veto over legislation in England. But this simply isn't the case. There is no plebiscite among the English people to pass laws, and they are represented in parliament by a whole range of competing parties that could never agree on anything. This is how, for example, the UK government has been able to carry out policies that are specifically detrimental to ordinary English people.

This is nothing like the royal veto, but since the latter hasn't been used in over 300 years, there is some debate about whether it even still exists.

[accelafine]

Maia has the patience of a saint

[Maia]

Maia has the patience of a saint

I try, hehe.

[Scott Mayers]

Oh look Scott, you have just defined Islam.

Where is Christianity and Judaism of such persuasion?

The irony, that you'd be out there waving "Palestinian" flag and calling anyone waving an Australian or British flag fascist - you fuckin' muppet.

That is not MY definition. My definition, if you want to challenge it, is

Fascism is a state that is defined to be by and for ONE ethnicity.

Challenge that definition. While the Google definition points to details ABOUT what Fascism has 'caused' after the fact, the MEANING of how it was sold is the definition that applies.

OMG. So you want to move the goal posts to suit your own misconceived definition

What google defined is what ISLAM insists, including Palestinians, the worst of them all:-

Google definition:
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Every time I have seen a Palestinian asked whether a two state solution is the answer, they state NO - they want Israel demolished, Palestinian Muslims cannot coexist with Jews.

What is this 'goalpost' you believe is intended here?

You just repeated the Google definition that I pointed to that is CLEARLY not what any rational person would hop up to join in on. Do you think ANYONE would be sold on this. And you didn't touch on what my definition actually DOES represent as a SELLING belief that racist religious people would latch on to.

As to what you claim about the Palestinians' turning down of a 'two-state' solution, this is precisely what the Israelis TOO believe. But the 'two-state' solution is a pretentious claim of having two equally fascist systems living side by side. And how would such a 'state' be negotiated to when dividing things up? Would the Palestinians get 'equal' power of negotiations? NO, they would not.

The solution requires a re-defined state that does NOT preserve nor conserve ANY fucking religious-based 'people' as though people are genetically linked to their ancestors and that the only real human requires living in 'indigenous' homelands. For most of us, we'd lack any 'indigenous' nature given we are MIXED. So I am not FOR having a one-state that is by and for Muslim-Arabs EXCEPT IF the argument by the relative invaders (ie, the Israelis) insist the same. AND they do and HAVE ALWAYS wanted the whole of the lands to be JEWISH-ONLY! Two-state solutions are NOT viable and I the logic involved cannot have been overlooked. Thus, the 'two-state' claim is only made by those who do NOT want the conflict to end in favor of the Palestinians. There is just no 'fair' way to divide up the lands that is even rationally appropriate.

The KIDS of the parents who are religious should not have dictatorial exception to IMPOSE upon them their own unending discrimination and hatred. And THIS factor alone would thus only LOCK IN the racist views that get passed onto their children. Or, given you are religious, does the God interpreted by any of the Judea-Christian-Religions not all assert that we are given the 'freedom to choose' our behaviors? This alone should tell you that if there were such a being, it would probably respect the atheist over the pretentious religious who arrogantly think that their children are property to be molded INTO believing in their own religion by blackmail, a contradicting behavior when simultaneously feigning 'choice' as key.

So what is the 'goalpost' you speak of and tell me what you think of the distinction I am making regarding definitions that get politically defined by defeaters of their enemies using derogatory terms?

[attofishpi]

That is not MY definition. My definition, if you want to challenge it, is


Challenge that definition. While the Google definition points to details ABOUT what Fascism has 'caused' after the fact, the MEANING of how it was sold is the definition that applies.

OMG. So you want to move the goal posts to suit your own misconceived definition

What google defined is what ISLAM insists, including Palestinians, the worst of them all:-

Google definition:
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Every time I have seen a Palestinian asked whether a two state solution is the answer, they state NO - they want Israel demolished, Palestinian Muslims cannot coexist with Jews.

What is this 'goalpost' you believe is intended here?

You just repeated the Google definition that I pointed to that is CLEARLY not what any rational person would hop up to join in on. Do you think ANYONE would be sold on this. And you didn't touch on what my definition actually DOES represent as a SELLING belief that racist religious people would latch on to.

People keep pointing out how you are a tad simple. I repeated the Google definition that you originally posted to point out that IT is the correct definition of fascism, not your idiocy that it is restricted to racism.

As to what you claim about the Palestinians' turning down of a 'two-state' solution, this is precisely what the Israelis TOO believe. But the 'two-state' solution is a pretentious claim of having two equally fascist systems living side by side. And how would such a 'state' be negotiated to when dividing things up? Would the Palestinians get 'equal' power of negotiations? NO, they would not.

The solution requires a re-defined state that does NOT preserve nor conserve ANY fucking religious-based 'people' as though people are genetically linked to their ancestors and that the only real human requires living in 'indigenous' homelands. For most of us, we'd lack any 'indigenous' nature given we are MIXED. So I am not FOR having a one-state that is by and for Muslim-Arabs EXCEPT IF the argument by the relative invaders (ie, the Israelis)

Educate yourself to the history of the area. The ISRAELITES were in the area thousands of years before Arabs turned up and then started to slaughter the Jews and the Christians in the area after around the year 666, when the evil Muslim paedophile warlord turned up espousing his evil non-divine ideology.



The Jews have far more right to the lands of the area than ANY Arab-Muslim - Islam only formed rather recently around 7th Century via an Arabian paedophile warlord.

Islam still condones paedophilia as per their Hadiths, and killing of non-believers thus is a cancer that the Jews have been on the frontline of having to deal with since MorHamMad started slaughtering them in their homeland around 666AD.

The likes of Mayers that walk around streets of Sydney waving the "Palestinian" flag in support of the ideology of HATE, Islam and its evil terrorists in Hamas truly should learn about the history of the area and how evil Islam is.

The best option is for other Islamic nations to take in the people of the Gaza strip and for Israel to take what is rightfully the land of the Jews. But, as you can see by the massive barbed wire fence bordering Egypt, ALL fear these indoctrinated in the cesspit of Islamic hate people. As attested by the son of Hamas leader that has joined the IDF and saved thousands of lives, he was taught as a child in Gaza to HATE Jews - yep, children being taught HATE not love....mothers that want their children to be "martyred" in service to Allah

Mosab Hassan Yousef
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5VPFw0vI6U&t=1s


A history lesson for the LEFTIST Hamas, Jew hating idiots..

Canaanites and Ancient Israel:

The Canaanites were a group of ancient people who lived in the land of Canaan, a region that roughly corresponds to modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and parts of Jordan and Syria.
Around the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age (circa 1200 BCE), a group known as the Israelites emerged in the central highlands of Canaan.

Cultural and Religious Influence:

The early Israelites were influenced by Canaanite culture and religion. Archaeological evidence and textual analysis show that there was significant interaction and syncretism between Canaanite and Israelite religious practices.
Many deities and religious symbols from Canaanite religion were integrated into the early Israelite religion. For example, the Canaanite god El appears in the Hebrew Bible as a name for God, and the goddess Asherah is mentioned in relation to early Israelite worship practices.

Understand this - they were from basically the same area and morphed together to a great degree - in the area of present day Israel. Divine revelation eventually formed Judaism of the ISRAELITES and they moved from polytheism to monotheism.


Canaanites and Israelites merged 3224 years ago...

The Jews have been dealing with the Arabs raping and kidnapping of their people for about 1000 years as condoned by the words from the evil MorHamMad in the Quran. The Jews (Israelites) have far MORE right to ALL of the land.


Civil War and Declaration of Israel:

Following the UN partition plan's adoption, violence erupted between Jewish and Arab communities in Palestine. As the British prepared to withdraw, the conflict escalated into a full-scale civil war.
On May 14, 1948, the Jewish leadership declared the establishment of the State of Israel (remember the Israelites were there 3224 years ago). The following day, neighbouring Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) invaded, marking the beginning of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.


Displacement of Palestinian Arabs:
During the 1948 war, a large number of Palestinian Arabs were displaced from their homes, an event Palestinians refer to as the Nakba (catastrophe). Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees were created, and this displacement remains a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So who started the Arab-Israeli war of 1948?:- The following day - after simply correctly labelling the area ISRAEL, neighboring Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) invaded..

So the "Palestinian" Arabs (Muslims) that were displaced from their homes AFTER the above occurred - were displaced ONLY because of the above.

There are plenty of moderate Muslims living alongside in peace with Jews in Israel right now. The ones that follow their commandment since the 7th century - to kill all Jews - should f-OFF to whatever Islamic cuntry will accept them -none will..look what happened to Lebanon, Jordan, Iran. All Islamic countries want the conflict to continue - the majority of Muslims want ALL Jews to be annihilated, as commanded by MorHamMad. He was rather annoyed around the year 666 when they basically laughed at him with his claims of divinity, thus his hatred and slaughtering of them commenced.

[Scott Mayers]

If you use a word, such as "indifferent", completely wrongly, to mean something that it doesn't, then I don't think you can blame those who are debating with you for not understanding your meaning. What you actually said, in effect, is that Israel is indifferent to fascism, which didn't make any sense, in context.

But now, I'm not even sure that you understand what fascism means. The Nazis were not fascists, though they took on board certain fascist techniques, which Hitler was happy to copy from his great hero, Mussolini. Fascism, as developed by the Italians, who invented it, is all about co-ordinating society through corporatist state control, and is an offshoot of socialism. It was not anti-Semitic or racist, and Italy remained one of the safest places to be, for Jews, in Continental Europe, right up until Mussolini succumbed to German pressure, during the later stages of the war, to introduce anti-Jewish laws, but even then, they were extremely mild in comparison to what was going on elsewhere. Nazism, on the other hand, could be said to be a hybrid between fascism and anti-Semitism, using the techniques of fascism, such as uniforms, flags, marches, corporatist control, and so on, to further its own anti-Jewish agenda.

I can therefore safely say that Israel is not a fascist state. It is, instead, a liberal democracy in the modern Western mould, with elections, competing parties, freedom of speech and belief, and all the other trappings.

You seem to equate having a veto with the fact that a particular ethnic group is a majority in any given state. So, for example, that fact that the English are a majority in England implies, in your opinion, that the English people have some sort of veto over legislation in England. But this simply isn't the case. There is no plebiscite among the English people to pass laws, and they are represented in parliament by a whole range of competing parties that could never agree on anything. This is how, for example, the UK government has been able to carry out policies that are specifically detrimental to ordinary English people.

This is nothing like the royal veto, but since the latter hasn't been used in over 300 years, there is some debate about whether it even still exists.

I expanded upon my meaning of 'indifferent' and the context is CLEAR that I am saying that Israel is 'fascist'. And no, Nazism is NO DIFFERENCE to "fascism" other than in their addition to advance their belief BEYOND their German borders. Italian 'fascism' was only concerned about Italians more specifically.

The term 'fascism' is related to the BASE term, 'face' both as noun and verb, as in 'to face'. The words related to this are MANY, such as 'fashion', vision', fact, fiction, etc. Expressed as a noun, "fasces" refers to the symbol used to CALL to arms ones 'Faction' or race with the belief that ones appearances (as their 'face' is) is a sufficient genetic identity that coincides with ones' behaviors. This is the same kind of arrogant stupidity one has when asserting that the North American Natives ('First Nations') are somehow intrinsically tied to the Earth.

Fascism believes that the land (rhetorically often stated as the 'soil') has unique intrinsic factors that only the indigenous are presumed to 'belong to'.

The 'fasces' as a symbol, is a universal evolution of all people's tribal days when one is calling upon other related tribes of one's racial affiliation to stand together. It is based upon symbolizing individuals of a 'people' as straw that are weak on their own but when bundled together (of the SAME KIND of 'straw'), can create a forceful power because 'blood' is deemed a stronger factor that defines a 'faction'.

Mentioning 'faction', have you ever read or watched the "Divergent" series that utilizes this idea by using 'personality' in place of 'race'? They assumed a 'genetic' classification but went through an odd pretentious ceremony that allowed people to 'choose' their faction upon coming of age. Those who stayed 'pure' to their 'choices' were deemed official representatives that take precedence over those who chose a different personality from their parental class. But it also acted to make such people suspect of being 'divergent', like the majority of mixed racial peoples today. They get banned from the safety of the community if not killed or exploited for (as this story did to the main character was sought out.) She had to keep her 'divergent' views secret because this 'multi-cultural' type was fascist in principle: it segregated people into clans based upon the beliefs that people have to at least associate with some particular faction or be delegated to be Factionless and not allowed sanctity in their world.

If you haven't read or seen the series, I recommend it for at least comparison. The series advances to show that even the solution to overthrow one faction being dominant can still remain or become dysfunctional.

The point is that instead of resolving solutions that work, people are imposed to keep the very 'factional' segregation that causes these conflicts alive.

A state that is by and for one 'faction' is the problem here. And if you cannot get this, then I'm wasting my time here. Can any of you even recognize this as a rational perspective? The educated thinkers joining in on protests in favor of the Palestinians are about the fact that IF any 'faction' should even BE acknowledged, it has to default to the 'racists' who were there before the new ones IN RECENT TIMES. I don't believe that the Palestinians are actually any more nor less 'racist' than the Israelis. So EVEN IF you want to paint the Palestinians or Muslims as being a problem, the Israelis here are no different. Both extremes do not need to exist. So ban the fucking religious dictates that do NOT relate to peoples actual CHOICES.

[Scott Mayers]

Okay, I'm done with you. You are fucking clueless and very racist!

And like I mentioned before, your avatar is opposing to even Seth MacFarlane's character and his own atheism. So your own use of it is misappropriated conduct that should suffice to show your own dishonesty here. I don't know about copyright issues or that Seth would care, but I know that co-opting the likeness of another is inappropriate. So stop using it.

[accelafine]

If you use a word, such as "indifferent", completely wrongly, to mean something that it doesn't, then I don't think you can blame those who are debating with you for not understanding your meaning. What you actually said, in effect, is that Israel is indifferent to fascism, which didn't make any sense, in context.

But now, I'm not even sure that you understand what fascism means. The Nazis were not fascists, though they took on board certain fascist techniques, which Hitler was happy to copy from his great hero, Mussolini. Fascism, as developed by the Italians, who invented it, is all about co-ordinating society through corporatist state control, and is an offshoot of socialism. It was not anti-Semitic or racist, and Italy remained one of the safest places to be, for Jews, in Continental Europe, right up until Mussolini succumbed to German pressure, during the later stages of the war, to introduce anti-Jewish laws, but even then, they were extremely mild in comparison to what was going on elsewhere. Nazism, on the other hand, could be said to be a hybrid between fascism and anti-Semitism, using the techniques of fascism, such as uniforms, flags, marches, corporatist control, and so on, to further its own anti-Jewish agenda.

I can therefore safely say that Israel is not a fascist state. It is, instead, a liberal democracy in the modern Western mould, with elections, competing parties, freedom of speech and belief, and all the other trappings.

You seem to equate having a veto with the fact that a particular ethnic group is a majority in any given state. So, for example, that fact that the English are a majority in England implies, in your opinion, that the English people have some sort of veto over legislation in England. But this simply isn't the case. There is no plebiscite among the English people to pass laws, and they are represented in parliament by a whole range of competing parties that could never agree on anything. This is how, for example, the UK government has been able to carry out policies that are specifically detrimental to ordinary English people.

This is nothing like the royal veto, but since the latter hasn't been used in over 300 years, there is some debate about whether it even still exists.

I expanded upon my meaning of 'indifferent' and the context is CLEAR that I am saying that Israel is 'fascist'. And no, Nazism is NO DIFFERENCE to "fascism" other than in their addition to advance their belief BEYOND their German borders. Italian 'fascism' was only concerned about Italians more specifically.

The term 'fascism' is related to the BASE term, 'face' both as noun and verb, as in 'to face'. The words related to this are MANY, such as 'fashion', vision', fact, fiction, etc. Expressed as a noun, "fasces" refers to the symbol used to CALL to arms ones 'Faction' or race with the belief that ones appearances (as their 'face' is) is a sufficient genetic identity that coincides with ones' behaviors. This is the same kind of arrogant stupidity one has when asserting that the North American Natives ('First Nations') are somehow intrinsically tied to the Earth.

Fascism believes that the land (rhetorically often stated as the 'soil') has unique intrinsic factors that only the indigenous are presumed to 'belong to'.

The 'fasces' as a symbol, is a universal evolution of all people's tribal days when one is calling upon other related tribes of one's racial affiliation to stand together. It is based upon symbolizing individuals of a 'people' as straw that are weak on their own but when bundled together (of the SAME KIND of 'straw'), can create a forceful power because 'blood' is deemed a stronger factor that defines a 'faction'.

Mentioning 'faction', have you ever read or watched the "Divergent" series that utilizes this idea by using 'personality' in place of 'race'? They assumed a 'genetic' classification but went through an odd pretentious ceremony that allowed people to 'choose' their faction upon coming of age. Those who stayed 'pure' to their 'choices' were deemed official representatives that take precedence over those who chose a different personality from their parental class. But it also acted to make such people suspect of being 'divergent', like the majority of mixed racial peoples today. They get banned from the safety of the community if not killed or exploited for (as this story did to the main character was sought out.) She had to keep her 'divergent' views secret because this 'multi-cultural' type was fascist in principle: it segregated people into clans based upon the beliefs that people have to at least associate with some particular faction or be delegated to be Factionless and not allowed sanctity in their world.

If you haven't read or seen the series, I recommend it for at least comparison. The series advances to show that even the solution to overthrow one faction being dominant can still remain or become dysfunctional.

The point is that instead of resolving solutions that work, people are imposed to keep the very 'factional' segregation that causes these conflicts alive.

A state that is by and for one 'faction' is the problem here. And if you cannot get this, then I'm wasting my time here. Can any of you even recognize this as a rational perspective? The educated thinkers joining in on protests in favor of the Palestinians are about the fact that IF any 'faction' should even BE acknowledged, it has to default to the 'racists' who were there before the new ones IN RECENT TIMES. I don't believe that the Palestinians are actually any more nor less 'racist' than the Israelis. So EVEN IF you want to paint the Palestinians or Muslims as being a problem, the Israelis here are no different. Both extremes do not need to exist. So ban the fucking religious dictates that do NOT relate to peoples actual CHOICES.

Fascism is a style of govt. you bloody moron. It's not an opiniion about why a country should exist. No other country on the planet is expected to justify its existence. Who cares about idiots like fishpi banging on about an 'ancient homeland'? It doesn't matter either way. Israel exists. It doesn't have to justify that to you or anyone else. Do you expect it to just stop existing? What would that look like? Your ridiculous word salads are impossible to wade through. Your 'one state solution' is hilarious. What does it even mean and what would it look like? Israel?

[attofishpi]

Okay, I'm done with you. You are fucking clueless and very racist!

Oh, where was I being racist you extreme left wing turd? The fact that you cannot conceive that you are wrong in stating that the Israelites are invaders to the land of Israel is proof of your idiocy.

And like I mentioned before, your avatar is opposing to even Seth MacFarlane's character and his own atheism.

Oh, that was you!! Yes, now I remember why I always thought you were a cockhead. Trust me, Seth has LOADS of friends that are theist and would unlikely give a flying fuck about BRIAN being my avatar.

Fact is I am not a theist

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Again, if you can't have justice, you will have law and order, the violence of the state. The (Glastonbury) young disproportionately really don't like that. The old (anyone over 23) shrug. For 16 months Israel waged war on the Palestinian people, killing forty thousand out of two million; 2%. With a Democrat President in the US. In return for Israel's second greatest failure of security, after '73, costing a thousand dead, also on a Jewish holiday.

This is the way of the world kiddies.