historian said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

nein51 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Breaking: Jewish students who sued UCLA won a preliminary injunction against UCLA.

The administration is prohibited from allowing the exclusion of Jewish students in areas of campus and can no longer tolerate terror enthusiasts harassing Jewish students. pic.twitter.com/k1IYFuuPXR

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) August 14, 2024

---

It's amazing and disgusting that they had to go to court to get a major university to stop acting like Nazis.

---

I think this is just a slippery slope type of thing. The university would now be responsible if anyone on campus says something that a Jewish person perceives is anti semitic? That cant be a good precedent to set. For instance, Ben Shapiro says its anti semitic if you say a Jewish person has more loyalty to Israel than America.

Meanwhile whites can be kept out of certain spaces and openly discriminated against but do not have the ADL or any group to fight on their behalf.

---

Perhaps whites shouldn't be kept out of those spaces. Maybe two wrongs don't make a right.

---

I would agree with you but as a non lawyer it still seems like a sticky legal situation that the whole university could be held liable for speech that a student perceives as being hateful to them, if that is actually what is going on.

---

The whole concept of "hate speech" is ludicrous & illegitimate, especially since it's usually applied in only one way to silence non-Leftists.

---

Exactly


When was the last time any Muslim was arrested for screaming ' DEATH TO ZIONISTS ' ?

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yesterday's attack by Israel was beyond the pale. How can the live with themselves bombing schools (I do understand that Hezbollah inhabits theses places). However that POS Bibi is a thug. Cut those mffers off 100%. We sent those savages $3B yesterday. Hope you good tax payers are ok with that.

---

If legitimate military targets are infesting a building; why is it ' beyond the pale' to bomb the building ?

---

Because of Jew hatred ... duh.

---

Yeah right, clown. My partner is Jewish. So, that prolly aint it. I have made the distinction here many a time. I have no beef with the people of Israel , but I do have an issue with the govt. Bibi is a thug. I have no issue going after military targets, but it cannot be indiscriminate involving kids and innocent civilian. Just barbaric. Again. cut them off.

---

The irony of the "hatred" comment is lost on Red.

The hatred driving this war is that of the Arab for the Jew

---

In any such land-national-ethnic conflict like this there is plenty of hate on both sides.

You think all the hate just comes from the Arabs?

---

The kind of institutional, widespread, and deep hatred that generates multiple mass invasions/attacks against a neighbor in the 20th and 21st Centuries? Yes, all Arab hate.

---

Well things can also change... not all their Arab neighbors hate them.

As of right now they have peace treaties with both Egypt (the big dog in the region) and Jordan.

Lebanon's arab Christians (a sizeable part of the population) are not enemies of Israel

The UAE now had diplomatic relations with them.

And even Saudi Arabia has move to have closer ties to Israel..."Recently, Saudi Arabia has made the shift to limit the threats it faces to no more than two enemies: Iran and Sunni Islamist political opposition. These happen to be seen as the two threats facing Israel as well. This has brought both countries to an unlikely alliance. In the words of an influential member of the Al Saud ruling family, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, 'For the first time, Saudi Arabian interests and Israel are almost parallel"

Their big opponents are the Palestinians (who they are currently occupying the West Bank from) and Iran and Syria...the militant groups they support.

---

The Saudis & Jordanians helped defend Israel from the Iranian missile & drone attacks a few months ago.

You mean surgical like the assassination of the Hamas leader in Iran? That was amazingly surgical!

How many if those American university students are Arabs from the Middle East? I don't know but I suspect they are a significant number, especially in some universities.

Thanks for sharing

Actually, Gaddafi was a reasonable operator near the end, helping the US against terrorists. Obama had him killed anyway.

Trump was instrumental in getting the parties together to negotiate the Abraham Accords. He has done more for Middle East peace than any US president in decades.

historian said:

---

How many if those American university students are Arabs from the Middle East? I don't know but I suspect they are a significant number, especially in some universities.

---

That and rich east coast white kids

According to Axios, Former U.S. President Donald J. Trump spoke earlier today with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding tomorrow’s Ceasefire and Hostage Negotiations in Qatar. During the Call, it is believed that Trump encouraged Netanyahu to take the Deal decided… pic.twitter.com/xaiN1kIzZd

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 15, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yesterday's attack by Israel was beyond the pale. How can the live with themselves bombing schools (I do understand that Hezbollah inhabits theses places). However that POS Bibi is a thug. Cut those mffers off 100%. We sent those savages $3B yesterday. Hope you good tax payers are ok with that.

---

If legitimate military targets are infesting a building; why is it ' beyond the pale' to bomb the building ?

---

Because of Jew hatred ... duh.

---

Yeah right, clown. My partner is Jewish. So, that prolly aint it. I have made the distinction here many a time. I have no beef with the people of Israel , but I do have an issue with the govt. Bibi is a thug. I have no issue going after military targets, but it cannot be indiscriminate involving kids and innocent civilian. Just barbaric. Again. cut them off.

---

The irony of the "hatred" comment is lost on Red.

The hatred driving this war is that of the Arab for the Jew

---

In any such land-national-ethnic conflict like this there is plenty of hate on both sides.

You think all the hate just comes from the Arabs?

---

No question. Since the 7th Century.

You need to learn a lot more about islam.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

1. Well those happen to be facts....I am still not sure why you have your panties in a bunch about historic and current demographic trends? And get strangely upset when people bring them up.

2. An interesting take and one not born out by the facts. Israel is defined in law as a Jewish State....a non-Jewish State would then not be Israel but something else.

I doubt a "greater Israel" as you call it with Israel trying to absorb in Millions of West Bank and Gaza Arabs would work well.

But again I had not realized to what extent you engage in utopian thinking....and regard any discussion of people and ethnic groups as "racialist historicity"

Why not just have Israel merge with its large Egyptian neighbor (110 million)....it would be fine right? Israel would still be Israel huh?

---

Race matters way more to you than it should.

And the greater Israel idea isn't utopian, it's pragmatic and real.

---

1. What is the appropriate amount that race/ethnicity should matter in terms of national questions? Do most people on earth share you view that race/ethnicity should not matter at all?

2. So far both sides of the political divide in the region reject a "greater Israel" solution of cramming the Palestinian Arabs and Israel Jews together into one State and then demanding that by some magic they must make it work.

I guess I should not be surprised you are literally advocating for the plan that Muammar Gaddafi had for Israel-Palestine. Merging them together.

Do you think Gaddafi was a rational leader with reasonable political plans?

[The Gaddafi proposal intended to permanently resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a secular, federalist, republican one-state solution, which was first articulated by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, at the Chatham House in London and later adopted by Muammar Gaddafi himself.
Its main points are:

• Creation of a binational Jewish-Palestinian state called the "Federal Republic of the Holy Land";]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isratin#:~:text=The%20Gaddafi%20Isratin%20proposal%20intended,later%20adopted%20by%20Muammar%20Gaddafi

---

Keep grinding buddy.

---

Uh ok…. Strange response

WILD

Pro-Palestine protesters infiltrated a Democratic after-party event following a Kamala Harris campaign stop, setting off smoke bombs at an outdoor restaurant. The chaos led to mass arrests. @ScooterCasterNY pic.twitter.com/gIb48Vu8F0

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) August 15, 2024

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

Yep. And out of touch with reality.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you..

---

Well if you live on the Earth (which I'm starting to doubt you do) then these kinds of conflicts do often break out sadly.

Remarkably Israel and Palestine seem to be in such a situation right now…

And while you said time time again that ethnicity and race don't matter…Then why do Jews in Israel continually tell pollsters they don't want to merge with millions of Palestinians in the West Bank & Gaza?

Are they engaging in "racalist historicity"?

Why would they not jump at the chance for the One-State solution you think is so great?

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

By the way, 2 million Arabs live just fine in Israel already.

---

Really? Do you just come to predetermined conclusions in your head or do you ever bother to research things before you spout off?

The relations between Arab-Israeli citizens and Jewish-Israeli citizens is not the utopia you seem to think it is….there are issues there as well

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

By the way, 2 million Arabs live just fine in Israel already.

---

Really? Do you just come to predetermined conclusions in your head or do you ever bother to research things before you spout off?

---

Anecdotes aren't reality. Arabs are overwhelmingly happy in Israel.

---

Maybe so

But while ATL thinks adding another 6-9 million Arabs into the mix (by forcing a One-State solution on the situation) most Jews in Israel seem less enthusiastic about the idea.

But it's hard to know if they are in the grip of "racialist historicity"

[A poll conducted in 2010 by Israel Democracy Institute suggested that 15% of right-wing Jewish Israelis and 16% of left-wing Jewish Israelis support a binational state solution over a two states solution based on 1967 lines. According to the same poll, 69% of Jewish Israelis preferred the two-state solution]

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

They will never go back to the 1967 lines. That left israel very weak and vulnerable. That is a nonstarter for serious negotiations.

historian said:

---

They will never go back to the 1967 lines. That left israel very weak and vulnerable. That is a nonstarter for serious negotiations.

---

What do you think about ATL's idea of a one State solution

Just merge Israel, West Bank, and Gaza all together.

The 1967 line would not then matter

(I mean Gaddafi liked the idea lol)

historian said:

---

Trump was instrumental in getting the parties together to negotiate the Abraham Accords. He has done more for Middle East peace than any US president in decades.

---

Trump did a great job regarding foreign affairs.

Did great work for the US economy.

Only the worst epidemic in US history undermined his presidency.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

Of course ethnic conflict occurs. I've been around some of the worst ones. That's not what your racialism projects on your topics. You believe/support/argue separation along ethno-racial lines in so many of these discussion. You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

Of course ethnic conflict occurs. I've been around some of the worst ones. That's not what your racialism projects on your topics. You believe/support/argue separation along ethno-racial lines in so many of these discussion. You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Like usual…you are making assumptions about my beliefs.

I do not "believe/support/argue" for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities.

Do you believe/support/argue for forced integration along ethno-racial lines?

You certainly seem to…and you really seem to hate the past where societies were more segmented on these lines.

Are you looking forward to a magic utopian future where such distinctions will be obliterated? Maybe by force….

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Why do you think peoples formed along those lines throughout all of human history? (Even though I acknowledge you really really hate talking about history)

Do you think refusing to acknowledge the past will somehow make the future better?

Do you think segmentation along those lines is not taking place now? Or will not take place in the far off future of humanity?

Trump made his fair share of mistakes, with covid and the economy especially, but the economy was a whole lot better in 2020 than it is now, despite the pandemic. We also didn't have the prospect of WWIII, partly caused by the incompetence of our governing elites. Add to that the wide open border, the Dem crime wave (including numerous violent crimes committed by illegals), the energy mess, and everything else and we have plenty of reasons to vote for Trump and even more reasons to vote against Biden or anyone connected to him, particularly his border czar.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

Of course ethnic conflict occurs. I've been around some of the worst ones. That's not what your racialism projects on your topics. You believe/support/argue separation along ethno-racial lines in so many of these discussion. You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Like usual…you are making assumptions about my beliefs.

I do not "believe/support/argue" for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities.

Do you believe/support/argue for forced integration along ethno-racial lines?

You certainly seem to…and you really seem to hate the past where societies were more segmented on these lines.

Are you looking forward to a magic utopian future where such distinctions will be obliterated? Maybe by force….

---

Stop dodging and just come out and say what you believe. You're not being coy or fooling anyone with your volley of questions. At least barbearian has the guts to admit his angle.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Why do you think peoples formed along those lines throughout all of human history? (Even though I acknowledge you really really hate talking about history)

---

Because most of human history has lacked personal and economic freedom and human mobility.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Why do you think peoples formed along those lines throughout all of human history? (Even though I acknowledge you really really hate talking about history)

---

Because most of human history has lacked personal and economic freedom and human mobility.

---

I very Liberal-Libertarian answer....and possible....we will find out in the future is such feelings/bonds are innate in Humans or just a product of "lack of personal and economic freedom"

(As far as Human mobility that has been a thing forever...we can just do it faster now...but human have been wandering the earth for a long time. And leaving their communities for form new ones forever. I doubt that is as important a factor)

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

Of course ethnic conflict occurs. I've been around some of the worst ones. That's not what your racialism projects on your topics. You believe/support/argue separation along ethno-racial lines in so many of these discussion. You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Like usual…you are making assumptions about my beliefs.

I do not "believe/support/argue" for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities.

Do you believe/support/argue for forced integration along ethno-racial lines?

You certainly seem to…and you really seem to hate the past where societies were more segmented on these lines.

Are you looking forward to a magic utopian future where such distinctions will be obliterated? Maybe by force….

---

Stop dodging and just come out and say what you believe. You're not being coy or fooling anyone with your volley of questions. At least barbearian has the guts to admit his angle.

---

Please buddy... you have dodged on here more than anyone.

I have come out and said many times what I actually believe....including in the post above that you apparently did not read.

So I will re-post what I said verbatim

"I do not 'believe/support/argue' for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities"

I have said it many times....but you continue to not like the answer

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

Of course ethnic conflict occurs. I've been around some of the worst ones. That's not what your racialism projects on your topics. You believe/support/argue separation along ethno-racial lines in so many of these discussion. You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Like usual…you are making assumptions about my beliefs.

I do not "believe/support/argue" for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities.

Do you believe/support/argue for forced integration along ethno-racial lines?

You certainly seem to…and you really seem to hate the past where societies were more segmented on these lines.

Are you looking forward to a magic utopian future where such distinctions will be obliterated? Maybe by force….

---

Stop dodging...

---

Speaking of dodging questions....are you ever going to answer these?

Do you believe/support/argue for forced integration along ethno-racial lines?

Are you looking forward to a magic utopian future where such distinctions will be obliterated? Maybe by force….

Arabs in Israel are happy that they are wealthy and free. But don't kid yourself. Muslims are offended to the core of their identity that there is a Jewish state located in the islamic world....even the ones in Israel.

That's what Red doesn't understand. A muslim's worldview is framed by the Koran, which defines "the islamic world" as the area where sharia is law of the land, and where that law explicitly frames muslims as superior beings to non-believers. So....sure, Palestinians are angry they've lost political control over their homeland. But that is a very small part of what fuels the anger. What makes them murderously outraged is the fact that they've lost their homelands to JEWS.

the Palestine/Israel dispute is a true manichean dynamic. There is no middle ground. One side or the other will rule over the other. And you can bet you last dollar that Jews in a new Palestine will not be afforded any of the rights/protections Arabs have in Israel. Read the Pact of Umar, which is the baseline document in sharia on how the state is to treat other faiths.....

whiterock said:

---

That's what Red doesn't understand. A muslim's worldview is framed by the Koran, which defines "the islamic world" as the area where sharia is law of the land,

---

Oh I think I have been clear that ethnic-cultural groups can have wildly different values and beliefs and that those can be the source of conflict. (especially when forced to share a Nation-State or particular piece of territory)

I think its guys like ATL who fail to understand that...or just dislike it when people point it out.

I don't think Gaddafi and ATL's One-State solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict in the Middle East is a workable idea.

(I just doubt all Arabs hate all Jews)

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's what Red doesn't understand. A muslim's worldview is framed by the Koran, which defines "the islamic world" as the area where sharia is law of the land,

---

Oh I think I have been clear that ethnic-cultural groups can have wildly different values and beliefs and that those can be the source of conflict. (especially when forced to share a Nation-State or particular piece of territory)

I think its guys like ATL who fail to understand that...or just dislike it when people point it out.

I don't think Gaddafi and ATL's One-State solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict in the Middle East is a workable idea.

(I just doubt all Arabs hate all Jews)

---

The one thing they seem united is the complete fleecing of the American middle class tax payer.