The_barBEARian said:
Mothra said:
The_barBEARian said:
Mothra said:
The_barBEARian said:
Mothra said:
historian said:
Or could have provided historical context for better understanding. Socialism, in all its forms, is a great evil: communism, fascism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, etc. There are many variations and they are evil.
Bigotry is also evil.
Yes, but they're not going to call evil ideas they believe in or actions that they engage in, of course.
You mean like... Zionism?
There's nothing inherently evil about wanting a homeland or sovereign country in the land of your ancestors. I think most of us want the same thing.
Where it could cross over into evil is in how you go about doing it. And indeed, there have been some bad actors over the years who have shed blood in pursuit of that goal (though, I suppose, one could argue that some of the American revolutionaries engaged in similar conduct). But the idea in and of itself, isn't inherently evil, certainly not in the same line as communism, Islam, and Fascism.
Its not the land of their ancestors.
The real biblical Jews got wiped out by the Romans and miscegenated. The Romans did that to a lot of people.
But even if I accept the idea they are real jews and it is their ancestral land... why was it bad when the Germans invaded Poland or France to reclaim their lost territory.... but when Jews travel to Palestine and do it, its completely acceptable?
Why is Nazism bad? But Zionism is good? They are both ethnonationalist movements centered around the belief that their people are the chosen people and a revanchist cause to reclaim lost territory.
This is what you would call a false equivalence.
As a preliminary matter, your claim that Jews have no ancestral connection to the land ignores both history and archaeology. Ancient Israel, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the Second Temple, Hebrew inscriptions, synagogues, and countless archaeological sites all testify to a longstanding Jewish presence there. The Romans didn't erase Jewish ancestry from history. Jews remained a distinct people for nearly two millennia despite dispersion.
I did several rotations with IHS in Oklahoma. It would be like claiming the guys who walked in there with blonde hair and blue eyes were distinctly Native Americans...no... they got miscegenated. They are now 1/28th Native American and 27/28ths Scot-Irish
Second, Nazism and Zionism are not remotely the same thing. Nazism was built on racial supremacy and conquest. Zionism, at its core, is the belief that Jews have a right to national self-determination in their historic homeland. Those are not equivalent concepts.
I dont accept that framing. They are exactly the same. But you are a Jewish Supremacist so there is no reasoning with you on this.
By your logic, every people group seeking self-determination in its ancestral homeland would be evil. It's a really weird take. Germany invaded foreign countries to conquer and dominate them. That is not the same as arguing that a people have a historical connection to a particular land.
I already debunked this with oldbear. If you consider what Germany did "invading a foreign country to conquer and dominate", then so to did the Jews with Palestine. There is no logical rationale to explain why one situation is different other than "Mothra says they are different"
Sorry, I missed this. What an odd argument.
Native American tribes do not cease to be Native American because of admixture. Tribal identity has never been determined by achieving some arbitrary racial purity threshold. In fact, by your logic, virtually every people group on Earth would lose its identity after a few centuries, including your precious Germans. If ancestry becomes irrelevant once a people experience admixture, then virtually every modern nation loses any claim to indigenous or ancestral identity.
As for your second point, you may not accept my argument, but you've yet to refute it. Nazism was built on racial hierarchy, racial purity, and the belief that certain peoples were inherently inferior and should be dominated or eliminated.
Zionism, at its most basic level, is the view that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to self-determination. You may disagree with Zionism, but disagreement is not equivalence.
If two things are "exactly the same," then you should be able to identify the common principle. What racial hierarchy is central to Zionism? What Zionist doctrine teaches that non-Jews are biologically inferior? What Zionist equivalent exists to the Nuremberg racial laws?
As for your third point, you haven't "debunked" anything. You've simply asserted that the situations are identical and then treated your conclusion as proof.
Germany in World War II invaded sovereign states that had no historical connection to Germany in order to conquer territory and build an empire.
The Jewish connection to the land is not something I invented. It is a matter of recorded history extending back thousands of years. Whether one supports modern Israeli policies or not, the claim that Jews regarded the land as part of their historical homeland long predates the creation of the modern State of Israel.
That's the distinction you're desperately trying to erase because your argument depends on pretending historical context doesn't exist.
