Jews can be loyal members of Israeli society if they choose. But it's not true that all Jews are presumed to be loyal to the Jewish state, even when it comes to the Law of Return. Aliyah applicants can be rejected if a Jew has committed crimes against the Jewish people. So no: the Law of Return is not proof that it is the official policy of the State of Israel that all Jews are loyal to the state of Israel.

I don't know what you're talking about with airport babies, but I received Canadian citizenship by birth because my father possesses Canadian citizen, even though I was not born in Canada. That's not jus soli. That's jus sanguinis.

If you're curious, I happen to be only modestly loyal to the Canadian ethnostate, whose status as an ethnostate is apparently granted by the fact that people like me are Canadian citizens, and all that implies about loyalty. (lol?)

Well in any other country, immigrant applicants can be turned away if they’ve committed a crime against any people. So I’m really not convinced by this post.

None of which is to say there aren't good reasons to criticize Israeli chauvinism, or even the Law of Return and all of the ways that it is unfair and wrong. But I think this idea that the Law of Return implies that the State of Israel assumes that all Jews are loyal to Israel is kind of... uh, off base. I think you're going to need another way to make that trite "if opposing Israel is antisemitism, then it's good to be an antisemite!" argument.

It happens in Israel, too. But that's irrelevant to your argument about loyalty.

Your kids won’t.

Thanks, but the only thing we have in common with Israel is apartheid.

So? It has nothing to do with your arguments about loyalty.

The Right of a Return means Israel implicitly trusts (non-criminal) Jewish people to become citizens. I don’t know how much more plainly I can put it. Israel thinks all Jewish people belong to them, and they don’t have any problem letting everybody know it. This particular instance of antisemitism is their damn fault.

By the way, **** off with accusing people of antisemitism. You’re making the word meaningless and it’s not ever going to win any argument. If that’s all you have to contribute (and it seems like every road leads there for you) then please don’t even bother.

I don't even know how you can make this claim seriously:



And a UN report accused Israel of annexation.

So, like, unless you're just being pedantic and going by whatever dumb stuff the dumb U.S. media says, you're wrong? To believe they aren't annexing you have to take ****ty US journalism at face value and ignore literally the entire rest of the world's opinion.



It might help to read other perspectives on the Camp David Summit. For instance, the return of "92%" (a gross overestimate) of the West Bank divided the Palestinians into a bunch of separate areas and gave Israelis control over key access points.



Oh, of course you turn that into a "poor Israel' rhetorical point.



If you think Ehud Barak's offer was fair and reasonable, then you're just willfully engulfing a very biased take. You have to basically only read radically pro-Israeli news sources to believe that.

Potentially, if a Jew decides to become Israeli. It's voluntary, and does not assume that Jews are disposed emotionally or politically to Israel in any particular way. I don't know how much more plainly I can put it. It allows the State of Israel to function as a refuge to those fleeing persecution, as one wishes it could have during the Holocaust, and as it has time and time again since the foundation of the State of Israel.



Oh, here it comes, the leftist Israel critic who presents himself as the defender of Jews everywhere, who has knowledge of the true meaning antisemitism. lmao

Yes, it does. It says everything. Canadians who travel or work abroad, and even marry foreigners, who were born and raised in Canada, should rightfully be able to (and are able to) pass their citizenship on to their children. Loyalty works in both directions. They’ve earned the right to bring their foreign-born family back to the country of their birth, and they’ve earned the trust that they can raise their children to be productive members of our society.

You, though. You haven’t earned that. You’re a Canadian citizen because we trust your dad - not you. And your kids won’t be citizens. You have to earn the right to pass your citizenship on to them.

This is the way it works in basically every country. Except Israel, where it works because your kids will be Jewish and your grandkids will be Jewish.

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean “I win every argument because I’m Jewish”, Eversor.

Oh, here it is, the guy ignoring deep criticisms of Israel's practice by making nebulous accusations and acting like a ****.

Not to mention, Israel can enjoy creating illegal settlements in the West Bank as long as they want as long as they keep resisting a two state settlement. U.S. backing provides some great privileges. Which is probably the best reading of Camp David, where Israel's "generous" demands still gave them far more power over Palestine than the rest of the world thinks they should have.

Yes, there are settlers in the occupied territories. No: those territories have not been annexed. That is how I made that claim, and that's why it's true. However loosely that term being applied in that article, Israel distinguishes the territories that have been occupied (in fact, that's the problem, isn't it? That there is a completely different legal code that functions in the West Bank, which is run like an apartheid state, because Israeli Jews live under a completely set of laws than their Palestinian neighbors who live in the West Bank).



Weird. I make it pretty clear that that isn't my point, but okay.



I don't see how Dennis Ross or Bill Clinton's testimonies is are any more intrinsically biased than a website that calls itself "Electronic Intifada", but okay, I guess my perspective is uniquely warped in a way that yours isn't by the media you consume.

Well, as it happens I think I won our argument because I made a better argument, but I'm sure being Jewish doesn't hurt.

Where have I denied that Israel is worthy of criticism? I merely pointed out that the Law of Return, because I happen to be familiar with the contents of that law, does not justify the claim that Israel it is the "official policy" of Israel that all Jews are loyal to Israel. I even suggested that the Law of Return (!!!) is worth criticizing on the basis that it is parochial!! I don't know what more I can do to satisfy your criteria here and convince you that my arguments aren't nebulous.

Neither Dennis Ross or Bill Clinton are exactly neutral on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Very few people writing about it are, to be fair. But still.

heh, I don't think we can drill any deeper than this. Isn't that the rule? Arguments on this topic end as soon as both sides criticize the other's sources?

Anyway, I fundamentally agree with you about sources. Personally, I just don't know enough about the Camp David Summit to be able to adjudicate between the perspectives of the two sides' portrayal of what happened there. I'm sure both sides distort it to serve their own ends to some extent. Hopefully someday I'd be in a position to do that, but not now. To be frank I haven't looked into it very much.

Yet at the same time, while I do read Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada, I wouldn't say that they make any effort to be impartial. I also get that being impartial isn't part of those publication's raison d'etre. There's an activist and a revisionist component to wha they do. And that's necessary to see perspectives that often don't get much attention, especially in the past when there was a sharper distinction between mainstream media and alternative media. But that doesn't mean that they provide a failsafe correction of legacy media accounts (which, by the way, are no longer nearly as biased in favor of Israel as they were, for example, 15 years ago). They approach the topic with a certain set of assumptions, and it's good to keep them how their assumptions determine their conclusions at the outset. Just as it is with any publication that addresses the conflict.

gifs don't win arguments, that's for sure.

No, I’m not engaging with this... whatever the **** you think this is. If you honestly aren’t trolling and don’t understand why I’m cringing at your posts, then, well, ****, I actually feel sorry for you dude.

You can brag all you want about how you beat me with the strongest whatever.

hahaha ok moral shaming. Whatever, it's as good a place to end as any.

....you’ve been constantly accusing your opponents of antisemitism.

What the **** is wrong with you?

No, I get it. You thought you were going to come in and you were going to really get me by saying that "Israel is the Jewish state but it's antisemitic", and then when that didn't work you went straight to name calling, and even pointed out my Jewish heritage. It's ok.

You bring up your Jewish heritage constantly by constantly accusing everybody of being antisemitic!

What. The. ****. Is. Wrong. With. You?

I don't... only Reid, because he says weird **** about Auschwitz sometimes. And Jews aren't the only people who can identify antisemitism when they see it.

But I think you're "engaging with" whatever you said you weren't going to get into when I pointed out that gifs don't win arguments.

You are an intellectually dishonest pissant, Eversor, who has no original thoughts and covers it up by accusing your opponents of being racist against you. And just to be clear, Eversor, I’m not saying that about all Jewish people. Just you. You are an *******.

haha, now I know I got under your skin. Look how wounded you are!! This is great.

Enjoy this moment, Eversor. Enjoy it.

Yeah, no. I’m not debating your facile turds. I’m calling you an *******. There’s a difference!

But like I said, feel free to argue how you aren’t an insufferable nitwit. Make sure to tell us all how you’ve won that debate, since, as we all know, if you don’t do that then nobody would ever know.

You already gave me my moment, there's nothing you can do to take that away. Sorry. Sleep time! I'll sleep well.

Yep, ya got me good. Real steamed under the collar about what a socially stunted and legitimately terrible person you are. Just racking up the life points tonight.

Good night! I hope you have long and pleasant dreams about all of the times people have sincerely cringed after talking to you.

You got me.

In case you weren't aware, IBM's technology was literally used* for this purpose in WW2. The point was that IBM has a history of being a **** company. The joke was crass though.

*Not just used, but IBM actively serviced and maintained parts to facilitate Nazi holocaust.

If you only know a little bit about this, well, investigate deeper and I promise it's much worse than you imagined. For many years IBM claimed the equipment was supplied by a German subsidiary that was nationalized by Adolf Hitler. It wasn't; it was provided by IBM corporate, in the USA, with full USA management knowledge of what the machines were to be used for. The equipment, parts, and even consumables like punch cards were provided by IBM in the US; the maintenance was provided by a wholly owned German subsidiary that was never nationalized. The proceeds were laundered through Switzerland. This arrangement allegedly continued throughout the Holocaust, even while the US was at war against Germany.

Corporations are horrifying, and sooner or later one of them will kill you. The joke might have been crass but it's a much needed reminder of what IBM stands for, and that they'd gladly do it all over again. Eternal vigilance.

Oh, IBM also supported the South African apartheid in much the same way. Just in case you thought they'd learned something from profiteering off of the Holocaust.