Sarah,

Here is yet another example of Zionism=Racism right off the news ticker today, which directly addresses the ironic absurdity in your argument:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/indian-jews-lost-tribe-move-israel-18053968

The only reason these ethnic Indians qualify to immigrate to Israel as “Jews” is because of their Zionist tribal blood line — a disgusting appeal to a blatantly racist and provably absurd criterion to qualify as a Jew (i.e., it is provably absurd because this racist criterion is ironically ridiculous per genetic science):

“The Bnei Menashe say they are descended from Jews banished from ancient Israel to India in the eighth century B.C. An Israeli chief rabbi recognized them as a lost tribe in 2005.”

Note how their genetic link was the unambiguous primary qualifier. This community had even become animists and Christians in the past, but that is nothing that a mass “conversion” to Judaism couldn’t fix to shuttle them over to Palestinian land.

Finally, note the ultimate oppressive political purpose behind all of this, which some Jews are highlighting, but even they do so based on an objection to the racist genetic link being true!:

“Avraham Poraz, a former interior minister, said they were not linked to the Jewish people. He also charged that Israeli settlers were using them to strengthen Israel’s claims to the West Bank.”

Race has no place in ANY ideology, period. That is my unflinching, undiluted claim above all my other claims on this topic. That is why the political ideology of Zionism is wrong and why it has no place whatsoever as a part of Judaism or in the definition of who is a “Jew”, especially when Jewish doctrine does not support it and when Zionism is a provable, patent fraud based on genetic and historical data.

Race + Ideology = Racism.

It is that simple, and it is always wrong. Racism oppresses. Racism persecutes. And racism kills.

When your HP pro-Zionist wolf pack is ready to engage in a debate on this issue, please tell them to step up to the plate. Otherwise, they can just keep embarrassing themselves by blowing their groupthink gaskets amongst themselves on HP because they are too afraid to engage in a real debate about Zionism. Similarly, if you think even one pro-Zionist argument they are making on HP is worthy of merit against my claim, I challenge you to raise it here, now.

Chameleon: Since you have said some kind words here, let me change my mind and re-enter the discussion.

You say, “we could have very lengthy and civil discussions on what we agree about…” Of course, but the question is whether we can have civil discussions on what we disagree about. As you said in in another post, you will make certain points “even if we have to be obnoxious to do so.”

I guess that’s the issue here. My first post was to try to sway CJaaron. I included one small argument to help him feel that I was on his side, pointing out that you were indeed capable (though I did not use that word) of linguistically distinguishing between ethnic and religious Jews because you had indeed made such a distinction. It was, to me, a minor point, noting that someone who had done something obviously had to be capable of doing it. I am sorry if I did not get your full meaning. Even now, it may appear that you wish to exclude purely ethnic Jews from the fold, but I really can’t tell because the discussion went so awry.

I also agree with Ilisha that you may have been alienating her (to use her word) and perhaps others away, when you are clearly capable (in every sense) of making rational and convincing arguments; I have seen you do it before. But, sometimes it seems as if you go overboard, arguing, for example that I am shutting down debate on this issue when all I said was that I no longer want to debate with you. In fact, even before you had said that, I was discussing the issue in other comments here with Ilisha, and I certainly did nothing to prevent anyone else from engaging in the discussion.

I would hope that one day we can have a civil discussion on areas where we disagree. But, if you are alienating even people who should generally be on your side, then no matter what the strength of the logic in your analyses, much of which I do disagree with, I’m not sure that it’s the right strategy. Ilisha says that you and she are “coming at this from a similar vantage point.” That may be true, but so far, I think she and I have had a more productive conversation because we have kept it civil. I have had several debates on LW where I changed my views to be the same or closer to Ilisha’s to a large degree because the discussion was civil and it was much easier to see her logic and decide whether to accept or reject it without having to be distracted by an uncivil tone. For example, in a discussion of the Geneva plan with me, she made some excellent points and I reevaluated and changed my views precisely because of what she said and because she was encouraging me to consider her views and not engage in personal (or obnoxious) attacks.

I also bear you no grudge. But I disagree with you on your views about historical and current Judaism, and I’ll leave it at that.