AlexL

To say that some ethnicity is better as the majority [...] I said nothing of the kind. Here is what I wrote: There is nothing here about some ethnicity being better as another. Try to challenge what I really wrote, don't substitute it with something you are able to challenge.

I love ethnic purity, too! My comment was not about ethnic purity. But you are incapable of challenging it without misrepresenting it.

My view is that Israel has to keep a solid Jewish majority. The purpose is double: to keep a solid electoral majority and to keep a military superiority over the potential enemies. #2 stems from the (sad but real fact) that in case of war the Jews will be ready to risk their lives more than non-Jews.

It used to be the case that America was run by a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite. It isn't anymore [...] 1. The subject was not what group has more influence on the government, but your suggestion that the source of the corruption is The Jews. You still owe me a proof of your claim about Jewish "settlers" having done things, similar to "beheaded babies, or ... fucking the corpses of young women" So: you better prove these or retract. Especially since this forum for Objectivism fans.

Thank you so much! Thanks to you I finally understand why the US government is corrupt: it is because of the Jews !

The subject was your lurid claim that settlers have done things similar to "beheaded babies, or about people fucking the corpses of young women". Your link does not confirm that. Should I still wait for evidence for your lurid claim?

But if everything the neighbor does, even him being my neighbor, enrages me, what then?😁

Yes. Israeli settlers have done similar things. Can you cite your sources for that information? With specifics.

You did not answer my follow-up question: your solution for a lasting peace.

You sound like you see an obvious solution. What is it?

We'll see soon. I'm glad for you that this would make you happy😁

Is this for me? If it is, then first cool down. Then explain, calmly, your objection to my comments.

I am convinced that, if you read again what I wrote, you will get my point. (My point was about the connection between you linking approvingly to Agnes Hellström's opinion and the relevance of her kind of pacifism.)

That makes sense, my concern is that Israel will just continue with military occupations as part of the methods for "total defeat". Occupations like that don't work, and it makes me doubt that the Israeli government cares much about liberty, even a little bit. By "total defeat" I mean total military defeat. After the total military defeat of Germany and Japan, these two countries were also occupied and radical changes were imposed to their political regimes: The western occupation of Germany officially ended in May 1949, when the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) was established as a democratic state. In Japan, a new Constitution was imposed in 1947, emphasizing liberal democratic practices. The occupation of Japan ended in April 1952. In both cases the occupation was temporary, and it did work. As to your "doubts that the Israeli government cares much about liberty" ... I couldn't care less about your doubts.

The only thing Israel should not do is to target civilian Gazans. And this only IF it doesn't contribute to the total defeat of Gaza government (= Hamas + associates). For ex. by demoralizing the civilian population that supports these groups. (All this is dependent on the fact that Israel is the victim of an aggression).

Rather than the argument, you say?? Here is again my description of @whYNOT's argument/position and my refutation: And @whYNOT gave no evidence that the entire Western media is centrally-driven. So that there was no ad hominem fallacy on my part.

The demand for "facts" conceals an evasion of the most significant facts. Disconnected, non-hierarchical "facts" signify an avoidance of conceptual thinking. It's not "facts" you need, would you know what to do with them? 1. Do you agree that one does have an obligation to back up ones claims with facts?

You have not heard the critical point I often made to you [...] You obviously forgot(?) why I asked you the above question ! You implied that, while Agnes Hellström is indeed a "peace activist", she is NOT a "pacifists against self-defence". And you presented no proof that she is indeed FOR self-defence. The larger context of the above theme was that you approvingly quoted/referenced her as an argument that Sweden's joining of NATO is indeed a big mistake. So, again: Is Agnes Hellström indeed for self-defence? Can you present some evidence? For example in Israel's case? I take this particular case because YOU are (unexpectedly for me) FOR Israel's right for self-defense in the current conflict.

This is nothing but an ad hominem and an argument from intimidation. OK, then show : where is the ad hominem in the above quote, that is what @whYNOT's argument did I answer by an attack on his person? same for the alleged argument from intimidation.

Yes, this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum, but it is practically unmoderated (the nominal moderator is @dream_weaver). As a consequence, @whYNOT does not consider having an obligation to back up his claims with facts, even if asked to. Also, he is approvingly referencing and quoting Putin's Russia governmental media and non-Russian commentators working for these media, which also don't back up their claims with facts, or back them up with fake "facts". You may follow my debate with @whYNOT in this "About the Russian aggression of Ukraine" one year old thread. It is very long, so that you have to be quite motivated... Pay attention to his constant anti-Western, particularly anti-Western media stance. He sees the generally pro-Ukraine position of the mainstream Western media as being a result of the activity of a centrally-driven propaganda machine - a conspiracy, IOW. He sees no other possible explanation. The tactics I am using with him is to challenge him to prove his claims with facts. He never does, thus confirming his irrationality, but this doesn't bother him, nor does it bother the moderator... So yes, @whYNOT is an Ayn Rand fan, but only in the sense that he quotes her from time to time, with no visible understanding of Objectivist epistemology and ethics/politics. Maybe this happens only with the subject Putin vs Ukraine... His current defense of Israel's right to exist and defend itself is not based on principles, it is a whim: as I already said, even a broken clock is right twice a day.😁

Was driven? More like a PR coup, than anything significantly meaningful. Joining a military block - a PR coup? Rather unusual... But... why not?😁 Do you have evidence that this was the reason? And that's a slur against her? ... For "peace", so long as they are not pacifists against self-defence Is Agnes Hellström for self-defence? Some evidence? In Israel's case, for example?

Well, this is not quite exact. More precisely, it is quite INexact: Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), added by the Lisbon Treaty, states: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States." IOW, it includes a caveat that this obligation does not prejudice the security and defense policies of any members that have a "specific character", like those of neutral countries. Therefore, Sweden and Finland did not end their neutrality status by joining the EU. Besides, while Article 42(7) does create an obligation of mutual assistance between EU members in the case of armed aggression, it leaves significant flexibility in how that assistance is provided. Implementation of EU mutual defense clause is left to the discretion of individual member states. Responses could include diplomatic, economic or humanitarian aid rather than direct military force. Not even the NATO Treaty's Art. 5 does commit members to an obligation to fight !

Neutral Sweden was driven into joining up by Putin's aggression of Ukraine. Agnes Hellström is a "peace activist"... OTOH it is true that even a broken clock is right twice a day... as you were right about Israel😁

What exactly do you mean by "a STRONG neutrality. A neutrality that wasn't worth challenging"?

Our subject was voluntary vs conscription-based army. A standing army may be voluntary, or conscription-based, or mixed. US army is a standing army, but is relying solely on volunteers without conscription. Standing armies, conscription-based: North Korea, Belarus, Iran, Cuba Standing armies, mixed model (some positions are filled by volunteers, while others are filled via conscription): ex. South Korea and Israel. No, they don't. They rely on NATO. The subject was not on what/whom they rely for their defense, but what kind are their OWN armies