To BSDetector: Pity to have to break the obvious into so many short repetitive bites, but what British law does is demonstrate that others can cope with the distinction between ancestry and family connection that escapes BSDetector. Claims of ancestry without demonstrable connection with individual native-born citizens with whom you could have had personal contact wouldn’t get you into most countries, not only Britain. Nor do most countries, Britain included, admit you on connections that go further back than the direct personal. Even Greece’s despicable “law of the blood” doesn’t reach further back than identifiable individual native-born Greeks. You would have to SHOW, with name rank and serial number all the way back, that you descended from the Greeks of Plato’s day. Zionists didn’t invent racism, they adapted it to formation of a self-important, land-grabbing, racist state in constant destabilising conflict with those it displaced.

To Yuyutsu: There are overwhelming scientific, historical, moral reasons why the world has long concluded that racism is a bad thing. Heavens above, surely the Nazi Holocaust would be evidence enough. Ethnic DNA as a basis of law is racism.

Correction to my earlier post: SF, Tuesday, 22 January 2013 11:50:50 PM did not include his routine labelling of opponents of Zionism as “antisemites” but SF, Monday, 21 January 2013 10:24:09 PM, which I had overlooked, did.

Everett writes: "Mahmud Abbas ... denies the Holocaust, ... officially demands a Judenrein 'Palestine.' Hamas calls for wiping out the Jewish people."

Note especially the word "people". Those are statements about Hamas which, if true and not just Zionist hate propaganda, would be accessibly documented in their own words or honest translation (not reinterpretation by their enemies). Are they demonstrably true or is Everett passing on hate propaganda? Please elaborate.

Dear Julian,

<<There are overwhelming scientific, historical, moral reasons why the world has long concluded that racism is a bad thing>>

We were not discussing what the world concluded, but rather what is right and what is wrong.

<<Heavens above, surely the Nazi Holocaust would be evidence enough.>>

It doesn't logically follow: claiming "The Nazis were racist, the Nazis were bad, therefore racism is bad", is logically unsound.

<<Ethnic DNA as a basis of law is racism.>>

Yes, this is a definition, but still does not explain WHY racist-based control is worse than other forms of control.

Causing suffering and pain to others is wrong.
Being controlled against one's will hurts and is painful.
The state consists of many others.
Therefore it is wrong for a state to exert control over people.

You still need to demonstrate why exerting control over others for a racist motive is worse than exerting control over others for other motives.

To make the question more concrete, why is the Nazi/Jewish holocaust, exterminating 6 millions for a racist narrative, worse than Stalin killing 10 million Ukrainian farmers for a non-racist narrative (ditto Mao and Pol-Pot).

Those who recently raped and murdered a girl in India were not motivated by racism - does it make them any better? That was her private holocaust!

Dear Everett,

I am well aware of those facts, thanks.

Nevertheless, the law of return is racist.

Is racism bad? it depends on what you do with it:

If you just feel racist, but do not act on it, then it's OK.
If you feel racist and therefore refuse to marry someone, that's OK.
If you feel racist and therefore refuse to employ someone, then so long as you are a private person, that's OK too.
If you feel racist and therefore refuse someone entry to your own private home, that's OK too.

But if you prevent someone at gun-point from entering a land/region/continent that's not wholly your own, for any reason other than for self-defence, then it's wrong, regardless whether your reason is racist or otherwise.

David G:

"...your unquestioning, one-eyed, fanatical support..."

I have presented you with factual information, none of which you were able to refute, or even attempted to dispute. Are you claiming that the facts are fanatical?!?!
All we heard from you so far are blood thirsty calls to neutralise a country you don’t like, and calls for arms encouraging the bloody conflict to continue. You scarcely provide any facts to support your sensational shrieks and accusations. Who do you really think is the fanatic here?

“The three of you are quite happy to see Israel continuing with the blockade of Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank… settlements being built in the West Bank… condone the starving of the Palestinians…”

Can you please point out where and when did I say any of these things? If you are unable to do this, I’ll just put it down to yet another false, baseless claim.

Regarding “the murdering of peace activists on a Turkish ship”, it has already been shown that it was no peace activists on that ship. The ones causing the violence were fanatics, nothing more. Real peace activists do not resort to violence using lethal weapons as your friends did on the Mavi Marmara. Any real peace activists would have carried some humanitarian aid with them (the stated purpose of the convoy) which the Navi Marmara did not (unlike the other ships in the convoy).

“[Israel’s] unlawful attacks on its neighbours”

Which unlawful attacks are you referring to? Can you provide any details rather than throwing a wild accusation and hoping it will stick?

“Religious derangement”? Are you sure you are talking about Israel here and not its neighbours? Maybe you need to look this one up again.

It's an old trick, Emperor Julian. You lose the argument so you try to change the criteria. In an earleir post you said, "An ethnocratic state is one that is constructed for a global ethnic group (real or invented). Its laws distinguish rights including immigration, citizenship, and residency and legal rights on the sole basis of ancestry. Not birth, not culture, not family connection to the country, but ethnicity. There is only one such state in the world". Now it turns out that at least one other State in the world, Greece, DOES distinguish legal rights on the sole basis of ancestry, not just parentage. The documentary evidence required to establish the ancestry does not detract from the fact that it is ancestry, not parentage, that counts. No doubt that is why EJ call this Greek law "despicable". But what's so despicable about it? Who says that your sensibilities, EJ, are the ultimate and absolute determinant of right and wrong? Perhaps calling yourself Emperor has gone to your head.

Julian, here are some quotes from the full text available at www.mideastweb.org:

Article 7: "...(T)he Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, killing them, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

[, i.e., Allah promised that "the Jews" will be murdered, and the Hamas "aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take."]

Article 32: "After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

Article 22 (also see Articles 17 and 28), citing the Protocols: "They [the Jews] were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we ... hear about. ... With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others ... for the purpose of sabotaging societies. ... They created and controlled World War I ... [and] World War II ... the League of Nations ...[and] the United Nations, to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without their having a finger in it.

Article 28: "They aim at undermining socieies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam." Therefore, Article 29: all Muslims must again "perform their role in the decisive battle of liberation, just as they did when they vanguished the Crusaders and the Tatars and saved human civilization. ... Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people."