Strange question: What is Israel's purpose in the Middle-east since its establishment as a state & country?
There is mystery for me about the WHY of Israel and of Jews, I can't seem to understand them. Is everything Jews do in relation with people of other cultures written in the Torah? Is Israel's actions, whatever those happen to be, a result of something written in the Torah? Are there unquestionable values Jews hold that lead them to act in their way? Or is it in their genetic make-up, are Jews born with a narrow range potential personality traits, i.e. are two random Jews more alike than two random humans of the whole genetic pool of humans?
What is it that Jews value in relationships, if you can tell me without religious jargon? I want to know why Jews act and react to other cultures in the manner that they do. And they perceive a maybe antisemite, why do they act and react in their manner. Why do they care so much about what people say about them? Why is rebuke and censor their reaction, rather than honest debate? Philosophers often talk of extreme circumstance in ethics, yet that does not make the philosophers extremists or even a corrupter of minds, not necessarily and not demonstrably can this be said. If Jews hate generalisations of them by others, why do they make generalisations about antisemites aka "people that have a problem with some aspect of Jews and of their culture(religion, politics, traditions, etc)".
Why is it taken as inherently wrong by Jews for "people to have a problem with some aspect of Jews and of their culture(religion, politics, traditions, etc)"? Why must everything about them be taken as perfect and unquestionable?
Now I understand where Jews are coming from when they really mean "people not just with some problem or disagreement about them *but also a need to act in some belligerent, aggressive and intimidatory manner*". I would not like this either if someone came to me in that way. But I am not against people who have a problem with me, so long as their problem with me is not a lead-on to some form of aggression or violence.
So, do you get me, the difference between (1) "having a problem with" and (2) "feeling violence is the answer", not all people who have problems with Jews (1) like Mel Gibson are of (2) "feeling violence is the answer", he has problems with Jews, maybe because of his Catholicism that he feels conflicts with Jews, but I do not think he is of (2).
I use the word violence as a general case of "behaving in a belligerent, aggressive or intimidatory manner".
So I would define two kinds of people Jews would call 'antisemite':
(1) a mild form: "people that have a problem with some aspect of Jews and of their culture(religion, politics, traditions, etc)"
(2) a severe form: "people that have not just with some problem or disagreement about them *but also a need to act in some belligerent, aggressive and intimidatory manner*"
I believe ONLY (2) is a real threat, I would not like (2) either, but (1) minus (2) is not a real threat, or is it? Why? And I feel (1) can find legitimate avenue in honest debate and dialogue, which I also feel reduces the likelihood and power of (2), because (1) understands you better and (2) are more isolated. Is that not a good plan?
If you can read and understand my query and where I stand, without prejudice, please let me understand you better.
Sorry for all these questions; I really wish to know why you do what you do.
(about my personal philosophy)
I like pancritical rationalism "all positions are criticisable" and I would add "except this" because it is more a tool than a position.
I like Extropianism, about extending human potential both by biological technology in genetics and by machine technology in cybernetics.
I also like to think of society as a machine that can be extended in its potential too.