How to Study Controversial Topics 

Humanism is also a philosophy. Heidegger's doctrine of philosophy above all still applies.

In 1900, there were would have probably been 10,000 Jews in Lebanon & 40,000 Jews in Syria. They lived everywhere and themselves chose to not live in Palestine.

The Arab inhabitants of the area are also descended from the ancient Jews, and other Canaanite peoples.

@@Chris-z1k7x I doubt Judah nor Abraham were a separate race. Jew is merely a tribe of people and also a religion. But its not a race.

It's a case of might makes right, there is no moral argument. The Ottoman Empire declined and fell, and the British Empire came to rule over Palestine. At the time, an argument could be made that the Jews in the Russian Empire were going to be either Bolshevik or Zionist, so if you wanted to prevent the Bolshevik world revolution, you had to promote Zionism as much as possible. Simple case of opting for the lesser of two evils. The hope was to finally give the Jews a homeland and turn them into a "normal" nation and have them stop causing havoc in their diaspora. That hope, as we now know, was completely misguided of course. Almost unbelievably, both the British and the American empire ended up self-destructing over this project, like so many mice on toxoplasma gondii. Since there never was a moral argument for the establishment of this project, and they are now looking down the barrel of their "curse of the eighth decade", I don't think there should be any moral argument over its downfall.

​​@@BarbarraBaythe ancient jews were the result of an agglomeration of different Canaanite tribes. Regardless, the modern Arabs of the region are the descendents of the ancient Jews, plus other Canaanite inhabitants of ancient Israel, who converted to Christianity and then Islam, plus admixture of people from elsewhere in the Muslim world. Much as Ashkenazi Jews are a mixture of ancient Jews and Europeans. "Arab" is not an ethnic concept, but refers to any member of a historical community that speaks some variant of Arabic.

Megalopolis's basic premise was to evolve we have to stop being selfish, petty, competitive and killing each other but to push together into a better future where everyone has the same opportunity regardless of origin. Sounds vaguely communist, but I would argue that since its inception, humans have been more social than competitive for the most part. It was not until the formation of civilisations kick off did we even contemplate territory and conflict. Humanity is fighting its own nature when it conflicts rather than collaborates, as the heights of knowledge can ONLY be achieved with shared experience. Personal enlightenment devoid of external knowledge is myth, Humans are just too limited to have unlimited imaginations. A simple example to illustrate. Try to imagine a unique new colour. You can't because your senses and your experience ties you down to being unable to imagine beyond what you already know. What does ultraviolet looks like? What about infra-red?. We can speculate, abstract, simulate what we think that would be like, but only with the reference of what we actually know already. It is the same with life, you are limited by your experiences. So it is your duty if you want to achieve enlightenment that you become one with the worlds and take in all vies from everywhere to be the sum of what humanity is and could become.

Investigate Traditional/perennial metaphysics and then come to the conclusion that (metaphysical) traditions (such as whatever one you're a part of) are built on fundamental metaphysical truths; then you won't any longer have to be afraid of 'refutations'. There are no such things as contingent 'truths' that, viz-a-viz, clash with one another. Discover the difference between the sentimentality and intellectuality, or in other words, esoterisms and exoterisms, of religions. The Platonists and Neoplatonists were to first to discover this in the west, and thus those neoplatonists and christians and muslims, and whoever else, who came furthest to the truth were all in agreement with one another, despite their seeming 'sectarian' adherences. I can recommend books, if you like.

Thank you

@@millerman "Thus you must oftentimes make Separation, Dividing your waters into two parts, So that the subtle from the gross you take,"

Rome?

@@Dezzreck a modern version of ancient Rome perhaps?

No "ethnicity" is being "wiped out" to allow Israel to exist. The "Palestinians" as a seperate entity were created and are maintained with the sole purpose of being the tip of a spear with which to promote anti-semitism in the middle east. If the "Palestinians" wished to grow in wealth, security and power they would (or are being) subverted to that end by the appropriation of the vast sums of money that they recieve. That money is appropriated to build tunnels to ship weaponry and personnel, to build military command centres in and under hospitals and schools and to fire rockets into the territory of Israel. It also supported the actions of people who use r++e and the torture and hostage taking of civilians as their primary tools of war. It could be spent on roads, education, building a dock and other infrastructure. You surely have "knowledge" of this? So why do you ignore it? Will you "go there" in your consideration of this issue?

why you say that

he is clearly jewish.

a. he's jewish b. he's not some left wing loser or right wing schizoid c. Israel is objectively killing bad people so suck it

I think it's normal for people to support their own ethnic state, at least if it already exists.

@@yh509 That is highly dependent on the situation. In this particular situation the more you learn about the past and the present, the less able a person is to side with the actions Netanyahu is taking. It's those who do not have the information who support them. Or those who simply think that brown people are inferior and have no right to live. If you leave emotion out, the answer is clear. There is absolutely no legitimate and defensible excuse for Israel's actions. None. There is no line they have not crossed. Not to mention that everything they have accused others of doing, with no actual solid evidence beyond claiming it, are things that they have done themselves (and there is material evidence for it) So spare me. It also has nothing to do with politics. It's simply objective fact. If any other country was doing it, regardless of which country, I would have developed the exact same opinion on the situation because that factor is irrelevant to if it's wrong or not.

you're not even correct about Jews creating the things you mentioned. Most of those things came from Liberal WASPs and were going to happen regardless of Jews being in the US or not just look at many Western European countries with hardly any Jews similar things happened to an even greater extent

This post sounds wrong. Jews played a role in opposing established political systems therefore sometimes it was convenient for them to support democracy and other times support communism or, regardless, support apartheid. Their politics is only what suits them, just as today they are creating totalitarianism in the west,

That's extremely... fair-minded of you? "Why wouldn't I give all of my inheritance and all of my income to my neighbor who is trying to refurbish his crumbling mansion when I myself yearn to one day be able to afford a house of my own?"

@@ecgwineicling2543 What you decide to do with your inheritance is up to you.