Israel faces mindboggling threat from 150,000 missiles

[Rigby5]

That is crazy.
How can Palestinians be the aggressor when millions of European Jews illegally sneak into Palestine with weapons and start murdering unarmed civilians?
Are you claiming the Zionist terrorists did not blow up the King David Hotel, assassinate the UN moderator, Count Folke Bernadotte, did not start massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, etc.?

You do realize that the Moslem Caliphate was destroyed by the Mongol invasion of Baghdad, around 1200, and there was no Islamic power since then?

3 cheers for the Mongols.

I know this doesn't have much to do with Israel's brutality upon Palestine.

But,
A lot of the Golden Horde was Muslim Turkics too.
Something often not mentioned.

Mongols killed a ton of White Christians too, you maniac.

In Hungary I know close to 1/2 of Hungarians were killed by the Mongol horde.

That's more horrific, and disproportionate, than the Holocaust.

Exactly.
It was the Mongols and their successor waves that attacked Europe from 1200 to 1500, but everyone now likes to instead blame it in Muslim Arabs, who actually had nothing at all to do with it, and had already fallen victim.

 

[Rigby5]

Hmm.
Per capita I think Kosher people got them beat.

NOBODY has Muslims beat. No nation, cult, religion, or ideology even comes close to Islam's 270 million horrific figure.

That's a ridiculous claim.
Islam never has ever promoted any armed conflict.
There have been some invaders, like Mongols, Mohguls, Moors, Mamelukes, and Turks who murdered Islamic leaders, took over, and claimed to be Muslims, but they are not Arab or really Muslim.

So, Arabs expanded from Morrocco to Iraq destroying a bunch of previous tribes of Afro-Asiatic, in terms of peace????????????

I agree with many of your comments, this one is absurd.

Islam expanded to not just Morocco, but the whole Iberian Peninsula.
But NOT by Arabs.
The Arabs had been invaded by the Mongols around 1200, and the whole city of Baghdad was massacred as a warning against any further resistance.
Were the Barbary pirates Arab? No, they were Berbers.
Were the Moor Arab? No, they were Black.
Were the Turks Arab? No, they were Ottoman Turks.
Was Tamerlane or the Muslim who invaded India, Arab? No, they were Moguls.
Were the Mamelukes Arab? No, they were European mercenaries living in Egypt.
The Arabs destroyed no one.
The successive waves of nomadic horsemen off the steppes did destroy lots of people, but they were not Arab.
When Constantinople fell in 1453, the Arab Caliphate had been destroyed for over 250 years.
{... The Fall of Constantinople was the capture of the capital city of the Byzantine Empire by an invading Ottoman army on the Sunday of Pentecost, 29 May 1453. ...}
Ottoman were Turks, not Arabs.
They claimed to be converts to Islam, but they did nothing according to the Quran.

That's a different discussion.

A bunch of white skinned, German dialect (Yiddish) speakers, have what right to Israel 2,000 years later?
That's more on topic.

PS.
Maybe 5% - 10% of modern Ottoman DNA is not Native Greek Byzantine / Hitite / Armenian.
AKA 5 - 10% of modern Ottoman DNA comes from the Steppes & East Asia.

Actually, Ottomans aren't far removed from Ashkenazis in their DNA,
Which isn't surprising, because Ashkenazi are basically like them, a mix of Europeans, and Middle-Easterners, with minor Turkic genes, in the case of Ashkenazis Khazar genes.

Generally when mongols or others back then invaded some place, they just wanted to control the ruling power structure, and then went back home with the main forces.
It is not absolutely clear where the Turks came from, but they are associated as being allies to the Mongols, and likely came along with them. But they do also have more Balkan heritage as well.
And yes I agree the Ashkenazi are of Germanic origin since Yiddish is Germanic.
So the Khazar theory is likely, but controversial.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

That is crazy.
How can Palestinians be the aggressor when millions of European Jews illegally sneak into Palestine with weapons and start murdering unarmed civilians?
Are you claiming the Zionist terrorists did not blow up the King David Hotel, assassinate the UN moderator, Count Folke Bernadotte, did not start massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, etc.?

You do realize that the Moslem Caliphate was destroyed by the Mongol invasion of Baghdad, around 1200, and there was no Islamic power since then?

3 cheers for the Mongols.

I know this doesn't have much to do with Israel's brutality upon Palestine.

But,
A lot of the Golden Horde was Muslim Turkics too.
Something often not mentioned.

Mongols killed a ton of White Christians too, you maniac.

In Hungary I know close to 1/2 of Hungarians were killed by the Mongol horde.

That's more horrific, and disproportionate, than the Holocaust.

Exactly.
It was the Mongols and their successor waves that attacked Europe from 1200 to 1500, but everyone now likes to instead blame it in Muslim Arabs, who actually had nothing at all to do with it, and had already fallen victim.

Sure, most Muslims aren't pure Arabs, or pure anything.

Similar with Jews, and Israelis.

Genetically speaking, you're correct, most Muslim genocides weren't done by people particularly Arabic by DNA.

North-Africans are mostly Berber, although maybe 10 - 20% of their DNA was Arabic, in the case of Spanish Moors, maybe the founding fathers were Moors, but DNA samples shows they were Spanish.

and Ottomans mostly Greek - Armenian - Turkic mixes.
Well, Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan are Persian,
and
Then Islamic Tatars, Uigyurs, Turkmens, Kazakhs who are like a mix of East-Asian (Mongoloids) with Persian Steppes Aryans like Scythians, Andronovo, Tarim Tocharians etc.

PS.
Palestinians probably have more Ancient Hebrew genes, than Ashkenazis, and Sephardis.

Palestinian Christians maybe God's true Chosen people, and people don't even bother to realize it, they might be largely of Hebrew origins, and following Jesus.
Despite their Arabic dialect.

 

[protectionist]

Exactly.
It was the Mongols and their successor waves that attacked Europe from 1200 to 1500, but everyone now likes to instead blame it in Muslim Arabs, who actually had nothing at all to do with it, and had already fallen victim.

 

[protectionist]

Sure, most Muslims aren't pure Arabs, or pure anything.

Similar with Jews, and Israelis.

Genetically speaking, you're correct, most Muslim genocides weren't done by people particularly Arabic by DNA.

North-Africans are mostly Berber, although maybe 10 - 20% of their DNA was Arabic, in the case of Spanish Moors, maybe the founding fathers were Moors, but DNA samples shows they were Spanish.

and Ottomans mostly Greek - Armenian - Turkic mixes.
Well, Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan are Persian,
and
Then Islamic Tatars, Uigyurs, Turkmens, Kazakhs who are like a mix of East-Asian (Mongoloids) with Persian Steppes Aryans like Scythians, Andronovo, Tarim Tocharians etc.

PS.
Palestinians probably have more Ancient Hebrew genes, than Ashkenazis, and Sephardis.

Palestinian Christians maybe God's true Chosen people, and people don't even bother to realize it, they might be largely of Hebrew origins, and following Jesus.
Despite their Arabic dialect.

DNA is irrelevant with Islam. Only thing that matters is the Koran, and the morons who are dumb and/or insane enough to follow it.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

NOBODY has Muslims beat. No nation, cult, religion, or ideology even comes close to Islam's 270 million horrific figure.

That's a ridiculous claim.
Islam never has ever promoted any armed conflict.
There have been some invaders, like Mongols, Mohguls, Moors, Mamelukes, and Turks who murdered Islamic leaders, took over, and claimed to be Muslims, but they are not Arab or really Muslim.

So, Arabs expanded from Morrocco to Iraq destroying a bunch of previous tribes of Afro-Asiatic, in terms of peace????????????

I agree with many of your comments, this one is absurd.

Islam expanded to not just Morocco, but the whole Iberian Peninsula.
But NOT by Arabs.
The Arabs had been invaded by the Mongols around 1200, and the whole city of Baghdad was massacred as a warning against any further resistance.
Were the Barbary pirates Arab? No, they were Berbers.
Were the Moor Arab? No, they were Black.
Were the Turks Arab? No, they were Ottoman Turks.
Was Tamerlane or the Muslim who invaded India, Arab? No, they were Moguls.
Were the Mamelukes Arab? No, they were European mercenaries living in Egypt.
The Arabs destroyed no one.
The successive waves of nomadic horsemen off the steppes did destroy lots of people, but they were not Arab.
When Constantinople fell in 1453, the Arab Caliphate had been destroyed for over 250 years.
{... The Fall of Constantinople was the capture of the capital city of the Byzantine Empire by an invading Ottoman army on the Sunday of Pentecost, 29 May 1453. ...}
Ottoman were Turks, not Arabs.
They claimed to be converts to Islam, but they did nothing according to the Quran.

That's a different discussion.

A bunch of white skinned, German dialect (Yiddish) speakers, have what right to Israel 2,000 years later?
That's more on topic.

PS.
Maybe 5% - 10% of modern Ottoman DNA is not Native Greek Byzantine / Hitite / Armenian.
AKA 5 - 10% of modern Ottoman DNA comes from the Steppes & East Asia.

Actually, Ottomans aren't far removed from Ashkenazis in their DNA,
Which isn't surprising, because Ashkenazi are basically like them, a mix of Europeans, and Middle-Easterners, with minor Turkic genes, in the case of Ashkenazis Khazar genes.

Generally when mongols or others back then invaded some place, they just wanted to control the ruling power structure, and then went back home with the main forces.
It is not absolutely clear where the Turks came from, but they are associated as being allies to the Mongols, and likely came along with them. But they do also have more Balkan heritage as well.
And yes I agree the Ashkenazi are of Germanic origin since Yiddish is Germanic.
So the Khazar theory is likely, but controversial.

Israelis are pretty dang close to Turkey's DNA,
Along with Greeks, Sicilians, Cypriots, and Albanians.

They're mixed people, most Ashkenazis are a mix of people they collected between the Levant, and different portions of Europe.


Well, Cuman, Kipchak, Bulgar and Khazar Turkics were in Ukraine & Russia before even Mongols had invaded, but this was before Islam.
Before being replaced by Slavic Kievan Rus settlers, from probably near Belarus, who became Christian, and Christianized the region.

Islamic Tatars on the other hand, probably came with Mongols, and continued killing & enslaving millions in Eastern Europe.

Kazakhstan was R1a haplogroup, and mostly Blonde haired like Eastern Europeans, in the Bronze Age, as Andronovo Samples prove.

Modern Kazakhstan is mostly C haplogroup like Mongolia is.

So, that's a smoking gun that Turkic tribes originally came from near Mongolia & China's outer rim.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Sure, most Muslims aren't pure Arabs, or pure anything.

Similar with Jews, and Israelis.

Genetically speaking, you're correct, most Muslim genocides weren't done by people particularly Arabic by DNA.

North-Africans are mostly Berber, although maybe 10 - 20% of their DNA was Arabic, in the case of Spanish Moors, maybe the founding fathers were Moors, but DNA samples shows they were Spanish.

and Ottomans mostly Greek - Armenian - Turkic mixes.
Well, Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan are Persian,
and
Then Islamic Tatars, Uigyurs, Turkmens, Kazakhs who are like a mix of East-Asian (Mongoloids) with Persian Steppes Aryans like Scythians, Andronovo, Tarim Tocharians etc.

PS.
Palestinians probably have more Ancient Hebrew genes, than Ashkenazis, and Sephardis.

Palestinian Christians maybe God's true Chosen people, and people don't even bother to realize it, they might be largely of Hebrew origins, and following Jesus.
Despite their Arabic dialect.

DNA is irrelevant with Islam. Only thing that matters is the Koran, and the morons who are dumb and/or insane enough to follow it.

It sounds like you think
genocide is acceptable, against Muslims, because you don't like them.
Wow, just wow.

Why did Irish Catholics, Irish Protestants, Jews, Italians, Germans, Basque, Cubans, all engage in far more terrorist activities than the Islamic Tatars, who look pretty White looking?

I tend to disagree, I think the Muslim problem is mostly racial, rather than religious.

 

[Rigby5]

That is crazy.
How can Palestinians be the aggressor when millions of European Jews illegally sneak into Palestine with weapons and start murdering unarmed civilians?
Are you claiming the Zionist terrorists did not blow up the King David Hotel, assassinate the UN moderator, Count Folke Bernadotte, did not start massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, etc.?

You do realize that the Moslem Caliphate was destroyed by the Mongol invasion of Baghdad, around 1200, and there was no Islamic power since then?

3 cheers for the Mongols.

I know this doesn't have much to do with Israel's brutality upon Palestine.

But,
A lot of the Golden Horde was Muslim Turkics too.
Something often not mentioned.

Mongols killed a ton of White Christians too, you maniac.

In Hungary I know close to 1/2 of Hungarians were killed by the Mongol horde.

That's more horrific, and disproportionate, than the Holocaust.

Exactly.
It was the Mongols and their successor waves that attacked Europe from 1200 to 1500, but everyone now likes to instead blame it in Muslim Arabs, who actually had nothing at all to do with it, and had already fallen victim.

Sure, most Muslims aren't pure Arabs, or pure anything.

Similar with Jews, and Israelis.

Genetically speaking, you're correct, most Muslim genocides weren't done by people particularly Arabic by DNA.

North-Africans are mostly Berber, although maybe 10 - 20% of their DNA was Arabic, in the case of Spanish Moors, maybe the founding fathers were Moors, but DNA samples shows they were Spanish.

and Ottomans mostly Greek - Armenian - Turkic mixes.
Well, Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan are Persian,
and
Then Islamic Tatars, Uigyurs, Turkmens, Kazakhs who are like a mix of East-Asian (Mongoloids) with Persian Steppes Aryans like Scythians, Andronovo, Tarim Tocharians etc.

PS.
Palestinians probably have more Ancient Hebrew genes, than Ashkenazis, and Sephardis.

Palestinian Christians maybe God's true Chosen people, and people don't even bother to realize it, they might be largely of Hebrew origins, and following Jesus.
Despite their Arabic dialect.

Yes that is all likely correct.
Including the fact Ashkenazi and Sephardi likely are more European than Mideastern any more.
But I suspect the ancient Hebrew were even heavily Egyptian before then even invaded the Land of Canaan.
Egypt is likely the source of Hebrew monotheism.

 

[Rigby5]

Sure, most Muslims aren't pure Arabs, or pure anything.

Similar with Jews, and Israelis.

Genetically speaking, you're correct, most Muslim genocides weren't done by people particularly Arabic by DNA.

North-Africans are mostly Berber, although maybe 10 - 20% of their DNA was Arabic, in the case of Spanish Moors, maybe the founding fathers were Moors, but DNA samples shows they were Spanish.

and Ottomans mostly Greek - Armenian - Turkic mixes.
Well, Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan are Persian,
and
Then Islamic Tatars, Uigyurs, Turkmens, Kazakhs who are like a mix of East-Asian (Mongoloids) with Persian Steppes Aryans like Scythians, Andronovo, Tarim Tocharians etc.

PS.
Palestinians probably have more Ancient Hebrew genes, than Ashkenazis, and Sephardis.

Palestinian Christians maybe God's true Chosen people, and people don't even bother to realize it, they might be largely of Hebrew origins, and following Jesus.
Despite their Arabic dialect.

DNA is irrelevant with Islam. Only thing that matters is the Koran, and the morons who are dumb and/or insane enough to follow it.

DNA is relevant because Asiatic invaders are never going to accept Islam really, since Mohammad would not be of their same nationality.
They adopted Islam as an advantage, something with power they could control, not because of beliefs.

As far as the Quran, have you ever read it?
It is very just and peaceful, suggesting one never resort to violence unnecessarily.
Violence is only justified in defense, not conquest.

 

[Rigby5]

Timur the Great looks very Mongolian to me.

{...
Timur[3] ( 9 April 1336 – 18 February 1405), sometimes spelled Taimur and historically best known as Amir Timur or Tamerlane[4] ( "Timur the Lame"), was a Turco-Mongol Persianate[5][6]conqueror. As the founder of the Timurid Empire in and around modern-day Iran and Central Asia, he became the first ruler of the Timurid dynasty.[7] According to John Joseph Saunders, Timur was "the product of an Islamized and Iranized society", and not steppe nomadic.[8]

Born into the Barlas confederation in Transoxiana (in modern-day Uzbekistan) on 9 April 1336, Timur gained control of the western Chagatai Khanate by 1370. From that base, he led military campaigns across Western, South and Central Asia, the Caucasus and southern Russia, and emerged as the most powerful ruler in the Muslim world after defeating the Mamluks of Egypt and Syria, the emerging Ottoman Empire, and the declining Delhi Sultanate.[9] From these conquests, he founded the Timurid Empire, but this empire fragmented shortly after his death.

Timur was the last of the great nomadic conquerors of the Eurasian Steppe, and his empire set the stage for the rise of the more structured and lasting Gunpowder Empires in the 16th and 17th centuries.[10][11]:1 Timur envisioned the restoration of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan (died 1227) and according to Gérard Chaliand, saw himself as Genghis Khan's heir.[12] Though not a Borjigid or a descendant of Genghis Khan,[13] he clearly sought to invoke the legacy of the latter's conquests during his lifetime.[14] According to Beatrice Forbes Manz, "in his formal correspondence Temur continued throughout his life to portray himself as the restorer of Chinggisidrights. He justified his Iranian, Mamluk, and Ottoman campaigns as a re-imposition of legitimate Mongol control over lands taken by usurpers."[15] To legitimize his conquests, Timur relied on Islamic symbols and language, referred to himself as the "Sword of Islam", and patronized educational and religious institutions. He converted nearly all the Borjigin leaders to Islam during his lifetime. Timur decisively defeated the Christian Knights Hospitaller at the Siege of Smyrna, styling himself a ghazi.[16]:91 By the end of his reign, Timur had gained complete control over all the remnants of the Chagatai Khanate, the Ilkhanate, and the Golden Horde, and even attempted to restore the Yuan dynasty in China.

Timur's armies were inclusively multi-ethnic and were feared throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe,[16] sizable parts of which his campaigns laid to waste.[17] Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population at the time.
...}

 

[Shusha]

Kosher texts say only a Messiah can create an Israel.

They are sinners by their own record.

I have no right to tell you how to practice your faith.

You have no right to tell the Jewish people how to practice their faith. You don't get to decide what is authentic for the Jewish people. That is for the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people, to decide.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Kosher texts say only a Messiah can create an Israel.

They are sinners by their own record.

I have no right to tell you how to practice your faith.

You have no right to tell the Jewish people how to practice their faith. You don't get to decide what is authentic for the Jewish people. That is for the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people, to decide.

So, why do the Jews who study the Jewish texts the most, say that Israel must come from a Messiah?

Real Jews denounce Israel, fake Jews support it.

 

[Shusha]

Jews were to be allowed to immigrate, but in limited numbers, and with the promise they would never get involved with the government.

What is your source for the claim that Jews were never to be involved in government?

 

[Rigby5]

Kosher texts say only a Messiah can create an Israel.

They are sinners by their own record.

I have no right to tell you how to practice your faith.

You have no right to tell the Jewish people how to practice their faith. You don't get to decide what is authentic for the Jewish people. That is for the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people, to decide.

First of all, I am Jewish.
But anyone can read what the Jewish religious leaders decided after their defeat by the Romans in 160 AD.
So then YES, anyone can read and then tell what is authentic for the Jewish people.
Anyone attempting to make Zion on Earth by force is committing a sin according to Judaism.

 

[Shusha]

Kosher texts say only a Messiah can create an Israel.

They are sinners by their own record.

I have no right to tell you how to practice your faith.

You have no right to tell the Jewish people how to practice their faith. You don't get to decide what is authentic for the Jewish people. That is for the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people, to decide.

So, why do the Jews who study the Jewish texts the most, say that Israel must come from a Messiah?

Real Jews denounce Israel, fake Jews support it.

You have no right to determine you is a "real" Jew and who is a "fake" Jew. That is for the Jewish people to decide and only the Jewish people.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Kosher texts say only a Messiah can create an Israel.

They are sinners by their own record.

I have no right to tell you how to practice your faith.

You have no right to tell the Jewish people how to practice their faith. You don't get to decide what is authentic for the Jewish people. That is for the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people, to decide.

So, why do the Jews who study the Jewish texts the most, say that Israel must come from a Messiah?

Real Jews denounce Israel, fake Jews support it.

You have no right to determine you is a "real" Jew and who is a "fake" Jew. That is for the Jewish people to decide and only the Jewish people.

So, why do Jewish texts, say otherwise?

 

[Rigby5]

Jews were to be allowed to immigrate, but in limited numbers, and with the promise they would never get involved with the government.

What is your source for the claim that Jews were never to be involved in government?

I can find agreements made between Jews who wished to emigrate to Palestine and the Ottoman rulers, but the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 probably says it all best.
From the Avalon project at Yale:

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

So then the massive and unregulated Jewish immigration was illegal, and they deliberately also smuggled in weapons and started murdering British soldiers. But at no time were Jews ever more than a third of the population.
Yet the UN then illegally took over 55% of Palestine and illegally gave it to the Israelis.
That is especially criminal since Jews had never purchased more than 5% of the land, and most of the Jews in Israel illegally live in stolen homes.

 

[Rigby5]

Kosher texts say only a Messiah can create an Israel.

They are sinners by their own record.

I have no right to tell you how to practice your faith.

You have no right to tell the Jewish people how to practice their faith. You don't get to decide what is authentic for the Jewish people. That is for the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people, to decide.

So, why do the Jews who study the Jewish texts the most, say that Israel must come from a Messiah?

Real Jews denounce Israel, fake Jews support it.

You have no right to determine you is a "real" Jew and who is a "fake" Jew. That is for the Jewish people to decide and only the Jewish people.

Then why did the Jews disperse after the 160 AD defeat, and why were they told to atone for the sins of arrogance and pride, so that the Messiah would come, as a sign they had been forgiven?
Why is it that Zionists would elect an avowed Atheist like Netanyahu unless Zionists were also all Atheists?

Who is a real Jew and who is a fake Jews is not for atheists like Zionists to decide.

 

[Shusha]

So, why do Jewish texts, say otherwise?

There are a LOT of Jewish texts. They say a LOT of things. They often have apparent contradictions. They often have multiple interpretations. They are often subjected to vigorous debate (all recorded). They are always subject to new information in the forms of new technology or newly understood scientific principles.

You, as a non-Jew and one prone to an atrocious lack of understanding and tolerance, do not get to take the enormous bulk of Jewish knowledge and decide, on behalf of all humanity, that this tiny subset of Jews are "right" and hold the key to the Jewish faith.

Only the Jewish people, as a collective, get to apply meaning to Jewish law and faith.

 

[Shusha]

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

You are reaching in the EXTREME to suggest that the above noted paragraph in any way precludes, in perpetuity, any Jewish involvement in any future self-determining, sovereign government. Especially considering the language of the Mandate for Palestine, which expressly invites such a thing.