Note that your argument is NOT with the Zionists any more. That's why I didn't put a high priority on responding to you.
Are you man enough to re-examine the bases of these questions?
What I am saying is that at this point you should be doing your own research. I also suggested a relevant direction for you to investigate.
And the evidence you discovered is...?
Change what, exactly?[/QUOTE]
You already accepted "my case":
I'm suggesting dyor because the presumptions behind the question doesn't facts (indeed it's already been partially answered earlier in the thread), the information is out there if you want to dig for it, and if you find them yourself it will be more rewarding for you: you won't have to believe in anything I bring to the table.
Hope you will answer my question above
Israel is 20%+ non-Jews: mostly descendants of non-Jews who chose not to flee into the arms of Jews' enemies after '48 or '67 or to the distant UNRWA welfare camps, relatives of Jews, converts from Judaism, and descendants of anti-Zionist Arabs from UNRWA camps on Israeli territory ("internal refugees") that were dismantled back in the 1950s.
Non-Jews, to be accepted as immigrants under the law of return? They or a near relative have to have a direct affiliation with the Jewish people and probably an Israeli relative. And I don't think professed converts count, though a Muslim who is a child of a Muslim father and Jewish mother might. You can look up Israel's Law of Return and the question of Who is a Jew? for enlightenment - there have been some changes over the decades.
if I understood correctly, you are saying only "jews", and not the larger "Bani-Israel" have right over The Land? even though they are descendents of Jacob!
Bani-Israel = Children of Israel (Children of Jacob). As Israel was other name of Jacob (Yaa'koob in Arabic)
...To understand Flat Earthers, and other people who hold unconventional beliefs, we need to first consider what it means to “believe.” A belief is a cognitive representation of the nature of reality, encompassing our inner experiences, the world around us, and the world beyond. In 1965, Oxford philosophy professor H.H. Price distinguished between “believing in” and “believing that.”1 As summarized by John Byrne, author of the website Skeptical Medicine(link is external), “believing that” something is true is a relatively straightforward matter of looking at the evidence. “Seeing is believing” is one kind of “believing that.” In contrast, we “believe in” something when there’s no evidence and the belief isn’t falsifiable. Religious faith is a kind of “believing in.” Both types of believing are normal cognitive capacities, but can run amok when conflated, resulting in beliefs that are poor models of reality.
Just so, Flat Earthers often talk about planetary geometry in terms of “belief in” rather than “belief that,” as if the evidence for a spherical Earth is lacking. But that claim isn’t really so much about believing. It's denialism.
When Kyrie Irving was challenged about his flat earth beliefs, he replied(link is external):
“Is the world flat or round? — I think you need to do research on it. It’s right in front of our faces. I’m telling you it’s right in front of our faces. They lie to us… Everything that was put in front of me, I had to be like, ‘Oh, this is all a facade.’ Like, this is all something that they ultimately want me to believe in… Question things, but even if an answer doesn’t come back, you’re perfectly fine with that, because you were never living in that particular truth. There’s a falseness in stories and things that people want you to believe and ultimately what they throw in front of us.”
With those words, Irving seems to be defending a denialist position that has the potential to give way to a slippery slope of rejecting all facts. According to that extreme version of denialism, nothing can be trusted, not even scientific evidence. Or maybe, as the physician and writer Atul Gawande wrote last year(link is external), it’s not so much about mistrust of science, as it is about mistrusting scientists...
...This account suggests Flat Earthers often see themselves as approaching questions about reality like scientists do, from a philosophical perspective of skepticism. But while superficially related, scientific skepticism and denialism aren’t the same thing at all(link is external).2 The former teaches that evidence is worthy of belief when an observation is repeated under properly controlled conditions, while the latter teaches that evidence, no matter how reproducible, can always be rejected out of hand as a matter of principle (for more on the distinction, check out Michael Shermer's Living in Denial: When a Sceptic Isn't a Sceptic(link is external) and Steven Novella's Skepticism and Denial(link is external)).
When B.o.B.(link is external) and Tila Tequila(link is external) defended their flat earth beliefs, both fell back on the claim that the Earth can’t be round because it appears flat on the horizon. While this position could be dismissed as mere ignorance grounded in the natural but error-prone tendency of the brain to treat perception as reality, the simultaneous rejection of the mountain of objective evidence to the contrary may further reflect a modern democratization of opinion, with personal belief placed on a equal footing with expertise(link is external). That kind of narcissism emboldened B.o.B. to feel qualified to debate physicist Neil Degrasse Tyson(link is external) and for many others seems to be an increasingly adopted epistemology in today's “post-truth” world...
...In terms of psychological and social health, we would all do well to be more flexible with our personal belief convictions, keeping an open mind to the possibility that we might be wrong. But at the same time, we would also do well to “believe in” the process of “believing that.” According to that advice, denialism holds us back, tethering us to false beliefs that are inconsistent with the facts and worthy of ridicule.
