Oh don't be so pompous. You're not that important.
Perhaps my capacity to read between the lines is limited, but i don't see where Immanuel said he was that important. I expect that having a huge culture do not equal being pompous (i just consider my own culture as only average, so i a m not personnaly offended by this one )
Oh don't be so pompous. You're not that important.
Where did I write that I am?
You do give me undue importance however, since the first topic you address is my very person, rather than the content of my message (actually, you don't address that content at all).
Quote:
As to the question of existence, the Israelis constantly take decisions that seem almost calculated to reduce the amount of peace in which they can exist.
That's what you say.
Quote:
I wonder, in this context, how you would justify the tenders for new settlements, and the continuing confiscation of land? A coward would blame Palestinian roadmap failures; will you?
As can be found in many of my previous messages in several threads, I have been opposed to the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza since their beginnings.
But perhaps you haven't read them. But then again I hadn't read much of your prose either, although I would have, had I wished to discuss your person. Which I do not; I find you uninteresting.
Quote:
Is it only a foreigner that can see?
Ah yes, the ?I can see what you cannot? argument.
Monsieur est trop modeste.
Quote:
?these actions are both immoral and render it impossible for a Palestinian leader to demonstrate he is delivering progress to an angry people?
What progress are you talking about?
Let's see? Just an idea: had a Palestinian leader delivered a cease-fire with Israel (rather than a ?hudna? with Hamas), that would have been progress.
Let's see? Just an idea: had a Palestinian leader delivered a cease-fire with Israel (rather than a ?hudna? with Hamas), that would have been progress.
Do you believe in Single Person Marriages as well?
Let's see? Just an idea: had a Palestinian leader delivered a cease-fire with Israel (rather than a ?hudna? with Hamas), that would have been progress.
Not just me that can't see what you cannot. Safe to say that there's a fairly huge amount of people that think that Israeli policies seem calculated against peace. Which leads us on to:
I don't care about your views on the settlements; however, you can't speak for "Israelis" when you say that they'd rather have existence without peace and then, when an example of their action that militates against it is pointed out, bluster about "Well I think they're a bad idea."
We're not talking about you; but you are making 'the Israeli case.'
I stopped reading the above-linked article on anti-semitism here:
Quote:
... the theory that is now taking hold in Jewish intellectual circles is that the unfathomable hatred of the State of Israel....
Like everything else from pro-Israeli media -- spun like silk. Clearly the State of Israel MUST be the victim here, right??
Were I a Palestinian "citizen", I don't think it would be very hard to fathom. I think it would be harder to fathom liking or respecting the state of Israel and its policies, were I to base my opinion on the contrast between their actions and their words. Saying you want peace and compromise is easy....
General observation: the arrogant and self-righteous attitude put forth by "Jewish intellectual circles" is what gains them so many detractors. I'm starting to think Immanuel is a good poster-child for this malady. The sad part is, they always spin this attitude as nothing more than "protecting ourselves" or "the pursuit of our most basic rights and freedoms as a nation". As if they're still fleeing an oppressor and thus deserving of everyone's sympathy and undivided support.
*sigh*
Maybe one day their blinders will come off and they'll see themselves in the proverbial mirror. Not that the likes of Hamas and others are innocent mind you - they play their ugly part - but it's going to be up to the state of Israel to take the high road, should they be interested in ending the conflict rather than "winning it".
To answer the main question raised in this thread ? basically I agree with powerdoc and would add to his words that I believe most anti-Zionists are anti-Semites.
What is Zionism? It is the (in my view) legitimate national liberation movement of the Jewish people which calls for the establishment and maintained existence of a Jewish homeland in Israel ? it has nothing to do with expansionism as expressed by some right wing Zionists and it has nothing to do with the negation of Arab or Palestinian national rights. I am an Israeli ? a Zionist by my own definition (as most Israelis I know are) but I oppose the continued Israeli occupation and settlement of the OT or the expansion of Israel at the expense of its neighbours.
The original post in this thread is completely wrong in its definition of Zionism and it really upsets me that people base their opinions and arguments on plainly wrong assumptions.
Also let me ask ? why is it perfectly reasonable for the Palestinian people to have a legitimate national movement (PLO, etc?) while Zionism is rejected as an illegitimate national movement - the two are very similar in many respects i.e. both call for the establishment of a national home for their respective nations within the land of historic Israel/Palestine.
The truth is that both are legitimate (although tactics used by some of their protagonists are often illegitimate) national movements and attempting to delegitimize either one of these usually stems from a racial/ethic bias against that group and therefore can often be equated with racism and anti-Semitism!
To clarify my original statement a bit more, I do see Zionism as a "movement" (for lack of a better term), lead mostly by right-wingers who wish to expand the state of Israel in not an insignificant way (geographically and culturally speaking). That means not giving up the territories (or parts of them), and generally not giving in to any Palestinian demands for any reason. This view of Zionism could also be seen as behavioral: not wanting to give into the demands (read: compromise) of the Palestinians or even the UN, simply because one refuses to recognize non-Zionist views as being legitimate.
Were I to evaluate someone's stance... if they felt that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories (and help promote a new Palestinian state), while not otherwise decreasing their state or their culture... I would not consider that person to be Zionist.
So therefore you call yourself Zionist, while I would be hesitant to do so.
What is Zionism? It is the (in my view) legitimate national liberation movement of the Jewish people which calls for the establishment and maintained existence of a Jewish homeland in Israel ? i
If you characterize Zionism as merely a tool of racist expansion and oppression, then yes, your very definition is racist.
Kind of like racist East Texas men saying "Well now, 'niggers' are just bad black people. There's 'niggers' then there's reg'ler blacks."
"Zionist" has become a simple blanket to apply whenever you feel it is convenient. How many Israeli leaders out and advocate Israel taking everything?
Oh buddah.
Immanuel and Rashumon both identify (and decry) Israelis who follow an expansionist line (required "there are bad Palestinians too" line inserted here). No-one but you mentioned leaders; although these indviduals do of course have representation in Israeli policy (insert "but not total control over it" line here).
Actually, your post made ****-all sense come to think about it.
Harald: good point. I forgot to ask that question (liberation from what?), but was thinking the same thing. "Who is the 'oppressor'", is another way of asking. Almost pains me to write that because it's so ridiculous given the military and financial mismatch between the two main combatants... but ANYWAY...
...onward.
Groverat: I don't think anyone is suggesting the majority of Israelis are wanting to "take everything" (presumably by that you mean invade other countries in order to greatly expand the state of Israel). My original definition -- if that's what you're alluding to indirectly -- was made with the mindset that lands which would define "Palestine", are the primary "Arab state" in question.
Also included in my thinking were other lands immediately neighboring Israel that have been fought over in the past. Namely those bordering on Syria and Lebanon. I [suspect] there are many Zionist "Hawks" in Israel who if given the chance would not hesitate to try and [expand into southern Lebanon or beyond the Golan Heights into southwestern Syria even. Of course, they would need more than their usual influx of military hardware from the US to do this, but they have enough sympathy in Washington that I don't find such a scenario to be entirely improbable over the next several years.]
I suspect the borders with Egypt and Jordan are much more set in stone, politically and geologically speaking....
[Edited for geo-political clarification - sorry if I caused any confusion]
Perhaps I was using the wrong term - what I meant was liberation from a condition of not having a homeland and living under the mercy and good will of other nations - as was the case for the Jews during the past 2000 years prior to the Zionist movement being established ? a condition which led to the Jewish people being one of the most oppressed and persecuted nations in history?Remember, Zionism was established in the mid 18th century when Jews were considered as sub-humans by most European and American circles plus we all know what happed during WW2 ? Zionism is supposed to be the answer to that powerless state of existence Jews have always suffered from.
To clarify my original statement a bit more, I do see Zionism as a "movement" (for lack of a better term), lead mostly by right-wingers who wish to expand the state of Israel in not an insignificant way (geographically and culturally speaking). That means not giving up the territories (or parts of them), and generally not giving in to any Palestinian demands for any reason. This view of Zionism could also be seen as behavioral: not wanting to give into the demands (read: compromise) of the Palestinians or even the UN, simply because one refuses to recognize non-Zionist views as being legitimate.
Were I to evaluate someone's stance... if they felt that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories (and help promote a new Palestinian state), while not otherwise decreasing their state or their culture... I would not consider that person to be Zionist.
So therefore you call yourself Zionist, while I would be hesitant to do so.
Thanks
As I have said I strongly disagree with your definition of Zionism - Zionism is a complex and rather wide spanning national movement. there are right wing religious and non-religious Zionists, there are left wing Zionists, communists and capitalists etc.. to try and paint all people defining themselves as Zionists with a rough brush and define them as right wing expansionist zealots who support every policy of the current (democratically elected) Israeli government borders on racism since it assumes Jews who define themselves as Zionists (probably 80%-95% of the total number of Jews on the planet) is simplistic and based upon a monolithic perception of what Jews stand for ? again, this could be defined as racist.
BTW, not even the current [read rightwing] Israeli government shows the slightest bit of interest in expanding the borders of Israel into southern Syria or Lebanon and Sharon has declared openly that he accepts the notion of a two state solution and Palestinian national rights ? I really don?t know where you get your ideas about Israeli expansionism from?.
Clearly the State of Israel MUST be the victim here, right??
Of course not! Both sides are both victim and villain here ? as we all know?..
But lets face the truth - in both sides? eyes they themselves are first and foremost victims ? its only natural for humans to be egotistical and defensive as an instinctive response while feeling under attack as both nations clearly and acutely do these days.
But consider this:
Israel has the power (in military terms) to end the conflict between our two nations tomorrow! the only reason it does not employ that power in that manner is because it cares more about its own humanity and morality and its image in the eyes of the outside world then it cares about its instincts of self preservation.
The Palestinians on the other hand have never shown any inclination towards constraining their destructive actions against the Jews, the only limiting factor in this arena has always been their technical ability to succeed in war and terror against the Israeli security apparatus. do you have any doubt as to what would have been the results had Palestinian groups like Hamas or certain Fatah factions been able to deploy military power equal to that of the IDF against the Israelis and the Israelis would have been the weak side? Do you really have any doubts about the outcome had Israel been defeated in the 48 or 67 or 73 Arab Israeli wars? I doubt a single Israeli Jew would have been left alive to tell the story?
we have seen many examples of this in the 1920s 30s & 40s and during the war of independence in 48 ? wherever Jews were on the defeated side they were completely slaughtered and/or expelled ? up to the last man woman and child.
Israel on the other hand did win all those wars and conflicts and while the results are certainly not pleasant or even acceptable for the defeated side (both from a moral as well as practical POV) Israel has not brought on its defeated enemies the devastation they have promised to it [in case of their victory]?
For me this is the core difference between the two nations? behaviour in this conflict and the source of my personal feeling of having a superior moral position in this war ? this despite the many mistakes and brutal actions of the Israeli side in this conflict.
This simple and brutal state of affairs leaves us Israelis with only one option ? to fight back until such a time arrives when we can find a partner to make peace with, a nation that accepts our existence in our land and is willing to live with us side by side as I know I am willing to live with it.
What? That there is a large population of brain-dead rednecks in East Texas? I have no doubts my friend. I shall sling nothing in your general direction.
Rashumon:
You make a good point about there being "Zionists" - by the broader, less imperialist definition - in all factions of Israeli political life. As I noted way back in the beginning, ideas like this can become nothing more than a semantic game twisting in the winds of politik and war... so I guess one of the advantages of this thread is to maybe settle on a broad definition amongst ourselves.
I mean hey, we're just a bunch of geeks but still, "the mo' edu-macation, the betta!"
I don't doubt there are others you agree with and who you thus deem likewise gifted.
Quote:
Safe to say that there's a fairly huge amount of people that think that Israeli policies seem calculated against peace.
So, since there is ?a fairly huge amount of people that think that Israeli policies seem calculated against peace?, and you even say so, it must be true.
Quote:
Which leads us on to:
I don't care about your views on the settlements; however, you can't speak for "Israelis" when you say that they'd rather have existence without peace?
That was not me ?speaking for ?Israelis?? as you put it, but me describing a country and a people I am fairly familiar with.
Quote:
?and then, when an example of their action that militates against it is pointed out, bluster about "Well I think they're a bad idea."
You wrote:
Quote:
I wonder, in this context, how you would justify the tenders for new settlements,?
You don't care about my actual views, but ask me to defend views which I don't hold.
Discarding my actual opinion about the settlement activity, you expected me to justify it. As if a person who supports Israel's right to exist should be required to defend or justify every Israeli government policy or every action by Israelis.
If you asked any Palestinian making a case for the Palestinians' right to a sovereign state, how he'd justify the bombing of Café Hilel, you'd probably be flamed as a racist twat, and deservedly so.
Quote:
We're not talking about you; but you are making 'the Israeli case.'
So you end up talking about me rather than about the case I'm making.
So here it is again, succintly:
Jews are people just like you. As long as other people have states with flags and weapons, the Jews will have one too: it's called Israel, its existence is legitimate and is a good thing.
And it will keep on existing as long as Israelis can defend it. So, get used to it.
Let's see? Just an idea: had a Palestinian leader delivered a cease-fire with Israel (rather than a ?hudna? with Hamas), that would have been progress.
Do you believe in Single Person Marriages as well?
I have difficulty undestanding your question, but I'll try anyway.
The PA, rather than working to reach a cease-fire with whom it is in armed conflict since late 2000: Israel, had delivered a few months ago something called a ?hunda? agreement between several Palestinian armed factions. That might be analogous to what you called ?Single Person Marriage?.
From a previous message of mine, it can be understood that I don't consider this to be a progress.
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
Oh don't be so pompous. You're not that important.
Perhaps my capacity to read between the lines is limited, but i don't see where Immanuel said he was that important. I expect that having a huge culture do not equal being pompous (i just consider my own culture as only average, so i a m not personnaly offended by this one
Originally posted by Harald
Oh don't be so pompous. You're not that important.
Where did I write that I am?
You do give me undue importance however, since the first topic you address is my very person, rather than the content of my message (actually, you don't address that content at all).
As to the question of existence, the Israelis constantly take decisions that seem almost calculated to reduce the amount of peace in which they can exist.
That's what you say.
I wonder, in this context, how you would justify the tenders for new settlements, and the continuing confiscation of land? A coward would blame Palestinian roadmap failures; will you?
As can be found in many of my previous messages in several threads, I have been opposed to the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza since their beginnings.
But perhaps you haven't read them. But then again I hadn't read much of your prose either, although I would have, had I wished to discuss your person. Which I do not; I find you uninteresting.
Is it only a foreigner that can see?
Ah yes, the ?I can see what you cannot? argument.
Monsieur est trop modeste.
?these actions are both immoral and render it impossible for a Palestinian leader to demonstrate he is delivering progress to an angry people?
What progress are you talking about?
Let's see? Just an idea: had a Palestinian leader delivered a cease-fire with Israel (rather than a ?hudna? with Hamas), that would have been progress.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
That's a very didactic message, Immanuel. It's part of the reason so many people are put off by Zionism.
Sory for being thick - but what the hell does this statement mean?
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Let's see? Just an idea: had a Palestinian leader delivered a cease-fire with Israel (rather than a ?hudna? with Hamas), that would have been progress.
Do you believe in Single Person Marriages as well?
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Ah yes, the ?I can see what you cannot? argument.
Monsieur est trop modeste.
What progress are you talking about?
Let's see? Just an idea: had a Palestinian leader delivered a cease-fire with Israel (rather than a ?hudna? with Hamas), that would have been progress.
Not just me that can't see what you cannot. Safe to say that there's a fairly huge amount of people that think that Israeli policies seem calculated against peace. Which leads us on to:
I don't care about your views on the settlements; however, you can't speak for "Israelis" when you say that they'd rather have existence without peace and then, when an example of their action that militates against it is pointed out, bluster about "Well I think they're a bad idea."
We're not talking about you; but you are making 'the Israeli case.'
... the theory that is now taking hold in Jewish intellectual circles is that the unfathomable hatred of the State of Israel....
Like everything else from pro-Israeli media -- spun like silk. Clearly the State of Israel MUST be the victim here, right??
Were I a Palestinian "citizen", I don't think it would be very hard to fathom. I think it would be harder to fathom liking or respecting the state of Israel and its policies, were I to base my opinion on the contrast between their actions and their words. Saying you want peace and compromise is easy....
General observation: the arrogant and self-righteous attitude put forth by "Jewish intellectual circles" is what gains them so many detractors. I'm starting to think Immanuel is a good poster-child for this malady. The sad part is, they always spin this attitude as nothing more than "protecting ourselves" or "the pursuit of our most basic rights and freedoms as a nation". As if they're still fleeing an oppressor and thus deserving of everyone's sympathy and undivided support.
*sigh*
Maybe one day their blinders will come off and they'll see themselves in the proverbial mirror. Not that the likes of Hamas and others are innocent mind you - they play their ugly part - but it's going to be up to the state of Israel to take the high road, should they be interested in ending the conflict rather than "winning it".
What is Zionism? It is the (in my view) legitimate national liberation movement of the Jewish people which calls for the establishment and maintained existence of a Jewish homeland in Israel ? it has nothing to do with expansionism as expressed by some right wing Zionists and it has nothing to do with the negation of Arab or Palestinian national rights. I am an Israeli ? a Zionist by my own definition (as most Israelis I know are) but I oppose the continued Israeli occupation and settlement of the OT or the expansion of Israel at the expense of its neighbours.
The original post in this thread is completely wrong in its definition of Zionism and it really upsets me that people base their opinions and arguments on plainly wrong assumptions.
Also let me ask ? why is it perfectly reasonable for the Palestinian people to have a legitimate national movement (PLO, etc?) while Zionism is rejected as an illegitimate national movement - the two are very similar in many respects i.e. both call for the establishment of a national home for their respective nations within the land of historic Israel/Palestine.
The truth is that both are legitimate (although tactics used by some of their protagonists are often illegitimate) national movements and attempting to delegitimize either one of these usually stems from a racial/ethic bias against that group and therefore can often be equated with racism and anti-Semitism!
To clarify my original statement a bit more, I do see Zionism as a "movement" (for lack of a better term), lead mostly by right-wingers who wish to expand the state of Israel in not an insignificant way (geographically and culturally speaking). That means not giving up the territories (or parts of them), and generally not giving in to any Palestinian demands for any reason. This view of Zionism could also be seen as behavioral: not wanting to give into the demands (read: compromise) of the Palestinians or even the UN, simply because one refuses to recognize non-Zionist views as being legitimate.
Were I to evaluate someone's stance... if they felt that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories (and help promote a new Palestinian state), while not otherwise decreasing their state or their culture... I would not consider that person to be Zionist.
So therefore you call yourself Zionist, while I would be hesitant to do so.
Originally posted by rashumon
What is Zionism? It is the (in my view) legitimate national liberation movement of the Jewish people which calls for the establishment and maintained existence of a Jewish homeland in Israel ? i
Superb post. Very clear, thank you (really).
Liberation from what though?
Kind of like racist East Texas men saying "Well now, 'niggers' are just bad black people. There's 'niggers' then there's reg'ler blacks."
"Zionist" has become a simple blanket to apply whenever you feel it is convenient. How many Israeli leaders out and advocate Israel taking everything?
Originally posted by groverat
If you characterize Zionism as merely a tool of racist expansion and oppression, then yes, your very definition is racist.
Kind of like racist East Texas men saying "Well now, 'niggers' are just bad black people. There's 'niggers' then there's reg'ler blacks."
"Zionist" has become a simple blanket to apply whenever you feel it is convenient. How many Israeli leaders out and advocate Israel taking everything?
Oh buddah.
Immanuel and Rashumon both identify (and decry) Israelis who follow an expansionist line (required "there are bad Palestinians too" line inserted here). No-one but you mentioned leaders; although these indviduals do of course have representation in Israeli policy (insert "but not total control over it" line here).
Actually, your post made ****-all sense come to think about it.
...onward.
Groverat: I don't think anyone is suggesting the majority of Israelis are wanting to "take everything" (presumably by that you mean invade other countries in order to greatly expand the state of Israel). My original definition -- if that's what you're alluding to indirectly -- was made with the mindset that lands which would define "Palestine", are the primary "Arab state" in question.
Also included in my thinking were other lands immediately neighboring Israel that have been fought over in the past. Namely those bordering on Syria and Lebanon. I [suspect] there are many Zionist "Hawks" in Israel who if given the chance would not hesitate to try and [expand into southern Lebanon or beyond the Golan Heights into southwestern Syria even. Of course, they would need more than their usual influx of military hardware from the US to do this, but they have enough sympathy in Washington that I don't find such a scenario to be entirely improbable over the next several years.]
I suspect the borders with Egypt and Jordan are much more set in stone, politically and geologically speaking....
[Edited for geo-political clarification - sorry if I caused any confusion]
Originally posted by Harald
Superb post. Very clear, thank you (really).
Liberation from what though?
Perhaps I was using the wrong term - what I meant was liberation from a condition of not having a homeland and living under the mercy and good will of other nations - as was the case for the Jews during the past 2000 years prior to the Zionist movement being established ? a condition which led to the Jewish people being one of the most oppressed and persecuted nations in history?Remember, Zionism was established in the mid 18th century when Jews were considered as sub-humans by most European and American circles plus we all know what happed during WW2 ? Zionism is supposed to be the answer to that powerless state of existence Jews have always suffered from.
Does that make it clearer?
Originally posted by Moogs
Nice post Rashumon.
To clarify my original statement a bit more, I do see Zionism as a "movement" (for lack of a better term), lead mostly by right-wingers who wish to expand the state of Israel in not an insignificant way (geographically and culturally speaking). That means not giving up the territories (or parts of them), and generally not giving in to any Palestinian demands for any reason. This view of Zionism could also be seen as behavioral: not wanting to give into the demands (read: compromise) of the Palestinians or even the UN, simply because one refuses to recognize non-Zionist views as being legitimate.
Were I to evaluate someone's stance... if they felt that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories (and help promote a new Palestinian state), while not otherwise decreasing their state or their culture... I would not consider that person to be Zionist.
So therefore you call yourself Zionist, while I would be hesitant to do so.
Thanks
As I have said I strongly disagree with your definition of Zionism - Zionism is a complex and rather wide spanning national movement. there are right wing religious and non-religious Zionists, there are left wing Zionists, communists and capitalists etc.. to try and paint all people defining themselves as Zionists with a rough brush and define them as right wing expansionist zealots who support every policy of the current (democratically elected) Israeli government borders on racism since it assumes Jews who define themselves as Zionists (probably 80%-95% of the total number of Jews on the planet) is simplistic and based upon a monolithic perception of what Jews stand for ? again, this could be defined as racist.
BTW, not even the current [read rightwing] Israeli government shows the slightest bit of interest in expanding the borders of Israel into southern Syria or Lebanon and Sharon has declared openly that he accepts the notion of a two state solution and Palestinian national rights ? I really don?t know where you get your ideas about Israeli expansionism from?.
Moogs said:
Clearly the State of Israel MUST be the victim here, right??
Of course not! Both sides are both victim and villain here ? as we all know?..
But lets face the truth - in both sides? eyes they themselves are first and foremost victims ? its only natural for humans to be egotistical and defensive as an instinctive response while feeling under attack as both nations clearly and acutely do these days.
But consider this:
Israel has the power (in military terms) to end the conflict between our two nations tomorrow! the only reason it does not employ that power in that manner is because it cares more about its own humanity and morality and its image in the eyes of the outside world then it cares about its instincts of self preservation.
The Palestinians on the other hand have never shown any inclination towards constraining their destructive actions against the Jews, the only limiting factor in this arena has always been their technical ability to succeed in war and terror against the Israeli security apparatus. do you have any doubt as to what would have been the results had Palestinian groups like Hamas or certain Fatah factions been able to deploy military power equal to that of the IDF against the Israelis and the Israelis would have been the weak side? Do you really have any doubts about the outcome had Israel been defeated in the 48 or 67 or 73 Arab Israeli wars? I doubt a single Israeli Jew would have been left alive to tell the story?
we have seen many examples of this in the 1920s 30s & 40s and during the war of independence in 48 ? wherever Jews were on the defeated side they were completely slaughtered and/or expelled ? up to the last man woman and child.
Israel on the other hand did win all those wars and conflicts and while the results are certainly not pleasant or even acceptable for the defeated side (both from a moral as well as practical POV) Israel has not brought on its defeated enemies the devastation they have promised to it [in case of their victory]?
For me this is the core difference between the two nations? behaviour in this conflict and the source of my personal feeling of having a superior moral position in this war ? this despite the many mistakes and brutal actions of the Israeli side in this conflict.
This simple and brutal state of affairs leaves us Israelis with only one option ? to fight back until such a time arrives when we can find a partner to make peace with, a nation that accepts our existence in our land and is willing to live with us side by side as I know I am willing to live with it.
Originally posted by groverat
If you characterize Zionism as merely a tool of racist expansion and oppression, then yes, your very definition is racist.
Kind of like racist East Texas men saying "Well now, 'niggers' are just bad black people. There's 'niggers' then there's reg'ler blacks."
I know I'll get mud slung and me for say this, but this is true. At least, according to a lot of black & non-racist white people.
Rashumon:
You make a good point about there being "Zionists" - by the broader, less imperialist definition - in all factions of Israeli political life. As I noted way back in the beginning, ideas like this can become nothing more than a semantic game twisting in the winds of politik and war... so I guess one of the advantages of this thread is to maybe settle on a broad definition amongst ourselves.
I mean hey, we're just a bunch of geeks but still, "the mo' edu-macation, the betta!"
Originally posted by Harald
Not just me that can't see what you cannot.
I don't doubt there are others you agree with and who you thus deem likewise gifted.
Safe to say that there's a fairly huge amount of people that think that Israeli policies seem calculated against peace.
So, since there is ?a fairly huge amount of people that think that Israeli policies seem calculated against peace?, and you even say so, it must be true.
Which leads us on to:
I don't care about your views on the settlements; however, you can't speak for "Israelis" when you say that they'd rather have existence without peace?
That was not me ?speaking for ?Israelis?? as you put it, but me describing a country and a people I am fairly familiar with.
?and then, when an example of their action that militates against it is pointed out, bluster about "Well I think they're a bad idea."
You wrote:
I wonder, in this context, how you would justify the tenders for new settlements,?
You don't care about my actual views, but ask me to defend views which I don't hold.
Discarding my actual opinion about the settlement activity, you expected me to justify it. As if a person who supports Israel's right to exist should be required to defend or justify every Israeli government policy or every action by Israelis.
If you asked any Palestinian making a case for the Palestinians' right to a sovereign state, how he'd justify the bombing of Café Hilel, you'd probably be flamed as a racist twat, and deservedly so.
We're not talking about you; but you are making 'the Israeli case.'
So you end up talking about me rather than about the case I'm making.
So here it is again, succintly:
Jews are people just like you. As long as other people have states with flags and weapons, the Jews will have one too: it's called Israel, its existence is legitimate and is a good thing.
And it will keep on existing as long as Israelis can defend it. So, get used to it.
That, in simple terms, is Zionism.
Originally posted by New
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Let's see? Just an idea: had a Palestinian leader delivered a cease-fire with Israel (rather than a ?hudna? with Hamas), that would have been progress.
Do you believe in Single Person Marriages as well?
I have difficulty undestanding your question, but I'll try anyway.
The PA, rather than working to reach a cease-fire with whom it is in armed conflict since late 2000: Israel, had delivered a few months ago something called a ?hunda? agreement between several Palestinian armed factions. That might be analogous to what you called ?Single Person Marriage?.
From a previous message of mine, it can be understood that I don't consider this to be a progress.