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.
Good stuff Immanuel! I coulden't have said it better myself!
Now is this definition truly universally accepted? Because I thought zionism included expansion. Just the fight to have an Israel is no big deal. Growing bothers me though. Just like I want a Palestine, but I don't believe in the border expanding all the way to the sea.
Now is this definition truly universally accepted?
It is quite the mainstream among Israelis, who are thosee actually involved in the Zionist entreprise, and among those elesewhare who favour that entreprise.
Quote:
Because I thought zionism included expansion.
As explained earlier: Zionism, throughout its history, included capitalists as well as marxists, nationalists as well as internationalists, atheists as well as strict observants. There are some expansionists as well.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, expansion doesn't constitute a major element in Zionism.
Between the early nineteen-seventies and the mid nineteen-nineties, Israeli political opinion was divided between those who favoured territorial retrocession in exchange for peace, and who wished to keep all territory which they had under their control at the time (expanding further didn't quite make it into the debate).
Presently the former view (territorial retrocession in exchange for peace) has become pretty much the consensus.
Quote:
Just the fight to have an Israel is no big deal. Growing bothers me though. Just like I want a Palestine, but I don't believe in the border expanding all the way to the sea.
Given Israel's significant military capabilities and the many opportunities it had to expand to reasonable dimensions (rather than those of the more puny US states), had expansion been a major element in the movement that founded Israel, its size would have been much bigger than it presently is, and it certainly wouldn't have withdrawn from Sinai.
Had the Palestinian nationalist organisations had the military capability to have a Palestine going all the way to the sea, there is no doubt in my mind they'd have it.
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.
And as long as people value those flags and weapons more than they do human life, we will continue to see the brains of school children scattered on the ground. And, as I think that you realize, I am not talking just about Israel and Palestine.
NB: I do plan to respond to your previous response to me. I know that you wait with bated breath, but such a post as that one needs more time than I have had over the last couple of days.
And, slightly off topic but relevant, doesn't it strike anyone that it's wholly inconsistent for Yasser Arafat, considered by Israel to be a murderous terrorist for decades, to be (a) still alive, (b) not under lock and key, and (c), still the leader of the Palestinian people?
Israel has employed a policy of targeted assassinations for many years and with Arafat consistently in the neighborhood and his whereabouts known 24/7, Israel has had countless chances of eliminating him, as well as his closest cohorts. The operation would be a piece of cake either for the Israeli military or the Mossad agency....and finally the hated Arafat would be gone. But he's still there. Is he really hated so? Certain (non Palestinian) parties must consider him a very useful asset.
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.
And as long as people value those flags and weapons more than they do human life, we will continue to see the brains of school children scattered on the ground.
Violence has existed among humans long before the invention of flags or even weapons.
I do not like reapeating myself, but if you think that being without states or weapons is good for you, start with relinquishing your own. Others will keep theirs as long as they deem it necessary for their continued existence.
Quote:
And, as I think that you realize, I am not talking just about Israel and Palestine.
You think rightly on this instance.
Quote:
NB: I do plan to respond to your previous response to me. I know that you wait with bated breath,?
I will not comment on your knowledge or lack thereof here.
Quote:
?but such a post as that one needs more time than I have had over the last couple of days.
It is understandable that you take all the time you need from the time you have available.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, expansion doesn't constitute a major element in Zionism.
Good, because for whatever the reason, the term is kind of blacklisted in the U.S., I think because it has negative connotations here. Not because it's Jewish, but because it's expansion. So the world probably needs to expand its vocabulary and come up with a term for 'saving Israel' and a different term for 'expanding Israel.' For the time being they seem intertwined, and that's not healthy.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, expansion doesn't constitute a major element in Zionism.
Good, because for whatever the reason, the term is kind of blacklisted in the U.S.,?
What term, ?Zionism??
Quote:
I think because it has negative connotations here. Not because it's Jewish, but because it's expansion. So the world probably needs to expand its vocabulary and come up with a term for 'saving Israel' and a different term for 'expanding Israel.' For the time being they seem intertwined, and that's not healthy.
I find there is much more use of the word ?Zionism? than is reasonable.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that for some forty years after WW2, ?Zionist? had become a code-word for ?Jewish? in Soviet propaganda, from where it was passed on to Third-World militancy (with the diligent help of Nasserism and the likes) to the New-Left and other kinds of ?progressivist? streams.
The condemnation in the UN of Zionism as racism in the nineteen-seventies (which was repealed after the fall of the Soviet Union) initiated by the Communist Block and the Arab League and mainly supported by Third-World countries, contributed to discredit Zionism as a racist and expansionist idea, as well as led to its frequent use when adressing the Middle-East issue.
So, while not all opponents of Zionism are anti-semitic (as I said upthread), Soviet antisemitism was dished as ?anti-Zionism? by its peddlers, and much of the far-left and far-right antisemites claim they only ?oppose Zionist ideology? are ?anti-Zionist?, or merely ?criticise Israeli policies?; since antisemtism and itse usual patterns (Jews as greedy bloodscuking exploiters, Jews as conspirators, Jews exerting excessive clout away from the public eye, etc.) are still frowned upon in the West, though not as taboo as they were some thirty years ago.
Yeah. Blacklisted may be the wrong term, but my instincts are that it has negative connotations. The term zionist has probably just been hijacked by racists/anti-semites, much the same way the Republican Party here in the U.S.A. has turned the word 'liberal' into a dirty word.
I don't doubt there are others you agree with and who you thus deem likewise gifted.
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.
That was not me ?speaking for ?Israelis?? as you put it, but me describing a country and a people I am fairly familiar with.
You wrote:
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.
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.
Here we go again.
Defending it in a manner that involves confiscation of land and expansion of the state, both of which are immoral and can never lead to peace. I say, as do many others. Maybe you could outline how confiscation leads to peace? Not your perspective on confiscation, but how confiscation of land is defence, and how confiscation will put the Palestinians in the mood to make peace.
Israel is legitimate and is a good thing. Suicide bombers and Hamas will never create a viable Palestine alone because their actions can never lead to peace. I am used to it. Don't be so patronising.
By the way, stop changing the the reference of your discussion, which is what I commented on. You describe Israel and Israelis as you know them well; I point out a flaw in your logic and you stop describing Israelis and describe your attitude to that behaviour. Once again, we are not talking about you, we are talking about Israel.
Immanuel, you read like you?re writing Conservative Party editorial pieces for the Daily Telegraph circa 1927.
Sorry if I cause offence (to coin a phrase) but if I do, so be it.
The British National Party are ugly, violent nationalist zealots driven by a myth of nation and an idea of the innate superiority of Brits. There is still a Britain and it?s not going anywhere.
The BJP are ugly, superior nationalists self-sanctioned by a myth of nationhood. India is cool and it?s not going anywhere.
The Interahamwe were (are?) violent, brutal bastards driven by a fairy-tale ideal of the past. Rwanda needs help but we shouldn?t question its right to exist.
The Front National de France are industrial strength dickheads who want to make life a misery for non-French people because French people have some kind of innate superiority.
Israel?s OK, though. They?re only country in the world where their nationalists are absolutely, perfectly right. So we have no right to complain about their actions.
And you can?t argue with this because my ancestors are better than yours. Selah.
Yeah. Blacklisted may be the wrong term, but my instincts are that it has negative connotations. The term zionist has probably just been hijacked by racists/anti-semites, much the same way the Republican Party here in the U.S.A. has turned the word 'liberal' into a dirty word.
yes absolutly! on the same issue - I have always felt it unpleasent when conservatives sneer the word liberal as if it were some kind of insult which is very simmilar to the way in which some Arabs or militant left or right wingers would use the term Zionist - as though it were a swear word...
Immanuel, you read like you?re writing Conservative Party editorial pieces for the Daily Telegraph circa 1927.
Sorry if I cause offence (to coin a phrase) but if I do, so be it.
The British National Party are ugly, violent nationalist zealots driven by a myth of nation and an idea of the innate superiority of Brits. There is still a Britain and it?s not going anywhere.
The BJP are ugly, superior nationalists self-sanctioned by a myth of nationhood. India is cool and it?s not going anywhere.
The Interahamwe were (are?) violent, brutal bastards driven by a fairy-tale ideal of the past. Rwanda needs help but we shouldn?t question its right to exist.
The Front National de France are industrial strength dickheads who want to make life a misery for non-French people because French people have some kind of innate superiority.
Israel?s OK, though. They?re only country in the world where their nationalists are absolutely, perfectly right. So we have no right to complain about their actions.
And you can?t argue with this because my ancestors are better than yours. Selah.
Hassan, perhaps you can demonstrate how a Palestinian Arab nationalistic movement (PLO) or Palestinian aspirations for self determination are more legitimate than the Jewish national movement (Zionism) and also can you please quote from any of the main manifestos of Zionism (Israeli declaration of independence zionist congress charters etc...) a single example of prescribed racism or bias based on sex, race or creed - I know of many instances of this in the PLO charter.
Why is it unacceptable to you that jews expect to have a land they can call their own but when Arabs demand the same thing you have no problem with that?
Or perhaps you would like to tell us how the Arab BAATH movement is less brutal and fascist then any of the examples in the list you provide above. and what about Iran's 'enlightened' regime of fascist islamist brutal tyranny. pakistan perhaps in your mind is a model state with a democratically elected leader, NO? I find it ludicrous that you see fit to criticize India's democratically elected BJP but mention nothing about the sorry state of Pakistan's hyper nationalistic violent an aggressive regime...
Also can you give me a straight answer to this question: in your mind are the jews entitled to a state of their own? do they have a right of self determination as a nation? if yes then what's wrong with zionism?
Defending it in a manner that involves confiscation of land and expansion of the state, both of which are immoral and can never lead to peace. I say, as do many others. Maybe you could outline how confiscation leads to peace? Not your perspective on confiscation, but how confiscation of land is defence, and how confiscation will put the Palestinians in the mood to make peace.
If you know someone who considers confiscation as defence or as a way to peace, ask him.
Quote:
Israel is legitimate and is a good thing. Suicide bombers and Hamas will never create a viable Palestine alone because their actions can never lead to peace. I am used to it. Don't be so patronising.
So, since you're not asking any Palestinian to justify suicide bombing, you could avoid asking me to justify the settlements just as well.
Quote:
By the way, stop changing the the reference of your discussion, which is what I commented on. You describe Israel and Israelis as you know them well; I point out a flaw in your logic and you stop describing Israelis and describe your attitude to that behaviour.
No, you stated a personal opinion: ?the Israelis constantly take decisions that seem almost calculated to reduce the amount of peace in which they can exist?.
Immanuel, you read like you?re writing Conservative Party editorial pieces for the Daily Telegraph circa 1927.
Sorry if I cause offence (to coin a phrase) but if I do, so be it.
That's your personal opinion and I'm not that easily offended. I do think this opinion of your is pure idiocy, obviously.
Quote:
The British National Party are ugly, violent nationalist zealots driven by a myth of nation and an idea of the innate superiority of Brits. There is still a Britain and it?s not going anywhere.
The BJP are ugly, superior nationalists self-sanctioned by a myth of nationhood. India is cool and it?s not going anywhere.
Two things:
a.While there are a few Israelis (actual practitioners of Zionism) and supporters of Israel (well, who support it) who have some mythical nationalists delusions like innate superiority, etc., Zionism itself is not anymore equivalent with those ideas than India itself is with Shiv Sena or Britan is with the BNP.
b. There's very little demand for the dismantlment, abolition, or dissolution of Britain, India, France, etc., their existence is overwhelmingly accepted, regardless of their misdeeds or of their respective extremist nationalists. Alas that is not the case for Israel.
Israel is not going anywhere, because those demanding its annihilation cannot achieve it although they sure wish they did and tried their best. Not at all the case for Britain, India, France, etc.
Quote:
Israel?s OK, though. They?re only country in the world where their nationalists are absolutely, perfectly right. So we have no right to complain about their actions.
Where did you read that?
If you read that in my messages you have a serious reading problem, or are seriously drunk, which could both explain why you equated my writing to some old Englander drivel.
Quote:
And you can?t argue with this because my ancestors are better than yours. Selah.
No, your ancestors were better than mine, as both are now dead, as you know.
That's your personal opinion and I'm not that easily offended. I do think this opinion of your is pure idiocy, obviously.
Of course you would.
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
a.While there are a few Israelis (actual practitioners of Zionism) and supporters of Israel (well, who support it) who have some mythical nationalists delusions like innate superiority, etc., Zionism itself is not anymore equivalent with those ideas than India itself is with Shiv Sena or Britan is with the BNP.
Exactly my point. Thank-you.
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
b. There's very little demand for the dismantlment, abolition, or dissolution of Britain, India, France, etc., their existence is overwhelmingly accepted, regardless of their misdeeds or of their respective extremist nationalists. Alas that is not the case for Israel.
Israel is not going anywhere, because those demanding its annihilation cannot achieve it although they sure wish they did and tried their best. Not at all the case for Britain, India, France, etc.
This is quite true.
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Where did you read that?
If you read that in my messages you have a serious reading problem, or are seriously drunk, which could both explain why you equated my writing to some old Englander drivel.
I didn't think I said anywhere that I read that in your posts. Did I? My point is that the settlers I have seen quoted and in television documentaries remind me very strongly of the BJP, Inter, the BNP and the FN. This is zionism as nationalism of that kind and it's brutal and ugly and operates on a myth of nationhood. We can distinguish between the zionism of the settlers and the zionism that is the desire of Jewish people to have a state of their own, of course. Now Jewish people have their nation they have nationalism too, and it's every bit as ugly as the BNP, the BJP, Interhamwe and the FN.
We're entitled to object to this because it's revolting, and we can call it zionism because a) that's what the settlers call it and b) that's what it's called.
And I equate your writing to some old Englander drivel because you write like you're wearing a heavy tweed suit and a monocle. To re-coin your phrase, I'm sorry if this causes offensive but if it does so be it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
T
No, your ancestors were better than mine, as both are now dead, as you know.
Ah, no. I'm still alive and my ancestors are still my ancestors. I haven't changed them for any other ancestors (and I obviously can't) hence I say "My ancestors are better than yours."
Hassan, perhaps you can demonstrate how a Palestinian Arab nationalistic movement (PLO) or Palestinian aspirations for self determination are more legitimate than the Jewish national movement (Zionism)
I can?t. I don?t. I thought this thread was about zionism and anti-semitism. So I didn?t address it.
Quote:
rashumon wrote:
and also can you please quote from any of the main manifestos of Zionism (Israeli declaration of independence zionist congress charters etc...) a single example of prescribed racism or bias based on sex, race or creed - I know of many instances of this in the PLO charter.
Yes, you?re quite right. There?s a real problem with anti-semitism in the Arab world. It?s awful and perhaps I should have put them in my list of revolting nationalists: they?re as bad as the BJP, the FN, the BNP and the Jewish settlers (let?s call them, I don?t know, ?zionists?, say.) Then again, I strongly object to Israel citizenship laws, which are racist, so Israel don?t exactly smell of rose right now either.
Quote:
rashumon wrote:
Why is it unacceptable to you that jews expect to have a land they can call their own but when Arabs demand the same thing you have no problem with that?
It isn?t. I don?t. I don?t want to see Israel dismantled. But I thought this thread was about zionism and anti-semitism so I didn?t see the need to make the comparison.
Quote:
rashumon wrote:
Or perhaps you would like to tell us how the Arab BAATH movement is less brutal and fascist then any of the examples in the list you provide above. and what about Iran's 'enlightened' regime of fascist islamist brutal tyranny.
And the Ba?athists should be there too, I suppose. But I can choose any vile nationalists I like, I suppose.
Quote:
rashumon wrote:
Also can you give me a straight answer to this question: in your mind are the jews entitled to a state of their own? do they have a right of self determination as a nation? if yes then what's wrong with zionism?
Okiedoke. Yes; the Jews deserve a state of their own. Yes; they have a right to self determination. And zionism today is still an ugly, brutal form of nationalism and I refer you to the settlers and the cabinet ministers meeting in the Knesset every week.
Okiedoke. Yes; the Jews deserve a state of their own. Yes; they have a right to self determination. And zionism today is still an ugly, brutal form of nationalism and I refer you to the settlers and the cabinet ministers meeting in the Knesset every week.
Thanks for clarifying these points.
but why do you take the actions and views of a tiny minority of zionists and use these to define the whole of zionism - I do not support or subscribe to the views of the settler movement but i am still a zionist just as murdered PM Rabin (killed by a right wing zionist) was a zionist and just as many others who will define themselves as moderate and amiable towards a just settlement for both nations will define themselves as zionists.
you are choosing to use this term out of context and twist its true meaning into some kind of an insult which it isn't!
And I equate your writing to some old Englander drivel because you write like you're wearing a heavy tweed suit and a monocle.
I know exactly what you mean... I was trying to come up with a means of describing that very thing, without being too harsh / sounding like I was trying to insult the man... sadly all I could come up with was the poster child thing but I'm afraid that too may have been misconstrued a bit.
However, next time I find myself in a literary bind, I'll be sure to send you a PM for a free consultation.
Comments
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
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.
Good stuff Immanuel! I coulden't have said it better myself!
Originally posted by rashumon
Good stuff Immanuel! I coulden't have said it better myself!
Thank you Rashumon.
Take care in these uncertain times.
Originally posted by bunge
Now is this definition truly universally accepted?
It is quite the mainstream among Israelis, who are thosee actually involved in the Zionist entreprise, and among those elesewhare who favour that entreprise.
Because I thought zionism included expansion.
As explained earlier: Zionism, throughout its history, included capitalists as well as marxists, nationalists as well as internationalists, atheists as well as strict observants. There are some expansionists as well.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, expansion doesn't constitute a major element in Zionism.
Between the early nineteen-seventies and the mid nineteen-nineties, Israeli political opinion was divided between those who favoured territorial retrocession in exchange for peace, and who wished to keep all territory which they had under their control at the time (expanding further didn't quite make it into the debate).
Presently the former view (territorial retrocession in exchange for peace) has become pretty much the consensus.
Just the fight to have an Israel is no big deal. Growing bothers me though. Just like I want a Palestine, but I don't believe in the border expanding all the way to the sea.
Given Israel's significant military capabilities and the many opportunities it had to expand to reasonable dimensions (rather than those of the more puny US states), had expansion been a major element in the movement that founded Israel, its size would have been much bigger than it presently is, and it certainly wouldn't have withdrawn from Sinai.
Had the Palestinian nationalist organisations had the military capability to have a Palestine going all the way to the sea, there is no doubt in my mind they'd have it.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
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.
And as long as people value those flags and weapons more than they do human life, we will continue to see the brains of school children scattered on the ground. And, as I think that you realize, I am not talking just about Israel and Palestine.
NB: I do plan to respond to your previous response to me. I know that you wait with bated breath, but such a post as that one needs more time than I have had over the last couple of days.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/07/1625056.php
And, slightly off topic but relevant, doesn't it strike anyone that it's wholly inconsistent for Yasser Arafat, considered by Israel to be a murderous terrorist for decades, to be (a) still alive, (b) not under lock and key, and (c), still the leader of the Palestinian people?
Israel has employed a policy of targeted assassinations for many years and with Arafat consistently in the neighborhood and his whereabouts known 24/7, Israel has had countless chances of eliminating him, as well as his closest cohorts. The operation would be a piece of cake either for the Israeli military or the Mossad agency....and finally the hated Arafat would be gone. But he's still there. Is he really hated so? Certain (non Palestinian) parties must consider him a very useful asset.
Originally posted by Chinney
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
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.
And as long as people value those flags and weapons more than they do human life, we will continue to see the brains of school children scattered on the ground.
Violence has existed among humans long before the invention of flags or even weapons.
I do not like reapeating myself, but if you think that being without states or weapons is good for you, start with relinquishing your own. Others will keep theirs as long as they deem it necessary for their continued existence.
And, as I think that you realize, I am not talking just about Israel and Palestine.
You think rightly on this instance.
NB: I do plan to respond to your previous response to me. I know that you wait with bated breath,?
I will not comment on your knowledge or lack thereof here.
?but such a post as that one needs more time than I have had over the last couple of days.
It is understandable that you take all the time you need from the time you have available.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Nevertheless, as far as I know, expansion doesn't constitute a major element in Zionism.
Good, because for whatever the reason, the term is kind of blacklisted in the U.S., I think because it has negative connotations here. Not because it's Jewish, but because it's expansion. So the world probably needs to expand its vocabulary and come up with a term for 'saving Israel' and a different term for 'expanding Israel.' For the time being they seem intertwined, and that's not healthy.
Originally posted by bunge
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Nevertheless, as far as I know, expansion doesn't constitute a major element in Zionism.
Good, because for whatever the reason, the term is kind of blacklisted in the U.S.,?
What term, ?Zionism??
I think because it has negative connotations here. Not because it's Jewish, but because it's expansion. So the world probably needs to expand its vocabulary and come up with a term for 'saving Israel' and a different term for 'expanding Israel.' For the time being they seem intertwined, and that's not healthy.
I find there is much more use of the word ?Zionism? than is reasonable.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that for some forty years after WW2, ?Zionist? had become a code-word for ?Jewish? in Soviet propaganda, from where it was passed on to Third-World militancy (with the diligent help of Nasserism and the likes) to the New-Left and other kinds of ?progressivist? streams.
The condemnation in the UN of Zionism as racism in the nineteen-seventies (which was repealed after the fall of the Soviet Union) initiated by the Communist Block and the Arab League and mainly supported by Third-World countries, contributed to discredit Zionism as a racist and expansionist idea, as well as led to its frequent use when adressing the Middle-East issue.
So, while not all opponents of Zionism are anti-semitic (as I said upthread), Soviet antisemitism was dished as ?anti-Zionism? by its peddlers, and much of the far-left and far-right antisemites claim they only ?oppose Zionist ideology? are ?anti-Zionist?, or merely ?criticise Israeli policies?; since antisemtism and itse usual patterns (Jews as greedy bloodscuking exploiters, Jews as conspirators, Jews exerting excessive clout away from the public eye, etc.) are still frowned upon in the West, though not as taboo as they were some thirty years ago.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
What term, ?Zionism??
Yeah. Blacklisted may be the wrong term, but my instincts are that it has negative connotations. The term zionist has probably just been hijacked by racists/anti-semites, much the same way the Republican Party here in the U.S.A. has turned the word 'liberal' into a dirty word.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I don't doubt there are others you agree with and who you thus deem likewise gifted.
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.
That was not me ?speaking for ?Israelis?? as you put it, but me describing a country and a people I am fairly familiar with.
You wrote:
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.
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.
Here we go again.
Defending it in a manner that involves confiscation of land and expansion of the state, both of which are immoral and can never lead to peace. I say, as do many others. Maybe you could outline how confiscation leads to peace? Not your perspective on confiscation, but how confiscation of land is defence, and how confiscation will put the Palestinians in the mood to make peace.
Israel is legitimate and is a good thing. Suicide bombers and Hamas will never create a viable Palestine alone because their actions can never lead to peace. I am used to it. Don't be so patronising.
By the way, stop changing the the reference of your discussion, which is what I commented on. You describe Israel and Israelis as you know them well; I point out a flaw in your logic and you stop describing Israelis and describe your attitude to that behaviour. Once again, we are not talking about you, we are talking about Israel.
Sorry if I cause offence (to coin a phrase) but if I do, so be it.
The British National Party are ugly, violent nationalist zealots driven by a myth of nation and an idea of the innate superiority of Brits. There is still a Britain and it?s not going anywhere.
The BJP are ugly, superior nationalists self-sanctioned by a myth of nationhood. India is cool and it?s not going anywhere.
The Interahamwe were (are?) violent, brutal bastards driven by a fairy-tale ideal of the past. Rwanda needs help but we shouldn?t question its right to exist.
The Front National de France are industrial strength dickheads who want to make life a misery for non-French people because French people have some kind of innate superiority.
Israel?s OK, though. They?re only country in the world where their nationalists are absolutely, perfectly right. So we have no right to complain about their actions.
And you can?t argue with this because my ancestors are better than yours. Selah.
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah. Blacklisted may be the wrong term, but my instincts are that it has negative connotations. The term zionist has probably just been hijacked by racists/anti-semites, much the same way the Republican Party here in the U.S.A. has turned the word 'liberal' into a dirty word.
yes absolutly! on the same issue - I have always felt it unpleasent when conservatives sneer the word liberal as if it were some kind of insult which is very simmilar to the way in which some Arabs or militant left or right wingers would use the term Zionist - as though it were a swear word...
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Immanuel, you read like you?re writing Conservative Party editorial pieces for the Daily Telegraph circa 1927.
Sorry if I cause offence (to coin a phrase) but if I do, so be it.
The British National Party are ugly, violent nationalist zealots driven by a myth of nation and an idea of the innate superiority of Brits. There is still a Britain and it?s not going anywhere.
The BJP are ugly, superior nationalists self-sanctioned by a myth of nationhood. India is cool and it?s not going anywhere.
The Interahamwe were (are?) violent, brutal bastards driven by a fairy-tale ideal of the past. Rwanda needs help but we shouldn?t question its right to exist.
The Front National de France are industrial strength dickheads who want to make life a misery for non-French people because French people have some kind of innate superiority.
Israel?s OK, though. They?re only country in the world where their nationalists are absolutely, perfectly right. So we have no right to complain about their actions.
And you can?t argue with this because my ancestors are better than yours. Selah.
Hassan, perhaps you can demonstrate how a Palestinian Arab nationalistic movement (PLO) or Palestinian aspirations for self determination are more legitimate than the Jewish national movement (Zionism) and also can you please quote from any of the main manifestos of Zionism (Israeli declaration of independence zionist congress charters etc...) a single example of prescribed racism or bias based on sex, race or creed - I know of many instances of this in the PLO charter.
Why is it unacceptable to you that jews expect to have a land they can call their own but when Arabs demand the same thing you have no problem with that?
Or perhaps you would like to tell us how the Arab BAATH movement is less brutal and fascist then any of the examples in the list you provide above. and what about Iran's 'enlightened' regime of fascist islamist brutal tyranny. pakistan perhaps in your mind is a model state with a democratically elected leader, NO? I find it ludicrous that you see fit to criticize India's democratically elected BJP but mention nothing about the sorry state of Pakistan's hyper nationalistic violent an aggressive regime...
Also can you give me a straight answer to this question: in your mind are the jews entitled to a state of their own? do they have a right of self determination as a nation? if yes then what's wrong with zionism?
A simple answer will do!
Originally posted by Harald
Here we go again.
Defending it in a manner that involves confiscation of land and expansion of the state, both of which are immoral and can never lead to peace. I say, as do many others. Maybe you could outline how confiscation leads to peace? Not your perspective on confiscation, but how confiscation of land is defence, and how confiscation will put the Palestinians in the mood to make peace.
If you know someone who considers confiscation as defence or as a way to peace, ask him.
Israel is legitimate and is a good thing. Suicide bombers and Hamas will never create a viable Palestine alone because their actions can never lead to peace. I am used to it. Don't be so patronising.
So, since you're not asking any Palestinian to justify suicide bombing, you could avoid asking me to justify the settlements just as well.
By the way, stop changing the the reference of your discussion, which is what I commented on. You describe Israel and Israelis as you know them well; I point out a flaw in your logic and you stop describing Israelis and describe your attitude to that behaviour.
No, you stated a personal opinion: ?the Israelis constantly take decisions that seem almost calculated to reduce the amount of peace in which they can exist?.
To which I replied: ?That's what you say?.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Immanuel, you read like you?re writing Conservative Party editorial pieces for the Daily Telegraph circa 1927.
Sorry if I cause offence (to coin a phrase) but if I do, so be it.
That's your personal opinion and I'm not that easily offended. I do think this opinion of your is pure idiocy, obviously.
The British National Party are ugly, violent nationalist zealots driven by a myth of nation and an idea of the innate superiority of Brits. There is still a Britain and it?s not going anywhere.
The BJP are ugly, superior nationalists self-sanctioned by a myth of nationhood. India is cool and it?s not going anywhere.
Two things:
a.While there are a few Israelis (actual practitioners of Zionism) and supporters of Israel (well, who support it) who have some mythical nationalists delusions like innate superiority, etc., Zionism itself is not anymore equivalent with those ideas than India itself is with Shiv Sena or Britan is with the BNP.
b. There's very little demand for the dismantlment, abolition, or dissolution of Britain, India, France, etc., their existence is overwhelmingly accepted, regardless of their misdeeds or of their respective extremist nationalists. Alas that is not the case for Israel.
Israel is not going anywhere, because those demanding its annihilation cannot achieve it although they sure wish they did and tried their best. Not at all the case for Britain, India, France, etc.
Israel?s OK, though. They?re only country in the world where their nationalists are absolutely, perfectly right. So we have no right to complain about their actions.
Where did you read that?
If you read that in my messages you have a serious reading problem, or are seriously drunk, which could both explain why you equated my writing to some old Englander drivel.
And you can?t argue with this because my ancestors are better than yours. Selah.
No, your ancestors were better than mine, as both are now dead, as you know.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
That's your personal opinion and I'm not that easily offended. I do think this opinion of your is pure idiocy, obviously.
Of course you would.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
a.While there are a few Israelis (actual practitioners of Zionism) and supporters of Israel (well, who support it) who have some mythical nationalists delusions like innate superiority, etc., Zionism itself is not anymore equivalent with those ideas than India itself is with Shiv Sena or Britan is with the BNP.
Exactly my point. Thank-you.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
b. There's very little demand for the dismantlment, abolition, or dissolution of Britain, India, France, etc., their existence is overwhelmingly accepted, regardless of their misdeeds or of their respective extremist nationalists. Alas that is not the case for Israel.
Israel is not going anywhere, because those demanding its annihilation cannot achieve it although they sure wish they did and tried their best. Not at all the case for Britain, India, France, etc.
This is quite true.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Where did you read that?
If you read that in my messages you have a serious reading problem, or are seriously drunk, which could both explain why you equated my writing to some old Englander drivel.
I didn't think I said anywhere that I read that in your posts. Did I? My point is that the settlers I have seen quoted and in television documentaries remind me very strongly of the BJP, Inter, the BNP and the FN. This is zionism as nationalism of that kind and it's brutal and ugly and operates on a myth of nationhood. We can distinguish between the zionism of the settlers and the zionism that is the desire of Jewish people to have a state of their own, of course. Now Jewish people have their nation they have nationalism too, and it's every bit as ugly as the BNP, the BJP, Interhamwe and the FN.
We're entitled to object to this because it's revolting, and we can call it zionism because a) that's what the settlers call it and b) that's what it's called.
And I equate your writing to some old Englander drivel because you write like you're wearing a heavy tweed suit and a monocle. To re-coin your phrase, I'm sorry if this causes offensive but if it does so be it.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
T
No, your ancestors were better than mine, as both are now dead, as you know.
Ah, no. I'm still alive and my ancestors are still my ancestors. I haven't changed them for any other ancestors (and I obviously can't) hence I say "My ancestors are better than yours."
rashumon wrote:
Hassan, perhaps you can demonstrate how a Palestinian Arab nationalistic movement (PLO) or Palestinian aspirations for self determination are more legitimate than the Jewish national movement (Zionism)
I can?t. I don?t. I thought this thread was about zionism and anti-semitism. So I didn?t address it.
rashumon wrote:
and also can you please quote from any of the main manifestos of Zionism (Israeli declaration of independence zionist congress charters etc...) a single example of prescribed racism or bias based on sex, race or creed - I know of many instances of this in the PLO charter.
Yes, you?re quite right. There?s a real problem with anti-semitism in the Arab world. It?s awful and perhaps I should have put them in my list of revolting nationalists: they?re as bad as the BJP, the FN, the BNP and the Jewish settlers (let?s call them, I don?t know, ?zionists?, say.) Then again, I strongly object to Israel citizenship laws, which are racist, so Israel don?t exactly smell of rose right now either.
rashumon wrote:
Why is it unacceptable to you that jews expect to have a land they can call their own but when Arabs demand the same thing you have no problem with that?
It isn?t. I don?t. I don?t want to see Israel dismantled. But I thought this thread was about zionism and anti-semitism so I didn?t see the need to make the comparison.
rashumon wrote:
Or perhaps you would like to tell us how the Arab BAATH movement is less brutal and fascist then any of the examples in the list you provide above. and what about Iran's 'enlightened' regime of fascist islamist brutal tyranny.
And the Ba?athists should be there too, I suppose. But I can choose any vile nationalists I like, I suppose.
rashumon wrote:
Also can you give me a straight answer to this question: in your mind are the jews entitled to a state of their own? do they have a right of self determination as a nation? if yes then what's wrong with zionism?
Okiedoke. Yes; the Jews deserve a state of their own. Yes; they have a right to self determination. And zionism today is still an ugly, brutal form of nationalism and I refer you to the settlers and the cabinet ministers meeting in the Knesset every week.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Okiedoke. Yes; the Jews deserve a state of their own. Yes; they have a right to self determination. And zionism today is still an ugly, brutal form of nationalism and I refer you to the settlers and the cabinet ministers meeting in the Knesset every week.
Thanks for clarifying these points.
but why do you take the actions and views of a tiny minority of zionists and use these to define the whole of zionism - I do not support or subscribe to the views of the settler movement but i am still a zionist just as murdered PM Rabin (killed by a right wing zionist) was a zionist and just as many others who will define themselves as moderate and amiable towards a just settlement for both nations will define themselves as zionists.
you are choosing to use this term out of context and twist its true meaning into some kind of an insult which it isn't!
And I equate your writing to some old Englander drivel because you write like you're wearing a heavy tweed suit and a monocle.
I know exactly what you mean... I was trying to come up with a means of describing that very thing, without being too harsh / sounding like I was trying to insult the man... sadly all I could come up with was the poster child thing but I'm afraid that too may have been misconstrued a bit.
However, next time I find myself in a literary bind, I'll be sure to send you a PM for a free consultation.