I didn't think I said anywhere that I read that in your posts. Did I?
Good.
Quote:
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.
Television is quite fond of showing those professional ideological settlers. Not only they aren't representative of Zionists, they aren't representative of the average settlers, who are quite a milder bunch.
Quote:
This is zionism as nationalism of that kind and it's brutal and ugly and operates on a myth of nationhood.
Among the settlers' ideological core there is often an expressed rejection of Zionism as they find it too discredited by its association with secular modernism, representative democracy, syndicalism, and some other ungodly features.
Quote:
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.
It is to be expected that Jewish extremists would be as unsavoury as those from other ethnoi.
Quote:
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?
Some indeed do, but that doesn't make it thus; some don't as pointed out above.
Quote:
?and b) that's what it's called.
By those misinformed who might as well equate the French FN with les valeurs Républicaines.
Quote:
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 never wore such attire, not even when I was in England.
This said, I might be somewhat older than most AI posters, and I learnt English some time ago from people who were quite old then. That could explain why my writing seems quaint to your eyes.
Quote:
Ah, no. I'm still alive and my ancestors are still my ancestors.
All ancestors, peace be upon them, are no more, hence they were.
I have a few thoughts over this matter. First of all I believe a huge mistake many make no matter culture, race or country is the mistake of labels. Sure labels are needed to distinguish differences such as political parties have respective names as to distinguish various political views etc. But to rely on labels in a knee-jerk way often times leads to a generalized bigotry of a "group" of people and "individual" differences are lost in the process. All of any "group" in reality are not homogenous within that respective "group". All Christians for example are not all of a certain mind. All Democrats are not all of a certain mind and on and on. All Texans, all French, all Hispanics, and I think you get the point. Again I stress that we use labels to get a general idea of something as part of our given language convention but to over-extend and abuse labels for political purposes and / or bigoted use of labels to identify a group for purposes of targeted bigotry is misguided and often times unethical.
To be Pro- or Anti- something is a dangerous game when we are speaking of "groups" of people. I am not pro-Israeli nor am I pro-Palestinian. Equally I am not anti-Israeli nor anti-Palestinian. In politics as well as differences over religion far too often people fail to articulate specific "points" of difference and instead make the choice to "group" people into a "group" and harbor dislike to or disagreement with members of that given group assuming that all within the group are not of the mind of they who "group" them.
I would advocate being pro-human no matter culture, race or country. In other words a receptive nature to conduct communication, trade, etc. void of bigotry. When humanity can reach the point of setting aside bigotry and instead discuss issues of concern or need we can communicate in a manner which will lead to a more trusting and peaceful understanding amongst all parties. Then we will have a greater chance of a road to peace no matter the issues, no matter the parties.
That's a very pleasant message, fellowship, but the fact is that it's not possible to straddle the fence and actually care at the same time. You must have beliefs. Personally I don't believe that the way the Israeli government is handling its situation is either effective or wise.
You've just gotta bite the bullet and make very basic judgments, or otherwise not care at all. there's not enough time in our ephemeral lives to spend most of it describing implicitly understood groups, classes and et cetera/
That is a somewhat simplistic description of the rather complex Balkan situation. To sum it up succintly: the Yugolslavia arrangement was not working so all concerned could accept to live with it, but rather than separate agreeably, as was done in former Czechoslovakia, they fought over it.
National self-determination is an expression of ethnic nationalism. The ethnics having the right to rule themselves if they so choose. You can choose, of course, not to recognise this as their right. How about starting with Ireland, France, Netherlands, or Netherlands. Let's just all annex them to the Isle of Wight.
That is a form of dissolution of states, within some bigger states in this case.
Beware, that might win you the accusation of ?imperialism? in some circles or of ?new world order dominationeering? in others (although they might overlap, and often do); not that I have any essential objection to the idea, mind you. But why don't you start with your more established, affluent, relatively secure, older countries. If you manage not to collapse into some all out civil war, ethnic warfare, or some other calamity, the smaller, more threatened ethnics might give the idea some serious consideration.
Just so you know, some hundred years ago, many of my direct ancestors had ideas quite close to yours about the coming twentieth century.
With all its many faults (most of which are due to the current situation of armed violent conflict), Israel is such a country, to the point that most individuals of its ethnic Arab minority adamantly refuse any suggestion of their being included in the soon-to-be state of Palestine (as several suggested border lines propose the annexation to Palestine of Arab-inhabited villages and cities currently part of the Israeli state).
And while I disagree with most of your views (actually, they anger me) they are legitimate nonetheless, since they are not calling for the sole abolition of Israel, but of the others as well.
I had wanted to (and promised to) respond to this particular post earlier, but I left it for a while instead. This is partly a function of lack of time on my part, but also a need to reflect. Now, although this thread is largely done, this post is still on my mind, so I will respond.
First of all, I acknowledge that my comments on the dissolution of Yugoslavia were ?somewhat simplistic?. On this forum we are generally writing a few short paragraphs on a subject ? if that ? so simplification is inevitable. Mr. Goldstein?s take on the situation, to paraphrase his own words is ?succinct?. I put forward my own simple analysis over his succinct summary. The Yugoslavian Federation actually was working quite well, from many points of view. As I have said previously, even struggling under the handicap of communism, the joined Yugoslavia was a more successful entity than that separate units have been since the breakup. What poisoned the situation was not any underlying problem with the idea or practicalities of federation, but rather the evil of ethnic nationalism itself: those politicians, like Milosevic (but let?s acknowledge blame on others as well, such as Tudjman of Croatia) who knew that they could gain power and remain in power by exploiting the cheap and simple attraction of ethnic hatred. Therefore to say that Yugoslavia was ?not working? is hardly an adequate defence of ethnic nationalism if the reason it was not working was due to an exploitation of ethnic hatred.
Yes there is a recognized principle of self-determination: but this self-determination need not be exercised so as to split apart countries: peoples may also decide to stay together. They may also decide that, whether national entities are joined or split, this decision will not be made on ethnic lines. That said, ethnic nationalities may still decide to split along these lines ? and if they want to, they should not be stopped. That does not mean the end result is better or even good or even moral (although in some limited circumstances I will acknowledge that it may be). Peoples may democratically decide to make wrong choices - even evil choices. The fact that this is their decision to make does not lessen the wrongfulness of the decision where it is in fact wrong, and even disastrous.
Mr. Goldstein makes several allusions in the post quoted above ? and in other posts - to a principle which I can best summarize as ?Why start with Israel: why not advocate for the joining of other ethnic entities - even long-established European countries?? And why not indeed? This joining is, in fact, a process that is happening and Europe (ironically, his own example) is perhaps the most successful example so far.
While most of Europe is remarkably peaceful now, it is easy to forget that it was perhaps the world?s showcase of nationalistic, ethnic and religious warfare for much of the previous millennium. What has changed? Some would argue, and I would agree, that economic integration has been a driving force for peace. But this is not enough of an explanation. Peoples have demonstrated many times in even recent history that they are willing to sacrifice prosperity in the name of ethnic nationalism. I would argue that a more compelling reason for the change in Europe is a discrediting of ethnic nationalism itself ? at a fundamental level ? among a large majority of the population. This discrediting does not mean that ethnic identities have been lost (nor need it or should it ever mean this), but it does mean that along with individual ethnic identities in Europe there is also an acknowledgment of shared identity at a larger level ? one that underlies a willingness to live together in some form of union.
Certainly the European Union is not a perfect union by any stretch of the imagination ? no form of governance of human affairs is ever much better than middling, and most are much worse than that. Nevertheless, under the increasingly integrated arrangement of the past 50 years, Europe has been remarkably successful. The EU and the looser European integration that includes non-EU countries (whose formal expression is found through the Council of Europe, but whose practical expression is actually achieved through other, informal arrangements) may never achieve a substantially greater level of integration than it has now, but even the current achievement is pretty good.
If Israel and Palestine (and, eventually, other Arab nations) were to achieve an arrangement echoing, in some ways, the level of integration of the EU, I believe that this would be a perfectly fine alternative to the single state of Israel/Palestine that I have put forward as an idea. Indeed, some posters on this forum (in the other thread where I raised my idea) suggested it in response. But I would also point out, as Mr. Goldstein has himself acknowledged, that Arabs and Jews have shown a willingness to live together within Israel proper, excluding the West Bank and Gaza. This perhaps puts in grave doubt his assertion that any joint arrangement including the West Bank and Gaza is doomed to civil war and failure because each side would never consent to live with the other.
Ultimately, however, the choice is entirely up to the Israelis and the Palestinians ? and I have never suggested otherwise. It may be their choice to adopt arrangements that leave them fighting one another indefinitely. Nevertheless, although the blood and brains of schoolchildren on the ground can perhaps be dismissed by some as something that has ?existed among humans long before the invention of flags or even weapons? (using Mr. Goldstein?s words), I think that we have to do better than that.
Finally, as I have made clear, my concern is not just with Israel. Ethnic and religious nationalism continues to wreak havoc in other places in the world. Indeed, I think people should be even more concerned about the situation in the Indian subcontinent. The partition of India in 1947 was a sad, sick and immoral betrayal that has failed to bring peace between the constituent parts of the old India (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), which has created religiously pure but disastrously unsuccessful states in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and which has created a current ?India? which feels entitled ? as the result of the creation of a ?state for Muslims? (Jinnah?s words) in Pakistan - to call itself a Hindu state and to persecute its very large Muslim minority. May I suggest to you that the world has not seen ? even in the Jewish Holocaust ? anything like the potential impending disaster in this region.
Three cheers for ethnic and religious nationalism! Three cheers for hatred! Three cheers for death!
Comments
Originally posted by rashumon
snip
context and twist its true meaning into some kind of an insult which it isn't! [/B]
Rashumon:
You live and learn. The truth is, it seems, I don?t know what ?zionism? is.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Exactly my point. Thank-you.
You're welcome.
I didn't think I said anywhere that I read that in your posts. Did I?
Good.
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.
Television is quite fond of showing those professional ideological settlers. Not only they aren't representative of Zionists, they aren't representative of the average settlers, who are quite a milder bunch.
This is zionism as nationalism of that kind and it's brutal and ugly and operates on a myth of nationhood.
Among the settlers' ideological core there is often an expressed rejection of Zionism as they find it too discredited by its association with secular modernism, representative democracy, syndicalism, and some other ungodly features.
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.
It is to be expected that Jewish extremists would be as unsavoury as those from other ethnoi.
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?
Some indeed do, but that doesn't make it thus; some don't as pointed out above.
?and b) that's what it's called.
By those misinformed who might as well equate the French FN with les valeurs Républicaines.
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 never wore such attire, not even when I was in England.
This said, I might be somewhat older than most AI posters, and I learnt English some time ago from people who were quite old then. That could explain why my writing seems quaint to your eyes.
Ah, no. I'm still alive and my ancestors are still my ancestors.
All ancestors, peace be upon them, are no more, hence they were.
To be Pro- or Anti- something is a dangerous game when we are speaking of "groups" of people. I am not pro-Israeli nor am I pro-Palestinian. Equally I am not anti-Israeli nor anti-Palestinian. In politics as well as differences over religion far too often people fail to articulate specific "points" of difference and instead make the choice to "group" people into a "group" and harbor dislike to or disagreement with members of that given group assuming that all within the group are not of the mind of they who "group" them.
I would advocate being pro-human no matter culture, race or country. In other words a receptive nature to conduct communication, trade, etc. void of bigotry. When humanity can reach the point of setting aside bigotry and instead discuss issues of concern or need we can communicate in a manner which will lead to a more trusting and peaceful understanding amongst all parties. Then we will have a greater chance of a road to peace no matter the issues, no matter the parties.
With Respect,
Fellowship
You've just gotta bite the bullet and make very basic judgments, or otherwise not care at all. there's not enough time in our ephemeral lives to spend most of it describing implicitly understood groups, classes and et cetera/
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
That is a somewhat simplistic description of the rather complex Balkan situation. To sum it up succintly: the Yugolslavia arrangement was not working so all concerned could accept to live with it, but rather than separate agreeably, as was done in former Czechoslovakia, they fought over it.
National self-determination is an expression of ethnic nationalism. The ethnics having the right to rule themselves if they so choose. You can choose, of course, not to recognise this as their right. How about starting with Ireland, France, Netherlands, or Netherlands. Let's just all annex them to the Isle of Wight.
That is a form of dissolution of states, within some bigger states in this case.
Beware, that might win you the accusation of ?imperialism? in some circles or of ?new world order dominationeering? in others (although they might overlap, and often do); not that I have any essential objection to the idea, mind you. But why don't you start with your more established, affluent, relatively secure, older countries. If you manage not to collapse into some all out civil war, ethnic warfare, or some other calamity, the smaller, more threatened ethnics might give the idea some serious consideration.
Just so you know, some hundred years ago, many of my direct ancestors had ideas quite close to yours about the coming twentieth century.
With all its many faults (most of which are due to the current situation of armed violent conflict), Israel is such a country, to the point that most individuals of its ethnic Arab minority adamantly refuse any suggestion of their being included in the soon-to-be state of Palestine (as several suggested border lines propose the annexation to Palestine of Arab-inhabited villages and cities currently part of the Israeli state).
And while I disagree with most of your views (actually, they anger me) they are legitimate nonetheless, since they are not calling for the sole abolition of Israel, but of the others as well.
I had wanted to (and promised to) respond to this particular post earlier, but I left it for a while instead. This is partly a function of lack of time on my part, but also a need to reflect. Now, although this thread is largely done, this post is still on my mind, so I will respond.
First of all, I acknowledge that my comments on the dissolution of Yugoslavia were ?somewhat simplistic?. On this forum we are generally writing a few short paragraphs on a subject ? if that ? so simplification is inevitable. Mr. Goldstein?s take on the situation, to paraphrase his own words is ?succinct?. I put forward my own simple analysis over his succinct summary. The Yugoslavian Federation actually was working quite well, from many points of view. As I have said previously, even struggling under the handicap of communism, the joined Yugoslavia was a more successful entity than that separate units have been since the breakup. What poisoned the situation was not any underlying problem with the idea or practicalities of federation, but rather the evil of ethnic nationalism itself: those politicians, like Milosevic (but let?s acknowledge blame on others as well, such as Tudjman of Croatia) who knew that they could gain power and remain in power by exploiting the cheap and simple attraction of ethnic hatred. Therefore to say that Yugoslavia was ?not working? is hardly an adequate defence of ethnic nationalism if the reason it was not working was due to an exploitation of ethnic hatred.
Yes there is a recognized principle of self-determination: but this self-determination need not be exercised so as to split apart countries: peoples may also decide to stay together. They may also decide that, whether national entities are joined or split, this decision will not be made on ethnic lines. That said, ethnic nationalities may still decide to split along these lines ? and if they want to, they should not be stopped. That does not mean the end result is better or even good or even moral (although in some limited circumstances I will acknowledge that it may be). Peoples may democratically decide to make wrong choices - even evil choices. The fact that this is their decision to make does not lessen the wrongfulness of the decision where it is in fact wrong, and even disastrous.
Mr. Goldstein makes several allusions in the post quoted above ? and in other posts - to a principle which I can best summarize as ?Why start with Israel: why not advocate for the joining of other ethnic entities - even long-established European countries?? And why not indeed? This joining is, in fact, a process that is happening and Europe (ironically, his own example) is perhaps the most successful example so far.
While most of Europe is remarkably peaceful now, it is easy to forget that it was perhaps the world?s showcase of nationalistic, ethnic and religious warfare for much of the previous millennium. What has changed? Some would argue, and I would agree, that economic integration has been a driving force for peace. But this is not enough of an explanation. Peoples have demonstrated many times in even recent history that they are willing to sacrifice prosperity in the name of ethnic nationalism. I would argue that a more compelling reason for the change in Europe is a discrediting of ethnic nationalism itself ? at a fundamental level ? among a large majority of the population. This discrediting does not mean that ethnic identities have been lost (nor need it or should it ever mean this), but it does mean that along with individual ethnic identities in Europe there is also an acknowledgment of shared identity at a larger level ? one that underlies a willingness to live together in some form of union.
Certainly the European Union is not a perfect union by any stretch of the imagination ? no form of governance of human affairs is ever much better than middling, and most are much worse than that. Nevertheless, under the increasingly integrated arrangement of the past 50 years, Europe has been remarkably successful. The EU and the looser European integration that includes non-EU countries (whose formal expression is found through the Council of Europe, but whose practical expression is actually achieved through other, informal arrangements) may never achieve a substantially greater level of integration than it has now, but even the current achievement is pretty good.
If Israel and Palestine (and, eventually, other Arab nations) were to achieve an arrangement echoing, in some ways, the level of integration of the EU, I believe that this would be a perfectly fine alternative to the single state of Israel/Palestine that I have put forward as an idea. Indeed, some posters on this forum (in the other thread where I raised my idea) suggested it in response. But I would also point out, as Mr. Goldstein has himself acknowledged, that Arabs and Jews have shown a willingness to live together within Israel proper, excluding the West Bank and Gaza. This perhaps puts in grave doubt his assertion that any joint arrangement including the West Bank and Gaza is doomed to civil war and failure because each side would never consent to live with the other.
Ultimately, however, the choice is entirely up to the Israelis and the Palestinians ? and I have never suggested otherwise. It may be their choice to adopt arrangements that leave them fighting one another indefinitely. Nevertheless, although the blood and brains of schoolchildren on the ground can perhaps be dismissed by some as something that has ?existed among humans long before the invention of flags or even weapons? (using Mr. Goldstein?s words), I think that we have to do better than that.
Finally, as I have made clear, my concern is not just with Israel. Ethnic and religious nationalism continues to wreak havoc in other places in the world. Indeed, I think people should be even more concerned about the situation in the Indian subcontinent. The partition of India in 1947 was a sad, sick and immoral betrayal that has failed to bring peace between the constituent parts of the old India (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), which has created religiously pure but disastrously unsuccessful states in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and which has created a current ?India? which feels entitled ? as the result of the creation of a ?state for Muslims? (Jinnah?s words) in Pakistan - to call itself a Hindu state and to persecute its very large Muslim minority. May I suggest to you that the world has not seen ? even in the Jewish Holocaust ? anything like the potential impending disaster in this region.
Three cheers for ethnic and religious nationalism! Three cheers for hatred! Three cheers for death!