Apparently, we're supposed to leave the first post blank....
"Zionism" and other labels; do they mean anything?
Wed, 2011-08-03 13:50
#1
"Zionism" and other labels; do they mean anything?
Wed, 2011-08-03 13:58
#2
So, in another thread ostensibly about the Norway massacre, the discussion quickly turned to Israel.
There was a ludicrous article in which someone suggested (without a shred of evidence) that Mosad (the Israeli intelligence agency) was involved in the attack. When I pointed out the absurdity of this position, I was labelled, among other things, a "zionist propagandist", a "pro-Israel activist" and an "Israeli apologist". Now, on the surface of it, that's ridiculous. Disputing that Israel killed dozens of people in Norway makes one an "Israeli apologist" to the same extent that disputing that Stephen Harper killed those campers makes one a "COnservative Party supporter" (e.g. not at all).
But the freewheeling labelling of people as "zionist" or supporters of "zionism" convinced me that the term is not particularly relevant anymore as it has meant to so many different things to so many different people and is thrown around so haphazardly as to have become utterly meaningless. It's like in George Orwell's famous essay on politics and the english language in which he said that "fascism" had come to no longer signify a specific political movement and ideology and had merely come to mean "anything undesireable".
Here's what I stated in the previous thread:
"what do you mean by "zionism"? Is is the secular, socialist "labour zionism" of David ben Gurion? The messianic "religious zionism" of Rabbi Avraham Kook? Is anyone who supports Israel's right to exist a "zionist"? If so, I guess you have to include Mahmoud Abbas on your list of zionists as well.
It's become a term that means nothing and is used by people to signify whatever they want and often used to badger and bash anyone with whom they disagree by labelling and dismissing them as "zionist", as you do repeatedly.
It's like labelling someone a "socialist". How do you define socialism? Who is your model of socialism? Franklin D. Roosevelt? Pol Pot? Whether the label applies depends entirely on what you think it means. In the case of "zionism", the label does far more to obscure, rather than to clarify and discussion or understanding."
I think this can be an interesting discussion on this term in particular and other ideological labels used as attacks on other people's views and I'd be interested in hearing peoples' opinions.
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:22
#3
I'm not so familiar with the roots of the word. To me, Zionism means the belief that any and all means are justified to achieve the ends of the Jewish State. Zionism shrugs off ethnic cleansing and permanent war.
Mr Tea, if you don't want to be labelled a Zionist here on Babble, all you need to do is condemn the Israeli Apartheid project. You either have a problem with genocide or you don't.
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:30
#4
Well, that doesn't seem to be the case, wage zombie. Apparently, challenging spurious conspiracy theories about Israel's responsibility for a massacre in Norway also makes one a "zionist".
I condemn plenty about Israel. Just as I condemn plenty about Canada. But if I support Canada's right to exist, does that make me a "Canadian-ist" or some other label? As i said, if merely supporting Israel's right to exist makes one a "zionist", then the label equally applies to Mahmoud Abbas and pretty much most of the world.
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:36
#5
I don't think much of your level of honesty Mr Tea.
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:39
#6
I'll have to live with that disappointment, I suppose.
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:41
#7
What actions of the Israeli regime do you condemn? Would it be so hard to tell us?
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:45
#8
To say that these terms have no meaning is only true in part. The problem is that these words (soclalism, fascism, christianity, democracy) have different meanings for different people.
Go to the wikipedia and you will see that although Zionism is primarily a political idea, there is also cultural Zionism. And I am sure that, as with any political idea, not everyone sees it exactly the same, and that not everyone who believes in the existence of Israel is in favour of the atrocities - or has made the connections.
Especially since this debate is charged with racism, imperialism and atrocities it is even harder to see the subtleties and differences in opinion and see the common ground that probably exists.
As it is, I expect this thread will turn into something like the "socialism" debate that is going on next door - only with extra fireworks.
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:46
#9
How much time do you have?
Clearly, the establishment and expansion of settlements beyond the 1948 borders are the most egregious, along with the severe curtailments of freedoms for the people living there, checkpoints, etc.
I'd also add that when my family fled Iran, some went to Israel and that the key political establishment there hasn't been particularly supportive of or friendly towards the Sephardic community (it's gotten somewhat better but not great). So I have no particular love for Israeli actions but I also have no particular love for many Canadian, Italian, British or Japanese actions while also supporting their right to maintain their existence - a position which doesn't seem particularly controversial or likely to result in being branded with a meaningless label.
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:51
#10
Mr. Tea, you need to understand that there are some people who believe the modern State of Israel should not have been created in 1948.
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:52
#11
To say that these terms have no meaning is only true in part. The problem is that these words (soclalism, fascism, christianity, democracy) have different meanings for different people.
Well, that's precisely it. And I'd say that all of the words you mentioned above have become pretty meaningless because they come to mean whatever someone wants them to mean, whether it's a label they're applying to themselves as a descriptor or a label they're applying to an opponent as an attack. If a word means so many things to so many different people, does it really have any meaning at all? I mean if "socialist" can be applied to both Franklin Roosevelt and Pol Pot, is it a particularly relevant descriptor? If "capitalist" can be applied to both Franklin Roosevelt and Augusto Pinochet, is it a particularly relevant descriptor? If "zionist" can be applied to both Meir Kahane and Mahmoud Abbas, is it a particularly relevant descriptor?
To incorporate one issue from the previous thread, I don't even think it's particularly accurate to label the Norway terrorist as "Christian" given that he uses the word "Christian" less as a signifier of "someone who believes in an practices Christianity" and more of a signifier of "not Muslim". Sort of like how the Amish call everyone who isn't Amish "English", whether they're actually English, French, German, etc.
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:54
#12
I like [url=http://rabble.ca/news/2011/02/falling-arab-dictatorships-and-israeli-gov... piece on rabble from a few months ago. It addresses the question of Abbas as a zionist and other labels, "peace process" and "Palestine Authority", for example.
Wed, 2011-08-03 14:57
#13
Mr. Tea, you need to understand that there are some people who believe the modern State of Israel should not have been created in 1948.
Right. Any many of them are Orthodox Jews and religious scholars who base that position on a normative interpretation of Torah.
That was an interesting debate prior to 1948.
However, the point is that it was created and the citizens of Israel have no intention of dismantling it. So I guess that the question becomes: is favouring the forcible dismantling of the current state of Israel the position one must take to not qualify as "zionist"? Because if that's the case, I suppose that all but a small group of the world qualify for that label.
Wed, 2011-08-03 15:04
#14
Mr. Tea, you need to understand that there are some people who believe the modern State of Israel should not have been created in 1948.
Is that the default position?
A far more relevant point IMO is that it exists now, and must be dealt with.
(edit)
And I think we all know that some people hold that opinion. Come on.
Wed, 2011-08-03 16:03
#15
What rot. The wikipedia definition of Zionism is perfectly acceptable.
- in reference to the thread title.
Wed, 2011-08-03 16:06
#16
Wikipedia's description is pretty good.
This is what it says:
Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.[1] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security. In a less common usage, the term may also refer to 1) non-political, Cultural Zionism, founded and represented most prominently by Ahad Ha'am; and 2) political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews, as in Christian Zionism.
Wed, 2011-08-03 16:09
#17
The point I was hoping to discuss, however, was more the relvance of it as a label and the relevance of other labels, particularly when they are used as a substitute for actual debate.
So, we see now in the states that any move to spend money by the government or to provide services by government or to raise taxes on billionaires gets attacked as "socialism" - not in an effort to debate the ideas but to dismiss them and vilify their advocates.
Wed, 2011-08-03 16:20
#18
You can take any label, turn its use into a pejorative, and use it to attack, abuse, silence, shame, marginalize, etc. That's when the label starts losing its meaning altogether.
Wed, 2011-08-03 16:23
#19
hm, yes, ok Mr.Tea. Not sure what the point is though: most people on the left are pretty clear about it. Zionists are those who defend the neo-colonial enterprise that calls itself 'Israel', its chiefly white European colonists and all those actions associated with its ongoing theft of Occupied Palestine - out from under the feet of the indigenous, Islamicized Semites.
Wed, 2011-08-03 16:34
#20
Northern Shoveler
So we no longer have any words in the political realm that have any meaning? Is that really true or is it that they still have meaning except most people are not literate enough to know the actual meaning?
The use of descriptors to go with the basic words helps to clarify. So a democratic socialist says more than merely saying socialist. Christian Zionist is a specific usage that can be easily defined. The Norwegian terrorist was a fellow traveler with Christian Zionists but he is best described as an anti-Moslem racist or murderous Islamophobe.
Zionism is a definable term not a meaningless nothing. Below are definitions from pro-Israel groups. It of course need some descriptors to describe the various sects of this ideology. The present government of Israel is Zionist by this definition however it and the settler movement are also murderous ethnic cleansers something that not all Zionists support.
Zionism by definition has to oppress the non-Jewish people who live in Palestine because otherwise they do not have a sovereign Jewish state. That is why Israel like Iran defines its citizens rights in terms of religion. The Jewish character of Israel is not a democratic idea because it means that the non Jewish inhabitants have fewer rights. That goes to the basic necessities like housing where restrictions are placed on non Jewish peoples ability to live where they choose. Polls of Israeli citizens show a large majority agrees with the proposition that fundamental decisions in Israel should only be made by Jewish people. That too is Zionism.
It seems that by the definitions put forward by these Jewish groups it is actually proper to call Israel a Zionist state so ergo its leaders are Zionists. Agin it is like saying that Canada is a democratic state so ergo its leaders are democrats. That of course means that Harper is a democratic leader which I find a bit of a joke but none the less that is what he is considered.
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html
Are You a Zionist?
Everyone has to decide for themselves if they are a Zionist. If you believe that the Jews are a people, and support the right of the Jews to a national home, and you are willing to stand up for that right when it is challenged, then you can call yourself a Zionist, whether or not you belong to any organized Zionist group or accept any "official" definition, and whether or not you live in Israel or plan to live in Israel - and whether or not you are Jewish.
Wed, 2011-08-03 16:43
#21
Northern Shoveler
It seems to me that for those who beleive that Jews are a people and not members of a religion then Israel is a racist settler state. I of course agree that the term fits Canada just as well.
Wed, 2011-08-03 17:08
#22
It seems to me that for those who beleive that Jews are a people and not members of a religion then Israel is a racist settler state. I of course agree that the term fits Canada just as well.
Exactly. In which case the question of whether it should exist or not is moot..... but it is easy to forget that when it is someone else's country.
If we want to make an actual comparison then at least the the ZIonists have a slight claim of heritage, As for me and my house, my family has only been on this continent 400 years, and in this part of it for about 100, so I am not really in a position to throw stones on the question of "right to exist".
But when you consider that I have even less of a connection to the places where my family was before that, treating that measuring stick as the final rule makes no sense at all.
Wed, 2011-08-03 17:20
#23
Northern Shoveler
I disagree completely with the claim that a Jewish person not born in the middle east has any claim to land rights there.
So 6079 your ancestors were from the US unless you are one of the very, very few Acadians that can trace their ancestry from before the 1630's. I think the right to be where you are is contingent on the relationship with the FN's. The Acadians until the ethnic cleansing by Bostonians were settlers but not interlopers because of their integrated culture. The english settlers on the other hand were interlopers because they did not have the respect and consent of the FN's groups whose lands they occupied. The test is from a FN's perspective not the settlers.
Prior to 1948 there were Jewish people living in Palestine and their descendants have as much claim to it being their land as Palestine Arabs have. It is the post 1948 settler society that has no historic claim to anything. The South African settlers looked to Canada and the US to build their "just' society and took the worst of both worlds and developed apartheid. The Israeli practices closely resemble both the Canadian and the South African laws and practices and must be condemned as institutional racism. It has its own special characteristic which is its use of Zionism as a rational.
Wed, 2011-08-03 17:37
#24
Prior to 1948 there were Jewish people living in Palestine and their descendants have as much claim to it being their land as Palestine Arabs have. It is the post 1948 settler society that has no historic claim to anything. The South African settlers looked to Canada and the US to build their "just' society and took the worst of both worlds and developed apartheid. The Israeli practices closely resemble both the Canadian and the South African laws and practices and must be condemned as institutional racism. It has its own special characteristic which is its use of Zionism as a rational.
Well put.
Wed, 2011-08-03 17:49
#25
M. Spector
There was a time when Zionism entailed nothing other than the desire of Jews for their own homeland. Those who cling to hundred-year-old definitions of Zionism assume that anti-Zionism today means opposition to the existence of a Jewish homeland.
But the establishment of that homeland, as it turned out, involved not only the displacement and oppression of the non-Jewish population in the area, but also an inextricable alignment with the geopolitical and material interests of western imperialism. The state of Israel, in exchange for massive amounts of military and diplomatic support, aligns itself with the regional strategic aims of the United States in particular, and those of the latter's allies in general. It is in fact widely acknowledged that the state of Israel owes its continued existence to the United States.
The modern meaning of Zionism is the manifestation of western imperialism in the Middle East, as primarily expressed through the political, economic, social, diplomatic, legal, and military policies and practices of imperialism's proxy, the settler state of Israel. Secondarily, it means giving material and ideological support to, and defence of, those policies and practices. This is why AIPAC, Barack Obama, the JDL, the CJC, Stephen Harper, Irwin Cotler, Thomas Mulcair, and a vast array of other people of various political stripes are rightly called either Zionists or pro-Zionists.
Just as Zionism is no longer simply about the existence of a Jewish state, anti-Zionism today is not about wiping out that state; it is rather about anti-imperialism, first and foremost, and about exposing and opposing the west's imperialist agenda in Palestine.
Wed, 2011-08-03 17:52
#26
I said slight, and I meant it. The historical Ashkenazi claim to the Levant may be thin, but it is much greater than our claim to turtle island, which is nonexistent. But I don't want to split hairs over it.
And as for who the interlopers were, that depends on your perspective, There are some people who see Metis and half bloods as invaders just like the rest of us
And actually yes. Several lines of my family got here in 1620. I ain't bragging, because they weren't exactly fine upstanding people like the rest of us.
(edit)
To clarify, my point has nothing to do with what is right or wrong over there, but concerns our presumption to pass judgement on it.
Wed, 2011-08-03 18:06
#27
@ M. Spector
I agree, and well said. By contrast, I think it is important that everyone who cares for that country not be branded as supporting the atrocities, because not all of them do.
There are plenty of people here and in the U.S. who are manipulated by the same forces but are not actively promoting the full imperialist agenda. Nor are they profiting from it, it is important to add.
So while I don't support compromise on the racism and apartheid policies of the Israeli government, I do cut some slack to people who support the existence of the state of Israel in a spirit of fairness and anti-racism.
Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I don;t see the end of the racist imperialism as contingent on the death of that state. That is not an informed opinion, but I assume that any well-intentioned person who lives there would probably see this problem that way, despite the terrible odds.
If it were my homeland, how could I think otherwise? And I refuse to believe there are not some good people there.
Wed, 2011-08-03 19:23
#28
M. Spector
If it were my homeland, how could I think otherwise?
If it were my homeland, I would think that ending racism and imperialism was contingent on the transformation of Israel into a democratic secular state with a socialist government.
I know that sounds revolutionary, and it is, but the prospect of revolutionary change is, for me, the only real reason for optimism today.
Thu, 2011-08-04 02:23
#29
The Hidden History of Zionism - by Ralph Schoenman
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ch01.htm#top
Chapter 1: The Four Myths
"...Vindictiveness and slander are so universally meted out to anti-Zionists because the disparity between the official fiction about Zionism and the Israeli state, on the one hand, and the barbarous practices of this colonial ideology and apparatus, on the other, is so vast. People are in shock when they have an opportunity to hear or read about the century of persecution suffered by the Palestinians, and, thus, the apologists for Zionism are relentless in seeking to prevent coherent, dispassionate examination of the virulent and chauvinist record of the Zionist movement and the state which embodies its values."
Fri, 2011-08-05 10:25
#30
The Robbins Hebrew Academy, in the Bayview and Finch avenues area, was defaced with a swastika symbol Thursday night.
Underneath the bright-red symbol, somebody had scrawled the racial epithet "Islam will rule" in big, black letters.
A small security camera was perched on top of the pillar on the side of the school where the slur had been drawn.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1034900--swastika-scrawled-onto-north-york-synagogue?bn=1
Fri, 2011-08-05 10:43
#31
People get pretty angry about injustice.
I wonder how that graffiti compares to the mainstream media response to 911. I wonder how the Palestinian death toll compares to the 911 death toll.
Violence begets violence.
ETA: I don't mean to imply that this school itself is engaging in violence--any more than my 911 reference implies that Iraq had anything to do with 911. Anger and vengeance are not rational.
Fri, 2011-08-05 10:54
#32
@ wage zombie
* Edited to remove a comment about kids maybe growing up to be podiatrists.*
In that case you are offering a bit of information that racists MIGHT have used for a racist attack and to back up their racism, not a justification.
THough we don't really know who did the vandalizing, do we?
Fri, 2011-08-05 11:54
#33
Northern Shoveler
I doubt if it was Palestinian activists since they don't see themselves as Islamofascists. Only racists would imply a connection between the Nazis and Islam. The mixing of the imagery and words is fascinatingly obtuse.
eta Maybe some skin heads didn't get the memo yet that they are now allies with Israel.
Fri, 2011-08-05 13:09
#34
M. Spector
Nice derail, Caissa.
What does this vandalism have to do with a discussion about the meaning of Zionism?
Fri, 2011-08-05 13:12
#35
The thread is about labels, M. Spector. This was an interesting example of the use of labels one a symbol and the other using language.
Fri, 2011-08-05 13:15
#36
Thanks for being mindful, M. Spector.
Fri, 2011-08-05 13:22
#37
I am sure that a swastika and the words "Islam will rule" found on a Canadian Synagogue have nothing to do with Zionism. I guess you would concur, M. Spector.
Fri, 2011-08-05 13:29
#38
Are you tying to compare what's been said here with what I'm arguing on another thread Caissa, is that it?
Fri, 2011-08-05 13:32
#39
Northern Shoveler
I am sure that a swastika and the words "Islam will rule" found on a Canadian Synagogue have nothing to do with Zionism. I guess you would concur, M. Spector.
I'm dense so would please explain this relationship? I too think you have thrown in an irrelevant side show to this thread so please elaborate on how this is relevant to a discussion of the meaning of Zionism?
Fri, 2011-08-05 13:50
#40
If you guys can't connect the dots then feel free to carrying on as you were. I think it is fairly self-evident that the written words were designed to be linked to the situation in the middle east. Of course, determining who the author of those words was is impossible at this point in time.
Fri, 2011-08-05 14:29
#41
Northern Shoveler
If they had written All Hail the Arab Spring that would have been about the middle east as well but it still says nothing about Zionism. Now if they had used the Nazi symbol and a reference to Israel then I would agree it might be saying something about Zionism.
Fri, 2011-08-05 14:31
#42
I wish you'd be a bit more direct sometimes Caissa. I can see some connecting dots but I'm not sure if it's really comparible, and I'm not at all clear what Your angle on it is.
Fri, 2011-08-05 17:18
#43
Well were the words in French or were they actually Arabic? Lots of false-flag types will try to paint an act in a way to deflect attention. I remember years ago the National Post had a front page picture of anti-semitic literature at some Muslim convention attended by mostly Arabic speakers but all the material in question featured english-only text with a decidedly North American aesthetic.
As for Zionism, Jewish and Christian Zionists in North American refer to 'zionism' as a concept frequently. As for Israel itself, many are cynical about the concept and use the term as a perjorative for 'nonsense.'
So yes it still has some meaning. And you can undermine the meaning of a word is you have the money, the collaboration of some PR firm, and lots of access to various echo chambers.
If you guys can't connect the dots then feel free to carrying on as you were. I think it is fairly self-evident that the written words were designed to be linked to the situation in the middle east. Of course, determining who the author of those words was is impossible at this point in time.
Fri, 2011-08-05 22:43
#44
I have always wondered why there is such a dislike for things Jewish in Christian and post christian society. I think it goes back to "the Jews killed Jesus" which was how it was told in schools to children when I was growing up. (It did not matter that Jesus was a Jew too). I think it must be cultural memory. There is a jewish state, there is a Chek state and a Slovak state and a Serb state, and a Saudi state and a Croatian state and a Bosnian state and a Swedish state and a Vatican state, and a Hungarian state and a vatican state. Stateless peoples include Kurds, Lapps, Gypsies, Basques and numerous others. It is a great shame that only the Jewish state and its anonomolies get any attention on this "left wing" board. If you look under the surface, you can find similar anomolys elsewhere. I am curious about something. Does this deep ingrained hatred of Jews also exist in places where the dominant religion did NOT originate in the middle east? Places like India come to mind. Do left wingers on Indian versions of babble fume endlessly about those bluddy Jews in Palastine?
Because if they don't, a lot of people on this boards should be looking into their souls and confronting the demons within.
Fri, 2011-08-05 23:37
#45
I am curious about something. Does this deep ingrained hatred of Jews also exist in places where the dominant religion did NOT originate in the middle east? Places like India come to mind. Do left wingers on Indian versions of babble fume endlessly about those bluddy Jews in Palastine?
India has a feud with Pakistan, and so that translates into an alliance with Israel. The world is fucked up.
http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2011/03/israels-pr-offensive-in-indi...
Israel is desperately trying to create a “shinier image of itself as a friend of the Indian people'' to match its growing diplomatic clout in New Delhi, U.S. Ambassador to India David Mulford noted in a cable, accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks.
He suggested that Americans could learn from Israel's “public relations strategy.''
...
The cable, dated March 28, 2008 ( 147610: confidential), is titled “Israel polishing its image — and its hardware in India,” in a reference to its bourgeoning arms trade with India. Sent a few weeks after a widely publicised India-Israel Strategic Dialogue session held in New Delhi, it said that Israel was particularly concerned about the Left's criticism of the Indian government's increasingly “closer ties'' with it and was trying to “counter'' it by cultivating public opinion.
According to the cable, Mr. Belotsercovsky “noted that their polling suggested many Indians actually see Israel as a model for dealing with Muslims — something the Israeli Embassy makes efforts to downplay.''
It concluded with the suggestion that the U.S. “can learn from the Israelis” success in India.''
http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/they-call-me-muslim/2010/01/10/israel-an...
Israel evokes varying degrees of hostility in the Muslim world because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, a sea change in India’s relations with Israel has taken place, as we become Israel’s closest ally in Asia. What Indian Muslims should make of this, I thought, as I saw fenced-off Palestinian homes just outside Jerusalem?
...
From being indifferent in the 80s, if not frosty, India and Israel are now more than allies. They are in a love-fest. India helps put an Israeli spy satellite into orbit to mount vigil on Iran in January 2008. Israel promises to share intelligence relevant to India from the satellite’s data. As Isreali daily points out, “The launch is also an expression of the growing cooperation between India and Israel in the security sphere as a whole, and in particular in the field of missiles, radar and satellites.”
...
Post-Cold War, China and Pakistan have drifted closer, with deep-seated missile collaborations, posing joint threats from both Islamabad and Beijing. Russia is proving to be an unreliable military supplier.
This has resulted in a natural gravitation by India toward Israel, following the goodwill generated by the 1993 Oslo Accord.
India soon became one of Israel’s largest strategic allies. Israel is our second largest supplier of arms and the largest supplier of several high-tech surveillance weaponry and electronic warfare systems, a ground-based Green Pine ABM radar and Phalcon airborne warning and control systems.
This defence exchange was part of a declared NDA policy for a deeper alliance between India, the United States, and Israel. The UPA government, when it came to power in 2004, promised to review India’s Middle-east policy. Its review found that in our urgent need for superior military powers, agricultural advancement and leaps in science and technology, Israeli help was indispensable.
Sat, 2011-08-06 09:20
#46
Northern Shoveler
Because if they don't, a lot of people on this boards should be looking into their souls and confronting the demons within.
Thanks for your moralistic drivel. Go preach somewhere else. This thread was started by a Jewish person to discuss what Zionism means and this is the shit you offer.
Sat, 2011-08-06 14:59
#47
Uh again, the problem is the assumption that Zionism and being Jewish are the same thing. As I said, many in Israel itself deride 'Zionism' as a concept due in part to how many in Israel are semi-conscious about their settler role and are increasingly cynical. Israel is a fundamentally sick society and most of my references about that come from Jewish writers like Robert L Friedman, Israel Shahak, etc.
It is not only Israel that gets criticism here; its just that are feelings about it are so more pronounced because such thoughts are essentially not permitted elsewhere in this culture. As I have stated elsewhere, anyone who is actually honest and educated about Israel, who is sympathetic to the Palestinians feels like they have been buried beneath six layers of socially constructed plexiglass. Eversince, Iraq invaded Kuwait (or re-took it), there has been much made about the plight of the Kurds in Iraq (not much before that invasion/re-taking, much more than has been said about Kurds in Turkey and a little more than what has been said about the plight of Kurds in Iran).
The other "similar anomolys" are not actually similar; there is no huge machine for Finland in the media scape for example.
You are being really dishonest.
I have always wondered why there is such a dislike for things Jewish in Christian and post christian society. I think it goes back to "the Jews killed Jesus" which was how it was told in schools to children when I was growing up. (It did not matter that Jesus was a Jew too). I think it must be cultural memory. There is a jewish state, there is a Chek state and a Slovak state and a Serb state, and a Saudi state and a Croatian state and a Bosnian state and a Swedish state and a Vatican state, and a Hungarian state and a vatican state. Stateless peoples include Kurds, Lapps, Gypsies, Basques and numerous others. It is a great shame that only the Jewish state and its anonomolies get any attention on this "left wing" board. If you look under the surface, you can find similar anomolys elsewhere. I am curious about something. Does this deep ingrained hatred of Jews also exist in places where the dominant religion did NOT originate in the middle east? Places like India come to mind. Do left wingers on Indian versions of babble fume endlessly about those bluddy Jews in Palastine?
Because if they don't, a lot of people on this boards should be looking into their souls and confronting the demons within.
Sat, 2011-08-06 15:22
#48
M. Spector
![http://i52.tinypic.com/331dqib.jpg[/IMG]](http://i52.tinypic.com/331dqib.jpg[/IMG]){kind=link}
Sat, 2011-08-06 16:47
#49
I think it would be better to say that anger can often be exploited and pushed into irrational areas. The Greeks right now have really rational reasons to be angry. The Palestinians have loads of reasons to be angry and sometimes that can be pushed into irrational areas but the anger itself is not irrational.
Way too much of the Left is too fearful of anger whereas the Right loves to exploit it because they have a monopoly on that. At least currently. The Left should change method but nothing right now is prompting that.
...People get pretty angry about injustice.
...
Anger and vengeance are not rational.
Sat, 2011-08-06 17:03
#50
I have always wondered why there is such a dislike for things Jewish in Christian and post christian society. I think it goes back to "the Jews killed Jesus" which was how it was told in schools to children when I was growing up. (It did not matter that Jesus was a Jew too). I think it must be cultural memory. There is a jewish state, there is a Chek state and a Slovak state and a Serb state, and a Saudi state and a Croatian state and a Bosnian state and a Swedish state and a Vatican state, and a Hungarian state and a vatican state. Stateless peoples include Kurds, Lapps, Gypsies, Basques and numerous others. It is a great shame that only the Jewish state and its anonomolies get any attention on this "left wing" board. If you look under the surface, you can find similar anomolys elsewhere. I am curious about something. Does this deep ingrained hatred of Jews also exist in places where the dominant religion did NOT originate in the middle east? Places like India come to mind. Do left wingers on Indian versions of babble fume endlessly about those bluddy Jews in Palastine?
Because if they don't, a lot of people on this boards should be looking into their souls and confronting the demons within.
Besides being off topic, your remarks - equating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, with Christians hating Jews no less - are an overt violation of babble policy.
Sat, 2011-08-06 17:33
#51
NDPPDo left wingers on Indian versions of babble fume endlessly about those bluddy Jews in Palastine?
Some do...
Indian Call For the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel