It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Again with the assumptions about what I do and what I don't know.
I don't believe Jews should be denied anything due to their faith, as such I dont believe they are entitled to any special treatment because of it either.
I don't believe any race is more or less equal than any other.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
If you are trying to convince me that you are not anti-semitic, you may want to ditch the nazi propoganda. Judaism is not a race.
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
You have you beliefs about Zionism, and I have mine. You don't see Zionism as a racial superiority movement, and I do.
Grab a dictionary and look up the definition of "race".
Your warm and fuzzy portrayal of Zionism as some kind of benign force for Jewish equal status completely side steps contemporary reality. Does Israel take in the persecuted Muslims e.g. the Palestinians? Did it take in refugees from the Rwandan massacres? No they did not, because they aren't Jewish. Hence why I perceive Zionism as racist. It's no different to a Muslim nation disallowing a Jew citizenship, both acts are racist.
I don't believe Jews should be denied anything due to their faith, as such I dont believe they are entitled to any special treatment because of it either.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
But there is a difference between a belief based on facts and one based on prejudice.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
You are choosing to base your definition of Zionism on beliefs held by a radical fringe and not on either the history of the movement nor on the beliefs held by the vast bulk of modern day Zionists. I would no more base my understanding of Zionism solely on the selfish justifications of a settler than I would base my understanding of Islam exclusively on the words of Louis Farrakhan or of Christianity on the beliefs of Jerry Falwell.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
There will always be opportunists who seek to distort the message of any movement for personal gain. The vast majority of Zionists, both historical and modern, roundly reject the divine right argument completely. Why would you choose to ignore both the founder's and most modern proponent's definition of Zionism in favor of a small, (yet vocal) fringe movement's?
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
This definition of race would have any nation, culture or club qualify as a race. Most folk would not consider Italian or British to be distinct races. Conversely it means that all Jews, whether they are white, black or Arab, are actually all the same race. This is not the generally held understanding of how racial categorization works. Believe what you wish, but the categorization of Judaism as a race is generally held to be untrue and very offensive.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
It is also no different than West Germany giving East Germany preferential aid after the fall of communism while ignoring Khazakstahn. No different than the NAACP offering programs aimed at helping black americans and not chinese ones as well. No different than Native American tribes exclusively allowing tribal descendants a stake in the reservation. No different than South Korea funneling vast amounts of food aid to North Korea but not to Sudan. Cultures tend to protect their own. It is not uncommon, in fact it is the basis for our modern system of nation-states. Perhaps it is fundamentally racist, to work towards bettering your own people instead of treating the world's population all equally. But it is not exclusive to Zionism by any stretch of the imagination and I do not share in your belief that it is something to be denounced.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Christian Children's Fund may raise funds to benefit destitute Christians and while I'd rather that they help everyone regardless of religion I wouldn't dream of denouncing their actions.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
The Suffragettes were not immoral in fighting for women's rights just because they did not also fight for racial equality. Likewise, Zionism is not immoral because they aided Jewish refugees instead of Rwandans. If Zionism is flawed for limiting their mission to helping their own first then it is a flaw they share with the rest of the world.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
If you want to fight racist societies there are far worse ones out there than Israel. So, why do you specifically oppose Zionism? Why do you find singling Jews out for aid more racist than singling Zionism out for critique?
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Finally, do you disagree with the basic Jewish right to self-determination or not?
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Subz, it occurred to me that criticism is only one half of an effective critique. To denounce something as being wrong also requires a preferable alternative to be offered. Considering that Zionism was created as an alternative to genocide I feel that you have an obligation to describe a better solution in order to give your total refutation of Zionism credibility.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Were it that Jews were not denied anything due to being Jewish we would be in agreement on the issue of Zionism. But the unfortunate reality is that Jews faced (and still face) a gruesome problem with few realistic solutions.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
As I said before, Zionism is not perfect be any means. It was merely seen as the best answer to an issue with no "good" or "right" possibilities to choose from. Bear in mind that to refute Zionism while offering no alternative is tantamount to endorsing genocide. (Whether you like it or not, this was very much the reality.)
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
You have unremittingly criticized Zionism for being evil while its founders chose it for being the lesser evil from among their limited options. Knowing this, what would you recommend as being a realistic and preferable alternative?
Yeah what ever dude, you really are incapable of civility.
prejudice: a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.
Who is more influential? The Zionist who believes Israel should exist peaceably and not necessarily in the Middle East, or the likes of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Benjamin Netanyahu, Douglas Feith, and the rest of the rabid neo-con Zionist Israeli-firsters who espouse the views I loathe?
I introduced an opinion poll on this very question, conducted last month by the Tami Steinmetz Centre for Peace Research in Tel-Aviv University and published in Ha’aretz on the 5th of March. According to this opinion poll, the most popular opinion is to dismantle ALL the settlements: this position, which is generally categorised as "extreme leftist", was supported by 32% of Israeli Jews. 14% supported dismantling most of the settlements, 28% supported dismantling small and isolated ones, and 24% of Israeli Jews opposed dismantling any settlement at all.
OK champo, time to couch your argument in some sources here. Can you show me some evidence of the common Zionist viewpoints that do not entail Jewish acquisition of Arab land? And the forceable retention thereof?
Palestine must be built up without violating the legitimate interests of the Arabs.. Palestine is not Rhodesia... 600,0000 Arabs live there, who before the sense of justice of the world have exactly the same rights to their homes as we have to our National Home. [Chaim Weizmann, addressing the Fourteenth Zionist Congress in Vienna, 1925, quoted in Tessler, Mark, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1994 p. 181]
The word "race" is a neutral term. I attached no connotations to the definition of Judaism as a race. Therefore it cannot possibly offend. If you interpret the accurate literary definition of Judaism as a race as offensive, then it's you that has the problem, not I.
The traditional explanation, and the one given in the Torah, is that the Jews are a nation. The Hebrew word, believe it or not, is "goy." The Torah and the rabbis used this term not in the modern sense meaning a territorial and political entity, but in the ancient sense meaning a group of people with a common history, a common destiny, and a sense that we are all connected to each other.
Zionists have formed a state which only allows Jews to settle
All your examples do not seek to exclude other races from their country as Israel does.
Well there you go, I also find Affirmative action racist
That is incorrect, the CCF of which I am a sponsor, does not only help Christians. As that would be immoral.
Thats a lame argument. There are worse offenders so why pick on little ol' Israel.
Zionism has been used to steal a tract of land from the Palestinians without recompense or any basis in legality.
Any stance on whether Jews need a homeland cannot figure into any justification for mass theft and displacement of upwards of 6 million people.
Would you support the creation of a Kosovar homeland on the land you live in? If not, why not?
Your defence of Zionism based solely on the intent of it's creator is ridiculous.
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
How so? Look up "prejudice." It is not equivalent to calling you "racist" which is what you seem to be thinking.
U.S. ambassador to Israel: U.S. reduced W. Bank settlements
By The Associated Press
Despite its support for Israel, the United States opposes expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and has succeeded in reducing it, the U.S. ambassador to Israel told The Associated Press.
In an interview on Tuesday, Ambassador Richard Jones said that while Israel approves construction of some new settlement housing each year, Washington insists that Israel honor a pledge to freeze settlement activity made under the U.S.-backed 'road map' peace plan in 2003.
"I think that we have definitely slowed efforts at settlement-building," Jones said. "It's certainly true that some units are approved every year, a couple of hundred here or there, but I think the U.S.-Israeli understanding has definitely slowed down the process of settlements. We continue to make our views known through public statements and private discussions."
Population Administration: West Bank settlements grew by 6 percent last year
By Shahar Ilan
The number of Jews living in West Bank settlements rose by some 15,000, or about 6 percent, last year, according to data from the Population Administration.
Altogether, 268,400 people lived in the settlements at the end of 2006, compared to 253,700 at the end of 2005. Most of the increase occurred in the two large Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) settlements of Modi'in Ilit and Beitar Ilit, which grew by about 4,000 and 2,300 people, respectively.
This growth turned Modi'in Ilit into the largest settlement in the territories, with some 34,500 residents. Previously, this title was held by Ma'aleh Adumim, but having grown by only some 1,700 people last year, that city currently numbers only about 33,300 residents.
MK Tartman: Appointment of Arab minister is 'lethal blow to Zionism'
By Gideon Alon and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents, and Haaretz Service
MK Esterina Tartman, chair of the Yisrael Beiteinu Knesset, faction on Thursday lambasted the appointment of the first Arab minister in Israel's history, calling it "a lethal blow to Zionism."
Tartman told Israel Radio that Labor MK Raleb Majadele's appointment as minister of science and technology damages "Israel's character as a Jewish state."
"We need to destroy this affliction from within ourselves. God willing, God will come to our help," she said.
She also said Labor Chairman Amir Peretz only made Majadele minister of because the MK is an Arab, and to strengthen Peretz's power within Labor.
"Peretz is making a sacrifice of Zionism," Tartman said. "He has crossed all the red lines. Israel is a Jewish state and should be run according to Jewish principles."
I am just wondering how you can claim that there is no basis for referring to the original Jews as a racial grouping?
Originally posted by Shaktimaan
The original Jews? From 3000 years ago? I'm not really claiming anything about them. I'm talking about the cultural heritage of Judaism and the modern interpretation.
It's like this. Whether you could define the very first Jews as being of a single race or not is besides the point.
After the diaspora, most of the Jews were flung all over the globe. The real story is a lot more complex than you are making it seem.
There was no one group that we can historically track as being the forefathers of the ashkenaz or sephardic movements and the different groups criss crossed at different points in time.
What you are doing here is assigning the mantle of "Original Jew" to an ethnic group and then using that as justification for disputing a modern political decision.
Now, whether or not every modern Jew can trace a blood relative back to Israel from 3000 years ago is irrelevant.
That is precisely what I was arguing over the past few pages.
The cultural significance of Israel as a Jewish homeland is not derived from the idea of a blood tie.
It is an ethnic, cultural, religious and national tie that sort of transcends any one, simple classification.
The best definition of Jew I've seen would be the one given in the Torah, that Judaism is a nation.
As such, people can be accepted in and assume the identity provided they are willing to abide by the rules of the community. However, there is also a quasi-ethnic side to it as the identity of Judaism is passed down matrilinearly. Don't confuse that with an assurance that every Jew does or should be able to trace their roots back to Israel.
Besides, there is a lot of lost history that we know exists but are unable to find as of yet.
No one can really draw the kind of conclusions that you are making.
And the few that seem to find it of principal importance seem to have some kind of anti-semitic agenda in being able to supposedly then "out" the "imposter jews" or something.
By the way. You've got a lot of nerve to be making assumptions like this based on what appears to be a cursury reading of some crackpot websites.
Your post serves as a pretty good example of the fact that the folks who try to define Judaism as a race almost always do so to try and prove some kind of negative stereotype or theory.