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.

 

The Problems With The Middle East

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Again with the assumptions about what I do and what I don't know. Can I ask you one more time to drop the whole arrogant practice of determining the extent of some one elses intellect?

I am completely familiar with the motives, both original and contemporary, of Zionists. I don't agree with any of the aspects of Zionism, including the fact that a certain religion is entitled to anything more than any other.

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. Hence my fundamental opposition to Zionism.

Zionism is akin to the White Supremacists and Black Panthers who also believe they are entitled to more simply because of their race/religion. Newsflash, no one person is entitled to anything more than the rest of the 6 billion other people who share this planet.

Herzel may of founded Zionism but the name "Zion" itself belies it's aims at using Judaism to further their goals. He didnt pluck a random, secular, collection of two consonants and two vowels and coin a new phrase, "Zion". He deliberately founded the movement in Judaism and the surrounding beliefs that the Jew's needed a homeland.

This runs completely against my grain. It doesn't make me anti-semitic and it doesnt make me prejudiced. It makes me quite the opposite actually, I don't believe any race is more or less equal than any other.

Also, since you inquired I well aware that the ultra-orthodox Jews oppose Israel. In fact I am a member of www.jewsagainstzionism.com's mailing list and have approached them about doing a possible interview for ATSNN.




posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   


Again with the assumptions about what I do and what I don't know.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. You gave one reason for your disliking Zionism which was that Zionists believe they have a divine right to Palestine as decreed by God. Considering that this belief played no real role at all in the formation of Zionism I think I am justified in asking how you came about accepting it.



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.


Fair enough. However the motive behind Zionism was never that Jews deserved special treatment based on their faith. First off, while Judaism is based around a religion, that definition isn't sufficient. Judaism could be better described as an ethnicity or a culture. It exists independently of the religion itself.

This shared culture always marked Jews as being different than the dominant culture of their respective adopted nations. As a result they were singled out for persecution which climaxed, of course, in the Holocaust. It is persecution, not faith, that is the motivation for Zionism.

Since the world continuously proved itself incapable of providing Jews with the same rights and protections afforded to others Zionism came into existence to allow the Jews to be responsible for their own protection. This is in no way "special treatment." It is equal treatment.

The idea that nation-states are defined by the culture of its citizens is not a radical idea. Is there a difference between Jews having a state and, say, Cambodia having one? Not every culture is guaranteed a state, not every independence movement will succeed. The failure of the Kurds or Sikhs to achieve statehood in no way means that Israel is less deserving of their own.

At its heart, Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have the right to self-determination. This belief was formed out of the failure of the world to allow them to live freely without such a right. Zionism is the agreed upon solution to the world's "Jewish Problem." Other attempts were made to solve the Jewish refugee problem both before and after WWII and it was made clear that no one but the Jews themselves were interested. The issue became, literally, one of Zionism or death.

No one is arguing that Zionism is a flawless solution. Just that it was the best out of several other flawed choices. I find that people find it easy to criticize Zionism yet I seldom hear any practical alternatives offered.

Persecution is the standard for attaining the right to move to Israel, not faith based Judaism. Since any Jew has the right to attain Israeli citizenship, Israel had to codify a system to determine who qualified. Instead of using the religious definition they chose to use the Nazi definition. Meaning that you did not have to be truly Jewish to gain entry, just Jewish enough to be persecuted as a Jew. This is important because it demonstrates that Zionism was not founded on their own idea of Judaism, but that of their enemies. Had there not been anti-semitism there would happily have been no need for Zionism. One of your criticisms seems to be that Zionism is racist as it applies only to Jews. Why is it racist to aid your own people?

In short, it is not being Jewish that qualifies one as being deserving of a state. It is the oppression visited upon Jews solely for being Jewish that makes them deserving of the right to self-determination, to protect against such past and future events.

Being against Zionism, are you then thruly against the right of Jews to self-determination? If yes, are you then also against the rights of other cultures to self-determination or is it just Jews?



I don't believe any race is more or less equal than any other.


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.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

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.

I dont have to convince you of anything, hence why I am not trying.

You have you beliefs about Zionism, and I have mine. You don't see Zionism as a racial superiority movement, and I do.

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.

And yes Jews are classed as a race, can we side step the whole 3rd grade semantic quibbling? Grab a dictionary and look up the definition of "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



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   


You have you beliefs about Zionism, and I have mine. You don't see Zionism as a racial superiority movement, and I do.


But there is a difference between a belief based on facts and one based on prejudice. 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.

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?



Grab a dictionary and look up the definition of "race".


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.



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.


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.

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. 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.

For example, Jordan is alone among Arab nations in that they accepted Palestinian refugees and offered them citizenship. They did this because the majority of Jordan's citizenry are Palestinian themselves. Do you feel that this was also racist, more importantly, do you see it as an act to be opposed?

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?

Finally, do you disagree with the basic Jewish right to self-determination or not?



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I apologize, all, for posting twice but I was thinking about something Subz said and I want to ask him a question.

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.



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.


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. 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.)

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?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
A great post lots of info on the middle east!
I think that we must stay the corce and do what we must to compleate the job. If we pull out then we must deal with it in another way?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
But there is a difference between a belief based on facts and one based on prejudice.

Yeah what ever dude, you really are incapable of civility. But enough of that dead horse...


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.

And you seek to ignore their message, and impact on Zionism and Israel today. 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?


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?

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? Since apparently only the fringe of the Zionist movement advocates the divine right to hold this land.


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.

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.


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.

Well there you go, I also find Affirmative action racist. As for your other comparisons, I find them incongruous to the topic at hand.


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.

That is incorrect, the CCF of which I am a sponsor, does not only help Christians. As that would be immoral.


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.

Can I reel you back in from your tangent? 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. There is advocating and promoting ones own race/nationality and there is racial discrimination. While I have no problem with Jews promoting their own religion, I have deep problems with the segregation and discrimination carried out by the Israeli state.

If we were to follow the Zionist framework, which you obviously agree to, then countries such as the United States, Britain and Australia would be well within their rights to deny citizenship/entry to non-Christians. Which would include Jews. Does that not sound discriminatory to you?


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?

Thats a lame argument. There are worse offenders so why pick on little ol' Israel. What a crock. Israel is a racist entity, and the Zionists are the reasons why.


Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Finally, do you disagree with the basic Jewish right to self-determination or not?

If it entails acquiescing to the theft of land from another peoples to accommodate that, then yes I do disagree with it. Much the same way as I would oppose the Tutsis demanding they be given a swathe of land in California because they were slaughtered by Hutus in Rwanda.


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.

Zionism's original goals are pointless to debate, what matters is how Zionism is used today. 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. To accept the need for a Jewish safe haven does not equate to accepting the creation of Israel. I reject such a blatant attempt at polarising the issue.


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.

How overly dramatic. How many pogroms have their been in Britain in the last two centuries? Or how many in the United States? You write like the Jews are the only people on Earth to have been the victims of hatred and persecution. Would you support the creation of a Kosovar homeland on the land you live in? If not, why not?


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.)

Again, a clumsy attempt to polarize the issue and castigate me for criticising a racially motivated and discriminatory movement.


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?

That's like excusing the Crusades because Jesus founded Christianity based on the principles of peace and forgiveness. Your defence of Zionism based solely on the intent of it's creator is ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Excuse me for stretching this out over a few posts but I felt that giving comprehensive answers was more important in this case than brevity.



Yeah what ever dude, you really are incapable of civility.


How so? Look up "prejudice." It is not equivalent to calling you "racist" which is what you seem to be thinking.



prejudice: a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.


Seems accurate to me.



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?


Well, seeing as Israel already exists I don't think the view that it should be rebuilt outside the ME is very relevant. Regardless, you are just listing off the names of some hawkish politicians here. I have no idea what Wolfowitz's beliefs on Zionism are or even that they are influential. I think you are confusing their policy with the philosophy defining Zionism. Policy, (especially policy decisions outside of Israel) is made for a variety of reasons, many irrelevant to Zionism's ideals. If you merely criticized some of Israel's policies then we would probably share more common ideological ground. But you said that you disagreed with the "ideals of Zionism," which is very different. Give me an idea of what Richard Perle's beliefs concerning Zionism are and how they are influential.

As far as Bibi goes, he has expansionist ideas of Zionism that reflect a segment of Israel's population, so at least he is relevant. But they do not reflect the beliefs of most Israelis as any poll on Zionist-related policy will tell you.



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.


www.antiwar.com...

If Bibi’s views on Zionism reflected most Israeli’s, then he would be Prime Minister. He is not. In fact, Israelis voted for Labor for 40 years, only voting in Begin after the Yom Kippur War. Meaning, they voted in Likud for security concerns when they were afraid. When they felt safe and voted for a party based on their belief system they always voted to the left, against the Religious Zionist philosophy. Kadima was recently voted in based on Sharon’s promise to dismantle the settlements and leave Gaza and much of the West Bank.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   


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?


Acquisition? Well, the original plan was to purchase the land from whomever owned it. So I don't know if you are referring to that or to something else, like the occupation of land following the 6 day war. I can give you plenty of evidence that reflects the concerns Zionists had for the indigenous Arab population during Israel's creation. I'll link to a site with many quotes on the subject but will only reproduce one here to keep the post relatively cogent.



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]


www.zionism-israel.com...

Other more modern historical evidence that Israelis were willing to vacate conquered land that extremists viewed as "greater Israel" can be seen in Begin's dismantling of settlements and evacuation of the Sinai or Sharon's similar actions in Gaza, (and sister plan for the West Bank.) Consider also that these are the actions of right wing Likud members, not doveish Labor types.

Don’t mistake policy for philosophy. There are non-partisan reasons that religious Zionists have a disproportionate share of power in the Knesset that has more to do with the mechanics of Israel’s parliamentary system than specific pro-settler ideology. If you are interested I can go more in depth about it. Just don’t make assumptions about the rationale for anything happening in Israel or the Palestinian conflict. There is a lot of misinformation out there and many decisions that seem to have an obvious cause actually reflect an unexpected reality. Many critical facts are purposely left out of the equation when partisan essayists blog to the west about political motivations in the Middle East.



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.


You don’t have to attach a connotation, it already exists. You are just choosing to ignore it which in no way divests it from its negative association. Just because you were able to find a general definition of “race” that could conceivably be applied to Jews does not automatically make this view definitive.

It would be far better, don’t you think, if you were able to show us a definition of “Jew” that specifically calls it a race. Considering that most in-depth definitions of “Jew” make a specific point of dispelling the notion that it is a race, I can understand your reluctance to go this route.

Race is held to be genetic in nature. You can’t change your race. Despite what some would wish, white kids can’t become black. There’s no conversion available for black people to become white. Judaism 101 (jewfaq.org) gives us a standard definition of Judaism.



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.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   


Zionists have formed a state which only allows Jews to settle


Really, where is it? Because Israel is 20% Palestinian. Most are Muslim but there are also Christians and Druze in there. They have equal rights with Jewish Israelis and have representation in the Knesset.



All your examples do not seek to exclude other races from their country as Israel does.


Not only does Israel not exclude other “races,” but non-Jews of all sorts are allowed to emigrate and apply for citizenship.

In fact, being Jewish is not even a prerequisite to qualify for guaranteed citizenship under “right of return.” Citizenship is guaranteed for all Jews but also for non-Jews who are potential victims of anti-semitism. How many times do I have to say this? It is not about the religion! It is about the history of persecution. A little less than half of all recent immigrants were non-Jews.

Interestingly, Israel also has a recent influx of migrant workers from Thailand and China. While ostensibly having only temporary resident status, the history of such programs in other countries has always led to large percentages becoming citizens. How it plays out in Israel will be interesting to watch.



Well there you go, I also find Affirmative action racist


Really? I find it to be an essential tool provided it is used sparingly. I’ll give you an example. Arab Israelis fared poorly in terms of land acquisition during the state’s formative years. The nomadic nature of the Bedouins left them especially bereft of property. To help equalize land distribution Israel has an affirmative action program that offers Bedouins favorable rates and financing to encourage them to purchase real estate. I have no problem with this, as it is preferable to any alternatives for landless Bedouins (who no longer have enough available space to support a nomadic lifestyle.) It is technically racist, you are right about that. But it is still the best of all prospective solutions.



That is incorrect, the CCF of which I am a sponsor, does not only help Christians. As that would be immoral.


Oh, good. I’m glad I was wrong about that. See what happens when you make assumptions based on prejudice and don’t bother checking out the facts? I showed my *ss on that one. Just goes to show, you learn something new every day. Well, some of us do, at least.



Thats a lame argument. There are worse offenders so why pick on little ol' Israel.


It’s not an argument, it is a question. I want to know why you reserve such rage specifically for Israel and Zionism. I’m not asking how you justify the anger, you explain that elsewhere by regurgitating untrue anti-Zionist propaganda that would have been easily dispelled had you thought to Google it. Right now, I’m just asking why you chose Israel specifically over any other nation that you deem racist.


Zionism has been used to steal a tract of land from the Palestinians without recompense or any basis in legality.


Well, everyone could have kept on fighting World War One, but the Turks had to go and sell out the Palestinians by signing the Treaty. The irony is that in the end the Hashemites got to keep almost all of Palestine anyway, so the Jews got screwed too.

Compensation is available though. But to get it you have to abandon any legal right of return that may happen in the future so not too many Palestinians go for it. My plan was always that they could move into the homes of the Jews that were displaced from Arab lands and absorbed into Israel. Hey, the Palestinians already live in those countries, (even though they aren’t allowed to buy land, obtain citizenship or get access to healthcare as decided by the Arab League.) At least give them the Jews’ old houses!



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   


Any stance on whether Jews need a homeland cannot figure into any justification for mass theft and displacement of upwards of 6 million people.


I agree. Luckily this never happened. (In regards to Israel anyway. But something tells me you’re not thinking of Stalin here.)

But they did displace upwards of 600,000 people. However that has nothing to do with Jewish persecution in Europe. That was because those folks attacked the Jewish settlers who were living there and didn’t stop until they left or were expelled. Some were offered the opportunity to return right after the war of independence but it was on the condition that they all live in peace together so the Arab factions never went for it.

Incidentally, if the Zionists stole Palestine then does the house of Saud qualify as a grand larcenist? They stole way more. And they don't let women drive or wear sexy undergarments. And they're friends with the Bushes.



Would you support the creation of a Kosovar homeland on the land you live in? If not, why not?


Excellent question. (I am assuming you are referring to Albanians when you say Kosovar, right?) I would not. However if their situation more closely resembled that of the Jews and Palestine, then I would.

If you are at a loss as to how the two ethnicities differ historically or why the relationship of Albanians to America is unlike that of the Jews to Israel then I can recommend some reading for you.



Your defence of Zionism based solely on the intent of it's creator is ridiculous.


Hey, at least I’m basing my opinion on historical events that actually, you know, like… occurred. But look at it this way, you have yet to offer a single example of Zionism being fundamentally racist in nature that is based on anything other than conjecture and untrue (and weird) facts about Israel.

Seriously, I actually understand now why you totally reject Zionism and the right of Israel to exist. You have very little information as to what exactly happened and even less as to what is happening today or even why it is happening. And the information that you do have is totally made up.

Come on, you didn’t actually study this stuff, did you? I don’t think you ever read anything by Hertzl. I think you got all of your information from anti-Zionist propaganda websites. Maybe you read a book of revisionist history somewhere along the way, maybe not. But if you really got this information by reading actual, published books written by reputable people with real history or poly-sci degrees then I am begging you, please tell me what they are. Because I’m dying to see where you learned that Paul Wolfowitz has an influential Zionist platform or that Jews only let other Jews into Israel. My favorite is that the Zionists displaced over 6 MILLION native Palestinians. I don’t even think that the population of Israel NOW is much over 6 million.

Seriously, were there any books? Please tell me what they are.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

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.

Oh fantastic, now I'm also prejudiced. Well you're an apologist. That was fun! In the interest of brevity I wont waste any more server space in replying to some one who cant stop themselves from labelling other ATS members.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Such a shame, young grasshopper, to leave now just when your education was beginning in earnest. Such is life.

Have it your way, take your ball and go home. Dealing with accurate facts and legitimate history is a tough game, it would be a shame if your thin skin got bruised. You may have even have had to re-evaluate your unshakable belief system at some point in your journey.

Better to stay at home where it's warm and there's no one around who's actually read a book or two to challenge your belief system.

Keep the faith!



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Shaktimaan...

I am just wondering how you can claim that there is no basis for referring to the original Jews as a racial grouping?

en.wikipedia.org...

www.khazaria.com...

Hence we arrive at the modern situation of

en.wikipedia.org...

instead of

en.wikipedia.org... or rather

en.wikipedia.org...

Zionism has it's roots in Ashkenazi ( Germanic) practices and has nothing to do with the original Jews who can actually claim a heritage in that region in the world even thought many of them denies that such claims can even be made.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Here is a perfect example of "Problems In The Middle East". There are no honest brokers of peace. On one hand you have Hamas who are being recognized as a terrorist entity and for the punishment of their crimes the entire area is being made to suffer through sanctions. On the other side of the token you have Israel who is flaunting the laws handed down by the UN and the ICJ in regards to aquisition of land and the Apartheid Wall and no punishment is being handed down whatsoever. Although many people try to deny it, there is also the fact that we here in America are being told one thing while over in the Middle east they are being told another. The USA pats itself on the back for accomplishments that either do not exist or that are flat out untruths.

In This article you have US Ambassador Richard Jones imlying that America was the driving force behind reduced settlements.



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."

Source


However not even 2 days BEFORE this article, the Israeli government published these figures showing their settlements actually increased from the years before.




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.

Source


Whats needed is an HONEST broker of peace. Our government has shown itself over and over again that it is not a fair and unbiased peacemaker.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Settlers harrasing Arabs in Palestine is not a new thing. Please have a look at these 2 videos, and PLEASE I would like you to make note of the comments left by the Jewish or Pro-Israelis left in the comments all of them denying this as being harrassment, denying that anything is going on in these videos and attempting to place blame on the arab woman and arab children being harrassed.


This happend about 2 days ago and the woman was taken by police for questioning.
www.ynetnews.com...

Same family and only 1 day later. You can see children taunting the woman and throwing stones at her while the settler children down the block are beating up her brother and the soldier stalls for time.

www.ynetnews.com...


Absolutely abhorant behaviour not only by this soldier but these supposedly religious "settlers"



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Zionists are not racist...nah


This Lieberman clone wishes to destroy all arabs in Israel. She refers to them as an affliction.

Nasty




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."



Source



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   


I am just wondering how you can claim that there is no basis for referring to the original Jews as a racial grouping?


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.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I couldn't see the videos, but I'm assuming that the description is accurate. Knowing what Hebron's settlers are like I don't doubt it.

My issue with what you said is that you're focusing on the most severely right wing extremists out there and using them as a benchmark for all of Zionism. I don't think that anyone ever said that there weren't racist Zionists or even that there are no factions of discriminatory Zionists lobbying the government.

I mean, come on! You're using video of settlers in Hebron as a symbol of all Israelis. Certainly the 400 people living in Hebron are bat# insane. Most Israeli's will agree with you there.

And using the pro-Israeli comments as further evidence is really non-sensical. You are asking me to look at a webpage depicting gross, racist behaviour and then saying that the comments defending that behaviour is also racist and despicable. Well, duh! It may be more informative to look at ALL of the comments. Even then, I would hesitate to say that you're going to get a clear picture of anything from that.

If I sent you to a site with images of neo-nazis beating up a black kid I can assure you that the comments defending the neo-nazis would themselves be predjudicial. It would be quite nuts though to then use that as evidence that Christians hate blacks. Or that whites hate blacks. Or that people wearing boots hate blacks.

The fact of the matter is that you've got all kinds of Zionists. All the folks at PeaceNow? Zionists. Rabin? Zionist. Just about every Israeli except for the ultra-religious? Zionists all. Zionism in and of itself is no more racist than the movement to autonomize Tibet.

You can go to pro-Israel sites and rarely if ever see footage like this being held up as positive. (Except maybe the most right-wing, KKK equivalent fringe groups.) On the other hand though, it is easy to find footage that glorifies the killing of Israeli civilians. And I think it is important to notice the difference between how these societies react to events like these. When you hear about some Palestinian children being accidentally hit by stray gunfire you never, ever see Israelis out in the street celebrating and passing out candy. Not so vice-versa.

Another thing. While you clearly thought that all of the comments were themselves really racist, seeing as how the events took place in Hebron it does add another layer of complexity to it. What are your views on Hebron, Pieman? To what nation should it belong and why?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

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.


You seemed to be claiming that there is no distinct racial entity(s) involved here which is clearly not the case.


It's like this. Whether you could define the very first Jews as being of a single race or not is besides the point.


It most certainly is not when it seems that that group did resisted the Zionist movement.


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.


Most stories are more complex than i probably know but i can at least point out when others seems to be misrepresenting what is known.


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.


There most certainly is as the sources indicates.


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.


The problem with that is?


Now, whether or not every modern Jew can trace a blood relative back to Israel from 3000 years ago is irrelevant.


How is that irrelevant when that is the only thing that could ever legitimize their claims to the land they took from others on so many occasions?


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.


Then you have not looked at the cards the Zionist employed to gain their so called homeland...


It is an ethnic, cultural, religious and national tie that sort of transcends any one, simple classification.


Not according to history it's not?


The best definition of Jew I've seen would be the one given in the Torah, that Judaism is a nation.


That may be so but such can not claim a homeland with no ethic connection to such lands.


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.


I am not confused quite that easily but thanks for warning me...


Besides, there is a lot of lost history that we know exists but are unable to find as of yet.


Claims those who would like to dismiss what is very well known and understood by scholars.


No one can really draw the kind of conclusions that you are making.


They can and have based on quite reliable information and historic text's&realities.


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.


That is why there is a difference between Judaism and people of actual Jewish heritage. I am not so easily distracted and i don't mind being called 'anti-Semitic' considering that normally happens when one mentions anything related to the truth surrounding Zionism.


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.


You have a lot of nerve assuming i have read only what i quickly used to establish some basic reading material for your investigation. Assume away all you like as that never seems to help the ignorant...


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.


Judaism is not a race at all and that is my point. Race itself is a completely worthless idea that can be destroyed by any investigation of the relevant sciences. If i used the word race in the context where it might seem as if i believe in such notions please excuse the propagandize state i am still doing my best to recover from.

en.wikipedia.org...

Don't tell me modern/religious zionism is something inspired by the Talmud
or even supported by the majority of the Jewish people who live in the USA or the world.

www.manfamily.org...

Read and learn that Zionism has done far more harm than good and is , and always was, a vehicle for imperial powers in the ME. It might be interesting for you to discover which entities were behind both the revolution in Russia and the creation of Israel and how those two events have conspired and or abused to create a century of bloodshed and violence.

Stellar

[edit on 17-1-2007 by StellarX]




top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join