Fascism: What It Is, What It Isn't, And How To Spot It

a reply to: DJW001

Before we further proceed with the modern-time example of fascism I wish to submit to your expertise, I'd like to add that, personally, it's the lack of universally understandable sense of justice that makes me want to scream and denounce fascism.

A fascist regime is hardly sustainable without proper propaganda and anyone who helps this propaganda being distributed by usage of a biased perspective or by focusing on the events he only feels comfortable with is probably a fascist in disguise.
During Nazi occupation, those now considered as resistance fighters were then labelled as terrorists, that's the most simple and self-explanatory example I can come up with. When press institutions become silenced because of the interest of their stockholders, it's always interesting to consider what can be so embarrassing for the owners.

originally posted by: DJW001
The concept of "Nation" is a slippery one. It corresponds to the German concept of das Volk, and the Russian народ, Narod. It creates a bond between people who share a mutual language, traditions and customs transcending geography. In so doing, it sets up a distinction between "us" and "them." We must protect our own against Them. This is the pretext that Fascists use when they begin their military adventurism. Hitler had to defend "ethnic Germans" in Poland; Putin has to defend "ethnic Russians" in Ukraine.

I guess that's the reason why Israel keeps on pushing it's settlement policy, so that the already established settlers feels not too lonely ...
In the same way, what differences do you perceive between the Zionist concept of a greater Israel and the Nazi German Lebensraum ?
Can you share with us what is the definition of a human being as of Judaism ?

originally posted by: DJW001
First, it denies the efficiency of the democratic process. It favors "quality" over "quantity." There is the explicit belief that some people are superior to others, and therefore better qualified to determine the course of everyone else's lives. This is in keeping with the "occult" teachings that underlie Fascist philosophy. This leads, inevitably, to the "Leader Principle": that a single gifted individual can have absolute power over the State: Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, Hitler in Germany, and so forth.

Theocracies in general are clearly fascist organisations.
The fact that a given state intend to make religion mandatory for it's citizen is not specially bound to 'occult' beliefs. Most Islamic regimes are fascist because of their consideration of the Sharia law for ex. Would you consider as a pro-democratic move the fact that a state would change it's pseudo-secular status to become a theocracy ?
Isn't the ambition of Israel to proclaim itself as a Jewish state a push in that direction ?

originally posted by: DJW001

Yes, the current Israeli government has moved much too far to the right in response to Palestinian violence, don't you agree?

Insisting on Palestinian violence is an insidious form of propaganda imo.
I guess that as long as you refuse to consider the reality of occupation, you can only view resistance fighters as terrorists. Personally, I never advocated violence. And mostly in the case of the Israelo-palestinian conflict, I never will. It will always be counterproductive to use violence against people who define themselves through victimisation.
Israel understood this very well : non-violent protest actions such as BDS are now viewed as one of the biggest threat against Israel.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Before we further proceed with the modern-time example of fascism I wish to submit to your expertise, I'd like to add that, personally, it's the lack of universally understandable sense of justice that makes me want to scream and denounce fascism.

Justice is not humanly possible. Justice would require infinite knowledge and wisdom. The best human beings can manage is reasonable laws impartially enforced.

A fascist regime is hardly sustainable without proper propaganda and anyone who helps this propaganda being distributed by usage of a biased perspective or by focusing on the events he only feels comfortable with is probably a fascist in disguise.

You are correct that Fascism sustains itself through propaganda. I assume that you agree with my observation that there are many people who espouse fascist philosophy who are offended when it is pointed out what they are doing. Think of all the people who defend Russia's imperialism. No need to mention names.

During Nazi occupation, those now considered as resistance fighters were then labelled as terrorists, that's the most simple and self-explanatory example I can come up with. When press institutions become silenced because of the interest of their stockholders, it's always interesting to consider what can be so embarrassing for the owners.

I don't see the connection. It is human nature to promote oneself while concealing one's flaws. Corporations and governments are no different.

I guess that's the reason why Israel keeps on pushing it's settlement policy, so that the already established settlers feels not too lonely ...

Israel keeps pushing its settlement policy for the same reason Russia annexes its neighbors.

In the same way, what differences do you perceive between the Zionist concept of a greater Israel and the Nazi German Lebensraum ?

For one thing, "Greater Israel" is not the official policy of the Israeli government, it is a view held by a vocal and, sadly, growing minority. Also, there is no deliberate genocide.

Can you share with us what is the definition of a human being as of Judaism ?

I'm not sure what you're asking or why it's relevant.

Theocracies in general are clearly fascist organisations.

Agreed, although there can be degrees of popular participation in government. Hybrid states like Iran tend to be unstable.

The fact that a given state intend to make religion mandatory for it's citizen is not specially bound to 'occult' beliefs.

I never said that it was. I pointed out that most fascist elites have shared occult beliefs that justify their exercise of power.

Most Islamic regimes are fascist because of their consideration of the Sharia law for ex. Would you consider as a pro-democratic move the fact that a state would change it's pseudo-secular status to become a theocracy ?

If I understand the question correctly, a move from secular to theocratic would be anti-democratic.

Isn't the ambition of Israel to proclaim itself as a Jewish state a push in that direction ?

No, it is the ambition of a handful of deranged people, most of whom do not even live there. Israelis are too modern to surrender their freedom to lunatics in black frocks.

Insisting on Palestinian violence is an insidious form of propaganda imo.

Why? Just because something is used for propaganda purposes does not mean its not true. The Soviet Union used its space achievements for their propaganda value; that doesn't mean their space program was fake.

I guess that as long as you refuse to consider the reality of occupation, you can only view resistance fighters as terrorists.

Freedom fighters attack occupying troops. People who target civilians are terrorists.

Personally, I never advocated violence. And mostly in the case of the Israelo-palestinian conflict, I never will. It will always be counterproductive to use violence against people who define themselves through victimisation.

Exactly; both sides are trying to appear to be the victims. Both populations are being held hostage by corrupt politicians.

Israel understood this very well : non-violent protest actions such as BDS are now viewed as one of the biggest threat against Israel.

I hope that the Palestinians learn this lesson and stop giving Israel an excuse to victimize them in turn.

originally posted by: DJW001
Justice is not humanly possible. Justice would require infinite knowledge and wisdom. The best human beings can manage is reasonable laws impartially enforced.

This is one of the most stupid argument in favour of criminal impunity I've read in a long time.
Why do people around the world waste their time doing such pointless things as law writing ?

originally posted by: DJW001
Israel keeps pushing its settlement policy for the same reason Russia annexes its neighbors.

So if your perspective is that Russia is fascist, Israel can do the same because there are fascist elsewhere ?

originally posted by: DJW001
For one thing, "Greater Israel" is not the official policy of the Israeli government, it is a view held by a vocal and, sadly, growing minority. Also, there is no deliberate genocide.

What is the point of the settlement policy then ?
Don't they shoot Palestinians for no reason, spoil them of their land or burn the childrens alive ?
Do you consider the stabbings of gays by ultra-orthodox as a way to make it even ... after all, gays too were sent to the gas chambers by the Nazis.

Can you share with us what is the definition of a human being as of Judaism ?

The statement that Aryans are a superior race is as ridiculous as the statement that the Jews are superior to the Goyims. It's unfortunate that you feel the need to drop a comment for each of lines of my posts but the ones that end with a question mark. I admit that it's a little bit hypocrite from me to ask you a question to which I already know the answer, but, I was naively expecting that you would use this as an opportunity to fill the gap in your partial understanding of the problematic or, in other words, educate yourself.

originally posted by: DJW001
If I understand the question correctly, a move from secular to theocratic would be anti-democratic.

Exactly, any thoughts on the recent proposal of the governmental degree that seek to make Israel officially 'the Jewish state' ?

originally posted by: DJW001
No, it is the ambition of a handful of deranged people, most of whom do not even live there. Israelis are too modern to surrender their freedom to lunatics in black frocks.

A governmental majority established after a democratic election process can hardly be viewed as 'a handful of deranged people'.

originally posted by: DJW001
Why? Just because something is used for propaganda purposes does not mean its not true. The Soviet Union used its space achievements for their propaganda value; that doesn't mean their space program was fake.

Freedom of speech allows you to express Zionist propaganda. When considering a balanced perspective, you should take the arguments of both parties into consideration.
Do you consider that the Jews are allowed to behave like Nazis because they've been among the victims of nazism AND their beliefs teach them 'an eye for an eye' ?
It's not as if the Palestinians had any responsibility in the events of the holocaust that took place in Germany during WWII.

originally posted by: DJW001
Freedom fighters attack occupying troops. People who target civilians are terrorists.

How do call the occupying troops that are targeting civilians ?

originally posted by: DJW001
Exactly; both sides are trying to appear to be the victims. Both populations are being held hostage by corrupt politicians.

I've never heard the Palestinians complaining about the historical nature of their sufferings, it only started in 1949. The Jews on the other hand managed to become the victims / irritate people wherever they established themselves through their 2000+ years history.



I didn't feel the need to reply on the points where we agree.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

This is one of the most stupid argument in favour of criminal impunity I've read in a long time.

Really? Please explain. All I have done is point out that historically, one man's "justice" is another man's "revenge." There can be no agreement among human beings as to what constitutes justice, but it easy to see whether a law is fair and fairly applied.

Why do people around the world waste their time doing such pointless things as law writing ?

Why do you consider laws pointless? Would you prefer chaos?

So if your perspective is that Russia is fascist, Israel can do the same because there are fascist elsewhere ?

Please go back and actually read this thread; although imperialism is an inevitable product of Fascism, imperialism alone does not make a political system or state fascist. Both Russia and Israel believe themselves to be surrounded by enemies that threaten their very existence. Surrounding oneself with ever more territory is a way to defend against hostile neighbors; it is why Rome acquired an empire while still a republic. I do not approve of Israel's imperialism any more than I approve of Russia's.

What is the point of the settlement policy then ?

Israel is a small country with a growing population. What do you think the point of the settlement policy is? What alternative do you suggest? Although it is illegal, most Israelis believe the policy is just. You believe in justice, don't you?

Don't they shoot Palestinians for no reason, spoil them of their land or burn the childrens alive ?

Don't Palestinians fire rockets at school buses for no reason? Wouldn't they despoil Israelis of their land if they could? Don't they celebrate when Jewish children are torn apart by bombs? Is this justice at work?

Do you consider the stabbings of gays by ultra-orthodox as a way to make it even ... after all, gays too were sent to the gas chambers by the Nazis.

This statement is irrelevant to the discussion. Why drag the actions of a sick individual into the conversation? Just to make Jews look bad?

The statement that Aryans are a superior race is as ridiculous as the statement that the Jews are superior to the Goyims.

Agreed. I can tell you have been reading anti-Semitic propaganda because you have made no attempt to understand what Jews mean when they call themselves "the Chosen People." It does not mean they are superior in a racialist sense, it means that they have a special relationship-- and obligation-- to the god they believe is universal.

It's unfortunate that you feel the need to drop a comment for each of lines of my posts but the ones that end with a question mark. I admit that it's a little bit hypocrite from me to ask you a question to which I already know the answer, but, I was naively expecting that you would use this as an opportunity to fill the gap in your partial understanding of the problematic or, in other words, educate yourself.

I am not the one in need of education.

Exactly, any thoughts on the recent proposal of the governmental degree that seek to make Israel officially 'the Jewish state' ?

The Jewish State Bill is unpopular and likely to be killed in committee. Or are you one of those people who thinks that ratification of laws and treaties by the legislature is a mere formality? (Incidentally, rubber stamp "legislative bodies" are characteristic of Fascist states.) Needless to say, if I were Israeli I would be protesting the bill; as an American I can only hope it does not pass... for Israel's sake.

A governmental majority established after a democratic election process can hardly be viewed as 'a handful of deranged people'.

As a European, you should understand how parliamentary systems work. The current government just barely won its majority because the opposition was not united. Besides, who says that an elected government cannot be composed of deranged individuals?

Freedom of speech allows you to express Zionist propaganda.

As it allows you to express anti-Semitic propaganda. I say anti-Semitic because you confuse any defense of the legality of the State of Israel, any expression of the historical fact of its existence, with "Zionist propaganda."

When considering a balanced perspective, you should take the arguments of both parties into consideration.

Exactly. Why did you mention Arab children dying but not Israeli children dying. Are Arab children more important than Jewish children?

Do you consider that the Jews are allowed to behave like Nazis because they've been among the victims of nazism AND their beliefs teach them 'an eye for an eye' ?

Absolutely not. Why do you believe that the Jews are behaving like Nazis? Do they believe in the Fuehrer Principle? Do they have extermination camps?

It's not as if the Palestinians had any responsibility in the events of the holocaust that took place in Germany during WWII.

No, but the Nazis were responsible for encouraging Arab violence against the Jewish settlers in the Mandate territories:



Here we see Hitler meeting with Haj Amin al Hussein, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. After the war, many high ranking Nazis fled to Arab countries and converted to Islam. Palestinian terror organizations are alleged to have been funded by Nazi gold. This is completely off topic, but suggests an area you might wish to research before you further embarrass yourself.

How do call the occupying troops that are targeting civilians ?

Criminals who should be tried in a military court for violating their orders.

I've never heard the Palestinians complaining about the historical nature of their sufferings, it only started in 1949.

That's because prior to 1949, they weren't "Palestinians," they were just Arabs. I'm quite sure they complained about the Brfitish and the Turks before them.

The Jews on the other hand managed to become the victims / irritate people wherever they established themselves through their 2000+ years history.

The fact that you find Jews irritating is pretty much owning your anti-Semitism. What did any of your anti Israel propaganda have to do with the topic of this thread? As of this posting, Israel remains a liberal democratic secular republic, unlike Russia. Like Russia, it feels existentially threatened and has adopted similar bad policies.

a reply to: DJW001

So 'there can be no agreement among human beings as to what constitutes justice' but laws are not pointless ...
Then criminals have to be judged but condemned to no penalty ?

Surrounding oneself with ever more territory is not a way to defend against hostile neighbours, mostly when the land grab is the root of your neighbours hostility.
I suggest Israel forgets about the settlements, there are countries with a higher population density that can still perfectly handle their population growth - your statement on that matter is ridiculous.

No, Palestinians do not shoot at Israelis, they throw stones when they're fed up. Zionists wished there were some more rockets, that would make their point credible, but it is not the case. Palestinians do not wish to spoil Israelis, they want to retrieve what has been stolen.
The fact that non-violent protest action such as BDS is now being viewed as a thread against Israel is normal, how can someone call himself the victim of non-violence ?

The best antisemitic Propaganda I've read is the talmud.
Make the difference between Jews, Israelis, Zionists. No Jews do no behave like Nazis, Zionists do. And while Zionists are the dominant ideology in Israel, they push Israel - as a whole - to behave as such. Of course they are always - hopefully - individuals that fight against that extremist perception of things.
Israel has not changed for the worse, it’s always been bad

I think unfortunately that the Jewish state bill will pass. This is a way for Bibi to make sure he can circumvent the central court decision if he finds them too annoying. Another hit aimed against the separation of powers. This bill will mean the end of Judaism imo.
The disaster that Judaism won’t survive

A government is supposed to reflect the ideologies of the population that elected him. I guess it's 100% normal to have sick individuals in charge when there are sick individuals voting. It's just a matter of proportions.
President Rivlin: Time to admit that Israel is a sick society that needs treatment

I mention both Palestinian and Israelis victims. But for once that I was speaking of Jewish victims your answer was :

This statement is irrelevant to the discussion. Why drag the actions of a sick individual into the conversation? Just to make Jews look bad?

No, the Arabs are no more important than the Jews, there are just around 20X times more present among the causalities.

Hitler with an Arab ? So Arabs = Nazis ?
Nazi Propaganda was Based on What Zionists Said


If you agree that soldiers killing people in a totally arbitrary way should be trialled, I am outraged when they are not.

Did you notice that all the 'antisemitic propaganda' I'm mentioning is always penned by Jewish individuals ? Are they antisemite, self-hating or traitors to the zionist cause ?


If you consider Russia fascist, Israel is too for the same reasons. And I'm not considering the ideologies, just the facts.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

So 'there can be no agreement among human beings as to what constitutes justice' but laws are not pointless ...
Then criminals have to be judged but condemned to no penalty ?

Where do you get that? If someone breaks the laws of the society he or she lives in, they will be punished in accordance with the customs of that society. Those laws may or may not be "just" in some people's opinion. That is entirely subjective. On the other hand, it can be seen whether the laws are helpful or harmful to society, and whether they are being enfoeced fairly.

Surrounding oneself with ever more territory is not a way to defend against hostile neighbours

Where do I say that it is?

Palestinians do not wish to spoil Israelis, they want to retrieve what has been stolen.

The problem is, the initial settlers paid for the land they settled on. Most of it was owned in absentia, and the Arabs living there were paying rent. The PLO convinced Palestinians that they they were entitled to things they never truly owned.

The fact that non-violent protest action such as BDS is now being viewed as a thread against Israel is normal, how can someone call himself the victim of non-violence ?

Exactly! If the Palestinians had engaged in peaceful protests from the beginning, instead of following the Nazis' suggestion of anti-Semitic terrorism, Israel and Palestine could be a great confederation, and its Arabs living in peace and prosperity rather than poverty and fear.

The best antisemitic Propaganda I've read is the talmud

Do you read Aramaic, or do you rely on what you read on Anti-Semitic websites?

Skipping over the rest of your attempt to drag the thread off topic, let's get to this point:

If you consider Russia fascist, Israel is too for the same reasons. And I'm not considering the ideologies, just the facts.

Clearly you have not read this thread. In Russia, raisons d' état trumps individual rights. It concentrates power in the hands of a single individual and the legislative branch has no ability to over-ride executive commands (the Fuehrer Principle.). It practices government censorship of the press. Regional governors are centrally appointed. Israel holds democratic elections which periodically change the government. There are limitations on the length of time the executive officer can serve, and the legislative assembly can override executive initiatives (checks and balances, no Fuehrer Principle). Israelis are free to speak their mind in any way they wish without fear of government action. Town officials are elected locally.

What you mean to say is: you hate Israel and everything about it, especially those thieving, irritating Jews. You are entitled to that opinion, but that does not make them Fascists. Incidentally, the same resolution that made Israel a state made Palestine a state. In my opinion, that means both have an equal right to exist. You may consider that resolution to be "unjust," but it is the only claim to legitimacy as a state that Palestine has.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You better look into world war 2 the arabs joined the nazis and it was Hitler that that took advantage of the arabs need for a home land being largely nomadic. And most of the middle east being claimed by the French and british. There was a man by the name of Amin al-Husseini he starts making broadcasts for Hitler to recruit a tabs into the waffen ss. And later attempts to push Hitler to set aside an area for arabs. Obviously things didn't go as Hitler planned and he lost.Amin al-Husseini goes into hiding in Egypt but many things he learned from Germany he put in to play. Including their anti Semitic rhetoric.

Now we can go back even further and discuss T. E. Lawrence and how he led the revolt taking the land from the turks. This is the first time stabs even considered having an area to call there own being they saw the desert as highways not places to live. Contrary to your belief most of Israel was barren desert. The exception was places like Jerusalem which had a large Christian and Jewish population but arabs were a minority.

Later Israel started to turn the desert into farms through irrigation. They had bought most of it in fact from turks who owned it. Because these lands were being purchased from even Jews who lived in Europe they would allow arabs to farm it. They just required a fee for using the land. Of course with Hitler this stops and the arabs stop paying. When the war is over new land purchases start and again old deeds are straightened out. This is where you think the Jews stole their land. No they had a deed they bought and paid for.

One last shocker for you palistianians didn't exist they are Syrian refugees that were out into camps. These camps still exist today for example gaza. yasser arafat creates them to Garner sympathy he wasn't pal palistinian either.

originally posted by: DJW001
Where do you get that? If someone breaks the laws of the society he or she lives in, they will be punished in accordance with the customs of that society. Those laws may or may not be "just" in some people's opinion. That is entirely subjective. On the other hand, it can be seen whether the laws are helpful or harmful to society, and whether they are being enfoeced fairly.

Laws only makes sense if they are enforced, there is no justice whatsoever the laws allows or disallow if there is no will to judge criminals or no punishment delivered.

originally posted by: DJW001
Where do I say that it is?

Both Russia and Israel believe themselves to be surrounded by enemies that threaten their very existence. Surrounding oneself with ever more territory is a way to defend against hostile neighbors; it is why Rome acquired an empire while still a republic.

originally posted by: DJW001
The problem is, the initial settlers paid for the land they settled on. Most of it was owned in absentia, and the Arabs living there were paying rent. The PLO convinced Palestinians that they they were entitled to things they never truly owned.

Probably true for most of what's located inside the pre-1967 borders of Israel.
For the so-called 'occupied territories' on the other hand ...
My original question was to ask if there were any differences between the settlement policy and the lebensraum. Realise that you provided the same arguments as the nazis.

originally posted by: DJW001
Do you read Aramaic, or do you rely on what you read on Anti-Semitic websites?

Hebrew is more easy for me than Aramaic I confess ...
Once again you choose to reply to some of my statement but not to my questions :

Did you notice that all the 'antisemitic propaganda' I'm mentioning is always penned by Jewish individuals ? Are they antisemite, self-hating or traitors to the zionist cause ?

originally posted by: DJW001
Clearly you have not read this thread. In Russia, raisons d' état trumps individual rights. It concentrates power in the hands of a single individual and the legislative branch has no ability to over-ride executive commands (the Fuehrer Principle.). It practices government censorship of the press. Regional governors are centrally appointed. Israel holds democratic elections which periodically change the government. There are limitations on the length of time the executive officer can serve, and the legislative assembly can override executive initiatives (checks and balances, no Fuehrer Principle). Israelis are free to speak their mind in any way they wish without fear of government action. Town officials are elected locally.

What you mean to say is: you hate Israel and everything about it, especially those thieving, irritating Jews. You are entitled to that opinion, but that does not make them Fascists. Incidentally, the same resolution that made Israel a state made Palestine a state. In my opinion, that means both have an equal right to exist. You may consider that resolution to be "unjust," but it is the only claim to legitimacy as a state that Palestine has.

The main difference I see between Palestine and Crimea is in the attitude of the population. Palestinians do not have the same feeling towards the Israelis as the Crimean's do towards Russia.
In Israel, the individuals rights are only applicable if you belong to the right ethnico-religious group. In Russia, you'd better no try to go against an oligarch. No one is entitled to give lessons to the other.
Personally, I'm in favour of the two-state solution for the ME. That would not prevent Israel from proclaiming itself the jewish-state.
In a lot of countries (including the US) the president has the authority to override parliamentary decision in some cases. And the parliament had the possibility to restrict the presidential actions or consider impeachment.
The problem I mentioned about Israeli justice is related to the principle of separation of powers. That all political parties implicitly follow the ideals of zionism is one thing; but given the zionists consideration about justice, you are only eligible to fair justice in Israel if you are jewish.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Laws only makes sense if they are enforced, there is no justice whatsoever the laws allows or disallow if there is no will to judge criminals or no punishment delivered.

You are making no sense whatsoever. Only laws can be enforced. Justice is an abstract concept used to excuse all manner of violence.

As for the strategy of defense in depth, you left out this:

I do not approve of Israel's imperialism any more than I approve of Russia's.

Why?

Probably true for most of what's located inside the pre-1967 borders of Israel.

Thank you for conceding that the true Zionists did not steal from the Arabs.

For the so-called 'occupied territories' on the other hand ...

That's what makes the settlements illegal.

My original question was to ask if there were any differences between the settlement policy and the lebensraum. Realise that you provided the same arguments as the nazis.

Not exactly; the Nazis believed that they had the historical destiny to destroy inferior races and seize what was theirs, a distortion of Nietzsche's philosophy. The Israeli religious fanatics believe that they have a long standing contract with their god that makes the land they are occupying their own since ancient times. They don't want the Arabs dead, they just want the Arabs off "their" property. The current Israeli government is cynically turning a blind eye towards the settlements because, yes, they feel the need for lebensraum. Unlike Germany, that used lebensraum as an excuse to seize resources it could no longer obtain through legitimate trade, Israel actually needs the physical living space, even if it is otherwise resource free.

Hebrew is more easy for me than Aramaic I confess ...

Are you claiming that you have read the Talmud in Hebrew?

Once again you choose to reply to some of my statement but not to my questions :


Did you notice that all the 'antisemitic propaganda' I'm mentioning is always penned by Jewish individuals ? Are they antisemite, self-hating or traitors to the zionist cause ?

Of course not. Because Israel is a free society, Israelis may express their own opinions. You have quoted people who disagree with some of Israel's policies. Not all Jews are even on board with the Zionist program, but that has nothing to do with whether Israel has a right to exist or not. Why do you feel the need to be praised for citing Jewish sources.

The main difference I see between Palestine and Crimea is in the attitude of the population. Palestinians do not have the same feeling towards the Israelis as the Crimean's do towards Russia.

First, do you really believe you know how Crimeans really feel about being ruled from Moscow again? More importantly, it is not just Crimea, it is Ukraine, Georgia, and other nations that have lost land to Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Plus, there are many countries like the Baltic nations, who remember earlier episodes of Russian imperialism. Israel's neighbors do not wait in fear that the IDF will march against Cairo or Damascus; they have even given some of the land they won in '67 back, because they don't consider it part of their pseudo-historical patrimony. Even the "greater Israel" fanatics seem more intent on filling in Israel's "natural borders" than acquiring non-Mandate land. (And no, I do not approve of that goal. It is illegal and costing Israel international support.)

In Israel, the individuals rights are only applicable if you belong to the right ethnico-religious group.

What you are saying is that Israel is an apartheid state. Sadly, I have to agree. That is not Fascism, however. The United States spent all too long under apartheid, but the forces of liberal democracy eventually brought that to an end. Unfortunately, the forces in Israel have been working in the opposite direction.

In Russia, you'd better no try to go against an oligarch. No one is entitled to give lessons to the other.

Ironically, Russian oligarchs and straight up gangsters are becoming an important factor in Israel.

Personally, I'm in favour of the two-state solution for the ME. That would not prevent Israel from proclaiming itself the jewish-state.

As am I. There are forces in the region that have been deliberately trying to keep the Israelis and the Arabs from reconciling for nearly a century now. As has been pointed out, Nasser used the Palestinians as pawns in his bid to create a Pan-Arab geo-political bloc. (Not strictly speaking Fascist, but it certainly had that potential.) More recently, Iran has exploited the Palestinians in their own bid for regional hegemony.

In a lot of countries (including the US) the president has the authority to override parliamentary decision in some cases. And the parliament had the possibility to restrict the presidential actions or consider impeachment.

In democratic republics, an executive veto of legislation can be overturned by a further vote of the legislature.

The problem I mentioned about Israeli justice is related to the principle of separation of powers. That all political parties implicitly follow the ideals of zionism is one thing; but given the zionists consideration about justice, you are only eligible to fair justice in Israel if you are jewish.

That is why it is important to reject the concept of "justice." If laws are to have any meaning whatsoever, they must be applied equally to everyone: Jew, Christian, Muslim, all subject to the same laws and obligations.

I think that you are expending a great deal of energy to prove something you feel strongly about without being honest about what you are trying to say. You want to equate what Jews are doing to what the Nazis did. To justify this, you need to "prove" that Israel is a Fascist state. By strict definition-- and I have provided a very clear series of criteria in this thread-- it is not Fascist. It is increasingly an apartheid state, which is also an undesirable form of society.

This makes an ideal segue into the "what it's not" segment....

What Fascism is not:

All societies have laws and have expectations of its citizens. The determining factor is how the tension between the needs of the State and the rights of the Individual are resolved. In Fascism, the rights of the State definitively overrule the rights of the Individual.

Expecting you to pay taxes in order to provide for public services is not Fascism.

Expecting you to obey traffic laws to prevent accidents is not Fascism.

Expecting you to acquire a certain level of expertise in your profession and having that expertise certified is not Fascism.

Expecting you to serve in a militia or armed forces to defend your society as a condition of citizenship is not Fascism. (Although, like apartheid, it is characteristic of Fascism.)

I could multiply these examples, but I trust the gist is clear. I'll resume this discussion when I have more leisure.

a reply to: DJW001

Are all Israelis living inside the 1967 borders 'true Zionists' ?

How do you enforce the illegality of the settlements ?

Did Hitler claimed during his electoral speeches he wanted the Jews to be dead or 'off his property' ? What happened in Auschwitz ?

Is it possible to find, online or in book stores, translated version of the talmud in English, French, German, Dutch ... ?

How many pro-ukrainian terrorist or pacifist protest actions can you count in last six months in Crimea and Russia ? In comparison, how many pro-palestinian terrorist or pacifist protest action can we count over the same period in Palestine and Israel ?

Can you elaborate why apartheid is not fascism ?

a reply to: dragonridr

Your post is for me, another reminder that it may be worth for ATS to consider opening a 'history' section for the forum.
I think I have provided through my posts to DJW001 enough arguments that could also temper your point of view and I totaly disagree with you when you seems to suggest that there is no a such thing as Palestinian people.
At least, DJW001 and I agree on the two state solution.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Can you elaborate why apartheid is not fascism ?

Since this is the only on topic question you have posed, I will answer it again. Fascism is a political system that places the needs of the State above the rights of the individual. It enshrines the Fuehrer Principle, in which the decisions of a single Leader are unquestioningly enacted. Apartheid is a society in which a particular group of people is disenfranchised and discriminated against. The needs of the State do not necessarily outweigh the rights of the individual, even the rights of the disenfranchised group! Most fascist states practice apartheid; it is possible to have an apartheid state that is a liberal democratic republic. Republican Rome was a slave state in which slaves had the right to sue their masters under certain circumstances.

originally posted by: DJW001
Apartheid is a society in which a particular group of people is disenfranchised and discriminated against ... it is possible to have an apartheid state that is a liberal democratic republic.

How can a political system that makes distinction between various categories of individual be considered as democratic ?
If the peoples of the various groups established by the said segregation have the same rights, OK, it is democratic. What if they don't ?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

How can a political system that makes distinction between various categories of individual be considered as democratic ?

Most societies do make distinctions between different groups of people. People under 18 are generally not allowed to drink or vote. In some societies, women are not allowed to socialize with men. For a period in recent history, blacks and whites did not share the same facilities in some parts of the United States. Some of these distinctions are reasonable (age), some of them arbitrary (color), and some of them are still open to debate among reasonable people (gender). Provided that each group has some way of influencing the political system, these distinctions do not automatically mean that the society is not democratic.

If the peoples of the various groups established by the said segregation have the same rights, OK, it is democratic.

Exactly. If "separate but equal" really were equal it would be awkward, expensive and unnecessary, but it would be democratic. (Historically, it wasn't, and, for the record, I do not approve of apartheid as it has been and currently is being practiced.)

What if they don't ?

It could fall under any number of political/economic systems, depending upon how the authority is divided and how the economy is run. It could be feudal, as it was in Russia up until very recently, communist, as it was in China before Deng, socialist, as it may become in parts of Europe, fascist, as it was in Nazi Germany, and so forth.

Obviously, apartheid, by its very nature, works against the egalitarian ideals of a liberal democratic republic. In the case of the United States, the commitment to egalitarianism eventually destroyed the (formal) apartheid system.

a reply to: DJW001

So the entire world is an apartheid system ?
If I push your logic to the bottom, it makes fascism actually more democratic than apartheid given that in a non-apartheid practising fascist regime all the individuals deserve the same treatment.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

So the entire world is an apartheid system ?

Did I say that? I was simply pointing out that acknowledging different types of groups in a society does not make it undemocratic. For example, Lebanon's constitution dictates that a certain number of seats in parliament be set aside for each minority religious group. The holders of these seats are (theoretically) elected democratically.

If I push your logic to the bottom, it makes fascism actually more democratic than apartheid given that in a non-apartheid practising fascist regime all the individuals deserve the same treatment.

You still have not read or understood any of the earlier posts on this thread. Under fascism, not everyone is treated equally. Members of the ruling party are always accorded more privileges than the rest of the population. There is nothing democratic about it.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: dragonridr

Your post is for me, another reminder that it may be worth for ATS to consider opening a 'history' section for the forum.
I think I have provided through my posts to DJW001 enough arguments that could also temper your point of view and I totaly disagree with you when you seems to suggest that there is no a such thing as Palestinian people.
At least, DJW001 and I agree on the two state solution.

No groups can call themselves what ever they like. What I did say is Yasser Arafat created them. IT CAME about because his fatah movement needed international backing. In truth this group was syrians. But not even they wanted them to return to syria the Arab league figured much better to keep them in the camps and let Israel deal with it.

As far as two state solution never happen syria and now Iran would never allow it. And on the other side Orthodox Jews.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

We have gone beyond fascism and communism. The state is irrelevant as is the individual. We are hung up on labels. With the state gone there is no higher power than money itself and those who control it. It uses elements of all the systems that came before and skillfully employs each to it's own advantage among the people and between the various countries ruled under that monetary system.

Fascist tendencies generally are associated with the right wing, socialism for the left.
They are in constant conflict leaving the ruling elite free hands to do as they please.
Hyper-capitalism, whatever, names don't matter.
Who controls and how they do it is all that really does.

a reply to: DJW001

You fail to perceive that apartheid is a non-mandatory side effect of fascism. No country would establish apartheid rules without fascist aspiration. You mentioned the concept 'legal majority' as an example of apartheid ... An individual will become aged and gain legal majority after a while, racially segregated people always belong to the same racial group and remain segregated unless the regime stops. And I don't consider Michael Jackson as a valid counterexample.
Racial considerations, misogyny, religious intolerance or any other form of proselytism are proper - and unfortunately - actual criteria when it comes to segregate people.

In the same way, your definition of true fascism is narrowed by the presence of a fuhrer/duce like individual at the head of the state. Which can be tempered by the fact that there are some perfectly democratic monarchies where the king/queen is, of course, never elected. Let's consider Greece's regime of the colonels : the head of state was a puppet and the military junta was effectively having power - you don't need a single ruling individual to achieve fascism. Somehow your definition is narrowing fascism to dictatorship imo.

You said earlier that serving 'militia or armed forces to defend your society as a condition of citizenship is not Fascism'. I agree. What do you think of a regime that would jail conscientious objectors ?