Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumWhy anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic
Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)
snipped excerpt...
Anti-Zionism may be accompanied by a caveat that Jews should have full and equal civil rights wherever they live, but this operates against the implicit understanding that the majority will determine the cultural fabric of the state: the flag, the anthem and its dominant values. In denying Israel’s legitimacy, anti-Zionists tell Jews that they wish to treat them as equals, but only on their terms. Jews have rights only as individuals, but not as a collective. For those anti-Zionists who are members of national majorities in their respective states, the claim is that while they may enjoy individual and collective rights, Jews may only entertain the former.
There is no way that this assertion of political supremacy over Jews can fail to constitute anti-Semitism.
Thirdly, and most gravely, anti-Zionism is complacent with exposing Jews to dangers for which the anti-Zionists have no answer. Zionism was first conceived as an answer to the Jewish Question: the controversy around the political status of Jews as an anomalous, transnational, religious-cum-national minority. Zionism is, at its core, the belief that self-determination in Israel is the answer to this Jewish Question and to millennia of persecution. Anti-Zionism not only rejects as irrelevant Jews’ desires for the determination of their own fate, but crucially fails to articulate a better alternative....
more...
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-trouble-with-anti-zionism/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trajan
(19,089 posts)I am baffled by those who would so blatantly ignore this significant policy ....
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If so, I've definitely seen that violated on a regular basis here.
Not sure if there is a different rule for blogs vs. newspaper articles.
shira
(30,109 posts)
broiles
(1,367 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Share your perspective!
shira
(30,109 posts)
painesghost
(91 posts)Jews have rights only as individuals, but not as a collective. For those anti-Zionists who are members of national majorities in their respective states, the claim is that while they may enjoy individual and collective rights, Jews may only entertain the former.
I've always had a problem with the idea of collective rights. I don't believe in the idea of a "General Will" like Rousseau or that groups have rights that transcend individual rights.
I also don't think that being an anti-Zionist means you must necessarily be an anti-Semite although I would agree that many if not the majority are. It also seems to me that the definition of Zionism as it stands today is pretty fluid, so I'd say there is a difference between people that completely reject all aspects of Zionism and those who only reject some of it.
I do think you're right that a single State solution would be doomed to fail. I think the majority of Israeli's would agree to a secular State that protected the rights of women, gays and minorities, I do not think that the majority of Palestinians would.
I'd say I generally support Israel, mostly because it is the only State in the religion that in anyway resembles a civil-rights based secular republic. If the great majority of Palestinians wanted the same we would not be having this discussion and the One-State solution would have already taken place long ago.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The issue isn't one of Jewish self-sovereignty. The issue is that the establishment of Israel cost someone else theirs, rendered them into exiles and occupied peoples, made them subservient to the demands and desires of another people.
The problem is just that there are only two places where a Jewish state could have ever been established;
1) An already-inhabited and pretty certainly non-Jewish territory
or
2) A place where nobody lives; such places are generally uninhabited for a pretty darn good reason; The Hebrew State of Jan Mayen? The Atacama Republic of Israel? The Judaic Federation of Sealand?
Thus either Jewish sovereignty is costing someone else their own sovereignty, or Jews are sovereign in some antarctic shithole.
And perhaps surprisingly, Israel's not the only modern state to have this problem - Liberia suffers from it as well. For those who don't know, Liberia was a state founded for freed American slaves; the problem is that there were already people living there when the state was founded, who were promptly enslaved by the former slaves. The American slaves gained sovereignty, but it cost the Vai, Manes, and Kru people their own.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Unless you believe that the Palestinians had the exclusive sole right to sovereignty in all of Western Palestine, then the creation of Israel did not cost the Palestinians a state, since Israel at its creation did not encompass all of Western Palestine. The war that the Palestinians started to deprive the Jews of their state is what cost them a state. Except that considering the intentions and capabilities of the neighboring Arab states it's likely that there wouldn't have been a Palestinian sovereignty in any case (witness what the Jordanians and Egyptians did with the West Bank and Gaza).
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Seeing as, you know, they were the people living there. They did not voluntarily cede the land that would become the Jewish portion of the partition, and they certainly did not voluntarily cede the remainder of what would become Israel after that.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)
Not ever. There had been a Jewish community there for thousands of years. Nor did they ever have sovereignty over the place, nor were they ever likely to. Their presence in the land doesn't explain why the Arabs have exclusive right to all of it and the Jews have no rights at all.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Beyond religion, there was no real difference between native Palestinian Jews and other native Palestinians. For all appreciable purposes the whole lot of these people would be "Palestinian Arabs" - they lived in Palestine, spoke Arabic, and shared a common culture and society, different faiths notwithstanding.
when I say "the Palestinians have sole rights, being the people who were living there," this isn't a statement that only applies to those Palestinians who practiced Islam or Christianity, but the whole of the indigenous population.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Jewishness isn't just a faith. It's a separate peoplehood. The Jews of Palestine weren't Arabs. The truth is that there were Jews and Arabs living in Palestine as subjects of someone else's country or empire.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Maybe you're not aware, but it's a pretty sweeping grouping, sort of like "Chinese," "Turk" or yes, "Jew." The first three are ethno-linguistic groupings, while the latter is an ethno-religious grouping. That is, an Iraqi Jew can be an Arab, a Chaldean, a Jew, and a Mizrahi all at the same time without any conflict.
There were two distinct Jewish communities in Palestine at the time - Sephardim and the ancient population. Collectively known as the Old Yishuv; the Sephardim spoke Ladino, while the older communities spoke Arabic. These older populations were, in fact, Jewish Arabs.
however fine you want to split this particular hair, it doesn't blunt the point I was making; that these old communities are counted among other Palestinains, and that the whole body have sole legitimate right to the territory. This ain't rocket surgery.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)An Arab is a person who lives sufficient elements of the Arab identity. Those elements (the same for any other peoplehood) include:
1. Sense of identity.
2. Inclusion in the whole.
3. Language.
4. Culture.
5. Religion.
6. Folkways.
7. History.
8. Point of origin.
9. For many (but not Jews Americans, and possibly not Arabs) blood relation.
The Jews shared language with the Arabs (though they all would have spoken some Hebrew), but otherwise , there is little commonality. Certainly, they would have thought themselves different, and been thought different (and been treated different). They had different history and points of origin.
You seem to focus on language as the deciding factor, however language alone isn't enough. I know plenty of people in the US who speak English, and who aren't American. I also know plenty of people for whom English is not their primary language, yet who are American. The same is true for Arabic.
What's really problematic about your argument is that you are essentially denying to Jews that which you demand for Arabs; recognition of their peoplehood.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)One point is that "Arab" is a multi-ethnic ethnicity that does indeed contain some Jews within its definition.
Another point is the one I've pointed out for three posts now, that you continue to fail to acknowledge, that the native Jewish communities of Palestine are certainly to be counted as "Palestinians."
Seems to me you're the one denying things here 
aranthus
(3,385 posts)One point is that "Arab" is a multi-ethnic ethnicity that does indeed contain some Jews within its definition.
[font color=blue]No it doesn't. It includes many Arabic speakers, but that doesn't mean that everyone who speaks Arabic is an Arab. Merely speaking the language isn't enough. Did the Jews think of themselves as Arabs? Were they accepted as Arabs (that is equals) by the Arab population? No.[/font]
Another point is the one I've pointed out for three posts now, that you continue to fail to acknowledge, that the native Jewish communities of Palestine are certainly to be counted as "Palestinians."
[font color=blue]So bloody what? Palestinian at the time wasn't a peoplehood. It was simply the name of the place. It's like saying that New Yorkers all constitute a separate unified people, or Austro-Hungarians. They don't because New York is just a state; a political division of the United States, and Austria-Hungary was an empire with numerous peoples in it. Palestine was merely a part of a province of the larger Arab or other empire. Empires generally don't have unified peoples, and that is what is true in Palestine. And by the way, what self respecting "indigenous" people voluntarily assumes a foreign name given to their land by a conqueror? Are the Palestinians descendants of the Philistines? Of course not. The Romans? Please. That's why the Jews named their state Israel instead of Palestine. They reverted to the ancient indigenous name rather than the conqueror's label.
Seems to me that your the one making things up here.[/font]
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The oldest synagogues in the world are in Greece and Turkey, not Palestine. The oldest Jewish communities in the world are in Greece and Turkey, not Palestine.
If living in a place gives you the right to take part of it, then the Jews had far more right to Greece and Turkey than they did in relation to Palestine.
If the Greeks and Turks objected to having a Jewish state set up in their midst, would that make them antisemitic?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)that the Samaritans have certainly been in Palestine since ancient times.
shira
(30,109 posts)...by virtually everyone. The Jews were the last sovereigns to rule the country. There is no other people on the planet capable of making the same claim.
The antisemites were for centuries calling for Jews to return to Israel (Palestine), their home. Now they're telling the Jews to GTFO.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)By your argument, the Palestinians don't have that right in Palestine, do they? Do the Jews have the right to take part of someone else's existing sovereignty just because they live somewhere? No, they don't, which is why they wouldn't have the right to take part of Greece or Turkey. They were never sovereign there. But the fact is that Israel is the Jewish homeland, something Greece and Turkey never were. Not to mention that there was no other existing sovereignty in Israel and that there was a sovereign Jewish community there at the time that Israel became a state.
As for whether Greece or Turkey would be antisemitic for refusing to cede some of their sovereign territory for a Jewish state, of course they wouldn't be. But the Palestinians didn't have any sovereign territory in 1947. It wasn't their's to give away or to refuse. Then of course you have the problem that Palestinian rejectionism is based on a denial of Jewish national existence. See Scootaloo's ludicrous allegation that the Jews were Arabs. So Palestinian anti-Zionsim and the modern political support they receive is absolutely antisemitic.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Palestinian anti-zionism is anti-semitic, but Jewish anti-zionism isnt? I suppose you have to try and argue that, seeing as many, if not most religious Jews were not Zionists prior to the Six Day war.
Traditional Jewish anti-Zionism was based on three things:-
1) Zionism was not religiously ordained. It was not in accordance with scripture.
2) Establishing a Jewish state in the midst of Arab lands would inevitably antagonise the Arabs
3) Maintaining that Israel was the only Jewish homeland gave support to anti-semites who had always argued that Jews never identified sufficiently with their home countries.
Arab anti-Zionism was based on the same things (although probably more so on 1) and 2) and rather less of 3). Effectively, you're arguing that an idea is racist based not on its content, but on the identity of the person holding that idea.
Neither did:-
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Democratic Republic of Congo
Cote d'Ivoire
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Kenya
Mali
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
All of these states only gained independence after World War II. None of them had existed as sovereign independent states prior to that.
Really? The Africans had no right to Africa? It wasnt theirs to give away or refuse?
Thats quite racist.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Palestinian anti-zionism is anti-semitic, but Jewish anti-zionism isnt? [font color=blue]Correct.[/font] I suppose you have to try and argue that, seeing as many, if not most religious Jews were not Zionists prior to the Six Day war. [font color=blue]Do you have a cite for that? Cause that's just not true.[/font]
Traditional Jewish anti-Zionism was based on three things:- [font color=blue]Let's take them one at a time and see how they don't equate to antisemitism.[/font]
1) Zionism was not religiously ordained. It was not in accordance with scripture. [font color=blue]This is the main reason why religious Jews opposed Zionism and is still the main reason for the beliefs of Sattmar and Neturei Karta. It's also the most complicated to explain, so please bear with me. Jewish existence rests on three fundamental sets of values. God, Torah, Nation. Jews believe that they are the Nation that follows the Torah that was given to them by God. The three values aren't co-equal. Torah takes precedence over the Nation, and God over the Torah. Religious anti-Zionists recognize Jewish peoplehood, and in fact even recognize that that Jews have a right to Eretz Yisroel. Just not now. Based on their reading of the Torah (which takes precedence over the desires of Jewish people), not until Mosciach comes and God delivers Israel by his own hand. The important thing to understand here is that religious anti-Zionists are not denying Jewish peoplehood or the right of the Jews to Israel. That's why this belief in particular is not antisemitic. It actually derives from a reading of Jewish religious law.[/font]
2) Establishing a Jewish state in the midst of Arab lands would inevitably antagonise the Arabs [font color=blue]This is simple pragmatism. Obviously those Jews were right about antagonizing the Arabs. Once again, this belief is not a denial of Jewish peoplehood, nor is it a denial of Jews' right to a nation in Israel. It is instead merely a pragmatic calculus that the cost was too high. Not anti-Semitic at all.[/font]
3) Maintaining that Israel was the only Jewish homeland gave support to anti-semites who had always argued that Jews never identified sufficiently with their home countries. [font color=blue]Same as 2 above. Also, this is a pre-World War II set of beliefs that represents a misunderstanding (more of a conscious forgetting) of what antisemtism was and why it was. The Holocaust forced the Jews to remember that anti-Semites don't need any excuse or support from Jews to hate Jews.[/font]
Arab anti-Zionism was based on the same things (although probably more so on 1) and 2) and rather less of 3). [font color=blue]Bull!! The Arabs didn't, and don't, give a crap about any of these reasons. Why would they care that the Torah says that Jews are not yet entitled to Eretz Yisroel, when they believe that the Jews are never entitled to a state in their ancient homeland? Arab anti-Zionism was and still is based on completely different beliefs. Among them are:
1. Jews are not a people entitled to a state at all. See Article 20 of the PLO Charter.
2. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf that cannot be relinquished to non-Muslims. See Article 11 of the Hamas Charter.
3. The attempt by the Jews to establish a state in Palestine is considered a violation of the agreement whereby Jews are allowed to live as Jews in Muslim lands without converting to Islam. See dhimitude.
4. A Jewish state was considered a threat.
None of these beliefs has anything to do with Judaism or a calculus of what is best for the Jewish people. The Arabs couldn't care less about that. So Jewish anti-Zionism was based on the belief that Jewish law prohibited the founding of a Jewish state until God chose to, and on consideration of what was best for the Jewish people as a whole. Arab, Leftist and other politically based anti-Zionism is based on a denial of Jewish national existence and/or national rights, which is what makes it antisemitic.[/font]
But Palestine didn't have any sovereign territory in 1947, and neither did African states. [font color=blue]What is your point?[/font]
Palestine wasn't the Palestinians to give away or refuse.
Really? [font color=blue]Yes.[/font] The Africans had no right to Africa? [font color=blue]Of course they did. But did the Tutsis have the right to all of Africa to the exclusion of the Hutus or the Swahilis? Because that's the claim that the Palestinians and the anti-Zionists are making with regard to Palestine and the Jews. That one indigenous people (the Arabs) has the exclusive right to rule all the land to the exclusion of the other indigenous people living there.[/font] It wasnt theirs to give away or refuse? [font color=blue]No it wasn't. Not until they became independent and gained sovereignty over the land. The right and ability to give away land is a right of sovereignty. The Africans weren't sovereign until they gained their independence.[/font]
Thats quite racist. [font color=blue]No. It has nothing to do with race. A people either has sovereignty or it doesn't.[/font]
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)They wouldnt. But they would care that the Quran said that Ishmael was to inherit the house of Abraham rather than Isaac.
It doesnt say that. It says:-
"The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."
So the Nazis were entitled to give away Jewish assets and property? After all, the Nazis were sovereign in Germany.
Some people would say that the right and ability to give away property is a universal human right.
So in other words, if I were to convert to Judaism, I would become indigenous to Palestine, and in fact I would acquire a better claim to Palestine than the Palestinians that have lived there for 2000+ years?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)They wouldnt. But they would care that the Quran said that Ishmael was to inherit the house of Abraham rather than Isaac.
[font color=blue]Which proves my point. The Muslims believe that the Jews have no right to Israel whatsoever because of what is said in the Mulsim Holy Book, not anything that is written in Jewish law. They believe something completely different for completely different reasons. Additionally, none of the religious anti-Zionists would support a war to destroy Israel and the Jewish people living there, and the Arab/Muslim world did, and arguably still might.[/font]
It doesnt say that.
[font color=blue]Actually, you have quoted Article 19. Article 20 says:
The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp#art20
That's from the 1968 version of the Charter. In the 1964 version the language is in Article 18. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp#art20[/font]
So the Nazis were entitled to give away Jewish assets and property? After all, the Nazis were sovereign in Germany.
Some people would say that the right and ability to give away property is a universal human right.
[font color=blue]I should have made my point more clearly. We are talking about sovereignty, not necessarily ownership of land. Most of the land of Palestine was owned by the government (the British), and Palestinian Arabs actually owned very little; less than that owned by the Jews. Further, the Jews didn't take any land from Arabs until the Palestinians started the war against them. So the issue was then how to divide the territory that neither side owned, but that both wanted to rule. The Arabs denied the Jews' right to rule any of it, even the land that Jews owned. But since the Arabs weren't the sovereign, they had no right to deny that right to the Jews. As we were talking about Greece and Turkey before, those entities are sovereign and do have an absolute right to give up sovereignty over some of their land to another state, and just as much right to refuse to. So the Jews had no right to take land actually owned by Arabs until the Arabs made war against them, at which point they had the right to take and keep what they conquered. But the Jews did have the right to claim sovereignty over the land, as did the Arabs. The difference is that the Jews recognized the competing right of the Arabs and were willing to compromise with that right, and the Arabs denied the right of the Jews and refused to compromise.[/font]
So in other words, if I were to convert to Judaism, I would become indigenous to Palestine, and in fact I would acquire a better claim to Palestine than the Palestinians that have lived there for 2000+ years?
[font color=blue]I don't know of any 2000 year old Palestinians, do you? The fact is that the Jews have inhabited the land for longer than 2000 years. Both peoples have been there a long time. As to indigenous, it means "originating in," so the Jews are an indigenous people of that region. And they can decide for themselves who is a Jew.[/font]
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Wrong (both factually and legally)
About 70% of present Israeli territory was confiscated from Arabs pursuant to the Absentee Property Laws:-
The Custodian of Absentee Property does not choose to discuss politics. But when asked how much of the land of the state of Israel might potentially have two claimants — an Arab and a Jew holding respectively a British Mandate and an Israeli deed to the same property — Mr. Manor (the Custodian in 1980) believes that 'about 70 percent' might fall into that category (Robert Fisk, 'The Land of Palestine, Part Eight: The Custodian of Absentee Property', The Times, December 24, 1980, quoted in his book Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws#The_.27Absentees_Property_Law.27
Okay. So Germany waged war against the Soviet Union, who conquered East Germany in response. Presumably then, the Soviets as conquerors of the land would then have been free to dispose of or acquire any Jewish property as they saw fit?
The Assyrians have inhabited the area for about 4000 years, since about the time of Sargon the Great. The Maronites are descended from the Phoenicians, who inhabited the area since about 5500 years ago, give or take. In both cases, their history goes back long before Jews ever existed.
Realistically, both the native Arabs and Mizrahi Jews were largely descended from Phoenician and Assyrian peoples who were there before. The idea that somehow Palestinians only date from the 7th century because they're called "Arabs" is pretty stupid. Most DNA studies (ie between the Samaritans and Palestinians in Nablus) have shown that Palestinian roots in the area are just as ancient as the Samaritans.
I believe that Mizrahi Jews are certainly indigenous to Palestine, along with the native Muslims and Christians. To be honest, saying that a European convert to Judaism is as indigenous to Palestine as a Tutsi is to Rwanda is pretty self-evidently stupid.
Good for them. And when they take Palestinian land, the Palestinians just have to accept their bona fides, do they?
shira
(30,109 posts)2. With the horrors of persecution fresh in living memory, is it reasonable to expect Jews to exchange the sovereign equality they presently enjoy for permanent subordination to the very states that once persecuted them?
3. How will anti-Zionists fully guarantee Jews’ personal safety from anti-Semitic persecution after they revoke the right of Jews to be the ultimate guarantors of their own security?
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-anti-zionism-is-still-anti-semitic-reply-to-critics/
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)in the same way that Canada or Australia has a right to exist. That does not mean that the establishment of Canada or Australia on the ruins of indigenous societies was a just thing.
People have a right to self-determination, which means they have a right to elect their representatives and to be genuinely represented by them.
That does not mean that a particular ethnicity has a right to ethnic supremacy in any given state. Anglo-Saxons do not have a right to be governed by Anglo-Saxons in England, either exclusively or at all. White Protestants in the US do not have a right to be governed by white Protestants. Jews are not entitled to be governed by Jews in Israel.
If an Arab Israeli was elected Prime Minister of Israel, or if the Knesset had a majority of Arab members, then that is just too bad.
Equally, if Arabs became a demographic majority in Israel, that is just too bad. There is no right, either at international law or anywhere else, for people of any particular ethnicity to constitute a supermajority in any given state.
shira
(30,109 posts)Your views seem to be more in line with the post-zionists. The desire is for 2 states and for Israel to stop being a Jewish state. Maybe limited RoR but at the end of a peace settlement, Jews are still the majority...
Yes, No?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)in the same way that I am opposed to Manifest Destiny, but I believe that the US has a right to exist. The US was founded on theft and murder against indigenous people, but for pragmatic reasons I believe that we are stuck with it now.
As I stated, no ethnicity has the right to supremacy in any given state. Demographically, Arabs in Israel will increase to at least 30% of the population, perhaps more. A state with 30% Arabs is effectively a binational state.
Without reverting to explicitly racist measures, there is no way of guaranteeing a Jewish supermajority in Israel for all time. There is no way of guaranteeing that 30% will not become 50%.
shira
(30,109 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)means that Zionism was once justifiable, but that it has now fulfilled its purpose and should be set aside. I don't believe that it was ever justifiable.
Israeli
(4,148 posts)thats it ,the general description .... perhaps we made a mistake with the post part ..probably a better description would be non zionist .
shira as usual is totally confused ...
" Your views seem to be more in line with the post-zionists. The desire is for 2 states and for Israel to stop being a Jewish state. Maybe limited RoR but at the end of a peace settlement, Jews are still the majority... "
there are post-zionists who are for a two state solution like Uri Avnery and post-zionists like Ilan Pappe who are for one state .
ref : http://www.countercurrents.org/pappe110607.htm
and its not about " for Israel to stop being a Jewish state " ...its about Israel being a state for all of its citizens .... with social equality.
Response to Israeli (Reply #109)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I'm not sure why you think the entirety of any given piece of land would be considered the sole property of the people who happen to be living there at a randomly frozen point in time. There were 300,000 Arabs in Palestine at the start of the 20th century. Most of whom owned none of it.
You're applying an ideal version of what you consider to be the most ethical way to run the world and then critiquing people from over 100 years ago for not abiding by your rules. This seems to be a game people only like playing with Israel. And it's always a very specific version of the game, where the decisions made by Zionists are judged against these rules alone. It's ok to look at palestinian actions based on their reality at the time, which is reasonable. But I've never seen anyone do it with Israel.
I suppose that's how you get away with labeling refugees fleeing the holocaust or pogroms as "colonists."
Yet I have never heard Arafat referred to using that term.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Well one, it's not a "randomly frozen point in time," Shaktimaan. It's a point chosen because of the events occurring at that point in time - the fifty years between 1897 and 1947 in Palestine are extremely relevant to the discussion at hand, don't you think? Second, that population was very consistent for those fifty years - and for a very, very long time prior.
It's really no mystery why you'd rather fast-forward to just after the ethnic cleansing that established a different group as the territory's majority, of course.
Well excuse me if I don't find ethnic cleansing and colonialism to be acceptable in any time period.
Actually that's because they participated in an act of colonization. "Refugee" is not mutually exclusive with "colonist." Plenty of Irish refugees ended up fucking over Indians during the westward colonization of North America, just as American refugees from slavery ended up taking over the native peoples of Liberia.
While Arafat was born in Cairo, both his parents were Palestinian - his father was from Gaza, his mother from Jerusalem. Palestinians regarded him as a Palestinian. He drive his efforts towards establishing a Palestinian state for Palestinian people. You could clal him all sorts of things - and i'm pretty sure you have a list - but "colonist" simply couldn't accurately be one of them.
Now, if he had stuck with the original agenda of the PLO as an Egyptian agency seeking ot extend egyptian control over the Palestinian territory, then he could be counted as a colonizer (which is a different thing from a colonist - a colonizer is an individual or entity behind the colonial policy, a colonist is someone who takes advantage of that policy. So many words, I know!)
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)So at what point does Palestine as we know it become rightfully owned by the people living on a small bit of it? And why? What's the rationale?
Really, why?
Well excuse me if I don't find ethnic cleansing and colonialism to be acceptable in any time period.
How come? I was referring to context, not time. Are there contexts which you find ethnic cleansing or colonialism to be acceptable?
You seem to mostly have an issue with the Jews going there because they were from another part of the planet. Why don't you think the Zionists were acting unethically? Why shouldn't they have be able to go there?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm not sure who you're asking about.
Because you're an advocate of said ethnic cleansing, as it produced results you favor.
My issue is with people from one part of the planet deciding that they have sole rights to another part of the planet, and engaging in a takeover, against the wishes -and very much to the detriment of - the people living there. As I explained to another poster, there's no issue with immigration; but there is a problem with colonization. The difference being - as I have explained before - that an immigrant wishes to become part of the society they are moving into, while hte colonist is taking over that society for themselves.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I have no idea what you're talking about. You'd have to give me an example. I've never advocated ethnic cleansing.
My issue is with people from one part of the planet deciding that they have sole rights to another part of the planet, and engaging in a takeover, against the wishes -and very much to the detriment of - the people living there.
OK, how was the Jews moving there in any way a detriment to the people who also lived there? They built the only functioning democracy and successful economic engine in the entire middle east. What part is hurting the Arabs living there?
And no one ever "took over" sole rights of land that belonged to someone else in Palestine. Seriously, be specific. What the fuck are you talking about here? Are you against the right of Jews to buy land?
So in this ideal scenario, post WWI, what happens to the Israel/Jordan/Leb/Syria section of the middle east?
---------
As I explained to another poster, there's no issue with immigration; but there is a problem with colonization. The difference being - as I have explained before - that an immigrant wishes to become part of the society they are moving into, while hte colonist is taking over that society for themselves.
I see. But neither apply in Israel's case, so what is the word to describe that?
Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #22)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)2. With the horrors of persecution fresh in living memory, is it reasonable to expect Jews to exchange the sovereign equality they presently enjoy for permanent subordination to the very states that once persecuted them?
3. How will anti-Zionists fully guarantee Jews’ personal safety from anti-Semitic persecution after they revoke the right of Jews to be the ultimate guarantors of their own security?
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-anti-zionism-is-still-anti-semitic-reply-to-critics/
Response to shira (Reply #83)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)Response to shira (Reply #87)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)It calls for 2 states in which Israel would remain intact.
So you're actually against International Law...
How about the post-zionist viewpoint for you? 2 states, Israel remains intact, limited RoR, and an internal democratic push is made to stop Israel from being a Jewish state? It would - at the time of a peace treaty - still be majority Jewish.
Well?
Response to shira (Reply #92)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)Response to shira (Reply #95)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)You're against 2-states, then you're against International Law.
Response to shira (Reply #97)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)Response to shira (Reply #105)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)You're against Israel's right to defend its citizens.
Better that Israeli citizens should allow themselves to be murdered than attempt to stop it.
I know what you believe, but know this...
Jews refuse to be victims. We have thousands of years of experience in that and it ended in 1948. If you don't like Jews defending themselves, that's just too fucking bad.
Response to shira (Reply #115)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What does that even mean?
Response to oberliner (Reply #118)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am trying to get clarity on what you meant by "the total destruction of British Mandate Palestine".
Do you mean that the mandate itself was destroyed? That the document was rendered invalid? Do you mean that the administrators of the territory were overthrown?
I am sorry but I am not clear on what you are saying when you write:
"the total destruction of British Mandate Palestine"
Response to oberliner (Reply #120)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I understand what the territory you refer to is, I just don't know what you mean when you reference it's total destruction.
You wrote: "the total destruction of British Mandate Palestine that you subscribe to happened..."
What event are you talking about? When did this happen? What does the statement mean?
There's nothing that I am providing a counter-argument against, I am just trying to get an understanding of what you are talking about with the statement:
"the total destruction of British Mandate Palestine"
Can you just explain what that means?
Response to oberliner (Reply #122)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
I'll leave it alone then.
Response to oberliner (Reply #125)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It is a non-member observer state in the UN located in the West Bank and Gaza.
As for anti-Zionism, I think it is sometimes rooted in antisemitism but not necessarily.
To be honest, though, I don't think debating those semantics is particularly helpful (though I've been known to do so on occasion).
Response to oberliner (Reply #127)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)You supported every last Jew being taken out of Gaza and you support the same WRT the W.Bank.
How am I wrong?
Response to shira (Reply #129)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)Response to shira (Reply #131)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Before you answer, read this:
Where do you want the Jews to go, then?
Anti-Zionists are simply not bothered with formulating an answer to the Jewish Question that takes into account the agency, aspirations or basic security of Jews who either live in Israel or depend on it as a safe haven. They implicitly recognise that if Israel were to disappear, Jews would face a problem as Jews, but this is none of their concern. Anti-Zionists may promise that Jews will be safe as minorities in other countries, but Israel exists precisely because Jews learnt that they could never trust these promises. The anti-Zionists’ insensitivity to Jewish existential fears is, ironically, part of the problem that Zionism is meant to address!
Anti-Zionism logically requires that anti-Semitism – an acute problem for vulnerable Jewish minorities – will have to be solved in a context in which Jews are once more vulnerable minorities. If Israel were forced to swallow a one-state solution, it would have an Arab majority either immediately or very shortly after. Those who chant, with venom in their eyes, that from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free, either simply presume that Jews would be safe as Jews in such a state, or they just do not care.
If Israel were to cease to exist, the question of how to protect Jews from anti-Semitism the day after is not the anti-Zionists’ problem. The outburst of late White House correspondent Helen Thomas that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany or Poland, is just one such example.
In a post-Israel world, anti-Semitism would continue. Anti-Zionists refuse to elaborate a vision of how this should be combatted, while rejecting point blank the Jewish people’s preferred solution to anti-Semitism: self-determination in Israel. Anti-Zionists are content to throw Jews under a bus, and only then turn their attention to how to stop the bus running them over.
[font color = "red"]This callous insensitivity to Jews’ concerns for their own basic security as Jews, given the dangers they would face in a post-Israel world as Jews, and the willingness to put Jews in this precarious position, is unambiguously anti-Semitic.
So what say you...?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It simply presumes the non-existence of Palestinians. In fact it really has to, to make the point it's trying to. The only way for anti-Zionism to equal antisemitism, is if Jews are the only people in the picture.
Obviously, they're not.
Just as obviously, advocates of Zionism seem to have trouble wrapping their minds around the notion that Jews aren't the only people in the world who "count." That their concerns are not supreme, and that their wishes do not trounce the desires of others. Which is, again, the entire point of Zionism - the notion that Jews are an inherently superior, more deserving people, center stage on the world, who come first in all things, no matter the expense to others.
And as I point out, there is an expense to others; Palestine wasn't terra nullius, it wasn't virgin, uninhabited land. The establishment of Israel in Palestine cost other people their rights, their property, their sovereignty, reduced them to exiles, victims of oppression, and a status as a wandering minority.
And it bears noting that if we're going to go full Herzl and pretend Israel is a solution to antisemitism... it's not working (especially if you do as the Zionists do and count any criticism of Israel or Zionism as antisemitism on par with Treblinka.) So what's happened is that an entire group of people are now in the position Jews were in... without any real improvement on the issue that this was supposed to solve for Jews.
When you ask what my solution to the problem is, I suppose the problem you mean is antisemitism. And the answer is the same as the solution to any other sort of racism; education and public action. No, it's not as glamorous as blowing up Gaza every three years and insisting everyone who questions you is a Nazi, I suppose... but that's what'll work. Assuming you're actually interested in fighting antisemitism, which I really honestly doubt.
shira
(30,109 posts)It allows for Jews to control their own destiny in their own state.
Palestinians will end up with > 80% of historic Palestine pre-1920's as it's just a matter of time before the majority in Jordan comes to power (which is what you should be advocating anyway). But this isn't good enough for you as your solution will put Jews in more danger than they're in now, and permanently. Basically, your position is that 1-state is the way to go and if the Jews get fucked, so be it. Correct me if I'm wrong....
Education and public action are great if they obliterate antisemitism, but until that time Israel must exist as a safe haven for Jews.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)In fact, it's really rather the opposite.
Your argument is that the Palestinians should just settle for the scraps that Israel decides to kick towards them. That is, Israel is the determining factor of what the Palestinians get. not just in terms of raw acreage, but also where that acreage is, how the resources there can be utilized, how much sovereignty the Palestinians will have over it, etc. All keyed, of course, to whatever suits Israel best regardless of the needs or desires of Palestine.
Which is a lot like saying that an African diaspora state needs to be carved out of Nigeria (whether or not the Nigerians want this) in order to provide a safe haven for blacks until racism against them is obliterated. Even if the inhabitants of the diaspora state exercise racism against the people they are displacing as well as each other in the meantime.
Displacing, disenfranchising, and dispossessing one people in a failed attempt to create a haven for another people makes no sense whatsoever, Shira.
Like I said, I don't think you're at all interested in dealing with antisemitism Shira. Perhaps you really do think that what you're advocating is a solution to the problem, I don't know, I'm not in your head and I kinda prefer not being there anyway. But from an outside angle, it looks like Zionism is a partner philosophy to antisemitism. That is, Zionism requires antisemitism. It exploits and utilizes hatred of Jews, rather than working against it. we can actually trace this all the way back to the very foundations, with Theodore Herzl belief that all the goy in the world just naturally, indelibly hate Jews, and that trying to fight that is a useless endeavor.
shira
(30,109 posts)The OP distinguishes between being against Israel pre-1948 and now. There wouldn't be anything wrong advocating against such a state (whether for the African or Jewish diaspora in Nigeria or Israel) before it exists. You could better make your case pre-1948.
But it's incumbent upon folks like you NOW who are against Israel's existence to offer the Jews of the world a better alternative. You cannot do this, and all you're really saying is that for justice to be served, they should slit their own throats and commit national suicide.
Not. very. liberal.
Again, the Palestinians would be a majority in > 85% of historic Palestine pre-1920. The Jews would have maybe 15% total. What's unfair about this situation?
I want antisemitism obliterated, but until such time as that happens Israel is a necessity. You can't just tell Jews to go back to the situation they were in during WW2 and hope for the best, when Jews are now finally in control of their own destiny and not required to live in fear as they did then.
Even your 1-state solution is bullshit. No one is for it as it would have to be imposed on both populations. The vast majority of Palestinians want a state based on sharia law and few civil/human rights. It wouldn't end well, so why push for it unless your only goal is to see Israel destroyed, regardless of the consequences.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Here, look at this stuff you came up with:
The majority of Jews in the world have already decided that they have a better alternative - where they already are. You do realize that most of the world's Jews live in nations other than Israel, right? Hell, you realize that Jewish emigration from Israel surpasses Jewish immigration to Israel as well, yes? Jewish security does not depend on Israel.
Further, spare me this "national suicide" garbage. I'm well-versed in the dog whistles, and this isn't even one of the silent types.
Well, the part where they were dispossessed, ethnically cleansed, purged from their homes and property, reduced to exiles, their communities and culture scattered and tattered? That's not fair.
For the people who did this to them to dismiss any culpability or responsibility for doing this? That's also not fair.
To then blithely dismiss these victims, demanding that they instead displace or take over someone else's place in lieu of actual recompense from the people who fucked them over? That's doubly unfair. Worse, it's a solution being floated by those people who fucked them over.
I find it hilarious that you take great offense that Helen Thomas tells a voluntary immigrant from the US to go back to the US, but you think that the fairest thing in the world is to tell a refugee from Jaffa to fuck off to Amman.
Also, rather interesting that your variety of the two-state solution is Israel and Jordan. Huh. And you say you're not a kahanist.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)
World demographics have been trending that way. Do you change your tune once that happens?
And yes, Jewish security does depend on Israel if/when shit hits the fan, as it always has throughout history. With Jews in control of Israel, millions would have had somewhere to go during WW2. I fully realize you and yours would have been against that had you been in control. Jews are still choosing to go to Israel, whether they're French, Ethiopian, or Yemenite. The world's Jews can at least choose to live as Jews in a Jewish nation where their people are the majority and not the minority, if that's what they want or need (religious Jews increasingly need Israel as it's getting harder for them to practice in the open outside Israel). You would take that choice away, however. And do it only to Jews, as you wouldn't strip away the self-determination of any other people. The sad fact is that you don't see the Jews as a people or nation, which is what the Kahanists say about Palestinians...
What you're also saying is that if things turn out bad in your 1-state solution where Jews are forcibly subordinated to minority status, those Jews can all leave and go elsewhere. Not. very. liberal. The 1-state solution is so bad, you won't even try to defend it. Yet here you are advocating for what would certainly be a colossal tragedy that would improve the lives of.....no one. Palestinian lives wouldn't improve, as they'd still be denied their civil rights in a dictatorship. The 2 million non-Jews of Israel would go from living in a liberal democracy to living in a totalitarian fear society. You think they'd be for that? You don't care...
You have nothing to offer as a solution that is positive, for anyone. You cry foul over how unfair things would be for oppressed Palestinians, but your solution doesn't help them in the slightest.
As for Jordan, it's majority Palestinian and that majority is fucked. I thought you cared. As a progressive, shouldn't you be advocating for Palestinian self-determination there? One-vote, etc.? Right, right...I know, those Palestinians don't count. Personally, I'm not too crazy about a Palestinian ruled Jordan. The dictator there is at peace with Israel. I'm not convinced the same would be true with Palestinians in charge. But I believe it's only a matter of time before they install their own Palestinian dorktator there. That's self-determination and democracy in action, in your book. It's occupation under another name in mine. The Palestinians in Jordan have been occupied ever since the Hashemites took over (actually under Ottoman rule too) and they'll remain occupied under a Palestinian leader if/when that happens. Not fair, but then again, it's not Israel so who cares...
elfin
(6,262 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)What do you mean?
shira
(30,109 posts)It's a secular state.
But if you're against theocracies, there's plenty of them surrounding Israel. Are you advocating for their destruction?
elfin
(6,262 posts)Internal tensions between purported secularism and religious heritage are more and more apparent with rise of influence by their more and more conservative political and religious sectors feeling pressured by demographic realities.
.
However, without Zionism, there would probably not be an Israel. But IMO they are becoming a theocracy, if not always had been one while claiming not to be.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Is this for real?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)as are the remainder of the Satmar Jews.
R-i-i-i-ght
shira
(30,109 posts)They believe the Jewish state should only come into existence when the Messiah comes. Of course, what happens to Jews when they're minorities again worldwide isn't of much concern, as whatever happens is God's will, and Jews shouldn't actively seek to defend themselves in their own sovereign nation...
intaglio
(8,170 posts)and that anti-zionism is not "inherently" anti-semitic.
Or perhaps you are redefining the word inherent to mean something different. Please inform Merriam-Webster and Oxford University Press to instantly issue an erratum slip!
shira
(30,109 posts)When 99.999999% of the movement trends antisemitic, it's antisemitic.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)BTW prior to WWII amongst Gentiles the Zionist view was anti-Semite because the anti-Semites wanted the Jews out if their countries and shipped to Palestine - forcibly if necessary. That did not make all Zionists inherently anti-Semite.
shira
(30,109 posts)In fact, the author welcomes all comments and will post another article in response if you're interested.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Actually I have already read the article - but you are only interested in tarring anyone who opposed the extremist Government of Israel with the brush of anti-Semitism.
shira
(30,109 posts)And you're wrong, it's not that people are opposed to those who criticize the government.
Anti-zionists want Israel gone altogether. Only Jews are to lose their self-determination and permanently become subjugated vulnerable minorities like they were during the Holocaust. Anti-zionists don't present any better alternative to Jews or Palestinians once Israel is gone.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You seem to be under some delusion about this. You also seem to be in disagreement with Chomsky.
There have long been efforts to identify anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in an effort to exploit anti-racist sentiment for political ends
Part of the problem seems to be that you want all criticism of the Israeli state classed as "anti-Zionist" and hence anti-Semitic when when few who criticise the Israeli State are anti-Zionist and those who are anti-Zionist are not all anti-Semitic. By doing this you are part of a long and dishonourable tradition:
... one of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all...
BTW is Neturei Karta also an anti-Semitic organisation?
shira
(30,109 posts)If you're at all familiar with the anti-zionist movement, it's very difficult finding AZ's who do not support BDS. They overwhelmingly support an antisemitic movement. And of course, anything like anti-zionism that targets Israel alone (for destruction) can be attacked as antisemitism.
From the master himself.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)1) few who criticise the Israeli State are anti-Zionist and ...
2) those who are anti-Zionist are not all anti-Semitic.
Nothing that Chomsky says disproves that. Nothing you say makes Satmar or Neturei Karta anti-Semitic
You and Abba Eban, on the other hand, want to redefine words to the benefit of an out of control Israeli state. If you wish to do that please supply a term that can be used for anti-Zionists who are not anti-Semitic. You wish us to indulge in a variant of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy by asserting that "all true anti-Zionists are anti-Semites."
shira
(30,109 posts)2. With the horrors of persecution fresh in living memory, is it reasonable to expect Jews to exchange the sovereign equality they presently enjoy for permanent subordination to the very states that once persecuted them?
3. How will anti-Zionists fully guarantee Jews’ personal safety from anti-Semitic persecution after they revoke the right of Jews to be the ultimate guarantors of their own security?
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-anti-zionism-is-still-anti-semitic-reply-to-critics/
intaglio
(8,170 posts)1) The Japanese, the Germans and the Iraqis all lost their right to self determine through their behaviour as, of course did the Confederacy. They did get it back but they still lost the right to self determine. What other countries should not have been created? Liberia, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, possibly Pakistan, possibly Northern Ireland and, of course, definitely Gaza. As too losing independence you make an unjustified assumption that there would be a loss of independence if Israel reverted to being Palestine.
2) The horrors of persecution are also visited upon other nationalities, as a proportion of there numbers it can be claimed that more Roma died in the Holocaust and the Roma are still subject to the states that persecute them. The Catholics in Ireland were subjected to horrors and persecution in living memory as were both Tutsi and Hutu; therefore do not claim a special privilege because there was deep and horrific persecution of the Jews. Other peoples have suffered as well and attempting to rank suffering is both futile and, frankly, sickening. You would also seem to claim that the Palestinians persecuted the Jews and that the reestablishment of the state of Palestine would result in another Holocaust, permit me to doubt your logic.
3) You are assuming that the Jewish peoples currently in Palestine would loose all rights. Do you have any evidence of this or is it just paranoia based on the treatment of the Palestinians?
shira
(30,109 posts)1. The Japanese and Germans waged war and lost. Are you calling for the world to wage a just war against Israel so that Israel loses its self-determination? Are you calling for Liberia, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Pakistan, N.Ireland, and Gaza to have their independence reversed since they shouldn't have been created, and if not why not? And of course Israel would lose its independence after Jews become a minority within a majority Arab state. Look around the mideast to see how well all the the Jews are faring in neighboring countries. Cue the sarcasm emoticon...
2. You didn't answer the question: "With the horrors of persecution fresh in living memory, is it reasonable to expect Jews to exchange the sovereign equality they presently enjoy for permanent subordination to the very states that once persecuted them?" The other groups of people you mentioned do not presently enjoy sovereignty or self-determination.
3. Jewish people would become a minority after full RoR. How do you ensure or guarantee their safety? Look around the mideast and you'll find that most Jews were either oppressed, killed, or ethnically cleansed. Check out the situation for christians in countries surrounding Israel, including within Gaza and the W.Bank. Their numbers are dwindling by the year. What makes you think Jews would fare any better than Christians in a majority Arab state?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)1) Actually Czechoslovakia voluntarily ceased to exist, Northern Ireland should become a part of a greater Eire. I forgot to include the examples of South Africa (where a minority white population gave up self determination to a majority black population) and the peoples of Puerto Rico who wish to give up (nominal) self determination. I do find it interesting that, within the current bounds of Israel, you admit that the Jewish population is in the minority which places the Israelis in exactly the same situation as white South Africans. Is that a parallel you wish to acknowledge? Unless you are willing to admit the Israeli state is as repressive as white South Africa.
2) True, although again you reframe your question to suit your argument of the minute - so I'll reframe my answer. You seem to be claiming that a sovereign Palestinian state persecuted the Jews when it is actually the case that the Israeli government has persecuted the Palestinians. As to dominant minorities, such as the Israelis, giving up power - look at the White South Africans and the White Zimbabweans but that last did bring in the lunatic Mugabe. Further back on history? Technically the Scots gave up self determination, though that was the actions of the dictator, James VI; Texas, of course, was sovereign but chose to become part of the Union; Utah negotiated its absorption into the USA although that was under the threat of force majeure; lastly many of the small Italian and German states voluntarily became part of the greater whole.
3) White South Africa, again; the Tejanos. I'm sure if I could - if I could also be a#sed - find further examples for someone who has spent this whole session denying reality, changing the subject and ignoring history.
I am sick and tired of someone who cannot see their preconceptions challenged, who redefines words to suit their narrow and bigoted arguments and seems to think that their faith and race is the only one to suffer throughout history.
shira
(30,109 posts)...than poor, defenseless victims. The Jews are the oppressors. End of story.
Look around the mideast neighborhood and you'll find that the human rights situation for women, blacks, christians, children, and political dissidents is atrocious. Jews are even more hated than them. You are assuming that Jews would live just as well in a greater Palestine than they have been living for the past 65 years in Israel. This is nothing short of delusional.
Your POV requires you to be intentionally blind to the real situation.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)With all the faults and strengths that being human implies. You can only see the Palestinians as potential destroyers, a cartoon villain for a cartoon hero state to beat down. You obviously wish for a minority to continue to rule a majority, in South Africa that was called apartheid and in Sparta that was the Helot system. Do you really wish the memory of the State of Israel to be so tainted?
shira
(30,109 posts)Well over 80% want what that entails....rule via sharia law.
And that means many more dark days for women, christians, blacks, gays, children, and political dissidents. You're probably not even aware of the situation for these oppressed people under Hamas and PLO rule, are you? You should be. I can assure you the Jews of Israel know the situation and that doesn't appeal to them. And if you are aware, why would you think the situation for a Jewish minority would be any better when Jews are hated exponentially more than any other group?
What you're essentially calling for is an end to liberal western democracy in that region, to be replaced by yet another failed Arab sharia state. This is an absolute betrayal of progressive, liberal values. No one would benefit from this greater Palestine. If your goal is simply to destroy Israel regardless of the consequences, then such a POV makes sense. Maybe you can explain to me how your 1-state dream will benefit Palestinians. Convince me...
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You have no answers and no hope; only hatred and loathing. You try and justify your hatred by accusing all who see the manifest flaws in the Israeli state as being anti-Semitic no matter what their actual views. You redefine words to suit your prejudices and excuse the inhumane treatment of a subject people with the sickening justification that if the positions were reversed the Palestinians would do the same to the Israelis; I heard South Africans make the same accusations about their subject peoples on equally little evidence.
You are a hater and a defender of the indefensible. You approve of an undemocratic Government on a message board called Democratic Underground. You approve of inhumane treatment with the claim that the Other that you so fear will be inhumane towards you, but that is not an excuse for the Israelis any more than it was an excuse for the IRA and the UVF. Functionally you are like a a child wailing that "I thought Billy was going to hurt me so I hit him," or a shooter using a stand your ground defense.
You and other apologists like you are condemning the Israeli State to the continued and justified loathing, stemming not from antique prejudices but from honest assessment of the current actions of the state.
shira
(30,109 posts)I want 2 states and I'm perfectly willing to accept a peaceful and genuinely democratic Palestine. Where's the hate?
Your 1-state scenario would benefit no one and would only lead to more conflict. Now that's hate.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)you can support it with fact. Don't run off and throw meaningless queries at us. Support your baseless allegations with facts or step down.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)with more than just the normal personal attacks.
You made the accusations, and I am asking you to back them up with proof.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)with the call-out accusations.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)between religious anti-Zionism and political anti-Zionism, right? They believe different things for different reasons. So, if you want to nitpick the article (which isn't talking about religious anti-Zionism anyway), then you have a point that is as trivial as it is true.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You are participating in a deliberate redefinition of the terms "anti-Zionist" and "inherent". If you read the whole of this sub-thread you will note in my post #60 a quote from Abba Eban, a politician of some considerable eminence, who deliberately wanted the term anti-Zionist redefined as cognate with anti-Semite for purely political purposes. If you are happy to remain a pawn of decease politicians then that is fine, but please do not redefine words on a whim.
I repeat
1) few who criticise the Israeli State are anti-Zionist and ...
2) those who are anti-Zionist are not all anti-Semitic.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)[font color=blue]Either you are making a trivial point about those few anti-Zionists like Sattmar and Neturei Karta who's anti-Zionism is religious rather than politically based, or else you are simply trying to fudge the difference to shield political anti-Zionism from justly being called antisemitic.[/font]
1) few who criticise the Israeli State are anti-Zionist [font color=blue]Even if that were true, it's completely irrelevant since the issue is anti-Zionism; criticism of Israel's existence. And there are plenty of those people on this board. delrem, Scootaloo, Alamati Lotus[not sure if spelled correctly], and others.[/font]
2) those who are anti-Zionist are not all anti-Semitic. [font color=blue]Only those who's anti-Zionism is based on their Jewish religious beliefs. Any other form of anti-Zionism (the vast majority of it) is per se anti-Semitic. Which is why you point is either trivial or dishonest.[/font]
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Firstly, whatever the reasons behind anti-Zionism the aim is a political one - the end of the state of Israeli in its current form and, probably, under that name, therefore there are not 2 classes of anti-Zionism.
Secondly, Neturei Karta is a political party whatever the basis of its ideology, therefore it belongs to the single class of anti-Zionists.
Thirdly, you proceed with false logic on a massive scale. You imply, completely erroneously, that nearly all critics of Israel are anti-Zionist when mostly they regard the continued expansion of the Zionist state to be against international law, current treaty obligations and humanitarian principles. There are many Reform Jews in this class as well as the vast majority of the international community. You then persist in your false dichotomy, continuing with the claim, completely without evidence, that all non-religious anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. Even if a minority of anti-Zionists are not anti-Semitic it falsifies your claim. Let me introduce you to the following article by Wayne Myers in the Independent Nov 2012 Why I am no longer a Zionist
Because of your arguments you have accused the following of being anti-Semitic; "delrem, Scootaloo, Alamati Lotus, and others". Please make clear if you mean to do that: if you did not mean to say that then that too gives the lie to your clam that anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic; on the other hand if you do mean to say they are anti-Semites you are guilty of a gross slur which I would regard as slanderous. It would also appear that you lack both the courage and the conviction to make that statement openly.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If you can make a statement like that, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Or do you regard the Knesset as being a religious convocation?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Do you not know what Neturei Karta is?
I think you may be confusing them with some other group. They certainly do not have any presence in the Knesset.
Can you tell me what Knesset member(s) you are thinking of?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)So how about we agree that United Torah Judaism and Balad are MK
My error was based on a misreading of of an article some years ago.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I certainly do agree that United Torah Judaism and Balad are MK.
Neturei Karta is something altogether different.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Neturei Karta and Sattmar believe different things for different reasons from political anti-Zionists. That is a real difference.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)approximately 6 hours prior to your post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113453419#post75
aranthus
(3,385 posts)See my post 136 where I explain why Jewish anti-Zionism and politically based anti-Zionism are two very different things.
Response to shira (Original post)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)Tell me how anti-zionism would actually help the Palestinians. How it would lead to Palestinians living lives of dignity, where their civil and human rights would be protected, women and gays wouldn't be 2nd or 3rd class citizens....
Anti-zionism wouldn't help Palestinians one bit. Palestinians would continue to be "occupied", under Hamas or the PA's jackboot.
Response to shira (Reply #42)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)...to this conflict help Palestinians?
Response to shira (Reply #48)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)Response to shira (Reply #53)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)...that anti-zionists cannot offer a better alternative to Palestinians and Israelis. All people will suffer or continue to suffer due to the anti-zionist solution to the conflict (no more Israel).
Therefore, anti-zionists have nothing positive to offer in the long-term for any of the people of the region. Their anti-Israel solution to this conflict would be tragic for all. It's basically just an Israel bashing movement that calls for Israel's destruction and will in no way improve the lives of any people in that region.
How am I wrong?
Response to shira (Reply #56)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)Response to shira (Reply #58)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)Is there any Zionist here worth debating, or are we all racist dirtbags to you?
Response to shira (Reply #62)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Please do not use such a broad brush; you are but one step away from branding all Jews who hate the current regime in Israel as "self-hating."
shira
(30,109 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)and the false assumptions it makes about anti-Zionism.
shira
(30,109 posts)If that were the case, every Israeli would be antisemitic for criticizing the GOI.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)
PoliticalPothead
(220 posts)I'm also against white supremacy, black supremacy, and any other ideology that holds one race in higher regard than others. Does that make me racist against everyone?
shira
(30,109 posts)2. With the horrors of persecution fresh in living memory, is it reasonable to expect Jews to exchange the sovereign equality they presently enjoy for permanent subordination to the very states that once persecuted them?
3. How will anti-Zionists fully guarantee Jews’ personal safety from anti-Semitic persecution after they revoke the right of Jews to be the ultimate guarantors of their own security?
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-anti-zionism-is-still-anti-semitic-reply-to-critics/
PoliticalPothead
(220 posts)1. No one is suggesting that the Jewish people should lose their right to self-determination, only that their self-determination should not rely on the oppression of the Palestinian people.
2. Again, no one is telling the Jews to give up their sovereignty, only that their sovereignty should not be built on the remains of bulldozed Palestinian homes. Also, many Jews are comfortably living in the "very states that once persecuted them" without any complaints.
3. I cannot speak for all anti-Zionists, but personally I would advocate for anti-discrimination and hate-speech laws and for schools to teach people about race relations and the history of institutional and interpersonal racism. Also, like I said, many Jews are comfortably living in places other than Israel without facing any sort of anti-Semitic persecution.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)4/5th of the Jewish population of the world live in just two countries, the US and Israel.
Add the UK, France, and Canada and you've got more than 90 percent of the Jewish population of the world living in only 5 countries.
OutNow
(863 posts)I do agree that some people and groups who claim they are (merely) anti-Zionist are actually anti-Semitic. But to assert that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semetic ignores the historical battle among Jews on the Zionism question.
The left of the 20th century included many Jewish leaders and members. They all wanted a better future, but there was a huge disagreement about how to attain this future. Anyone familiar with the story of Golda Meir knows she was a socialist and a Zionist. She and others with similar politics emigrated to Israel and formed the Israeli labor Party. Many other progressive Jews believed in a secular socialist future in the countries where they resided and a secular socialist future for Palestine.
The "Jewish question", as it was known, caused deep rifts in the Jewish community around the world, splitting Jewish social organizations and political groups. It split families apart. One of my old union friends from Philadelphia became estranged from his 4 siblings and his family were never included in religious holiday gatherings and family weddings, etc. for over 30 years because of his anti-Zionism.
This was, and still is, an important issue. And I am an anti-Zionist. I am not anti-Semitic.
shira
(30,109 posts)2. With the horrors of persecution fresh in living memory, is it reasonable to expect Jews to exchange the sovereign equality they presently enjoy for permanent subordination to the very states that once persecuted them?
3. How will anti-Zionists fully guarantee Jews’ personal safety from anti-Semitic persecution after they revoke the right of Jews to be the ultimate guarantors of their own security?
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-anti-zionism-is-still-anti-semitic-reply-to-critics/
Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)To be against a nation slowly taking land from a indigenous people who have no ability to defend themselves against the most powerful military in the region. Now that doesn't mean i don't think Israel has a right to exists in fact the damage was done and its to late to go back but now this expansion needs to stop it is inherently immoral and evil and it always has been anytime anyone has done it including the US with Native Americans.
This is why most of the western world is angry with the Israeli government, until Zionist understand that things will only get worse politically, simply calling people racist will not help your cause gain anymore traction, times have changed.
We don't hate you in the west we just can see the difference between what is right and what is wrong, religion is no excuse to force people from land they lived on for generations.
I don't believe anyone has a religious right to oppress anyone else and that's exactly what all this is a religious belief, the reason people give Israel a hard time is we want you to be the good guys, we want to support you but you are making it very difficult behaving like tyrants.
Again i want to point out because it seems it is difficult for Zionist to understand, you have a right to exists with the land you did not seize, the settlements need to stop and so does the Apartheid, i know your scared much like republicans in this country are always scared of black people but possible danger is one of the price's of freedom, if you defend against every possible fear you will be left with no freedom and no friends and that's the only thing that will destroy Israel.