Zi·on·ism (zī'ə-nĭz'əm)
n. A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.
Zionism has in principle nothing to do with any sort of racist belief. Zionism does not as an ideology demand hatred of Arabs, and it does not as an ideology cast the Jewish people as inherently superior to any other people. Zionism is simply the desire of the Jewish people to have a sovereign state in our homeland. There are certainly racist Zionists, but their racism is not a manifestation of their Zionism. Byrnzie, you are quite frankly wrong. I am a committed Zionist. So are my parents. We have friends from many races, including Palestinians. We do not think that Jews are inherently better in any way than any other group of people. Your comparison of Zionism to Nazism is not only wrong, it is insulting and abhorrent, and to be honest, I lose a little more respect for you every time you make it.
Zi·on·ism (zī'ə-nĭz'əm)
n. A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.
Zionism has in principle nothing to do with any sort of racist belief. Zionism does not as an ideology demand hatred of Arabs, and it does not as an ideology cast the Jewish people as inherently superior to any other people. Zionism is simply the desire of the Jewish people to have a sovereign state in our homeland. There are certainly racist Zionists, but their racism is not a manifestation of their Zionism. Byrnzie, you are quite frankly wrong. I am a committed Zionist. So are my parents. We have friends from many races, including Palestinians. We do not think that Jews are inherently better in any way than any other group of people. Your comparison of Zionism to Nazism is not only wrong, it is insulting and abhorrent, and to be honest, I lose a little more respect for you every time you make it.
1. "Clearly, the last thing the Zionists really wanted was that all the inhabitants of Palestine should have an equal say in running the country...[Chaim] Weizmann had impressed on Churchill that representative government would have spelled the end of the [Jewish] National Home in Palestine..."
-David Hirst
2. "the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights...Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise." (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins.")
3. ""If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine—nearly nine-tenths of the whole—are emphatically against the entire Zionist program...To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted..."
(The Israel-Arab Reader" ed. Laquer and Rubin.)
4. "Arab rejection [of the UN Partition Plan in 1947] was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body—a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter."
(Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest.")
Michael Neumann:
Zionism was a movement that advocated not so much the defense of an ethnic group, as the formation of such a group in Palestine, where those who were thought to fit a certain semi-racial category were to find refuge. It was a lovely dream where all Jews would live happily together and, with typical Wilsonian obliviousness, no one seemed to notice that those who did not pass ethnic muster had no place in this fantasy. If they were to be tolerated, welcomed, even loved, it was to be at the pleasure of the Jews. Of that there could be no mistake. This is exactly the sort of vulnerable subordination that Jews, quite understandably, were trying to escape. "Trust us, we'll be nice" is not a promise endorsed by the historical record.
Zionists respond with fury when their movement is identified with racism. Many ethnic supremacists do. They protest that they do not advocate their own superiority, but simply want a land or culture of their own. But that is of neccesity a land where one race is guaranteed supremacy: whether or not this is on grounds of intrinsic superiority hardly matters. And that such movements and attitudes gain respectability is not the fault of the Zionists, much less of the Jews, but of an idiotically false tolerance of ethnic nationalism.'
Zionism has in principle nothing to do with any sort of racist belief. Zionism does not as an ideology demand hatred of Arabs, and it does not as an ideology cast the Jewish people as inherently superior to any other people. Zionism is simply the desire of the Jewish people to have a sovereign state in our homeland. There are certainly racist Zionists, but their racism is not a manifestation of their Zionism. Byrnzie, you are quite frankly wrong. I am a committed Zionist. So are my parents. We have friends from many races, including Palestinians. We do not think that Jews are inherently better in any way than any other group of people. Your comparison of Zionism to Nazism is not only wrong, it is insulting and abhorrent, and to be honest, I lose a little more respect for you every time you make it.
Zionism's destabilizing force: "Israeli Exceptionalism" reviewed
Ahmed Moor, The Electronic Intifada, 20 January 2010
In his new book Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism, M. Shahid Alam successfully argues that the moral force behind the Zionist movement is a sense of Jewish, and consequently Israeli, exceptionalism. This claim of exceptionalism underpins what he calls the "destabilizing logic of Zionism." According to Alam, Zionism "could advance only by creating and promoting conflicts between the West and the Islamicate" (p. 3). He defines the "Islamicate" as consisting of the broader Muslim world, with the Middle East at its heart.
Alam, a professor of economics at Boston's Northeastern University, begins his book by detailing the core problem that confronted the nascent Zionist movement: the creation of a Jewish nation from disparate and scattered Jewish communities. Zionists set out to solve this problem by creating a myth of exceptionalism that could be embraced by Jews around the globe. These myths were steeped in a combination of religious mythology and ethnic nationalist exclusivism that presented the Jews as the "chosen people" (p. 9) and Palestine as their sole and God-given birthright.
These claims were expanded upon during the British mandate of Palestine and after the founding of the State of Israel. Zionists asserted that the Jewish "liberation" movement was different from other liberation movements because "the long history of Jewish suffering, the Jewish ability to outlive their enemies, their signal contributions to human civilization, and their spectacular victories against Arab armies" demonstrated the purity of their cause and their exceptionalism (p. 5). Finally, they argued that Israel was a singular case because it was surrounded and threatened by hostile and murderous Arab states and masses. Through these arguments, Alam asserts, Zionists cultivated an environment that overlooks and in some cases endorses their movement's human rights abuses and racist policies.
In the second segment of the book, Alam examines the history of the region, reviewing the violent history of the early Zionist colonists and describing it as a core, rather than incidental, program of Zionism. Violent, racist attitudes towards the Arabs generally and the Palestinians specifically had to be nurtured by those who would make Palestine the Jewish homeland. They acted as intermediaries between the "West" and the "Islamicate" insofar as they were of the former and claimed to understand the latter. To galvanize Western support for Israel, it was vital for Zionists to create a myth of Muslim-Christian antipathy. Alam paraphrases the perceptions caused by the myth: "f the Islamists vent their anger at the United States, it is not because of its policies, but because it is Christian" (p. 42). Naturally then, a Jewish state in Palestine could act both as a buffer against Muslim masses, and a projection of Western power and interests. This is the argument presented by some Zionists.
It wasn't enough to argue that the Arabs were uncivil to gain their land. Zionists also had to align themselves with anti-Semitic elements in Europe to advance their goals. Alam writes, "In the 1930s, the Nazis banned all Jewish organizations except those with Zionist aims; they even allowed the Zionists to fly their blue-and-white flag with the Star of David at its center. In violation of the Jewish boycott of the Nazi economy, the Zionists promised cash and trade concessions to Nazi Germany if they directed Jewish emigrants to Palestine" (p. 123). This was necessary to promote Jewish emigration to Palestine. The reality was, and continues to be today, that when Jewish people from Eastern Europe are given the choice, many will choose to emigrate to Western Europe and the US before Israel.
Through these means, Zionists gained the support of a variety of surrogate mother countries across the decades. Anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and anti-Islamism, and Jewish influence all came together to persuade the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain and of course, the United States to support Zionism.
Israeli Exceptionalism also sheds light on British, and later, American evangelical support for Zionism. Evangelical Zionists, broadly termed Christian Zionists, came into being as a result of the Great Reformation. Catholics believe that God nullified his covenant with the Jews when they rejected Jesus Christ. But when Protestants overthrew the authority of the Catholic Church, they sought to differentiate themselves by reinstating God's covenant with the Jews and recognizing "the Jews as God's chosen people with eternal rights to Palestine" (p. 130). Although created by Jewish Americans, the American Palestine Committee (APC) was intended to marshal Christian support for the Jewish occupation of Palestine. By 1941, the APC's membership included "70 US senators, 120 congressmen, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Interior, 21 state governors" and other prominent individuals (p. 134). Reinhold Niebuhr and other leading Christian Zionists later created the Christian Council on Palestine to influence fellow clergymen.
Alam argues convincingly that Zionism itself is destabilizing, and the force that sustains it -- tension between the West and Islamic societies -- is a deliberate, not incidental, feature of Zionism. Israeli Exceptionalism manages to provide a fresh view to a vast library of literature on Zionism by dispelling the myth of Jewish disempowerment and highlighting the role of anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic sentiment inherent in Israel's establishment. His discussion of Reformation theology is also crucial to understanding the long-standing support for a "Jewish Palestine" in American civil life, even before the founding of Israel. Alam's straightforward and accessible discussion of the world's last "exclusive settler colony" makes Israeli Exceptionalism an important addition to the scholarship on Israel-Palestine.
There are certainly racist Zionists, but their racism is not a manifestation of their Zionism.
Zionism is an ideology that claims Jewish exceptionalism and an inherent God-given right to the whole of the land of Palestine - and if that means at the expense of it's Arab inhabitants, then so much the worse for the Arabs.
Your response reflects what enemies of Israel would like to believe Zionism is. It does not actually address the reality of Zionism. I am a Zionist. I do not believe that Jews are exceptional, and I don't even really believe in God, so I certainly don't believe that Jews have a God-given right to the land of Israel. In fact my Zionism grows in large part out of the realization that Jews are very unexceptional, except perhaps for the fact that we are exceptionally hated, and that there is no God that will miraculously intervene in history to save and protect us. Jews are just like every other people. We have to take care of ourselves in an uncaring world. I am a Zionist because I believe that Jews have the same right as all other peoples to self-determination in our homeland.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Your response reflects what enemies of Israel would like to believe Zionism is. It does not actually address the reality of Zionism. I am a Zionist. I do not believe that Jews are exceptional, and I don't even really believe in God, so I certainly don't believe that Jews have a God-given right to the land of Israel. In fact my Zionism grows in large part out of the realization that Jews are very unexceptional, except perhaps for the fact that we are exceptionally hated, and that there is no God that will miraculously intervene in history to save and protect us. Jews are just like every other people. We have to take care of ourselves in an uncaring world. I am a Zionist because I believe that Jews have the same right as all other peoples to self-determination in our homeland.
maybe you need to ask yourself why in 2007 only 17% of the world saw Israel in a positive way? or do you sweep it all to being anti-semitism?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Your response reflects what enemies of Israel would like to believe Zionism is. It does not actually address the reality of Zionism. I am a Zionist. I do not believe that Jews are exceptional, and I don't even really believe in God, so I certainly don't believe that Jews have a God-given right to the land of Israel. In fact my Zionism grows in large part out of the realization that Jews are very unexceptional, except perhaps for the fact that we are exceptionally hated, and that there is no God that will miraculously intervene in history to save and protect us. Jews are just like every other people. We have to take care of ourselves in an uncaring world. I am a Zionist because I believe that Jews have the same right as all other peoples to self-determination in our homeland.
maybe you need to ask yourself why in 2007 only 17% of the world saw Israel in a positive way? or do you sweep it all to being anti-semitism?
So world opinion is now somehow the same thing as truth? At one point, everyone believed the world was flat, too. Also, not agreeing with Israel's actions in Palestine is NOT the same thing as anti-Semitism, and it is not clear to me what your statistic reflects.
Your response reflects what enemies of Israel would like to believe Zionism is. It does not actually address the reality of Zionism. I am a Zionist. I do not believe that Jews are exceptional, and I don't even really believe in God, so I certainly don't believe that Jews have a God-given right to the land of Israel. In fact my Zionism grows in large part out of the realization that Jews are very unexceptional, except perhaps for the fact that we are exceptionally hated, and that there is no God that will miraculously intervene in history to save and protect us. Jews are just like every other people. We have to take care of ourselves in an uncaring world. I am a Zionist because I believe that Jews have the same right as all other peoples to self-determination in our homeland.
maybe you need to ask yourself why in 2007 only 17% of the world saw Israel in a positive way? or do you sweep it all to being anti-semitism?
So world opinion is now somehow the same thing as truth? At one point, everyone believed the world was flat, too. Also, not agreeing with Israel's actions in Palestine is NOT the same thing as anti-Semitism, and it is not clear to me what your statistic reflects.
so you are saying the world is just naive and misguided in those polls? the statistic was pretty clear: Respondents were asked to rate 12 countries -- Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the USA, Venezuela -- and the European Union, as having a positive or negative influence.
and only 17% thinks Israel has a positive influence in the world, the lowest polled, ahead of the devil state Iran. even more 4 years earlier the EU said Israel was the #1 threat to world peace.
it reflects that the majority of the world does not buy the victim and self defense card, except for a very few countries, and perhaps it's not anti-semitism to question Israel's actions but common sense?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
so you are saying the world is just naive and misguided in those polls? the statistic was pretty clear: Respondents were asked to rate 12 countries -- Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the USA, Venezuela -- and the European Union, as having a positive or negative influence.
and only 17% thinks Israel has a positive influence in the world, the lowest polled, ahead of the devil state Iran. even more 4 years earlier the EU said Israel was the #1 threat to world peace.
it reflects that the majority of the world does not buy the victim and self defense card, except for a very few countries, and perhaps it's not anti-semitism to question Israel's actions but common sense?
Not necessarily, although I might question whether people in Iran or North Korea should really be casting stones at other nations for human rights abuses ... I can agree with the basic notion that questioning Israel's actions is more than justified, as I've said many times before. I don't feel that your poll data can actually be used to argue against the existence of anti-Semitism, though, which seemed to be your intent. Maybe I misunderstood.
That poll is an interesting but shallow overview of the views of other countries. There is no depth to it in that it doesn't delve at all into why the citizens of one country would feel one way or another about the other countries on the list. So it doesn't prove or disprove anti-semitism. For that, they'd need to focus on the reasoning behind people's answers, which that poll doesn't do. You can't possibly know just by looking at that poll whether a particular individual rated Israel negatively because they are against the violence on both sides or whether it was because they hold anti-semitic views. The pollsters don't even attempt to do that.
BTW, citing Germany as the country with the most anti-Israel sentiment (outside of the Middle East countries) doesn't exactly bolster your claim that the poll proves a lack of anti-semitism, either.
Off the top of my head I'd say that if you wanted to post a poll that proves or disproves anti-semitism in a country or the world, then find one that is an official report of anti-semitic violence or incidents reported to police. Right?
That poll is an interesting but shallow overview of the views of other countries. There is no depth to it in that it doesn't delve at all into why the citizens of one country would feel one way or another about the other countries on the list. So it doesn't prove or disprove anti-semitism. For that, they'd need to focus on the reasoning behind people's answers, which that poll doesn't do. You can't possibly know just by looking at that poll whether a particular individual rated Israel negatively because they are against the violence on both sides or whether it was because they hold anti-semitic views. The pollsters don't even attempt to do that.
BTW, citing Germany as the country with the most anti-Israel sentiment (outside of the Middle East countries) doesn't exactly bolster your claim that the poll proves a lack of anti-semitism, either.
of course it doesn't but i'm tired of certain people calling others anti-semites because they are critical of Israel's actions. this poll shows, in 2007 at least, most people view Israel as being a negative influence in the world, 4 years before that the EU thought Israel was the biggest threat to world peace with the most thinking that being Holland. naturally, some of the people who voted that way ARE anti-semites but my point wasn't to disprove anti-semitism exists, it was to ask if i'm an anti-semite because i am critical of Israel then are all these other people anti-semites as well?
are you saying germany is anti-semitic? i am aware of the history but people like yosi say 2 decades ago is too long to hold against anyone, so why hold on to more than twice that?
basically i'm saying unless i'm supposed to believe 3/4 of Holland and more than 1/2 the EU are anti-semites there are valid reasons to be critical of Israel's actions and obviously a whole lot of people agree, despite the attempts to make it seem like only crazy anti-semites frothing at the mouth are critical.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
That poll is an interesting but shallow overview of the views of other countries. There is no depth to it in that it doesn't delve at all into why the citizens of one country would feel one way or another about the other countries on the list. So it doesn't prove or disprove anti-semitism. For that, they'd need to focus on the reasoning behind people's answers, which that poll doesn't do. You can't possibly know just by looking at that poll whether a particular individual rated Israel negatively because they are against the violence on both sides or whether it was because they hold anti-semitic views. The pollsters don't even attempt to do that.
BTW, citing Germany as the country with the most anti-Israel sentiment (outside of the Middle East countries) doesn't exactly bolster your claim that the poll proves a lack of anti-semitism, either.
+1 ... Much better explained that what I wrote. I am writing exam questions, and didn't have the energy. :P
of course it doesn't but i'm tired of certain people calling others anti-semites because they are critical of Israel's actions.
Yeah, it's frustrating but it's also par for the course in these situations - it's not limited to discussions of Israel by any means. Example, I've heard white Americans complain that they can't criticize African-Americans at all lest they be called racists, etc.
are you saying germany is anti-semitic? i am aware of the history but people like yosi say 2 decades ago is too long to hold against anyone, so why hold on to more than twice that?
I was saying that kind of tongue-in-cheek Although, as far as I'm aware there has been a rise in anti-semitic violence across many EU nations.
of course it doesn't but i'm tired of certain people calling others anti-semites because they are critical of Israel's actions.
Yeah, it's frustrating but it's also par for the course in these situations - it's not limited to discussions of Israel by any means. Example, I've heard white Americans complain that they can't criticize African-Americans at all lest they be called racists, etc.
are you saying germany is anti-semitic? i am aware of the history but people like yosi say 2 decades ago is too long to hold against anyone, so why hold on to more than twice that?
I was saying that kind of tongue-in-cheek Although, as far as I'm aware there has been a rise in anti-semitic violence across many EU nations.
yeah, i looked it up after your last post. though, i don't know how they category it as anti-semitism, while i'm sure there are attacks rooted in that but could any just be the wrong place at the wrong time?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
To clarify, I'm not saying that you are an anti-semite. I don't know you so I couldn't honestly say such a thing. What I AM SAYING is that judging by the obsessiveness of your focus on Israel, and the hysterically negative tone you use when discussing the country it seems fair to me to at least question your motives.
To put it another way...I am not saying that you are an anti-semite because you attack/criticize Israel. I am saying that perhaps you attack/criticize Israel because you are an anti-semite.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I am a Zionist because I believe that Jews have the same right as all other peoples to self-determination in our homeland.
It's not YOUR land.
I beg to differ (and as an aside I do not deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim to the land. I believe both Jews and Palestinians have legitimate claims).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I beg to differ (and as an aside I do not deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim to the land. I believe both Jews and Palestinians have legitimate claims).
Except that these 'legitimate claims' you speak of don't involve the international consensus of a two-state solution along the 1967 border, but instead involve the right of the Palestinians to accept whatever the Israelis want. I.e, the Palestinians have a legitimate right to live within a number of South African style bantustans, separated from each other by Israeli checkpoints, and with no control over their borders, sea space, or air-space, and with a constant Israeli military presence over their lives, something akin to the Warsaw Ghetto.
I beg to differ (and as an aside I do not deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim to the land. I believe both Jews and Palestinians have legitimate claims).
Except that these 'legitimate claims' you speak don't involve the international consensus of a two-state solution along the 1967 border, but instead involve the right of the Palestinians to accept whatever the Israelis want. I.e, the Palestinians have a legitimate right to live within a number of South African style bantustans, separated from each other by Israeli checkpoints, and with no control over their borders, sea space, or air-space, and with a constant Israeli military presence over their lives, something akin to the Warsaw Ghetto.
Exactly. The issue of whose claims are more legit is not even relevant anymore, despite the fact that many in the Muslim world and elsewhere continue to flog this dead horse.
....but why are my Jewish friends so cliquie....they live in Jewish towns, with Jewish wives, in Jewish jobs...there is no assimilation at all...just curious.
I beg to differ (and as an aside I do not deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim to the land. I believe both Jews and Palestinians have legitimate claims).
Except that these 'legitimate claims' you speak don't involve the international consensus of a two-state solution along the 1967 border, but instead involve the right of the Palestinians to accept whatever the Israelis want. I.e, the Palestinians have a legitimate right to live within a number of South African style bantustans, separated from each other by Israeli checkpoints, and with no control over their borders, sea space, or air-space, and with a constant Israeli military presence over their lives, something akin to the Warsaw Ghetto.
No, I'm talking about a Palestinian state that is contiguous on almost all of the West Bank with some swapped land added in as an exchange for the parts of the West Bank Israel would keep (which would be probably no more than 7% max). Capital in East Jerusalem, a viable agreement on sharing water resouces, and a right of return for Palestinians to the new state of Palestine.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I beg to differ (and as an aside I do not deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim to the land. I believe both Jews and Palestinians have legitimate claims).
Except that these 'legitimate claims' you speak don't involve the international consensus of a two-state solution along the 1967 border, but instead involve the right of the Palestinians to accept whatever the Israelis want. I.e, the Palestinians have a legitimate right to live within a number of South African style bantustans, separated from each other by Israeli checkpoints, and with no control over their borders, sea space, or air-space, and with a constant Israeli military presence over their lives, something akin to the Warsaw Ghetto.
No, I'm talking about a Palestinian state that is contiguous on almost all of the West Bank with some swapped land added in as an exchange for the parts of the West Bank Israel would keep (which would be probably no more than 7% max). Capital in East Jerusalem, a viable agreement on sharing water resouces, and a right of return for Palestinians to the new state of Palestine.
So my grandparents don't have a legitimate claim to their home in Yaffa? Is that what you are telling me? That Russian/Eastern European Jews have more of a legitimate claim to live in Yaffa than my grandfather, who ran a business and traced family roots to these towns, well before he was kicked out of the land by Jewish terrorist gangs? The legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel in general is at the very least questionable. I can't believe that those who advocate for one-state for two people are seen as crazy, whereas those who defend keeping a racist, Jewish state alive are seen as moderates, even if means creating a Palestinian state, at the mercy of Israel, alongside it. For those of you who don't know, apartheid is alive and well in Israel proper, not just the West Bank and Gaza.
i absolutely hate how isreal can do whatever the hell it wants without any pressure or sanction from the rest of the civiized world, but that does not make me anti semitic...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I beg to differ (and as an aside I do not deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim to the land. I believe both Jews and Palestinians have legitimate claims).
Except that these 'legitimate claims' you speak don't involve the international consensus of a two-state solution along the 1967 border, but instead involve the right of the Palestinians to accept whatever the Israelis want. I.e, the Palestinians have a legitimate right to live within a number of South African style bantustans, separated from each other by Israeli checkpoints, and with no control over their borders, sea space, or air-space, and with a constant Israeli military presence over their lives, something akin to the Warsaw Ghetto.
No, I'm talking about a Palestinian state that is contiguous on almost all of the West Bank with some swapped land added in as an exchange for the parts of the West Bank Israel would keep (which would be probably no more than 7% max). Capital in East Jerusalem, a viable agreement on sharing water resouces, and a right of return for Palestinians to the new state of Palestine.
Exactly. You want it your way, contrary to what lawfully belongs to you. You have no right to these 'parts of the West Bank'. No right whatsoever. And East Jerusalem was occupied in '67 and so also doesn't fit that criteria.
And meanwhile the illegal settlements keep being built.
No it isn't. The occupied territories are illegal under international law, as is the criminal blockade of Gaza.
I don't think the complete removal of Israel is realistic. You can stop the land development, but a removal of a state thats been there for 60 years isn't going to happen.
Sounds like you're apart of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Fan Club; any better then Ten Club when it comes to getting tickets?
To clarify, I'm not saying that you are an anti-semite. I don't know you so I couldn't honestly say such a thing. What I AM SAYING is that judging by the obsessiveness of your focus on Israel, and the hysterically negative tone you use when discussing the country it seems fair to me to at least question your motives.
To put it another way...I am not saying that you are an anti-semite because you attack/criticize Israel. I am saying that perhaps you attack/criticize Israel because you are an anti-semite.
typical yosi, talking in circles....you aren't saying i'm an anti-semite, just perhaps i am?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Comments
Good for you Yosi.
1. "Clearly, the last thing the Zionists really wanted was that all the inhabitants of Palestine should have an equal say in running the country...[Chaim] Weizmann had impressed on Churchill that representative government would have spelled the end of the [Jewish] National Home in Palestine..."
-David Hirst
2. "the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights...Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise." (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins.")
3. ""If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine—nearly nine-tenths of the whole—are emphatically against the entire Zionist program...To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted..."
(The Israel-Arab Reader" ed. Laquer and Rubin.)
4. "Arab rejection [of the UN Partition Plan in 1947] was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body—a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter."
(Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest.")
Michael Neumann:
Zionism was a movement that advocated not so much the defense of an ethnic group, as the formation of such a group in Palestine, where those who were thought to fit a certain semi-racial category were to find refuge. It was a lovely dream where all Jews would live happily together and, with typical Wilsonian obliviousness, no one seemed to notice that those who did not pass ethnic muster had no place in this fantasy. If they were to be tolerated, welcomed, even loved, it was to be at the pleasure of the Jews. Of that there could be no mistake. This is exactly the sort of vulnerable subordination that Jews, quite understandably, were trying to escape. "Trust us, we'll be nice" is not a promise endorsed by the historical record.
Zionists respond with fury when their movement is identified with racism. Many ethnic supremacists do. They protest that they do not advocate their own superiority, but simply want a land or culture of their own. But that is of neccesity a land where one race is guaranteed supremacy: whether or not this is on grounds of intrinsic superiority hardly matters. And that such movements and attitudes gain respectability is not the fault of the Zionists, much less of the Jews, but of an idiotically false tolerance of ethnic nationalism.'
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11020.shtml
Zionism's destabilizing force: "Israeli Exceptionalism" reviewed
Ahmed Moor, The Electronic Intifada, 20 January 2010
In his new book Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism, M. Shahid Alam successfully argues that the moral force behind the Zionist movement is a sense of Jewish, and consequently Israeli, exceptionalism. This claim of exceptionalism underpins what he calls the "destabilizing logic of Zionism." According to Alam, Zionism "could advance only by creating and promoting conflicts between the West and the Islamicate" (p. 3). He defines the "Islamicate" as consisting of the broader Muslim world, with the Middle East at its heart.
Alam, a professor of economics at Boston's Northeastern University, begins his book by detailing the core problem that confronted the nascent Zionist movement: the creation of a Jewish nation from disparate and scattered Jewish communities. Zionists set out to solve this problem by creating a myth of exceptionalism that could be embraced by Jews around the globe. These myths were steeped in a combination of religious mythology and ethnic nationalist exclusivism that presented the Jews as the "chosen people" (p. 9) and Palestine as their sole and God-given birthright.
These claims were expanded upon during the British mandate of Palestine and after the founding of the State of Israel. Zionists asserted that the Jewish "liberation" movement was different from other liberation movements because "the long history of Jewish suffering, the Jewish ability to outlive their enemies, their signal contributions to human civilization, and their spectacular victories against Arab armies" demonstrated the purity of their cause and their exceptionalism (p. 5). Finally, they argued that Israel was a singular case because it was surrounded and threatened by hostile and murderous Arab states and masses. Through these arguments, Alam asserts, Zionists cultivated an environment that overlooks and in some cases endorses their movement's human rights abuses and racist policies.
In the second segment of the book, Alam examines the history of the region, reviewing the violent history of the early Zionist colonists and describing it as a core, rather than incidental, program of Zionism. Violent, racist attitudes towards the Arabs generally and the Palestinians specifically had to be nurtured by those who would make Palestine the Jewish homeland. They acted as intermediaries between the "West" and the "Islamicate" insofar as they were of the former and claimed to understand the latter. To galvanize Western support for Israel, it was vital for Zionists to create a myth of Muslim-Christian antipathy. Alam paraphrases the perceptions caused by the myth: "f the Islamists vent their anger at the United States, it is not because of its policies, but because it is Christian" (p. 42). Naturally then, a Jewish state in Palestine could act both as a buffer against Muslim masses, and a projection of Western power and interests. This is the argument presented by some Zionists.
It wasn't enough to argue that the Arabs were uncivil to gain their land. Zionists also had to align themselves with anti-Semitic elements in Europe to advance their goals. Alam writes, "In the 1930s, the Nazis banned all Jewish organizations except those with Zionist aims; they even allowed the Zionists to fly their blue-and-white flag with the Star of David at its center. In violation of the Jewish boycott of the Nazi economy, the Zionists promised cash and trade concessions to Nazi Germany if they directed Jewish emigrants to Palestine" (p. 123). This was necessary to promote Jewish emigration to Palestine. The reality was, and continues to be today, that when Jewish people from Eastern Europe are given the choice, many will choose to emigrate to Western Europe and the US before Israel.
Through these means, Zionists gained the support of a variety of surrogate mother countries across the decades. Anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and anti-Islamism, and Jewish influence all came together to persuade the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain and of course, the United States to support Zionism.
Israeli Exceptionalism also sheds light on British, and later, American evangelical support for Zionism. Evangelical Zionists, broadly termed Christian Zionists, came into being as a result of the Great Reformation. Catholics believe that God nullified his covenant with the Jews when they rejected Jesus Christ. But when Protestants overthrew the authority of the Catholic Church, they sought to differentiate themselves by reinstating God's covenant with the Jews and recognizing "the Jews as God's chosen people with eternal rights to Palestine" (p. 130). Although created by Jewish Americans, the American Palestine Committee (APC) was intended to marshal Christian support for the Jewish occupation of Palestine. By 1941, the APC's membership included "70 US senators, 120 congressmen, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Interior, 21 state governors" and other prominent individuals (p. 134). Reinhold Niebuhr and other leading Christian Zionists later created the Christian Council on Palestine to influence fellow clergymen.
Alam argues convincingly that Zionism itself is destabilizing, and the force that sustains it -- tension between the West and Islamic societies -- is a deliberate, not incidental, feature of Zionism. Israeli Exceptionalism manages to provide a fresh view to a vast library of literature on Zionism by dispelling the myth of Jewish disempowerment and highlighting the role of anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic sentiment inherent in Israel's establishment. His discussion of Reformation theology is also crucial to understanding the long-standing support for a "Jewish Palestine" in American civil life, even before the founding of Israel. Alam's straightforward and accessible discussion of the world's last "exclusive settler colony" makes Israeli Exceptionalism an important addition to the scholarship on Israel-Palestine.
Zionism is an ideology that claims Jewish exceptionalism and an inherent God-given right to the whole of the land of Palestine - and if that means at the expense of it's Arab inhabitants, then so much the worse for the Arabs.
maybe you need to ask yourself why in 2007 only 17% of the world saw Israel in a positive way? or do you sweep it all to being anti-semitism?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
So world opinion is now somehow the same thing as truth? At one point, everyone believed the world was flat, too. Also, not agreeing with Israel's actions in Palestine is NOT the same thing as anti-Semitism, and it is not clear to me what your statistic reflects.
so you are saying the world is just naive and misguided in those polls? the statistic was pretty clear: Respondents were asked to rate 12 countries -- Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the USA, Venezuela -- and the European Union, as having a positive or negative influence.
and only 17% thinks Israel has a positive influence in the world, the lowest polled, ahead of the devil state Iran. even more 4 years earlier the EU said Israel was the #1 threat to world peace.
it reflects that the majority of the world does not buy the victim and self defense card, except for a very few countries, and perhaps it's not anti-semitism to question Israel's actions but common sense?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Not necessarily, although I might question whether people in Iran or North Korea should really be casting stones at other nations for human rights abuses ... I can agree with the basic notion that questioning Israel's actions is more than justified, as I've said many times before. I don't feel that your poll data can actually be used to argue against the existence of anti-Semitism, though, which seemed to be your intent. Maybe I misunderstood.
BTW, citing Germany as the country with the most anti-Israel sentiment (outside of the Middle East countries) doesn't exactly bolster your claim that the poll proves a lack of anti-semitism, either.
of course it doesn't but i'm tired of certain people calling others anti-semites because they are critical of Israel's actions. this poll shows, in 2007 at least, most people view Israel as being a negative influence in the world, 4 years before that the EU thought Israel was the biggest threat to world peace with the most thinking that being Holland. naturally, some of the people who voted that way ARE anti-semites but my point wasn't to disprove anti-semitism exists, it was to ask if i'm an anti-semite because i am critical of Israel then are all these other people anti-semites as well?
are you saying germany is anti-semitic? i am aware of the history but people like yosi say 2 decades ago is too long to hold against anyone, so why hold on to more than twice that?
basically i'm saying unless i'm supposed to believe 3/4 of Holland and more than 1/2 the EU are anti-semites there are valid reasons to be critical of Israel's actions and obviously a whole lot of people agree, despite the attempts to make it seem like only crazy anti-semites frothing at the mouth are critical.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
+1 ... Much better explained that what I wrote. I am writing exam questions, and didn't have the energy. :P
Yeah, it's frustrating but it's also par for the course in these situations - it's not limited to discussions of Israel by any means. Example, I've heard white Americans complain that they can't criticize African-Americans at all lest they be called racists, etc.
I was saying that kind of tongue-in-cheek
yeah, i looked it up after your last post. though, i don't know how they category it as anti-semitism, while i'm sure there are attacks rooted in that but could any just be the wrong place at the wrong time?
here is the anti-semitic violence report
http://www.humanrightsfirst.biz/pdf/fd/ ... m-web2.pdf
here is the anti-muslim violence, though, the US was the only one previously tracking this.
http://www.eumap.org/library/static/lib ... ganub1.pdf
same people for both reports
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
To put it another way...I am not saying that you are an anti-semite because you attack/criticize Israel. I am saying that perhaps you attack/criticize Israel because you are an anti-semite.
I beg to differ (and as an aside I do not deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim to the land. I believe both Jews and Palestinians have legitimate claims).
Except that these 'legitimate claims' you speak of don't involve the international consensus of a two-state solution along the 1967 border, but instead involve the right of the Palestinians to accept whatever the Israelis want. I.e, the Palestinians have a legitimate right to live within a number of South African style bantustans, separated from each other by Israeli checkpoints, and with no control over their borders, sea space, or air-space, and with a constant Israeli military presence over their lives, something akin to the Warsaw Ghetto.
Well it is now, and they aren't going anywhere.
All anyone can hope for is a peacefull solution.
You can thank Britain for giving Israel the land.
Exactly. The issue of whose claims are more legit is not even relevant anymore, despite the fact that many in the Muslim world and elsewhere continue to flog this dead horse.
No, I'm talking about a Palestinian state that is contiguous on almost all of the West Bank with some swapped land added in as an exchange for the parts of the West Bank Israel would keep (which would be probably no more than 7% max). Capital in East Jerusalem, a viable agreement on sharing water resouces, and a right of return for Palestinians to the new state of Palestine.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
No it isn't. The occupied territories are illegal under international law, as is the criminal blockade of Gaza.
Exactly. You want it your way, contrary to what lawfully belongs to you. You have no right to these 'parts of the West Bank'. No right whatsoever. And East Jerusalem was occupied in '67 and so also doesn't fit that criteria.
And meanwhile the illegal settlements keep being built.
I don't think the complete removal of Israel is realistic. You can stop the land development, but a removal of a state thats been there for 60 years isn't going to happen.
Sounds like you're apart of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Fan Club; any better then Ten Club when it comes to getting tickets?
typical yosi, talking in circles....you aren't saying i'm an anti-semite, just perhaps i am?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'