NationStates Jolt Archive

I urge all delegates to consider the proposal to censure Zionism on page 12 or 13 of the proposed resolutions. As as Censure this will not be an attack on any nation, but merely an expression of ethical high standards. The UN member states deserve the option to vote on this measure. So please, get down there and endorse it even if you are against the proposal, so we can vote in a democratic fashion on an important issue. Thank you for your time.

Homer Simpson

P.M. Confederacy of Anti-Flanders States

We have not seen any evidence of Zionism in Nation States during the lifetime of our nation.
Perhaps this proposal is premature, anticipating a problem which has not yet arisen.

Besides the fact that you are a complete anti-Semite and should be locked in the dungeon with the other bigots, your resolution doesn't make any sense.
Zionism is a movement that believes that Jews should have a homeland, or a nation. This does not mean that only Jews can live there, it simply means that it is a safehaven for Jews, and a place that would probably have a very high Jewish population. OOC: In the real world, this nation is Israel, despite the fact that it is not 100% Jewish.
In NationStates, there is no "Israel" persay, although there are probably a number of nations with similar names. However, this does not mean that there cannot be a "Zion" in NationStates. Any nation maintains the right to declare a national religion, which could very well be Judaism. In addition, a group of Jewish nations could establish a primarily Jewish region, or even restrict it to only Jews, if they were feeling intolerant, though I would not advocate this sort of religious discrimination.
Your proposal basically says that Jews should not be allowed to have a nation, which is clearly anti-Semitic and cannot be tolerated. Any proposal trying to restrict religious freedoms should be thrown out immediately. I am surprised a moderator hasn't ruthlessly deleted your proposal already.

To be fair, an argument against Zionism could be made without being anti-Semitic at all. Why is it ok for one "race"(the Jews) to have their own country, while another "race"(white people) can't.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Zionism is fundamentally racist. It is the claim that a people deserve a country because they are of a certain race. The concept of a Jewish State is every bit as racist and illegitimate as the concept of an Aryan State, or, for that matter, a Palestinian State.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is nothing more than two little kids fighting over who has the bigger imaginary friend.

We will not censure any belief. People have a right to believe what they want. so long as their actions do not physically harm another person, kill, or infringe upon the rights of others.

indeed, my nation will have no part in censuring beliefs, I will not assist this resolution in moving before the UN as a whole
(oh before I get flamed for having Nazi in my name, this is based off the show Seinfeld, I do not support Nazism in any way)

We will not censure any belief. People have a right to believe what they want. so long as their actions do not physically harm another person, kill, or infringe upon the rights of others.

Perhaps we misunderstand, but to censure merely means to criticize. It's something entirely different from not letting them believe it.

What is this zionism you are talking about. Whatever it is. I don't think it should be voted for in the UN of this world unless you can give some nationstates examples to enlighten what the hell you are talking about.

And anything in said in the general forum obviously don't count ;).

Where is Isræl, anyway?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

What is isreal anyway?

Sounds like a fancy chair to me :P

Zionism is fundamentally racist. It is the claim that a people deserve a country because they are of a certain race. The concept of a Jewish State is every bit as racist and illegitimate as the concept of an Aryan State, or, for that matter, a Palestinian State.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is nothing more than two little kids fighting over who has the bigger imaginary friend.

I would flame you very badly right now, but I have a feeling you don't know what you're talking about. The Jews don't "deserve" a country any more than the US deserved to break away from Britain. May I remind you though, that six million Jews perished in the holocaust, and a countless amount die almost every day now from suicide bombings. The UN (or whatever international body of government existed then) promised land to the Jews to make up for Jewish losses at the hands of the Nazis. The Israeli's didn't even kick out the Palestinians- the Palestinians left because neighbouring Arab nations promised them that if they left for a short period of time that they'd blow the new nation to smitherins and the Palestinians will have all their land back, and then some. However, unfortunately for them, Israel won the wars against them (defeating incredible odds against them at that), not to mention they hadn't started any wars-one of them actually began on Yom Kippur, the most holy of Jewish holidays. As a result of the war, Israel gained new territories, some of which the Palestinians had settled. Arafat and his Palestinians returned because Israel let them, but they had to establish refugee camps because they lost their homes and territory from the war. None of the neighbouring countries allowed the refugees to move there, instead they "helped" by giving money and instilling hate in the "enemy" that owned the territory that once belonged to them. Now, the intifada pays parents of children a great deal of money to send their children off to die- and the parents believe that it guarantees the child entrance into heaven.
Shall I continue?

Throwing around charges of being anti-semitic on the basis of disliking Israel or its often violent, brutal policies- or saying that no particular religious or ethnic group deserves its own country- is stupid, it's inflammatory, and quite honestly, Eric Half a Bee, I rather think you owe the poster an apology.

There are many who find the (supposed) expansionist policy of Israel, and its hard-line stances on any number of sociological issues, frightening, repulsive, immoral, what have you. It has nothing to do with hating Jews. I suggest you retract.

Throwing around charges of being anti-semitic on the basis of disliking Israel or its often violent, brutal policies- or saying that no particular religious or ethnic group deserves its own country- is stupid, it's inflammatory, and quite honestly, Eric Half a Bee, I rather think you owe the poster an apology.

There are many who find the (supposed) expansionist policy of Israel, and its hard-line stances on any number of sociological issues, frightening, repulsive, immoral, what have you. It has nothing to do with hating Jews. I suggest you retract.

So you consider suicide and homicide (of innocent people, mind) moral?
You consider many fundamentally muslim nations, along with their supporters all over the world picking on one tiny country not brutal?

One tiny nation that turned out to be a group of wild lions in combat. And a very very big friend.

That last thing tends to kinda stop you from being picked on in highschool ;).

Do we feel sorry. Well if the arabs where capable of kicking isrealite ass, maybe. But they can't. :D

size isn't everything ;).

One tiny nation that turned out to be a group of wild lions in combat. And a very very big friend.

That last thing tends to kinda stop you from being picked on in highschool ;).

Do we feel sorry. Well if the arabs where capable of kicking isrealite ass, maybe. But they can't. :D

size isn't everything ;).

Unfortunately, the arabs succeeded in one way- very apparent from the previous posts, they succeeded in gaining the sympathy of a great deal of people who don't know the full story (even Jews!), and in a way they do succeed in hurting the people of Israel, a busload at a time.

Throwing around charges of being anti-semitic on the basis of disliking Israel or its often violent, brutal policies- or saying that no particular religious or ethnic group deserves its own country- is stupid, it's inflammatory, and quite honestly, Eric Half a Bee, I rather think you owe the poster an apology.

There are many who find the (supposed) expansionist policy of Israel, and its hard-line stances on any number of sociological issues, frightening, repulsive, immoral, what have you. It has nothing to do with hating Jews. I suggest you retract.

So you consider suicide and homicide (of innocent people, mind) moral?

No, I don't. This is why I think Israel is not a nation America should support.

Really, be serious. Of course I don't.
You consider many fundamentally muslim nations, along with their supporters all over the world picking on one tiny country not brutal?

You consider bulldozing homes and refugee camps, treating Israeli Arabs as second-class citizens, building settlements on other people's lands, holding occupied territories, threatening neighbors with nuclear weapons, shooting children and sending missiles into occupied apartment complexes not brutal?

Read this next sentence very slowly, and very carefully: This is not a contest of who has committed the greater evil, or who is more deserving, or who is more democratic. If you would like it to be, then we can get into history, going way back when to when Jewish people raped, murdered, and pillaged dozens of cities all over the Middle East in the name of God.

Both sides have committed heinous crimes. The only really important difference between the two sides (there have been plenty of Israelis who have advocated wiping out all Arabs as well, you know) is that America gives Israel guns. Quite honestly, I couldn't give a flying fark whether the opposing sides were Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or Zoroastrian or Scientologists (actually, I'd have a problem with Scientologists, but that's another story). The issue is both sides are killing, both sides are being racist, bigoted jerks, and it needs to stop.

I would propose, to counter objections, that there be a proposal "Stop Arab expansionism," with the proviso that neither proposal shall be enforced unless the other is as well. As soon as I can get a second endorsement I will be very glad to.

[quote=The Logarchy]Throwing around charges of being anti-semitic on the basis of disliking Israel or its often violent, brutal policies- or saying that no particular religious or ethnic group deserves its own country- is stupid, it's inflammatory, and quite honestly, Eric Half a Bee, I rather think you owe the poster an apology.

There are many who find the (supposed) expansionist policy of Israel, and its hard-line stances on any number of sociological issues, frightening, repulsive, immoral, what have you. It has nothing to do with hating Jews. I suggest you retract.








Read this next sentence very slowly, and very carefully: This is not a contest of who has committed the greater evil, or who is more deserving, or who is more democratic. If you would like it to be, then we can get into history, going way back when to when Jewish people raped, murdered, and pillaged dozens of cities all over the Middle East in the name of God.

Where did you get that from? And the Palestinians purposely put children in the front lines to make Israel look bad. And they receive billions in funds from Arab nations- they have tanks behind all those poor suffering women and children in the front (who the Palestinians seem quite willing to sacrifice) even in CNN neglects to show you that particular camera view. Israeli soldiers pick their targets carefully- they aim to destroy antifada bases, versus Palestinians, who target civilian buses. I do not consider the two comparable, so not condoning both does not balance out the situation. In any case I wish you the best of luck convincing people to support your proposal, although apparently a large number appear to support the existing one.

To be fair, an argument against Zionism could be made without being anti-Semitic at all. Why is it ok for one "race"(the Jews) to have their own country, while another "race"(white people) can't.

I'm almost tempted to say lol. No one stops white people (who, by the include azhkenazi Jews) from having their own nation. If a minority race, such as African Americans, decided to start their own country the media would label any protestors as bigots. For that matter, after America abolished slavery people talked of establishing a state for the freed slaves- now known as Liberia (hence the liberty sound alike). I have never heard anyone labeling that as racism or bigotry.

To be fair, an argument against Zionism could be made without being anti-Semitic at all. Why is it ok for one "race"(the Jews) to have their own country, while another "race"(white people) can't.

I'm almost tempted to say lol. No one stops white people (who, by the include azhkenazi Jews) from having their own nation. If a minority race, such as African Americans, decided to start their own country the media would label any protestors as bigots. For that matter, after America abolished slavery people talked of establishing a state for the freed slaves- now known as Liberia (hence the liberty sound alike). I have never heard anyone labeling that as racism or bigotry.

I'll call it racism. It was founded to "get the colored people out of the white man's land" and "send them back where they belong." It was racism in one of its purest, most unadulterated forms, and Lincoln loved the idea.

To be fair, an argument against Zionism could be made without being anti-Semitic at all. Why is it ok for one "race"(the Jews) to have their own country, while another "race"(white people) can't.

I'm almost tempted to say lol. No one stops white people (who, by the include azhkenazi Jews) from having their own nation. If a minority race, such as African Americans, decided to start their own country the media would label any protestors as bigots. For that matter, after America abolished slavery people talked of establishing a state for the freed slaves- now known as Liberia (hence the liberty sound alike). I have never heard anyone labeling that as racism or bigotry.

I'll call it racism. It was founded to "get the colored people out of the white man's land" and "send them back where they belong." It was racism in one of its purest, most unadulterated forms, and Lincoln loved the idea.
Despite its racial basis, the idea really does not seem that bad. No one forced anyone to return to Africa- and guess what- almost no one did return.

((I hope this issue stays at the top of the list for a while, its considerably more UN relevant than a lot of the other proposals I've seen, and certainly a lot more serious))

Throwing around charges of being anti-semitic on the basis of disliking Israel or its often violent, brutal policies- or saying that no particular religious or ethnic group deserves its own country- is stupid, it's inflammatory, and quite honestly, Eric Half a Bee, I rather think you owe the poster an apology.

There are many who find the (supposed) expansionist policy of Israel, and its hard-line stances on any number of sociological issues, frightening, repulsive, immoral, what have you. It has nothing to do with hating Jews. I suggest you retract.








Read this next sentence very slowly, and very carefully: This is not a contest of who has committed the greater evil, or who is more deserving, or who is more democratic. If you would like it to be, then we can get into history, going way back when to when Jewish people raped, murdered, and pillaged dozens of cities all over the Middle East in the name of God.

Where did you get that from? And the Palestinians purposely put children in the front lines to make Israel look bad. And they receive billions in funds from Arab nations- they have tanks behind all those poor suffering women and children in the front (who the Palestinians seem quite willing to sacrifice) even in CNN neglects to show you that particular camera view. Israeli soldiers pick their targets carefully- they aim to destroy antifada bases, versus Palestinians, who target civilian buses. I do not consider the two comparable, so not condoning both does not balance out the situation. In any case I wish you the best of luck convincing people to support your proposal, although apparently a large number appear to support the existing one.

I have searched for a good fifteen minutes. In none of the publications- pro-Israel, anti-Israel, neutral- have I found mention of Palestinian tanks being anywhere near any of these incidents. islamtoday.net apparently often refers to "Palestian tanks shelling Palestinian villages" and "Palestinian tanks ringing a Palestinian village by order of Ariel Sharon," which indicates to me that they are not so good with English, especially since a paragraph later they will revert to Israeli. Otherwise, though, no combat reports, no angry letters to Ha'aretz. There is nothing in the English language to support your accusations that Palestinian tanks are in any way, shape, or form related to Israeli human rights abuses. Even the CIA World Factbook has this to say:

Military West Bank
Top of Page
Military expenditures - dollar figure:

$NA
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:

NA%

The correct total in aid from Arab nations is millions, not billions. And quite honestly, the personal testimonials I have read of Israeli soldiers gladly flattening houses and begging for chances to more do not make me feel as if the Israeli military holds any sort of moral upper hand. And quite honestly, striking inhabited apartment buildings with missiles does not strike me as "carefully considered selection" of targets.

You forget who lives in those apartment buildings. And, unlike the Israeli citizens, a majority of the Palestinians have some involvement or support the intifada. Another fact- no source will tell you how much Palestinians actually receive from outside sources- they only provide official numbers. Saddam Hussain alone provided the intifada with a constant supply of money- 35 million I believe, and given that I refer to Saddam Hussain here the recent funds hardly count as legal (considering he hid in a hole at the time). Where do you suppose a group of people living in refugee camps get the money to reward parents for their children's services? Considering the number of bombings over the years, or even in the past month, the Palestinian government had to give the families a considerable lot of money... And the boys getting shot for throwing stones at soldiers-ancient civilizations have used stoning as a form of execution....

You seem to forget several things, though I am neutral in this argument by all means.


Ariel Sharon: Twice indicted for war crimes against humanity, and exonerated. Was accused of letting (I believe it was Lebanese, correct me if Im wrong) Christian zealots into a Palestinian refugee camp he was guarding and allowing the refugees to be massacred. Israel did not deny this, and cited "a loss of communication". Second account concerned military excursion (again, into Lebanon, I believe) where he was accused of massacring soldiers, men, women, children, international aid doctors and nurses.

Jewish Settlements: As I recall, treaty prohibits these, and wall being erected on Palestinian land cutting it in half wont help matters.

Im sorry..Im not agaisnt Israel as a state, but there is no "morally right" stance on this issue. Yes, bombings are bad, but so is sending in military trops and bulldozing buildings where terrorists "may" be. As for support for the intifada...well....if you see whats happenoing in front of you, see families get shot and such, wouldnt you be a little bit pissed off as well?

You seem to forget several things, though I am neutral in this argument by all means.


Ariel Sharon: Twice indicted for war crimes against humanity, and exonerated. Was accused of letting (I believe it was Lebanese, correct me if Im wrong) Christian zealots into a Palestinian refugee camp he was guarding and allowing the refugees to be massacred. Israel did not deny this, and cited "a loss of communication". Second account concerned military excursion (again, into Lebanon, I believe) where he was accused of massacring soldiers, men, women, children, international aid doctors and nurses.

Jewish Settlements: As I recall, treaty prohibits these, and wall being erected on Palestinian land cutting it in half wont help matters.

Im sorry..Im not agaisnt Israel as a state, but there is no "morally right" stance on this issue. Yes, bombings are bad, but so is sending in military trops and bulldozing buildings where terrorists "may" be. As for support for the intifada...well....if you see whats happenoing in front of you, see families get shot and such, wouldnt you be a little bit pissed off as well?
Yes, but Sharon, despite the charges, has kept many more promises than Arafat, who, as far as I know, fulfilled almost none of them. The Israeli government bulldozen their own settlements as part of ceasefire agreements several times, and yet the Palestinians broke the cease fire first.
I must admit I sympathize with the Palestinians as a shunned and oppressed people, pawns of Arabic countries who let them suffer to provoke them to wipe out the state of Israel. Although I also find it hard to symphatize with mothers who cry for the death of their eleven year old son, and then send off their fifteen year old to die for the Palestinian cause and have pride in him and tell him he will go to heaven. Why can't the Arab nations, who complain about the sufferings of their Muslim brothers in Palestine, accept them into their nation. Despite the funds received, Palestinians have received pity or shunning. Why should Israel carry the full burden of a people trained and raised in hate?

I was due to western propeganda in favor of isreal. Until the last failing of the peace talks with the palastinians. I don't remember how it went exactly, but I noticed that the isrealites used a ethical unacceptable negotiation tactic. And they managed to blame it on arafat. From that point I came to the conclusion that whatever happened the isrealites where the most guilty from that point on. The rest is more or less a standard escalation of things of things in which the isrealites looked stupid in senselessly blaming arafat. (Though I don't know him personal I can't vouche for him).

Then second, they voted for sharon, which any well thinking person would know was the WAR candiate, not the PEACE candate. How convinent to forget the temple mounten (or how you call it in english). Does that look to any sensable person like a peace candidate? The one who put the spark to the gasoline drum. Isreal is a democracy, therefore I think the term innocent victims can be taken a bit lighter.

I also heard of a meeting with america between the egyptian prime minsters and isreal. He was trying to make a most unpopular move by initiating peace talks. His people could shoot him (they actually did). He was forced to leave the negotitions. However the americans tricked them by saying if you leave now now you will be blamed for the failure. I wish I was there because I would have been able to wisper the exact right words in his ear to get out of it unscratched. The americans could have to, if they have wanted to. The americans have been a moderator in a lot of the peace talks. However they are far from being neutral. It doesn't suprise me the oslo peace talks where more successfull. The negotiator for the arabs is always in entering the lions denn in the US. I think this non-neutrality has therefore managed to screw up a lot of peace talks. And they love blaming the failure on the palastinian or who ever is negotiating for the side, which they would never have done if they where actually neutral. (It has to do with the fact that a leader cannot make peace over the heads of the people, the people would just remove the leader. Therefore an agreement must be formed that can be sold to his own people. Something the isrealites and the americans convinently forget).

So yes, despite everything the arabs might have done, I think isreal and its ally are responsable for the mess. In fact if it hadn't been for america, isreal would have been dealt with by the UN long before iraq.

Considering that poor little isreal is military superiour, and has far superior backing (which basically keeps the state financially running), I have a tendency to compare it to david and goliath. Terrorism is tactically a very unusable tactic. The only advantage is that it is cheap, and can be used by the underdog. Which ofcourse infuriates the superiority complex of the imperialistic nations. Much like a noble man in full body armor, lance and horse would be furiated at the guts of a peasant throwing stones at it. I don't think the isrealites are that bad off. And certainly not if considering that they are in a great deal responsable. Come one, can you expect any group of people to just accept that through force, threats, and sneakish politics they have to leave there homes, and do it just like that.

It is often said, is somebody a terrorist or a freedom fighter. Well my vote after evaluating the situation goes 100% for freedom fighter. And they are grasping at straws.

About arafat, knowing that even big leaders are people to. I believe it if his wife says that what he really wants is peace. That is about the only explanation for his idiotic tactical decisions. His desire for peace, or sudden attack of crazyness, is costing the palastines the war. (looking at it from a strategic standpoint).

Anyway blaming the jews doesn't solve the problem. Where two people fight two people are guitly. But if the americans where complety removed from the theater I believe both parties could have a real negotiation and make a fair peace. They would have to.

War often is there where at least one side thinks it can win.

Oh yes...blame America...silly us..were the cause of every world problem.


Wake up, seriously. The UN wont do anything! It didnt do anything in Cambodia, it didnt do anything in South Africa, it didnt do anything in the Middle East. The UN only reacts when the US pressures it to do something, such as with Milosevic otherwise, the UN just deliberates and condemns. Name one, ONE peacekeeping effort the UN has led without American support?

No actually I want to blame america that directly too. I guess I did :-S. Let my just say that I forgive them. America is a far greater nations than most nations on in the world. However, they are a bit a elephant in a porcaline cabinet. They are huge. Even a breath of them has a massive effect on the world. Therefore, they have a bit of an oblication to be ....better as the rest. A flee that dances and springs around, nobody minds about that. But from america we beg that they move with grace. It reminds me of the book "about mice and men" I think. If I remember it correctly when i read it in english class. About a big guy that didn't know his strength. If you would learn to know your strength and how to use it elegant and gracefully, and would then use it to the best of your ability to better the world. I believe we are all saved. However as long as you have not, we all tremble in fear to be crushed each time you stretches yourself, or changes position to sit a bit more comfortable.

Oh yes...blame America...silly us..were the cause of every world problem.


Wake up, seriously. The UN wont do anything! It didnt do anything in Cambodia, it didnt do anything in South Africa, it didnt do anything in the Middle East. The UN only reacts when the US pressures it to do something, such as with Milosevic otherwise, the UN just deliberates and condemns. Name one, ONE peacekeeping effort the UN has led without American support?
Liberia :)

In Africa there are numerous U.N.-led, African-countries-supplied, peacekeeping missions. None of those have the interest of the U.S. nor have the U.S. pressured the U.N. to go peacekeeping.

Oh yes...blame America...silly us..were the cause of every world problem.


Wake up, seriously. The UN wont do anything! It didnt do anything in Cambodia, it didnt do anything in South Africa, it didnt do anything in the Middle East. The UN only reacts when the US pressures it to do something, such as with Milosevic otherwise, the UN just deliberates and condemns. Name one, ONE peacekeeping effort the UN has led without American support?
Liberia :)

In Africa there are numerous U.N.-led, African-countries-supplied, peacekeeping missions. None of those have the interest of the U.S. nor have the U.S. pressured the U.N. to go peacekeeping.

Grin, I would need to almost thank you guys. You almost proved my point ;). You could think nobody else would bother doing it. You could also think it only happens when the americans support it and then they are great enough to do it themselves. Would not be logic to assume that if america was isolationistic, somebody else would take the responsability? But whatever you say, somewhere in the porridge is an american finger withever way it is stearing.

I am not blaming america's, only reply to your attempts to defend it.

I would flame you very badly right now, but I have a feeling you don't know what you're talking about. The Jews don't "deserve" a country any more than the US deserved to break away from Britain. May I remind you though, that six million Jews perished in the holocaust, and a countless amount die almost every day now from suicide bombings. The UN (or whatever international body of government existed then) promised land to the Jews to make up for Jewish losses at the hands of the Nazis. The Israeli's didn't even kick out the Palestinians- the Palestinians left because neighbouring Arab nations promised them that if they left for a short period of time that they'd blow the new nation to smitherins and the Palestinians will have all their land back, and then some. However, unfortunately for them, Israel won the wars against them (defeating incredible odds against them at that), not to mention they hadn't started any wars-one of them actually began on Yom Kippur, the most holy of Jewish holidays. As a result of the war, Israel gained new territories, some of which the Palestinians had settled. Arafat and his Palestinians returned because Israel let them, but they had to establish refugee camps because they lost their homes and territory from the war. None of the neighbouring countries allowed the refugees to move there, instead they "helped" by giving money and instilling hate in the "enemy" that owned the territory that once belonged to them. Now, the intifada pays parents of children a great deal of money to send their children off to die- and the parents believe that it guarantees the child entrance into heaven.
Shall I continue?


Very nice one-sided view of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Okay pick you up on a few points:

1. No international body was involved in the set-up of Israel, just Britain and America.
2. The Israelis conducted their own terror campaign during the formative years of Israel (ie whilst it was still the British Terratory of Palestine) forcing the British to leave, before treaties were constructed to allow Palestinians and Jews to leave peacefully together.
3. Israel invaded Palestinian terratory, that is simply not justified.
4. The holocaust was perpitrated by European Nazis, its relevance to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict is minimal. Also, lets not forget the Israeli-sanctioned massacre of Palestinians in Beirut after the invasion of Lebanon by Phalangist Militias.
5. The holocaust was also perpitrated against Gypsies, Muslims and ethnic Slavs. Jews where not the only victims.
6. On one-side we have Palestinian fanatics causing acts of terrorism, and on the other we have Soldiers of a democratic nation sinking to their level. Assassination by helicopter-borne rocket attacks is absolutley barbaric.

darn I was hoping the constructive critisism was meant for me :-S

darn I was hoping the constructive critisism was meant for me :-S

Sorry! Would you like some! :)

People, people, people!!!

Firstly lets get some facts straight.

1. Both sides of the conflict between Palestine and Israel are equally responsible for the deaths. There is no innocent party here.

2. The Govt of Israel are continuously ignoring human rights issues in their repressive and brutal treatment of Palestinians. That is why Israel are the target of Anti-Semetic abuse.

3. Recent reports suggest that many ordinary Israeli citizens themselves are disgusted by the lack of human rights that the Palestinians abhor. In one recent report, members of the Israeli Special Forces refused to undertake missions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip because they could not condone the breaches of human rights that the Israeli Govt had committed against the Palestinian people.

4. Just as Israelis sought a homeland after WWII, now Palestinians seek a homeland for themselves. Is it so terrible that Israel give up a small part of territory where the vast majority is Palestinian anyway??? After all, other countries made strenuous efforts so that Israel enjoys its current existence, including the US, West Germany and Britain. The Israeli position is contradictory and riduculous.

Well, the resolution may not pass, but glad to have started a debate here.
Global Market is correct, censuring is nothing but an official criticism. No one is trying to limit free speech or ban thoughts. That is a misunderstanding of this political concept. I can't believe people still get called "anti-semitic" for these opinions. I guess when you don't have truth, justice or any ethical standard on your side, that is the way to go.

Just for the record...

I will be voting against censure..... this is not a endorsement of Zionism, but of free speech. The Zionists have the right to express their views, provided they don't try to impose them on others by force.

Slightly relevant to the topic, Anti-Semitism is not merely descrimination against those who are Jewish, but against all people of Semite origin. Both the original Jewish people (The ones who lived in the Middle East) and the Palestinian people are, in fact, Semites. To claim that supporters or sympathisers of the Palestinians are Anti-Semites, therefore, is a fallacy.

First of all, allow me to congratulate the delegate of my region for making such a bold and noble proposition. I hope that many of the other delegates endorse it and allow the members to vote on it.

Secondly, let me adress the person who posted the following nonsense:

'I would flame you very badly right now, but I have a feeling you don't know what you're talking about. The Jews don't
"deserve" a country any more than the US deserved to break away from Britain. May I remind you though, that six million Jews
perished in the holocaust, and a countless amount die almost every day now from suicide bombings. The UN (or whatever
international body of government existed then) promised land to the Jews to make up for Jewish losses at the hands of the
Nazis. The Israeli's didn't even kick out the Palestinians- the Palestinians left because neighbouring Arab nations promised
them that if they left for a short period of time that they'd blow the new nation to smitherins and the Palestinians will have all
their land back, and then some. However, unfortunately for them, Israel won the wars against them (defeating incredible odds
against them at that), not to mention they hadn't started any wars-one of them actually began on Yom Kippur, the most holy
of Jewish holidays. As a result of the war, Israel gained new territories, some of which the Palestinians had settled. Arafat and
his Palestinians returned because Israel let them, but they had to establish refugee camps because they lost their homes and
territory from the war. None of the neighbouring countries allowed the refugees to move there, instead they "helped" by
giving money and instilling hate in the "enemy" that owned the territory that once belonged to them. Now, the intifada pays
parents of children a great deal of money to send their children off to die- and the parents believe that it guarantees the child
entrance into heaven.
Shall I continue?'

Well my friend, please don't continue, you're only making a fool of yourself in the process. The fact that you use the argument 'the UN gave the land to the jews' shows you have very little to add to this conversation. The UN has as much right to give away land which belongs to someone else to a certain, group of people as my local government has right to give away my garden to my neighbours: none whatsoever. Furthermore, that precious UN seems to become totally irrelevant to most zionists the second you mention how many resolutions Israel violates (three times more than even Saddam ever did). This is but one of the many outrageous inconsistancies in this evil ideology that is zionism, and I sincerely hope the other delegates have the balls to allow the memberstates to speak out on this.

Oh yes...blame America...silly us..were the cause of every world problem.


Wake up, seriously. The UN wont do anything! It didnt do anything in Cambodia, it didnt do anything in South Africa, it didnt do anything in the Middle East. The UN only reacts when the US pressures it to do something, such as with Milosevic otherwise, the UN just deliberates and condemns. Name one, ONE peacekeeping effort the UN has led without American support?
Liberia :)

In Africa there are numerous U.N.-led, African-countries-supplied, peacekeeping missions. None of those have the interest of the U.S. nor have the U.S. pressured the U.N. to go peacekeeping.

Grin, I would need to almost thank you guys. You almost proved my point ;). You could think nobody else would bother doing it. You could also think it only happens when the americans support it and then they are great enough to do it themselves. Would not be logic to assume that if america was isolationistic, somebody else would take the responsability? But whatever you say, somewhere in the porridge is an american finger withever way it is stearing.

I am not blaming america's, only reply to your attempts to defend it.

Two things:

A) We sent troops to Lberia, there is actually several memorable pictures of US Marines arriving in Monrovia to help quell the anarchy caused by the removal of the president. Well before the UN, if I recall. Call it a point of pride, when the capital city is named after one of your presidents, we have somewhat of an obligation.

B) Do you have a clue how much American tax aid is given as foreign aid to countries? Not to mention the World Bank loan deferments, the UN disaster relief, and other such things? On a world poll, Americans, on average, give more to charity than anyone else. Name one other superpower that ever, ever tried to act remotely like it cared for other nation's well-being in all of history.

Im not saying America is right consistently in this matter, but it certainly doesnt deserve to be vilified at every turn. Would you prefer America to be isolationist and withdraw from all world global affairs? You have no idea how many people would wish just that. You have to think of the ramifications and political fallout of such an endeavour, not just make huge blanket statements about what a load of crap we are, how the UN is the eternal watchguard of freedom, how America subverts the UN, and other such things.

And This is a no-win situation. If America intervenes, it is called imperialistic. If it chooses not to send aid, its accused of being heartless. No one seems to mind a free handout, a forgiveness on loans (something that, if it weren't countries, would lead to repossession of property to pay for debts for any private citizen. But requesting to be paid back money owed is called "descrimnatory and unfair").

Im sorry, Im not trying to thread hijack, but I feel I should respond at least to some of the comments about America being an instigator in this. Im tired of hearing about how horrible it is, it would be nice if people realized we dont live in some damn airy-fairy world, where people are naturally good and kind and the right decision is a commercial away. I wonder if any other nation in America's position would do any better.

Well my friend, please don't continue, you're only making a fool of yourself in the process. The fact that you use the argument 'the UN gave the land to the jews' shows you have very little to add to this conversation. The UN has as much right to give away land which belongs to someone else to a certain, group of people as my local government has right to give away my garden to my neighbours: none whatsoever. Furthermore, that precious UN seems to become totally irrelevant to most zionists the second you mention how many resolutions Israel violates (three times more than even Saddam ever did). This is but one of the many outrageous inconsistancies in this evil ideology that is zionism, and I sincerely hope the other delegates have the balls to allow the memberstates to speak out on this.

Erm, the UN had nothing to do with the gifting of land to the jewish people it was given to them by Britain who legally owned it (yes, yes I know it was a colonial legacy and they had no real right to give it to anyone). There is no point in trying to do down the UN over something that it had no involvement with. The UN can only do so much and when it is face with the overwhelming pro-Zionist lobbies in the states, it can pass as many resolutions as it likes, but they don't stop US dollars flooding into Israel.

Well my friend, please don't continue, you're only making a fool of yourself in the process. The fact that you use the argument 'the UN gave the land to the jews' shows you have very little to add to this conversation. The UN has as much right to give away land which belongs to someone else to a certain, group of people as my local government has right to give away my garden to my neighbours: none whatsoever. Furthermore, that precious UN seems to become totally irrelevant to most zionists the second you mention how many resolutions Israel violates (three times more than even Saddam ever did). This is but one of the many outrageous inconsistancies in this evil ideology that is zionism, and I sincerely hope the other delegates have the balls to allow the memberstates to speak out on this.

Erm, the UN had nothing to do with the gifting of land to the jewish people it was given to them by Britain who legally owned it (yes, yes I know it was a colonial legacy and they had no real right to give it to anyone). There is no point in trying to do down the UN over something that it had no involvement with. The UN can only do so much and when it is face with the overwhelming pro-Zionist lobbies in the states, it can pass as many resolutions as it likes, but they don't stop US dollars flooding into Israel.
The UN partitioned Palestine into a Jewish state and a Palestinian state with UN Resolution 181 (33-13). Yugoslavia, the former country of our great nation Yugo-Serbosnia-Croatia, abstained to vote on this evil plan.

To be fair, an argument against Zionism could be made without being anti-Semitic at all. Why is it ok for one "race"(the Jews) to have their own country, while another "race"(white people) can't.[/size]
The Jews are not a "race", they are an ethnic group, and if we were to be technical, they are actually just members of a certain religion. It seems you do not understand the meanings of the words anti-Semitic and Jew.

Regarding the real world situation of Israel: both sides are at fault because neither is willing enough to compromise on the key issues or have in the past. In the original creation of Israel, the Palestinians were to retain half of what they had previously controlled. Understandably, they were not satisfied with this arrangement, and the Jews obtained control of Israel. More recently in negotiations, Israel was unwilling to give portions of Jerusalem for a Palestinian state.

This is grossly over-simplified, but the point remains that both parties are at fault and the objectives of a predominantly Jewish or Palestinian state are mutually exclusive. Meanwhile, both sides continue to teach their children that the other side is wrong and there is hate on both sides.

To be fair, an argument against Zionism could be made without being anti-Semitic at all. Why is it ok for one "race"(the Jews) to have their own country, while another "race"(white people) can't.[/size]
The Jews are not a "race", they are an ethnic group, and if we were to be technical, they are actually just members of a certain religion. It seems you do not understand the meanings of the words anti-Semitic and Jew.

Regarding the real world situation of Israel: both sides are at fault because neither is willing enough to compromise on the key issues or have in the past. In the original creation of Israel, the Palestinians were to retain half of what they had previously controlled. Understandably, they were not satisfied with this arrangement, and the Jews obtained control of Israel. More recently in negotiations, Israel was unwilling to give portions of Jerusalem for a Palestinian state.

This is grossly over-simplified, but the point remains that both parties are at fault and the objectives of a predominantly Jewish or Palestinian state are mutually exclusive. Meanwhile, both sides continue to teach their children that the other side is wrong and there is hate on both sides.
Thank you! I have meant to post on that point myself. Not to mention that so many people misuse the term"anti-semitism." Semitic peoples include people of Arabic as well as (north african?) and Middle Eastern descent. Accusing Arabs of anti-semitism then doesn't quite work. In many ways, this has proved a religious battle, but more importantly a battle of cultures.
Secondly, responding to the earlier criticisms of my posts:
1. Yes, Zionists used a certain degree of terror against Britain. But these terrorists actually direcly warned and alerted people of the attack, not threatened, but specifically warned the people to evacuate the building. Of course no one believed them, but they did try. That defines a major difference between making a statement and mass killing- Palestian suicide bombers specifically target the most populated areas, and measure their success by the amount of Israeli fatalities.
2. You say American money funds Israel, but you fail to distinguish between the American government and America itself. Yes, the American government gives money to Israel, but few other sources, including Jewish ones, contribute to the "oppression" (excuse me for the quotes) of the Palestinians. In fact, one of the most prominent Jewish charities, the Jewish Federation, clearly states that none of the money that goes to Israel goes to the Israeli government and the Jewish settlements.

This topic makes me sick! Jews are the ones always persecuted!
The jews had the holocaust and massada! Where were you?!
When finally Jews were given a land of their own, what happens? The whole world wants to take it away!
I don't go around saying that people shouldn't be able to practise their beliefs! It's free speech to me! As the others said, you obviously are not very learned on this topic and I think you need some lessons on how not to be an anti-semite!

I agree zionism is racist... Rethalium you have no-idea what your talking about and it shows... Jews arn't a race they are a religion. My best friend is jewish. Just to not sound racist. The jews threw the majority out and and they have very racist laws. Thats the truth sorry

I agree zionism is racist... Rethalium you have no-idea what your talking about and it shows... Jews arn't a race they are a religion. My best friend is jewish. Just to not sound racist. The jews threw the majority out and and they have very racist laws. That the truth sorry

I agree zionism is racist... Rethalium you have no-idea what your talking about and it shows... Jews arn't a race they are a religion. My best friend is jewish. Just to not sound racist. The jews threw the majority out and and they have very racist laws. Thats the truth sorry

This topic makes me sick! Jews are the ones always persecuted!
The jews had the holocaust and massada! Where were you?!

1) Not born yet, although I'm very sympathetic and horrified
2) Give me a break; where were the Jews when they stuck Christ on the cross, forty years before that happened? Killing him. Look, we could go back that far like Mel Gibson and his farkhead bunch have, but that would be pointless. Masada was a Roman retaliation against an admittedly rather justified rebellion. Get that word into your head: ROMAN. R-O-M-A-N. There are no more Romans in the world. They can't hurt you. Now calm down.

When finally Jews were given a land of their own, what happens? The whole world wants to take it away!

No, only a few Arab countries want to take it away. The rest of the world would like to see some land returned to the people that had been occupying it since after the Roman Diaspora. The Israelis did sorta push them out, you know.

I don't go around saying that people shouldn't be able to practise their beliefs! It's free speech to me! As the others said, you obviously are not very learned on this topic and I think you need some lessons on how not to be an anti-semite!

I think you need some lessons in 1) maturity and 2) learning when to throw around "anti-semite" and when to keep your big trap shut. Get this through your head. I'll speak slowly, so you can understand. Thin-king Is-ra-el is com-mit-ting hu-man rights a-bu-ses is not the same as ha-ting Jews. Got it? Goooood. See, civilized people usually have a really big problem with bulldozing occupied houses. This is what Israel does: it bulldozes occupied houses, and allows settlers to build on them. This is known as immoral behavior. Okay? Now, blowing yourself up to kill civilians is not only stupid, but also immoral. Only the stupidest ultra-liberals would disagree. Therefore: Both sides are at fault. Both sides need to realize that they have behaved in a reprehensible manner. In short, both sides need to grow some cojones and start acting like real men instead of little boys arguing over corners of a sandbox. The whole chorus of "I was here first" and "You hurt me more" gets really tiring to the international community. You know what also gets tiring? Baseless accusations of anti-semitism because you DISAGREE with the POLICIES of A PARTICULAR NATION!

This topic makes me sick! Jews are the ones always persecuted!
The jews had the holocaust and massada! Where were you?!

1) Not born yet, although I'm very sympathetic and horrified
2) Give me a break; where were the Jews when they stuck Christ on the cross, forty years before that happened? Killing him. Look, we could go back that far like Mel Gibson and his farkhead bunch have, but that would be pointless. Masada was a Roman retaliation against an admittedly rather justified rebellion. Get that word into your head: ROMAN. R-O-M-A-N. There are no more Romans in the world. They can't hurt you. Now calm down.

When finally Jews were given a land of their own, what happens? The whole world wants to take it away!

No, only a few Arab countries want to take it away. The rest of the world would like to see some land returned to the people that had been occupying it since after the Roman Diaspora. The Israelis did sorta push them out, you know.

I don't go around saying that people shouldn't be able to practise their beliefs! It's free speech to me! As the others said, you obviously are not very learned on this topic and I think you need some lessons on how not to be an anti-semite!

I think you need some lessons in 1) maturity and 2) learning when to throw around "anti-semite" and when to keep your big trap shut. Get this through your head. I'll speak slowly, so you can understand. Thin-king Is-ra-el is com-mit-ting hu-man rights a-bu-ses is not the same as ha-ting Jews. Got it? Goooood. See, civilized people usually have a really big problem with bulldozing occupied houses. This is what Israel does: it bulldozes occupied houses, and allows settlers to build on them. This is known as immoral behavior. Okay? Now, blowing yourself up to kill civilians is not only stupid, but also immoral. Only the stupidest ultra-liberals would disagree. Therefore: Both sides are at fault. Both sides need to realize that they have behaved in a reprehensible manner. In short, both sides need to grow some cojones and start acting like real men instead of little boys arguing over corners of a sandbox. The whole chorus of "I was here first" and "You hurt me more" gets really tiring to the international community. You know what also gets tiring? Baseless accusations of anti-semitism because you DISAGREE with the POLICIES of A PARTICULAR NATION!
Give him a break, the semitically-correct anti-Communist is only 15. He probably doesn't even know that Communism was developed by a Jew, Jews made up a disproportionate number of leading Soviet communists, most of the leadership of the post-WW2 Communist Internationale were Jews, and the only Americans executed for spying for the USSR were Jews, I could go on and on about Jews & Communism but you can find all the information HERE: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-communists.html

Besides the fact that you are a complete anti-Semite and should be locked in the dungeon with the other bigots, your resolution doesn't make any sense.
Zionism is a movement that believes that Jews should have a homeland, or a nation. This does not mean that only Jews can live there, it simply means that it is a safehaven for Jews, and a place that would probably have a very high Jewish population. OOC: In the real world, this nation is Israel, despite the fact that it is not 100% Jewish.
In NationStates, there is no "Israel" persay, although there are probably a number of nations with similar names. However, this does not mean that there cannot be a "Zion" in NationStates. Any nation maintains the right to declare a national religion, which could very well be Judaism. In addition, a group of Jewish nations could establish a primarily Jewish region, or even restrict it to only Jews, if they were feeling intolerant, though I would not advocate this sort of religious discrimination.
Your proposal basically says that Jews should not be allowed to have a nation, which is clearly anti-Semitic and cannot be tolerated. Any proposal trying to restrict religious freedoms should be thrown out immediately. I am surprised a moderator hasn't ruthlessly deleted your proposal already.

Booya. Right on.

Diversity includes diversity of opinions and biases, does it not?

I think Eric the Half a Bee & Rethelanium are being very intolerant of Anti-Flanders States' intolerance. :lol:

Biz Allah Billen,
Sultana of Ladygoethistan

Ok, this thread has went to far. There is nothing wrong with proposing this as a resolution if you so choose. I can think of three categories it could fall under. However! This thread has become a totally RL debate. If you'd like to debate OOC on this topic I suggest you take it to General. Other then that.. I think that's quite enough of this one thread. If you'd like to open another one that sticks purely with the NS UN debate factor.. That is fine.

Stephanie
Game Moderator