NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear audience:

In light of the constant arguments over whether or not the anti-Semites and the anti-Zionists are the same animal, I have taken on myself the dirty and ungrateful task of distinguishing between and classifying these two more or less equally repulsive and annoying types of pest. In my many past cyberspace travels I was frequently forced to confront these often ferocious, yet rarely intelligent critters, flush them out of hiding and (in the vast majority of cases) successfully slay and skin many of their specimen in various debates. I believe the accumulated experience will allow me to create a more or less accurate classification.

Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, the question of whether the anti-Semites and the anti-Zionists belong to the same ideological breed is more complex than it appears. At first sight, the two may appear distinct from each other, as the anti-Zionists claim to only direct their fangs at Israel and not at the Jewish people. However, so many exceptions to this rule have been observed and recorded that many researchers came to conclude that the two are in fact one and the same- a claim supported by the fact that all anti-Semites are invariably anti-Zionists. The exceptionally high rate of cross-breeding further complicates matters. However, I suggest that the distinction may be made clear if the two are examined against a definition of Zionism, against which the anti-Zionists are believed to have evolved.

For the purpose of my research, I have adopted the definition of Zionism as proposed by the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism), which, to my knowledge, is not contradicted by any academic sources:

Zionism is a political movement and an ideology that supports a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated and where Jewish kingdoms and self governing states existed at various times in history.

An anti-Zionist, then, would have to be someone who is opposed to the creation of a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel.

At the same time, anti-Semitism is defined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism) by the same source as hostility towards or prejudice against Jews, therefore we will define an anti-Semite as a person harboring or expressing the aforementioned hostility ot prejudice in any way or form. Observed examples of anti-Semitism were for the most part religious or racial/ethnic, but other forms have also been noticed.

These definition will provide us with the basis for the below classification.

Species of Anti-Semits

Typical Anti-Semite

As a rule, the Typical Anti-Semite (TAS) is a sub-species of the Typical Racist (TR) with a particular thirst for Jewish flesh. He is a rather miserable and nasty smelling critter found in large quantities on the neo-Nazi website. Invading a decent web forum, the TAS specimen usually act as pests, leaving their toxic verbal excrement in the corners and occasionally hijacking a thread or two.

A Typical Anti-Semite attacks Jews because they are Jews and makes little effort to disguise his agenda. Occasionally, he may also direct his attacks at Israel, but only as a way of "proving" his paranoid fantasies of Jews as omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and infinitely evil beings.

Religious Anti-Semite

The Religious Anti-Semite(RAS), usually found on Christian or Muslim forums, differs very little from the Typical anti-Semite, except in his rhetorics. While a Typical Racist will usually attempt to support his case with perverted interpretations of scientific theories such as evolution and genetics, the RAS will defend his hatred with extensive quotes from the New Testament or the Qur'an. Quite often he will site the killing of Jesus or the Qur'anic story of Jews violating treaties with Mohammed as an example of Jewish evilness. However, when it comes to political matters, the two will become near indentical in their obsessive desire to explain anything and everything by the supposed power and influence of the evil Jews. Therefore, some researchers insist on classifying both TAS and RAS as the same species, "antisemitismus vulgaris".



Species of Anti-Zionist

Anti-Zionist From Ignorance

Usually of moderate to high intelligence, but of limited knowledge, the Anti-Zionist From Ignorance is not an anti-Zionist per se. He is not really against Israel, but rather disagrees with the way Israel behaves here and there. While AZFI may at times declare himself an anti-Zionist, his self-identification as one is usually more a matter of herd mentality than anything else. Unaware of what Zionism is, the AZFI merely seeks a fancy name and a group to join in his opposition to certain policies of the state of Israel, which he for one reason or another finds illegitimate or unjustified. AZFI is usually a fairly reasonable person, and as long as he does not mutate into a different species by becoming an opponent of the very existence of the state of Israel, he can be reasoned with. The claims AZFI makes and the opinions he expresses may be right or wrong, but they never merit a charge of anti-Semitism. However, obsessive singling out Israel for scrutiny while ignoring similar offenses by other countries may make some of the AZFI specimen suspects in this regard, and other species often masquerade as AZFI to gain legitimacy for their more harmful theories.

Judeo-Anti-Zionists, a.k.a. Neturei Karta
The JAZ is typically an Orthodox Jewish fanatic from a number of tiny sects like the Satmar hassids, whose opposition to the existence of Israel has nothing to do with what Israel does or what policies it implements. It is a purely religious fundamentalist position, that holds that creating a Jewish state violates the tenets of Judaism, namely the so-called Three Oaths (an unilateral commitment of the Jews to not restore their statehood for as long as the non-Jewish nations do not overly persecute them in their exile. It was believed that by restoring their statehood the Jews have the power to bring about the End of Days), and that only a Messiah is allowed to do that. In addition, the JAZ do not consider Israel a truly Jewish state as Israel is a secular country not governed by the Jewish religious law. Fairly common among the Jewish Orthodoxy during the early 20 century, the JAZ position is a laughing stock for both the modern and the secular Jews today, and their theology is widely believed to have been invalidated by the Holocaust (it being an attempt to destroy the entire Jewish nation).

Utopian Anti-Nationalist, a.k.a. Dreamer Against Common Sense

The Utopian Anti-Nationalist's opposition the existence of Israel stems from his general opposition to nationalism, defined borders between nations and the concept of the State in general. Since the UAN lives in the fantasy world of his own and is usually removed far enough from any actual decision making to never see the practical implementation of his vision, he can afford to preach impossible ideas for a magical solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

While some of the other species of Anti-Zionist will often employ UAN arguments when cornered, a true consistent UAN is a fairly rare breed. Debating with him is usually useless, as he is immune to facts and logic of the real world and his theories are invariably non-falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

Moralist Against Israel
The MAI specimen, as a rule, argue against the existence of Israel from moral grounds- he claims that the creation of Israel was an injustis to the Palestinians and therefore was an immoral act. This puts him into an unenviable and completely indefensible position when confronted by the charge that denying self-determination to the Jewish people is in itself immoral, unjust and contrary to the international law, which asserts that self-determination is each nation's inalianable right. A cornered MAI has a very limited choice of defense strategies, neither of which can save him:

1)The MAI may adopt the UAN rhetorics, claiming that the Jews are no longer persecuted in the West and therefore have no need for self-rule. Aside from the fact that this position remains inherently unjust as it denies the Jews their inalienable rights, the MAI is forced to constantly close his eyes to the existence of large numbers of TAS and RAS in the Western states, to frequent anti-Semitic attacks and to the fact that the Jews are still discriminated against in many countries of the world. Usually, he will attempt to rationalize all this by blaming it on Israel, as if the levels of anti-Semitism were any lower before Israel's creation and as if they did not culminate in the Holocaust in exactly those societies where the Jews were formerly considered well-established.

A masquerading MAI can be rather easily distinguished from the true UAN, since where a true UAN would oppose the very concept of national self-determination within defined borders, a MAI will still insist on the national self-determination being an inalienable right for the Palestinians, the Kosovars, the Iraqis- in short, for anyone but the Jews.

2)The MAI may claim that the Jews are not really a nation, but rather a religion. This is a peculiar claim of relatively recent origin, since before the creation of Israel there was no doubt whatsoever as for the nationhood of the Jews. The only argument that may be offered in support of this position is the great sub-ethnic and sub-cultural diversity within the Jewish nation- yet many other nations possess even greater diversity and their nationhood is not being denied. The Arabs, for example, are extremely diverse in ethnic types and sub-cultures, their language serving as the sole unifying factor in exactly the same way as the Jewish tradition is for the Jews. Moreover, the direct hereditory link between different Jewish sub-ethnicities has been repeatedly confirmed by genetic research (of all existing Jewish sub-ethnicities, including the Black Ethiopean Jews, only the Jews of Libya were found to have little to none of the original Israelite ancestry).

3)Finally, the MAI may attempt to claim that the modern day Jews are somehow not the descendants of the Jews who were exiled from the Land of Israel. This tactic may assume two different shapes, both of which are racist. One possibility is for the MAI to suggest that the Jews have undergone substantial assimilation with the host nations, thereby losing their right for statehood in Israel. This, however, is a non-sequitur unless we assume that a nation's rights should be dependent on its genetic purity- an obviously racist and illegitimate position. The other alternative for MAI is to subscribe to the odd theory suggested by Arthur Koestler in his book "The Thirteenth Tribe"- that the modern Jews are in fact descendant of the Khazars, a Turkish tribe that has converted to Judaism in the early Middle Ages. Aside from the fact that this, too, has been disproved by genetic testing, anthropological research and historical records, this theory would imply that the Jewish nation in its entirety has perpetrated an identity theft of enormous proportions and continues to maintain it for over a thousand years- in other words, whoever believes in this has to subscribe to one of the most ambitions and least believable anti-Jewish conspiracy theories ever invented. This way, while the MAI in question may not be a conscious anti-Semite in his heart or mind, the nature of his ideology makes him one in practice.

Rabid Anti-Zionist
A Rabid Anti-Zionist often has no record of making anti-Semitic statements or otherwise expressing his hostility for the Jews as a people or to Judaism as a religion. He even boasts having one or more Jewish friends (which may or may not really exist), who think exactly the way he does. In fact, on the majority of common discussion subjects he may appear as a reasonable person- until the moment when the first mention of Israel, however brief or irrelevant, happens.

At this point, the RAZ experiences a massive loss of IQ and sanity, and launches a barrage of icoherent hateful rants, the ferocity of which even the most hate-filled, savage TAS could not rival. While not subscribing consistently to any specific form of anti-Zionism, the RAZ liberally borrows the fancier soundbites from them all and throws in for good measure his favorite ingredient- classic anti-Semitism redesigned for use against "Zionists". Israel. It is the RAZ who is most likely to claim that the "Zionists" rule America and the rest of the world by proxy, that they control the press, that the Mossad is behind the Islamic terrorism, the tsunami and the global warming. Sooner or later, anyone dealing with a RAZ recognizes the familiar themes and comes to the only logical conclusion: that the RAZ is in fact nothing but a thinly disguised TAS.


At this point, I will end my classification for the time being. Additional entries will follow once more species of Anti-Semites and Anti-Zionists are observed, captured and described.

Thats so ridiculous- as a trotskyist 2 jews have been major influences on my method of thinking and I still dont believe that one particular racial/religious group should have a homeland dedicated to themselves exclusively.

From the rivers to the sea
Palestine will be free

!INTIFADA!

Thats so ridiculous- as a trotskyist 2 jews have been major influences on my method of thinking and I still dont believe that one particular racial/religious group should have a homeland dedicated to themselves exclusively.

From the rivers to the sea
Palestine will be free

!INTIFADA!
Here's a challenge for those paying attention: classify the position expressed by DHomme according to the definitions I proposed.

You forgot the "just because you're a race doesn't mean you have a right to your own country" argument.

Then there's the "oppressive regimes shouldn't exist, whether or not that oppression is justified" argument.

Personally, I support Zionism and Palestinian independence only under specific conditions. For a state of Israel to remain unhypocritical, there must be established a Roma (gypsy) state in Pakistan with similar military advantages. For a Palestinian state, Native American reservations must be given full representation in the UN and substantial land grants.

Here's a challenge for those paying attention: classify the position expressed by DHomme according to the definitions I proposed.
Oh sorry, was that pack of bullshit option 1 or pack of bullshit option 2. From what Ive said Ive shat all over your ratings system in the least literal sense of the word

You forgot the "just because you're a race doesn't mean you have a right to your own country" argument.
If applied to all nations equally, this is a classic UAN position. If applied selectively, it violates the international law, namely the UN Charter, and in my classification is found under MAI number 1.





Then there's the "oppressive regimes shouldn't exist, whether or not that oppression is justified" argument.
This is a self-refuting argument that doesn't even merit classifications. If "oppression is justified", there is no reason why the regime should not exist.


Personally, I support Zionism and Palestinian independence only under specific conditions. For a state of Israel to remain unhypocritical, there must be established a Roma (gypsy) state in Pakistan with similar military advantages.
The Roma have not yet matured politically to the point of desiring self-determination. It will indeed be interesting to observe them when they finally "arrive".

For a Palestinian state, Native American reservations must be given full representation in the UN and substantial land grants.
Heh, that one is actually pretty damn funny. Can I steal it and use it for my Zionist purposes?

Oh sorry, was that pack of bullshit option 1 or pack of bullshit option 2. From what Ive said Ive shat all over your ratings system in the least literal sense of the word
You have most certainly shitted on something.:rolleyes:

I enjoyed reading your analyses and classifications. Very well thought out and put together.

(Hands The Holy Womble a Bolol Nuclear Cookie Mk. II)

I am an anti-Zionist, meaning I despise Jewish radicals. I find it quite intolerant and bigoted for the OP to lump together everyone who isn't pro-Jewish as an "animal".

I'm just wondering why the Jews, as a race, 'deserve' a nation while the Palestinians, as a race, who have been living continuously in the same region for longer (note I said continuously) are denied a land.

If applied to all nations equally, this is a classic UAN position. If applied selectively, it violates the international law, namely the UN Charter, and in my classification is found under MAI number 1.


This is a self-refuting argument that doesn't even merit classifications. If "oppression is justified", there is no reason why the regime should not exist.


The Roma have not yet matured politically to the point of desiring self-determination. It will indeed be interesting to observe them when they finally "arrive".


Heh, that one is actually pretty damn funny. Can I steal it and use it for my Zionist purposes?

Your UAN is an antinationalist position, not a position that denies racial self determination. Nations exist because people, not races, want them to exist. There are plenty of races without nations. If I had sex with some woman from Papua New Guinea, would the resulting child have the right to a nation?

I worded the second wrong. Think of it as: oppression is unjustifiable, oppressive states are illegitamate. Thus the state of Israel is illegitamate in that it oppresses the Palestinians. Come to think of it, none of your categories deal with simple empathy with the Palestinian cause.

If you justify nationality by desire, then that can work, but most Zionists I've met tend to justify Israel by the oppression the Jews suffered under. The Gypsies suffered under equal oppression, therefore by that justification they deserve their homeland as well.

As for the last one, do with it what you wish, but it really only works against a select few types of anti-Zionists, most of which aren't the rational ones anyway.

Oh, and just for kicks, another anti-Zionist argument that doesn't fit your classifications: a Jewish state should logically have been in New York, not Palestine, due to the higher percentage of Jews in the area.

Want a real quandry? I'm a Muslim Jew. :D

Anyway, whatev ...

I don't believe the current state of Israel is legal in the eyes of God. It is, however, a part of man's free will to create it and, thus, I agree that it should exist.

I do not, however, agree that the Palestinians need be senselessly punished for a crime they didn't commit. All they were doing was living, working, and raising their families when all of a sudden some folks came in and said "get out".

Since, however, I believe the Will of God must always supercede the desires of man, I say dissolve Israel. There ... I said it.

I'm with these guys:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

One more thing to add though. I am finding quite a few similarities between modern Zionism and Nazism, in how the Jews persecute the Arabs. My thoughts are that there needs to be a UN buffer zone between Israel and Palestine because simply put, neither side is mature enough to stop the fighting.

Your UAN is an antinationalist position, not a position that denies racial self determination. Nations exist because people, not races, want them to exist. There are plenty of races without nations. If I had sex with some woman from Papua New Guinea, would the resulting child have the right to a nation?
In this case. you are even further off the mark than I thought you were, since the Jews are a nation, a "peoples" and not a race of their own.


I worded the second wrong. Think of it as: oppression is unjustifiable, oppressive states are illegitamate. Thus the state of Israel is illegitamate in that it oppresses the Palestinians.
A non-sequitur. There is no conceivable reason why policies of a state would invalidate this state's right to exist rather than require a change of policies.


Come to think of it, none of your categories deal with simple empathy with the Palestinian cause.
If this "simple empathy" demands that Israel be destroyed, it falls under MAI, it it doesn't, it falls under AZFI.


If you justify nationality by desire, then that can work, but most Zionists I've met tend to justify Israel by the oppression the Jews suffered under. The Gypsies suffered under equal oppression, therefore by that justification they deserve their homeland as well.
Of course. But as I've said before, the Gypsies did not yet mature politically to demand one. They do not have a unifying national idea yet.


As for the last one, do with it what you wish, but it really only works against a select few types of anti-Zionists, most of which aren't the rational ones anyway.
Yep. That's the point. For the less rational ones, appeal to ridicule often works more effectively than logic:p

Personally, I support Zionism and Palestinian independence only under specific conditions. For a state of Israel to remain unhypocritical, there must be established a Roma (gypsy) state in Pakistan with similar military advantages.

The Roma have not yet matured politically to the point of desiring self-determination. It will indeed be interesting to observe them when they finally "arrive".

Hmmmmm. But who has the right to decide when a group has "matured politically to the point of desiring self-determination"? That's an argument that itself potentially opens its proponents to charges of racism. It was, after all, the classic argument used by moderate apartheid supporters in South Africa - "the blicks [sic] just aren't ready yet".

And surely this just opens up a can of worms....

Have the Kurds, for example, matured enough to have self-determination? If not, according to whom? What happens if the Turks say no, but the 'Iraqis' say yes?

Who says that self-determination automatically means the right to a nation in the original ancestral homeland of an ethnic group - might not the Roma be within their rights to establish a homeland anywhere where they're in a majority, even if that's in Europe? If an ethnic group has an automatic right to its ancestral homeland, should Kosovo be handed over to the Serbs even though Albanians are now in a majority?


As to the Israel / Palestine/ anti-Semitism issue that this thread is ostensibly about...

I abhor anti-Semitism.

I believe Israel, as an internationally recognised nation state, has the right to exist within its pre-1967 borders.

Some Israeli policies towards Palestinians strike me as profoundly immoral, but not nearly as immoral as the suicide bombing of civilians.

Peace will only come once both sides recognise each other's legitimate grievances, and realise that suicide bombing and the killing of innocent civilians no more justify the continued oppression of the population of an illegally occupied territory than the oppression of the population of an illegally occupied territory justifies suicide bombing and the killing of innocent civilians.

Interested to see where I end up on the Holy Womble categorisation.

Oh, and just for kicks, another anti-Zionist argument that doesn't fit your classifications: a Jewish state should logically have been in New York, not Palestine, due to the higher percentage of Jews in the area.
This is an odd two-headed mutant of a position that has not been discovered in sufficient numbers to classify it as a separate species of anti-Zionism:p

Drzhen- re-read my original post, and you will find your classification under Anti-Zionist From Ignorance. Your idea of what constitutes Zionism is completely warped, and it distorts your entire understanding of the problem. In fact, I would dare say that you don't have any definable ideological position at all, and only repeat the arguments made by others.

Keruvalia- I suggest you read more about the Neturei Karta before you declare that you are with them. Unless you love violent fundamentalists, that is.

It's a matter of property rights in my view. It doesn't matter whether this or that people suffered, it matters who owns what land. Put emotions and cultural significance aside, and it's a simpler matter.

Hmmmmm. But who has the right to decide when a group has "matured politically to the point of desiring self-determination"? That's an argument that itself potentially opens its proponents to charges of racism. It was, after all, the classic argument used by moderate apartheid supporters in South Africa - "the blicks [sic] just aren't ready yet".

And surely this just opens up a can of worms....

Have the Kurds, for example, matured enough to have self-determination? If not, according to whom? What happens if the Turks say no, but the 'Iraqis' say yes?

Who says that self-determination automatically means the right to a nation in the original ancestral homeland of an ethnic group - might not the Roma be within their rights to establish a homeland anywhere where they're in a majority, even if that's in Europe? If an ethnic group has an automatic right to its ancestral homeland, should Kosovo be handed over to the Serbs even though Albanians are now in a majority?


As to the Israel / Palestine/ anti-Semitism issue that this thread is ostensibly about...

I abhor anti-Semitism.

I believe Israel, as an internationally recognised nation state, has the right to exist within its pre-1967 borders.

Some Israeli policies towards Palestinians strike me as profoundly immoral, but not nearly as immoral as the suicide bombing of civilians.

Peace will only come once both sides recognise each other's legitimate grievances, and realise that suicide bombing and the killing of innocent civilians no more justify the continued oppression of the population of an illegally occupied territory than the oppression of the population of an illegally occupied territory justifies suicide bombing and the killing of innocent civilians.

Interested to see where I end up on the Holy Womble categorisation.

However, a person has every right to commit terrorist acts to end any illegal occupation. For example, we shouldn't have our goddamned troops in Iraq as it is, and Israel should stop being land-grabbing whores. I commend the Palestinians.

This is an odd two-headed mutant of a position that has not been discovered in sufficient numbers to classify it as a separate species of anti-Zionism:p

Drzhen- re-read my original post, and you will find your classification under Anti-Zionist From Ignorance. Your idea of what constitutes Zionism is completely warped, and it distorts your entire understanding of the problem. In fact, I would dare say that you don't have any definable ideological position at all, and only repeat the arguments made by others.

Keruvalia- I suggest you read more about the Neturei Karta before you declare that you are with them. Unless you love violent fundamentalists, that is.

No thanks. And you're still an ignorant Jew for claiming that everyone who isn't for you is somehow anti-Jewish. It comes across quite strongly as flaming, and I doubt anyone takes you seriously.

In this case. you are even further off the mark than I thought you were, since the Jews are a nation, a "peoples" and not a race of their own.

A non-sequitur. There is no conceivable reason why policies of a state would invalidate this state's right to exist rather than require a change of policies.

If this "simple empathy" demands that Israel be destroyed, it falls under MAI, it it doesn't, it falls under AZFI.

Of course. But as I've said before, the Gypsies did not yet mature politically to demand one. They do not have a unifying national idea yet.

Yep. That's the point. For the less rational ones, appeal to ridicule often works more effectively than logic:p

On the first: my point is that it is only under a very few theories of government that government is justified by a common culture, race, whatever. There are many other ways to justify governments, all of which wouldn't give any group a "right" to self determination. Another similar point to this that also doesn't fall under UAN is that rights either aren't collective at all, or, in my views, don't exist.

The second: some would say that many of Israel's oppressive policies are inherent in its formation. Also, many political concepts, among them those in the Declaration of Independence, support the overthrow of tyrannical states. It's a common position, and one you certainly haven't covered in your classifications.

I agree that it's a type of MAI, but its not one that you covered. Most reasonable arguments are MAIs.

So the fact that the Roma have rarely been incorporated into society, as opposed to the Jews who enjoyed long periods of acceptance, assimilation, and prosperity in between persecutions, and the fact that unlike Jews most Gypsies still dress differently than their fellow Europeans, makes them have less than a national spirit?
Or by national spirit, do you mean organizations and goals devoted to achieving a nation? In that case, you justify almost every secession movement in history.

I have met anti-semites who staunchly adovcate zionism. They just want it taken to its logical conclusion.

Personally I think they are idiots. But they are a nice counter example.

Keruvalia- I suggest you read more about the Neturei Karta before you declare that you are with them. Unless you love violent fundamentalists, that is.

Read it ... and I found it about as believable as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I've studied it and made up my own mind.

If you believe Israel should be as it is and more, then so be it. I also remember the scholars of Talmud writing that if we were ever to regain Israel through military might, rather than the Will of God, then ceaseless war would be the result.

Those 8th century scholars were pretty damn smart. Maybe all of us Jews should listen to them.

Hmmmmm. But who has the right to decide when a group has "matured politically to the point of desiring self-determination"?
The group itself, of course. When an ethnic group defines themselves as a nation, has their own distinct political interests and decides that it wants to rule itself and not be ruled by others, they have matured. The Gypsies have not matured politically in this sense. The Kurds and the Palestinians, on the other hand, have "arrived". In fact, the Palestinians are a quintessential example of how a group of people goes from a bunch of politically indifferent clans of diverse origin to a unified, mature self-conscious nation in less than a century.


Who says that self-determination automatically means the right to a nation in the original ancestral homeland of an ethnic group - might not the Roma be within their rights to establish a homeland anywhere where they're in a majority, even if that's in Europe?
The Roma do not associate themselves with any particular territory. If they did establish one de-facto and become a majority in it, a claim for autonomy would indeed merit discussion.


If an ethnic group has an automatic right to its ancestral homeland, should Kosovo be handed over to the Serbs even though Albanians are now in a majority?
Well, since you've asked- Kosovo is indeed a tricky case and I do not find their claim justified, since the Albanians have a nation state of their own, and the demand for Kosovo independence violates the UN Charter in the part where it says that the territorial integrity of a state should not be violated.


As to the Israel / Palestine/ anti-Semitism issue that this thread is ostensibly about...

I abhor anti-Semitism.

I believe Israel, as an internationally recognised nation state, has the right to exist within its pre-1967 borders.

Some Israeli policies towards Palestinians strike me as profoundly immoral, but not nearly as immoral as the suicide bombing of civilians.

Peace will only come once both sides recognise each other's legitimate grievances, and realise that suicide bombing and the killing of innocent civilians no more justify the continued oppression of the population of an illegally occupied territory than the oppression of the population of an illegally occupied territory justifies suicide bombing and the killing of innocent civilians.

Interested to see where I end up on the Holy Womble categorisation.
Well, if you called yourself an Anti-Zionist, you would be an AZFI. Right now you are neither an anti-Semite nor an anti-Zionist, so why would you find yourself on my list?

I have met anti-semites who staunchly adovcate zionism. They just want it taken to its logical conclusion.

Personally I think they are idiots. But they are a nice counter example.
Do give an example. Sounds like a species worth classifying.

No thanks. And you're still an ignorant Jew for claiming that everyone who isn't for you is somehow anti-Jewish.
Have I claimed that? Do quote.

independence violates the UN Charter in the part where it says that the territorial integrity of a state should not be violated.


But doesn't that counter act the right of self determination then? I mean, SOMEONES territorial integrity always suffers for self determination.

At first sight, the two may appear distinct from each other, as the anti-Zionists claim to only direct their fangs at Israel and not at the Jewish people. However, so many exceptions to this rule have been observed and recorded that many researchers came to conclude that the two are in fact one and the same- a claim supported by the fact that all anti-Semites are invariably anti-Zionists.
Raccoons and mammals are one and the same, a claim supported by the fact that all raccoons are invariably mammals?

On the first: my point is that it is only under a very few theories of government that government is justified by a common culture, race, whatever. There are many other ways to justify governments, all of which wouldn't give any group a "right" to self determination.
Given the existence of the international law and the UN Charter in particular, I don't see what relevance these "many other ways" may possibly have to the reality on the ground.


Another similar point to this that also doesn't fall under UAN is that rights either aren't collective at all, or, in my views, don't exist.
The international law in its entirety is founded on the concept of collective rights.

Hmm, an Anti-Zionist position founded on denial of international law? Need to do more research on how common it is...


The second: some would say that many of Israel's oppressive policies are inherent in its formation. Also, many political concepts, among them those in the Declaration of Independence, support the overthrow of tyrannical states. It's a common position, and one you certainly haven't covered in your classifications.

I agree that it's a type of MAI, but its not one that you covered. Most reasonable arguments are MAIs..
These positions refer to overthrow of specific governments, not destruction of states as national entities. And the "original sin" take is integral to all MAI types. I will see tomorrow if it needs expanding.


So the fact that the Roma have rarely been incorporated into society, as opposed to the Jews who enjoyed long periods of acceptance, assimilation, and prosperity in between persecutions, and the fact that unlike Jews most Gypsies still dress differently than their fellow Europeans, makes them have less than a national spirit?
A monumental misunderstanding of everything I've written.


Or by national spirit, do you mean organizations and goals devoted to achieving a nation? In that case, you justify almost every secession movement in history.
Yup. Most of them actually were.

Do give an example. Sounds like a species worth classifying.
They're the ones who would be happier if all the Jews went to one place so nobody else would have to see, hear or deal with them.

But doesn't that counter act the right of self determination then? I mean, SOMEONES territorial integrity always suffers for self determination.
That's the international law to you. A pile of contradictions:p

Seriously, though, it is not always the case. It certainly wasn't the case with Israel, as Israel was founded where no independent political entity existed at the time. As someone else on this forum pointed out a while ago, a Native American claim for statehood on land currently occupied by the US would be seen as a violation of US souvereignity. However, if the US were to collapse and THEN the Native Americans were to demand statehood, it would have been seen in a different light.

They're the ones who would be happier if all the Jews went to one place so nobody else would have to see, hear or deal with them.
Ahh yes, THOSE types. And here I was wondering which anti-Semites I've left out.:D

That's the international law to you. A pile of contradictions:p

Seriously, though, it is not always the case. It certainly wasn't the case with Israel, as Israel was founded where no independent political entity existed at the time. As someone else on this forum pointed out a while ago, a Native American claim for statehood on land currently occupied by the US would be seen as a violation of US souvereignity. However, if the US were to collapse and THEN the Native Americans were to demand statehood, it would have been seen in a different light.

But by that same logic, states such as The Republic of Ireland, Pakistan, Panama and Eritrea should not have legitimacy because they came into being via self determination but by violating the then current independent political entity's territorial integrity???

I don't understand what your point was- was it some people have the right to self determination, but others don't? If so, what is the cut off point for that decision?

If not, could you provide another explanation?

But by that same logic, states such as The Republic of Ireland, Pakistan, Panama and Eritrea should not have legitimacy because they came into being via self determination but by violating the then current independent political entity's territorial integrity???

I don't understand what your point was- was it some people have the right to self determination, but others don't? If so, what is the cut off point for that decision?

If not, could you provide another explanation?
Ahem. Let me clarify.

The international law as represented by the UN Charter asserts both the right of nations for self-determination and the right of states for territorial integrity equally. When these rights are in contradiction, however, one inevitably needs to prioritize.

In case of a nation that at present have no nation state of their own, the right for self-determination usually takes precedence. This is not, however, the case when an ethnic minority that already has a nation state where their political aspirations can be realised. It is this kind of secession movements that are usually seen as questionable.

This way, the original demand by the Pakistanis to secede from India (based, by the way, on the famous "two nations theory") was justified. However, now that Pakistan exists, a demand of independence by a predominantly Pakistani region elsewhere in the world would not be regarded as justified.

Speaking of another example you proposed- notice that the British control over Northern Ireland is not normally regarded by most as a colonial occupation- but it without a doubt would be, if there was no independent Republic of Ireland.

That's the international law to you. A pile of contradictions:p

Seriously, though, it is not always the case. It certainly wasn't the case with Israel, as Israel was founded where no independent political entity existed at the time. As someone else on this forum pointed out a while ago, a Native American claim for statehood on land currently occupied by the US would be seen as a violation of US souvereignity. However, if the US were to collapse and THEN the Native Americans were to demand statehood, it would have been seen in a different light.

Britain isn't a political entity? WTF?

As to the international law stuff: Could you quote the passage where it refers to any sort of collective rights as opposed in individual ones? I don't doubt it exists, but I'd like to read it.

In any case, international law is hardly moral law, or even universal law (US hasn't agreed to the UNDHR, for example). Just because something is legal doesn't mean its good. It's hardly a fallacy to oppose an immoral but legal action. Most theories of democratic self determination refer to territorial, sovreign bodies, not cultural groups.

As for the Declaration arguments, isn't opposing Israel advocating the overthrow of a specific government? Or is Irael not specific?
Yes, I know you mean that the Declaration was written to justify a specific course of action, but its philosophical basis justifies the repetition of such action in other areas.

You say that all organized grabs at sovreignty are justified. There was a cult around where I live that tried to poison a restaurant's food to give themselves a majority in an upcoming election so they could gain political power. Are you saying that's justified?

Britain isn't a political entity?

No, of course not ... remember ... it's just a cute Island where Americans go to vacation. :D

Ahem. Let me clarify.

The international law as represented by the UN Charter asserts both the right of nations for self-determination and the right of states for territorial integrity equally. When these rights are in contradiction, however, one inevitably needs to prioritize.

In case of a nation that at present have no nation state of their own, the right for self-determination usually takes precedence. This is not, however, the case when an ethnic minority that already has a nation state where their political aspirations can be realised. It is this kind of secession movements that are usually seen as questionable.

This way, the original demand by the Pakistanis to secede from India (based, by the way, on the famous "two nations theory") was justified. However, now that Pakistan exists, a demand of independence by a predominantly Pakistani region elsewhere in the world would not be regarded as justified.

Speaking of another example you proposed- notice that the British control over Northern Ireland is not normally regarded by most as a colonial occupation- but it without a doubt would be, if there was no independent Republic of Ireland.

Thank you for clarifying. And i do realise that this is off topic ;)

Regards another predominantly Pakistani region demanding recognition.... did Bangladesh not do exactly that (West/East Pakistan?) Therefore, are we to not recognise their right to self determination?

As for Northern Ireland... well, alot of people would still use the term 'colonise' for that ;) [/off topic]

Britain isn't a political entity? WTF?
These territories were not an integral part of Britain, but a no-man's land entrusted for temporary British governance by the League of the Nations.

[quoe]
As to the international law stuff: Could you quote the passage where it refers to any sort of collective rights as opposed in individual ones? I don't doubt it exists, but I'd like to read it.[/quote]
UN Charter, Chapter 11, Article 73:

DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
Article 73
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well- being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicunchart.htm#Chapter9

The "stages of advancement" part also applies to my debate with Psychotic Mongooses.


In any case, international law is hardly moral law, or even universal law (US hasn't agreed to the UNDHR, for example). Just because something is legal doesn't mean its good. It's hardly a fallacy to oppose an immoral but legal action.
Suppose. But if we are to talk morality, denying the Jewish people their land just because they were forced out of it for too long is in itself an immoral proposition. Especially given the history of persecution the Jews were being subjected to due to being at the complete mercy of others- which in THIS context is a very valid argument.

Most theories of democratic self determination refer to territorial, sovreign bodies, not cultural groups.
Not true. Nations are not always defined by territory, yet they ARE defined by culture.


As for the Declaration arguments, isn't opposing Israel advocating the overthrow of a specific government? Or is Irael not specific?
Opposing the rule of Ariel Sharon is legitimate. But Israel is not a government, it is a state, and disagreement with any number of its governments does not merit the abolition of the state.


You say that all organized grabs at sovreignty are justified. There was a cult around where I live that tried to poison a restaurant's food to give themselves a majority in an upcoming election so they could gain political power. Are you saying that's justified?
I am saying that you have produced another non-sequitur. A pile of them, n fact. "A cult around where you live"? That doesn't sound like a nation seeking self-rule to me. Did that cult define themselves as their own nation, and did they seek to found their own state? Moreover, even if we were talking about an actual nation making a justified demand for independence, it would still not justify the use of unlawful means. However, the use of unlawful means also wouldn't invalidate an otherwise justified demand- just like, say, the suicide bombings, while being the most abhorrent of means, do not invalidate the Palestinian people's right for a state of their own.

Thank you for clarifying. And i do realise that this is off topic ;)

Regards another predominantly Pakistani region demanding recognition.... did Bangladesh not do exactly that (West/East Pakistan?) Therefore, are we to not recognise their right to self determination?
I am not familiar with the story of the creation of Bangladesh. I do know, however, that the people of Bangladesh most certainly do not see themselves as Pakistanis, but rather as a distinct nation self-named as Bengali.


As for Northern Ireland... well, alot of people would still use the term 'colonise' for that ;) [/off topic]
Most of them Irish, no doubt :P

Is there room in your classification system for an anti-Likudist - one who is neither anti-Semitic nor opposed to the existence of the state of Israel, but who deplores the current Israeli government?

These territories were not an integral part of Britain, but a no-man's land entrusted for temporary British governance by the League of the Nations.

[quoe]
As to the international law stuff: Could you quote the passage where it refers to any sort of collective rights as opposed in individual ones? I don't doubt it exists, but I'd like to read it
UN Charter, Chapter 11, Article 73:

DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
Article 73
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well- being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicunchart.htm#Chapter9

The "stages of advancement" part also applies to my debate with Psychotic Mongooses.


Suppose. But if we are to talk morality, denying the Jewish people their land just because they were forced out of it for too long is in itself an immoral proposition. Especially given the history of persecution the Jews were being subjected to due to being at the complete mercy of others- which in THIS context is a very valid argument.


Not true. Nations are not always defined by territory, yet they ARE defined by culture.


Opposing the rule of Ariel Sharon is legitimate. But Israel is not a government, it is a state, and disagreement with any number of its governments does not merit the abolition of the state.


I am saying that you have produced another non-sequitur. A pile of them, n fact. "A cult around where you live"? That doesn't sound like a nation seeking self-rule to me. Did that cult define themselves as their own nation, and did they seek to found their own state? Moreover, even if we were talking about an actual nation making a justified demand for independence, it would still not justify the use of unlawful means. However, the use of unlawful means also wouldn't invalidate an otherwise justified demand- just like, say, the suicide bombings, while being the most abhorrent of means, do not invalidate the Palestinian people's right for a state of their own.

The UN passage you quoted is irrelevant in this situation, as most European Jews did have self determination. Self determination merely means you can vote for the group that governs the place you live, its not a cultural/ethnic concept, at least according to the passage you quoted.

As for the morality thing, I agree that obviously you have to weigh both sides on a variety of systems, the point is that by simply denying validity to anything that goes against international law (such as the "Where do these 'rights' come from anyway?" question) ignores some of the most prevalent anti-Zionist arguments. In short, your classification is lacking, most likely because its a straw man anyway.

Nations are defined by culture, states are not. Being a nation does not equate with being a state.

The "overthrow because of oppression" can either be justified by some sort of concept of taintedness/start over/forfeit your right by impinging on others, or it can simply be the desire to get rid of government policies that happen to include exclusively Jewish sovreignty over Palestine. In either case it's another very, very common argument you have neglected to cover.

And as for said cult: the cult was called Raj Neesh, and it did fit many of your qualifiers, but I've got an example that fits better:
Let's say there's a substantial Neo-Nazi group that advocates the creation of a Neo-Nazi homeland in Germany where they can practice Nazi traditions free from persecution (There probably is a group like this). Do they have a right to form their own state?

However, a person has every right to commit terrorist acts to end any illegal occupation. For example, we shouldn't have our goddamned troops in Iraq as it is, and Israel should stop being land-grabbing whores. I commend the Palestinians.
I honestly wish there would be a new "Godwin" for idiots who believe that indiscriminant killing of civillans (& children, dammit) (terrorisim) rather than atacking the governmental authority (combat) is an acceptable method of redress.

Drzhen, you are an idiot. Go worship St. Pancake.

Is there room in your classification system for an anti-Likudist - one who is neither anti-Semitic nor opposed to the existence of the state of Israel, but who deplores the current Israeli government?

From what I've observed of the original poster's arguments, such a group simply doesn't apply. They harm the effectiveness of the straw man.

Nations are defined by culture, states are not. Being a nation does not equate with being a state.


Let's say there's a substantial Neo-Nazi group that advocates the creation of a Neo-Nazi homeland in Germany where they can practice Nazi traditions free from persecution (There probably is a group like this). Do they have a right to form their own state?

Thats a very interesting point actually. Similiar culture, languages, history, traditions.... they do seem to fit a possible case for self determinaton under your points Holy Womble...:confused:

Do give an example. Sounds like a species worth classifying.

I have met people who think that zionism is a great idea because then all the jews would live in isreal, and not in other - basically the US - countries. In other words, they don't want the jewish people wiped out, but they want to live in a country that is free of jews.

Like I said, I think they are idiots. Nevertheless I have heard this viewpoint.

I have met people who think that zionism is a great idea because then all the jews would live in isreal, and not in other - basically the US - countries. In other words, they don't want the jewish people wiped out, but they want to live in a country that is free of jews.

Like I said, I think they are idiots. Nevertheless I have heard this viewpoint.
Plus there are the "Christian Zionists" who read too much Hal Lindsey/"Left Behind" who want to see the Temple restored so that Jebus can Ragnarok & Roll them away while the rest of us get to suffer... :rolleyes:

Dear audience:

In light of the constant arguments over whether or not the anti-Semites and the anti-Zionists are the same animal, I have taken on myself the dirty and ungrateful task of distinguishing between and classifying these two more or less equally repulsive and annoying types of pest. In my many past cyberspace travels I was frequently forced to confront these often ferocious, yet rarely intelligent critters, flush them out of hiding and (in the vast majority of cases) successfully slay and skin many of their specimen in various debates. I believe the accumulated experience will allow me to create a more or less accurate classification.

Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, the question of whether the anti-Semites and the anti-Zionists belong to the same ideological breed is more complex than it appears. At first sight, the two may appear distinct from each other, as the anti-Zionists claim to only direct their fangs at Israel and not at the Jewish people. However, so many exceptions to this rule have been observed and recorded that many researchers came to conclude that the two are in fact one and the same- a claim supported by the fact that all anti-Semites are invariably anti-Zionists. The exceptionally high rate of cross-breeding further complicates matters. However, I suggest that the distinction may be made clear if the two are examined against a definition of Zionism, against which the anti-Zionists are believed to have evolved.

For the purpose of my research, I have adopted the definition of Zionism as proposed by the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism), which, to my knowledge, is not contradicted by any academic sources:

Zionism is a political movement and an ideology that supports a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated and where Jewish kingdoms and self governing states existed at various times in history.

An anti-Zionist, then, would have to be someone who is opposed to the creation of a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel.

At the same time, anti-Semitism is defined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism) by the same source as hostility towards or prejudice against Jews, therefore we will define an anti-Semite as a person harboring or expressing the aforementioned hostility ot prejudice in any way or form. Observed examples of anti-Semitism were for the most part religious or racial/ethnic, but other forms have also been noticed.

These definition will provide us with the basis for the below classification.

Species of Anti-Semits

Typical Anti-Semite

As a rule, the Typical Anti-Semite (TAS) is a sub-species of the Typical Racist (TR) with a particular thirst for Jewish flesh. He is a rather miserable and nasty smelling critter found in large quantities on the neo-Nazi website. Invading a decent web forum, the TAS specimen usually act as pests, leaving their toxic verbal excrement in the corners and occasionally hijacking a thread or two.

A Typical Anti-Semite attacks Jews because they are Jews and makes little effort to disguise his agenda. Occasionally, he may also direct his attacks at Israel, but only as a way of "proving" his paranoid fantasies of Jews as omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and infinitely evil beings.

Religious Anti-Semite

The Religious Anti-Semite(RAS), usually found on Christian or Muslim forums, differs very little from the Typical anti-Semite, except in his rhetorics. While a Typical Racist will usually attempt to support his case with perverted interpretations of scientific theories such as evolution and genetics, the RAS will defend his hatred with extensive quotes from the New Testament or the Qur'an. Quite often he will site the killing of Jesus or the Qur'anic story of Jews violating treaties with Mohammed as an example of Jewish evilness. However, when it comes to political matters, the two will become near indentical in their obsessive desire to explain anything and everything by the supposed power and influence of the evil Jews. Therefore, some researchers insist on classifying both TAS and RAS as the same species, "antisemitismus vulgaris".



Species of Anti-Zionist

Anti-Zionist From Ignorance

Usually of moderate to high intelligence, but of limited knowledge, the Anti-Zionist From Ignorance is not an anti-Zionist per se. He is not really against Israel, but rather disagrees with the way Israel behaves here and there. While AZFI may at times declare himself an anti-Zionist, his self-identification as one is usually more a matter of herd mentality than anything else. Unaware of what Zionism is, the AZFI merely seeks a fancy name and a group to join in his opposition to certain policies of the state of Israel, which he for one reason or another finds illegitimate or unjustified. AZFI is usually a fairly reasonable person, and as long as he does not mutate into a different species by becoming an opponent of the very existence of the state of Israel, he can be reasoned with. The claims AZFI makes and the opinions he expresses may be right or wrong, but they never merit a charge of anti-Semitism. However, obsessive singling out Israel for scrutiny while ignoring similar offenses by other countries may make some of the AZFI specimen suspects in this regard, and other species often masquerade as AZFI to gain legitimacy for their more harmful theories.

Judeo-Anti-Zionists, a.k.a. Neturei Karta
The JAZ is typically an Orthodox Jewish fanatic from a number of tiny sects like the Satmar hassids, whose opposition to the existence of Israel has nothing to do with what Israel does or what policies it implements. It is a purely religious fundamentalist position, that holds that creating a Jewish state violates the tenets of Judaism, namely the so-called Three Oaths (an unilateral commitment of the Jews to not restore their statehood for as long as the non-Jewish nations do not overly persecute them in their exile. It was believed that by restoring their statehood the Jews have the power to bring about the End of Days), and that only a Messiah is allowed to do that. In addition, the JAZ do not consider Israel a truly Jewish state as Israel is a secular country not governed by the Jewish religious law. Fairly common among the Jewish Orthodoxy during the early 20 century, the JAZ position is a laughing stock for both the modern and the secular Jews today, and their theology is widely believed to have been invalidated by the Holocaust (it being an attempt to destroy the entire Jewish nation).

Utopian Anti-Nationalist, a.k.a. Dreamer Against Common Sense

The Utopian Anti-Nationalist's opposition the existence of Israel stems from his general opposition to nationalism, defined borders between nations and the concept of the State in general. Since the UAN lives in the fantasy world of his own and is usually removed far enough from any actual decision making to never see the practical implementation of his vision, he can afford to preach impossible ideas for a magical solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

While some of the other species of Anti-Zionist will often employ UAN arguments when cornered, a true consistent UAN is a fairly rare breed. Debating with him is usually useless, as he is immune to facts and logic of the real world and his theories are invariably non-falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

Moralist Against Israel
The MAI specimen, as a rule, argue against the existence of Israel from moral grounds- he claims that the creation of Israel was an injustis to the Palestinians and therefore was an immoral act. This puts him into an unenviable and completely indefensible position when confronted by the charge that denying self-determination to the Jewish people is in itself immoral, unjust and contrary to the international law, which asserts that self-determination is each nation's inalianable right. A cornered MAI has a very limited choice of defense strategies, neither of which can save him:

1)The MAI may adopt the UAN rhetorics, claiming that the Jews are no longer persecuted in the West and therefore have no need for self-rule. Aside from the fact that this position remains inherently unjust as it denies the Jews their inalienable rights, the MAI is forced to constantly close his eyes to the existence of large numbers of TAS and RAS in the Western states, to frequent anti-Semitic attacks and to the fact that the Jews are still discriminated against in many countries of the world. Usually, he will attempt to rationalize all this by blaming it on Israel, as if the levels of anti-Semitism were any lower before Israel's creation and as if they did not culminate in the Holocaust in exactly those societies where the Jews were formerly considered well-established.

A masquerading MAI can be rather easily distinguished from the true UAN, since where a true UAN would oppose the very concept of national self-determination within defined borders, a MAI will still insist on the national self-determination being an inalienable right for the Palestinians, the Kosovars, the Iraqis- in short, for anyone but the Jews.

2)The MAI may claim that the Jews are not really a nation, but rather a religion. This is a peculiar claim of relatively recent origin, since before the creation of Israel there was no doubt whatsoever as for the nationhood of the Jews. The only argument that may be offered in support of this position is the great sub-ethnic and sub-cultural diversity within the Jewish nation- yet many other nations possess even greater diversity and their nationhood is not being denied. The Arabs, for example, are extremely diverse in ethnic types and sub-cultures, their language serving as the sole unifying factor in exactly the same way as the Jewish tradition is for the Jews. Moreover, the direct hereditory link between different Jewish sub-ethnicities has been repeatedly confirmed by genetic research (of all existing Jewish sub-ethnicities, including the Black Ethiopean Jews, only the Jews of Libya were found to have little to none of the original Israelite ancestry).

3)Finally, the MAI may attempt to claim that the modern day Jews are somehow not the descendants of the Jews who were exiled from the Land of Israel. This tactic may assume two different shapes, both of which are racist. One possibility is for the MAI to suggest that the Jews have undergone substantial assimilation with the host nations, thereby losing their right for statehood in Israel. This, however, is a non-sequitur unless we assume that a nation's rights should be dependent on its genetic purity- an obviously racist and illegitimate position. The other alternative for MAI is to subscribe to the odd theory suggested by Arthur Koestler in his book "The Thirteenth Tribe"- that the modern Jews are in fact descendant of the Khazars, a Turkish tribe that has converted to Judaism in the early Middle Ages. Aside from the fact that this, too, has been disproved by genetic testing, anthropological research and historical records, this theory would imply that the Jewish nation in its entirety has perpetrated an identity theft of enormous proportions and continues to maintain it for over a thousand years- in other words, whoever believes in this has to subscribe to one of the most ambitions and least believable anti-Jewish conspiracy theories ever invented. This way, while the MAI in question may not be a conscious anti-Semite in his heart or mind, the nature of his ideology makes him one in practice.

Rabid Anti-Zionist
A Rabid Anti-Zionist often has no record of making anti-Semitic statements or otherwise expressing his hostility for the Jews as a people or to Judaism as a religion. He even boasts having one or more Jewish friends (which may or may not really exist), who think exactly the way he does. In fact, on the majority of common discussion subjects he may appear as a reasonable person- until the moment when the first mention of Israel, however brief or irrelevant, happens.

At this point, the RAZ experiences a massive loss of IQ and sanity, and launches a barrage of icoherent hateful rants, the ferocity of which even the most hate-filled, savage TAS could not rival. While not subscribing consistently to any specific form of anti-Zionism, the RAZ liberally borrows the fancier soundbites from them all and throws in for good measure his favorite ingredient- classic anti-Semitism redesigned for use against "Zionists". Israel. It is the RAZ who is most likely to claim that the "Zionists" rule America and the rest of the world by proxy, that they control the press, that the Mossad is behind the Islamic terrorism, the tsunami and the global warming. Sooner or later, anyone dealing with a RAZ recognizes the familiar themes and comes to the only logical conclusion: that the RAZ is in fact nothing but a thinly disguised TAS.


At this point, I will end my classification for the time being. Additional entries will follow once more species of Anti-Semites and Anti-Zionists are observed, captured and described.



My thoughts on the entire mess:
The Jews got their ass handed to them by revolting against the Romans.
The Jews lost their homeland by being stupid.
The Palestinians have been living in Palestine for more than 900 years.
The Jews started kicking Palestinians off of their property pre-Israel.
The Palestinians have been turned into refugees, kicked out of a country that was their home.
Palestine was home to three times as many Palestinians as Jews.
Israel currently does not consider Palestinians to be Israeli citizens.
Palestinians were, for the longest time the staple of the Israeli economy.
Palestinians never got representation, and have had their villages forcibly demolished so that Israelis can move in for free.
No people group deserves liberty at the expense of another group.
The Jews should grant all Palestinians full citizenship, or should move to Argentina (the other proposed site for the Zionist country).

What am I then? I'm a rabid Anti-Zionist in my own right. But I know that it's because the Palestinians lived here first. They were forcibly relocated. Their rights were stripped, and then they were shelled and air-struck in order to kill the Palestinian militants, but in reality, mostly civilians died.

You are just a foolish Zionist who thinks your people are the closest thing to god on earth. To think for a minute that you aren't responsible for the plight the Palestinians are in? For the same reason, I think the United States should be given completely back to the Native American descendants from the original tribes. It was their land first and we persecuted them and drove them off. Same with the Israelis. It's the reason why so many Arabs and Europeans hate you. Because you have this notion that you need something at the expense of another people group.

So if the palestinians get their land back when are the prussians going to get their land back?

My thoughts on the entire mess:
The Jews got their ass handed to them by revolting against the Romans.
The Jews lost their homeland by being stupid.
The Palestinians have been living in Palestine for more than 900 years.
The Jews started kicking Palestinians off of their property pre-Israel.
The Palestinians have been turned into refugees, kicked out of a country that was their home.
Palestine was home to three times as many Palestinians as Jews.
Israel currently does not consider Palestinians to be Israeli citizens.
Palestinians were, for the longest time the staple of the Israeli economy.
Palestinians never got representation, and have had their villages forcibly demolished so that Israelis can move in for free.
No people group deserves liberty at the expense of another group.
The Jews should grant all Palestinians full citizenship, or should move to Argentina (the other proposed site for the Zionist country).
Another worshiper of St. Pancake I see....

Psst - clue: The Palis were offered their own "homeland" as well when Britan moved out... they said "FU, we want it all - with no stinking Joos either"

The Palis made their own bed. It was no more "their" country than it was "the Jews"... It was England's. They gave up their right to a "homeland" when they declined the offer. Tough shit on them.

Another worshiper of St. Pancake I see....

Psst - clue: The Palis were offered their own "homeland" as well when Britan moved out... they said "FU, we want it all - with no stinking Joos either"

The Palis made their own bed. It was no more "their" country than it was "the Jews"... It was England's. They gave up their right to a "homeland" when they declined the offer. Tough shit on them.


I did think that was one of the stupidest decisions ever in history, but it doesn't legitimize the Israeli state. Their work-force is Palestinian. Thus they should be allowed to vote. This is not happening, and Israeli policy for most of the 20th century involved expelling all the Palestinians from Palestine, as well as laying claim to parts of Jordan and Syria.

[QUOTE=Mods can be so cruel]Their work-force is Palestinian. Thus they should be allowed to vote.[QUOTE]

(I've been reading this thread for a bit. Great discussion!)

Actually, one thing that has been complicating the peace-process is the fact that after the second intifada the workforce in Israel has changed. Especially in the second more than the first, more Palestinians left the Israeli workforce. They were replaced by an influx of workers from southeast Asia (like Thailand, Burma, etc.) This makes it harder for Palestinians to come back into Israel even if they could because there are no jobs.

My thoughts on the entire mess:
The Jews got their ass handed to them by revolting against the Romans.
The Jews lost their homeland by being stupid.
The Palestinians have been living in Palestine for more than 900 years.
The Jews started kicking Palestinians off of their property pre-Israel.
The Palestinians have been turned into refugees, kicked out of a country that was their home.
Palestine was home to three times as many Palestinians as Jews.
Israel currently does not consider Palestinians to be Israeli citizens.
Palestinians were, for the longest time the staple of the Israeli economy.
Palestinians never got representation, and have had their villages forcibly demolished so that Israelis can move in for free.
No people group deserves liberty at the expense of another group.
The Jews should grant all Palestinians full citizenship, or should move to Argentina (the other proposed site for the Zionist country).

What am I then? I'm a rabid Anti-Zionist in my own right. But I know that it's because the Palestinians lived here first. They were forcibly relocated. Their rights were stripped, and then they were shelled and air-struck in order to kill the Palestinian militants, but in reality, mostly civilians died.

You are just a foolish Zionist who thinks your people are the closest thing to god on earth. To think for a minute that you aren't responsible for the plight the Palestinians are in? For the same reason, I think the United States should be given completely back to the Native American descendants from the original tribes. It was their land first and we persecuted them and drove them off. Same with the Israelis. It's the reason why so many Arabs and Europeans hate you. Because you have this notion that you need something at the expense of another people group.

You're right. It should be Turkish. :rolleyes:

I did think that was one of the stupidest decisions ever in history, but it doesn't legitimize the Israeli state. Their work-force is Palestinian. Thus they should be allowed to vote. This is not happening, and Israeli policy for most of the 20th century involved expelling all the Palestinians from Palestine, as well as laying claim to parts of Jordan and Syria.
No, what legitimized the Israeli State was the ability of the Israelis to not only hold it against overwhelming odds, but to kick the asses of the people trying to run them off... and do it without blowing up a single Egyptian Bus or Coffee shop.

No, what legitimized the Israeli State was the ability of the Israelis to not only hold it against overwhelming odds, but to kick the asses of the people trying to run them off... and do it without blowing up a single Egyptian Bus or Coffee shop.

But some Israelis did blow up a hotel.

Now, one could argue over whether the King David Hotel in 1946 was a legitimate target as the HQ of the British military, one could argue over whether the Irgun and Menachem Begin were acting as freedom fighters rather than terrorists, and one could argue over whether the Irgun's apparent attempt to issue a warning substantially differentiates their actions from the actions of the PLO.

And we could sit here all night arguing over whether there's a difference in legitimacy between the actions of 'freedom fighters' versus the actions of 'terrorists'.

But however we define it, the fact remains that some Jewish residents of the Palestine mandate were prepared to take violent action against the then-governing authorities in the Palestine mandate, that said violent action resulted in the deaths of 91 people, of which 28 were Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others. Furthermore, that violent action was resolutely denounced by the Jewish Agency and David Ben-Gurion, who declared the Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people".

Now, a single bombing of a hotel hardly equates with an organised campaign of suicide bombing, and I'm by no means using this to try and engage in a pointless argument over moral equivalency, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that forty years ago some Jewish residents of the Palestine mandate were prepared to engage in what in modern terms would be described as acts of terrorism. Issuing statements along the lines of "I am speaking on behalf of the Hebrew underground. We have placed an explosive device in the hotel. Evacuate it at once - you have been warned" is perhaps something we're more likely to associate with the Irish Republican Army than the future leaders of the State of Israel.

So I'd politely note that Syniks is perhaps guilty of oversimplification.

And Menacham Begin? Future Prime Minister of Israel. Who says violent action against the internationally recognised governing authorities of a territorial area doesn't get you anywhere?

At the same time, anti-Semitism is defined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism) by the same source as hostility towards or prejudice against Jews,


this is not entirely true as Jews aren't the only Semites around

"The Jews got their ass handed to them by revolting against the Romans."

Yes, so they deserve to lose everything by trying to overthrow a tyrannical and oppressive government?

"The Jews lost their homeland by being stupid."

Or by the Romans issuing an order that forbade Jews from setting foot in Jerusalem, and then being sold as slaves throughout the Roman Empire.

"The Palestinians have been living in Palestine for more than 900 years."

The Jews have held that Israel has been both their Holy Land and Promised Land for over 3000 years.

"The Jews started kicking Palestinians off of their property pre-Israel."

As I recall, before WWII, there was a small Jewish population in Palestine minding their own business on their kibbutzes.

"The Palestinians have been turned into refugees, kicked out of a country that was their home."

The Jews were kicked out of their homes in so many different countries, they have a right to have their Promised Land from God back. And it's not as if the Palestinians have lost everything. They have plenty of Arab countries to go to, as well as the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

"Palestine was home to three times as many Palestinians as Jews."

Ok. I'll give you that.

"Israel currently does not consider Palestinians to be Israeli citizens."

No, I wouldn't want to consider the people who have dedicated themselves to destroying our existence as a citizen either. There are opportunites for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens. See below.

"Palestinians were, for the longest time the staple of the Israeli economy."

What's your point? That because they used to be a big part of the economy, they deserve something? In that case, us Jews demand reparations from Egypt, and the blacks demand reparations from the U.S.A.

"Palestinians never got representation, and have had their villages forcibly demolished so that Israelis can move in for free."

There are Palestinans on the Knesset. Also, Israel gives more and more land back (Gaza Strip and West Bank for instance) to the Palestinians in return for a halt to the terrorism. The terrorism has not stopped. Why should we believe them when they have lied every time?

"No people group deserves liberty at the expense of another group."

The same could be said to the terrorists who attack civilians rather than the government to get their "liberty".

"The Jews should grant all Palestinians full citizenship, or should move to Argentina (the other proposed site for the Zionist country)."

Copied straight from Wikipedia:
Israeli Arabs, also referred to as Arab-Israelis, Palestinian citizens of Israel or Arab citizens of Israel, are Arabs who are citizens of Israel.

"But I know that it's because the Palestinians lived here first."

See above. Jews have lived there over 3000 years.

"Their rights were stripped, and then they were shelled and air-struck in order to kill the Palestinian militants, but in reality, mostly civilians died."

And specifically targeting civilians instead of their military/government is better? There are always casualties of war. We kill a few civilians on accident, aiming to get a terrorist leader, and we are total evil bastards. The Palestinians blow up a movie theater and get sympathy? That is completely crooked.

"It's the reason why so many Arabs and Europeans hate you"

No, most people hate us simply because we are Jewish. Look at a history book.

"Because you have this notion that you need something at the expense of another people group."

Yet again, the same is true for the Palestinans. They "need" land, so they get it by blowing up a school bus here or there. They demand their land back, but have done nothing peaceful to earn it.

EDIT: Added that there are Palestinians on Knesset.

I honestly wish there would be a new "Godwin" for idiots who believe that indiscriminant killing of civillans (& children, dammit) (terrorisim) rather than atacking the governmental authority (combat) is an acceptable method of redress.

Drzhen, you are an idiot. Go worship St. Pancake.

When a nation is occupied illegally by foreign forces, it would still be in a technical state of war. The Arabs are simply fighting how they can. They can't organize an army because American dollars sent to the Israelis is far too much to fight against. Militarily speaking, terrorism is an effective form of resistance. The French Maquis fought against the Nazis and held up many divisions from being sent into Soviet Russia. Consider the situation. If my country was conquered and occupied by a foreign nation, I would have no qualms in bombing the enemy civilian population.

And let's not forget Ariel Sharon is a total prick for walking on the Temple Mount the way he did. He did it out of spite and televised as a media event. That event single handedly launched the intifada and broke up the peace process in the 90's. Plus he looks like and walks like the Penguin from Batman II.

When a nation is occupied illegally by foreign forces, it would still be in a technical state of war. The Arabs are simply fighting how they can. They can't organize an army because American dollars sent to the Israelis is far too much to fight against. Militarily speaking, terrorism is an effective form of resistance. The French Maquis fought against the Nazis and held up many divisions from being sent into Soviet Russia. Consider the situation. If my country was conquered and occupied by a foreign nation, I would have no qualms in bombing the enemy civilian population.

The French actively sought out civilians? News to me. As for an effective form of resistance, I guess it applies to Israelis as well. Catching Palestinian civilians in the crossfire of wiping out terrorists is ok then. We are doing whatever we can to eliminate a threat to our people and way of life. "Fighting in the way we can," as you call it. Terrorism is no good whatever way you look at it. Hell, I even disagree with the Jewish bombing of that hotel in the 40's. At least they had the decency to send a note in advance though.

And let's not forget Ariel Sharon is a total prick for walking on the Temple Mount the way he did. He did it out of spite and televised as a media event. That event single handedly launched the intifada and broke up the peace process in the 90's. Plus he looks like and walks like the Penguin from Batman II.

There is nothing wrong with a Jew walking on a Jewish holy site.

The PLO had been planning their terrorist campaign for months. Walk or no walk, they'd have launched it anyway.

Now, one could argue over whether the King David Hotel in 1946 was a legitimate target as the HQ of the British military,

There can be no argument over that fact. When civilian property is impressed into military service, it is a legitimate military target.

However, a person has every right to commit terrorist acts to end any illegal occupation. For example, we shouldn't have our goddamned troops in Iraq as it is, and Israel should stop being land-grabbing whores. I commend the Palestinians.

Prove the occupation is illegal.

I will show why it is legal.

Israeli moved into Judea, Samaria, and Gaza during the 1967 War, which was started by the Arabs cutting off Israel's access to the Straits of Tiran, and ordering the UN out of the Sinai moving Egyptian troops in to replace them, and Jordan attacking Israel after the war started.

Therefore the lands were acquired by Israel in acts of self-defence. International law holds that such lands are legitimately acquired, and can even be annexed (as parts of Germany were by Poland after WW2, no one questons that, must be because the Poles aren't a Jewish majority nation)

Israel is under no obligation to hand Judea, Samaria, and Gaza to the Arabs (whose 1948-67 occupation was illegal, but no one here questions that, must be because the Arabs aren't a Jewish majority people)

I'm just wondering why the Jews, as a race, 'deserve' a nation while the Palestinians, as a race, who have been living continuously in the same region for longer (note I said continuously) are denied a land.

The "Palestinians" aren't a race any more than Iraqis are, they are all the same race: Arabs.

No one regarded Palestinians as an Arab nation before the late 1960's. The Jews have been a nation for over 3000 years.

I don't know about anyone else, but 3000 is a greater number than 40. Arabs have only been living in the Jewish homeland since the First Jihad about 1400 years ago. Again, 3000 is a greater number than 1400.

Criticisms of Israel based on racism are bad enough, criticisms of Israel based on the inability to count are simply absurd.

Israeli moved into Judea, Samaria, and Gaza during the 1967 War, which was started by the Arabs cutting off Israel's access to the Straits of Tiran, and ordering the UN out of the Sinai moving Egyptian troops in to replace them, and Jordan attacking Israel after the war started.

Therefore the lands were acquired by Israel in acts of self-defence. International law holds that such lands are legitimately acquired, and can even be annexed (as parts of Germany were by Poland after WW2, no one questons that, must be because the Poles aren't a Jewish majority nation)


So israel attacked after other countries cut it off from civilisation; hmm... that's more or less called an embargo, not a declaration of war; ergo, israel is the agressor in this matter.
And on the point of Germany... did it get to keep France? No, but it was France who declared war on Germany in WWII, not vice versa. Power to decide on who keeps what is in the hands of those who ultimately win (and I have no doubt it will be the arabs - either by force or by political means).

The Jews were kicked out of their homes in so many different countries, they have a right to have their Promised Land from God back. And it's not as if the Palestinians have lost everything. They have plenty of Arab countries to go to, as well as the Gaza Strip and West Bank.


And jews have plenty of countries to go to where they have a powerfull jewish lobby... like the USA. My proposal thus has just as much legitimacy as yours when it comes to relocating the arabs.

And your promised land... all because of a book; fiction book at that.


"Israel currently does not consider Palestinians to be Israeli citizens."

No, I wouldn't want to consider the people who have dedicated themselves to destroying our existence as a citizen either. There are opportunites for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens. See below.

Yes... a situation like this happened before; see WWII, under the topic of holocaust. You'll notice exactly the same arguments used.


"Palestinians never got representation, and have had their villages forcibly demolished so that Israelis can move in for free."

There are Palestinans on the Knesset. Also, Israel gives more and more land back (Gaza Strip and West Bank for instance) to the Palestinians in return for a halt to the terrorism. The terrorism has not stopped. Why should we believe them when they have lied every time?

*cough* Jerusalem *Cough*
What made you guys stop the terrorist acts before israel came to be (king david hotel,...)... actually w8, you're still doing it, only now it's sanctioned by the state. Go to some nice search engine and insert in the following terms: "state terrorism".


"But I know that it's because the Palestinians lived here first."

See above. Jews have lived there over 3000 years.


And there were people living there before the jews (eventhough that 3000 year figure is a bit of a lie, based on that fiction book). I wonder what happened with those people, didn't they by any chance get slaughtered by the jews?


"Their rights were stripped, and then they were shelled and air-struck in order to kill the Palestinian militants, but in reality, mostly civilians died."

And specifically targeting civilians instead of their military/government is better? There are always casualties of war. We kill a few civilians on accident, aiming to get a terrorist leader, and we are total evil bastards. The Palestinians blow up a movie theater and get sympathy? That is completely crooked.

Yeah... an accident that they throw a 1 ton bomb on a house of a suspected leader, killing 14 people (9 of them children) and still missing their target. Then they're surprised that that general is being wanted by the ICC.


"It's the reason why so many Arabs and Europeans hate you"

No, most people hate us simply because we are Jewish. Look at a history book.


Sure, let me inform you that most of the people in the history books are actually dead... romans and all, why they persecuted you... all dead, gone and (almost) forgotten.
We don't hate jewish people due to their religion, (some of us) dislike israel due to its recent actions.


Israel needs to learn that theocratic states are disliked by the civilised states; when it comes to political freedoms and rights state religion is an obstacle. Religion is something for the deluded people who think that they need more than they have, now both sides in this conflict are dead wrong in both their convictions and their actions.


PS:
After all, we all know that the only real god is the bunny with the pancake on his head, and I'm his avatar :p (and yes, that was meant as a joke)

Is there room in your classification system for an anti-Likudist - one who is neither anti-Semitic nor opposed to the existence of the state of Israel, but who deplores the current Israeli government?
How is this anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist?

I'm just wondering why the Jews, as a race, 'deserve' a nation while the Palestinians, as a race, who have been living continuously in the same region for longer (note I said continuously) are denied a land.

No, all the Egyptian acts were acts of war. Why? Ordering the UN out of Sinai and moving Egyptian troops violated the 1956 ceasefire.

The Jordanians directly attacked Israel.

And on the point of Germany... did it get to keep France? No, but it was France who declared war on Germany in WWII, not vice versa. Power to decide on who keeps what is in the hands of those who ultimately win (and I have no doubt it will be the arabs - either by force or by political means).

You seem to have this trouble distingishing cassus belli and declarations of war.

Let me give you some history (the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this), France and the UK signed a mutual defence agreement with Poland. Germany invaded Poland, therefore Germany committed an act of war against not only Poland, but France and the UK too. France did not start a war with Germany.

The UN passage you quoted is irrelevant in this situation, as most European Jews did have self determination. Self determination merely means you can vote for the group that governs the place you live, its not a cultural/ethnic concept, at least according to the passage you quoted.
Actually, no. This passage talks about self-determination of peoples, not of individuals. It is a collective self-determination, which means self-rule.


As for the morality thing, I agree that obviously you have to weigh both sides on a variety of systems, the point is that by simply denying validity to anything that goes against international law (such as the "Where do these 'rights' come from anyway?" question) ignores some of the most prevalent anti-Zionist arguments. In short, your classification is lacking, most likely because its a straw man anyway.
Talk about denying validity:rolleyes:


Nations are defined by culture, states are not. Being a nation does not equate with being a state.
But being a nation gives you the right to create a state under the existing international law.


The "overthrow because of oppression" can either be justified by some sort of concept of taintedness/start over/forfeit your right by impinging on others, or it can simply be the desire to get rid of government policies that happen to include exclusively Jewish sovreignty over Palestine. In either case it's another very, very common argument you have neglected to cover.
Not really. It is an arcane and rather odd interpretation which I have never heard before in any large quantities (I was, if you notice, covering the main widely held positions), nor can it be reasonably applied to any other situation. If it could, Germany would have to be annihilated long ago as a political entity, and so would Britain, France, Belgium and other former colonial powers. Not to mention Uganda, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Chile and virtually every country of the world that at some point in its history had an oppressive regime governing it.

And as for said cult: the cult was called Raj Neesh, and it did fit many of your qualifiers, but I've got an example that fits better:
Let's say there's a substantial Neo-Nazi group that advocates the creation of a Neo-Nazi homeland in Germany where they can practice Nazi traditions free from persecution (There probably is a group like this). Do they have a right to form their own state?
This is an interesting hypothetical. Theoretically, if a neo-nazi group out of Germany would transform the neo-Nazi ideology into a form of nationalism and develop a distinct culture based on it, they would possibly qualify as a nation, giving a major headache to most political scientists(:p ). Howewer, your question is likely a case of the Subverted support fallacy (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/subsup.htm), as the neo-Nazi ideology does not at present qualify as a national idea or a distinct culture.

I've noticed the funny thing while debating here: far too many opponents of Israel seem to constantly confuse the concepts of "race" and "nation". Which is how assorted fallacies of a question come around. Since nations do have a right for self-determination while races do not, allow me to remind you, ladies and gentlemen, the definitions.

A "race" is a group of people defined by its anthropological features, such as skin color, skull shape, etc. (Example: the white/europeoid race, the black race, the mongoloid race).

A "nation" is a culturally coherent group of people, defined by a unifying national idea (a.k.a. nationalism) that shares common collective political aspirations. (Examples: the French nation, the Jewish nation).

Utopian Anti-Nationalist, a.k.a. Dreamer Against Common Sense vs Moralist Against Israel
What do you reckon?

What do you reckon?
From my observations? MAI type 1 (MAI masquerading as UAN, but lacking the consistensy of the true UAN).

From my observations? MAI type 1 (MAI masquerading as UAN, but lacking the consistensy of the true UAN).
:D
Fair enough. For the record though, I'm not against Israel being a state, I only object to the borders as they are now.

When a nation is occupied illegally by foreign forces, it would still be in a technical state of war. Whereupon it is specifically illegal (a war crime) to target civillians...The Arabs are simply fighting how they can. They can't organize an army because American dollars sent to the Israelis is far too much to fight against.So, that doesn't mean they can't fight a guerilla war against the government/military Militarily speaking, terrorism is an effective form of resistance. No, it is not resistance. It is a criminal act. Guerilla war is an effective form of military resistance. See VietNam. The French Maquis fought against the Nazis and held up many divisions from being sent into Soviet Russia. Consider the situation. Not by blowing up French Schoolchildren they didn't. If my country was conquered and occupied by a foreign nation, I would have no qualms in bombing the enemy civilian population.Then you verify that you are an idiot and would, and should be convicted of war crimes. :mad:

But some Israelis did blow up a hotel Now, one could argue over whether the King David Hotel in 1946 was a legitimate target as the HQ of the British military, one could argue over whether the Irgun and Menachem Begin were acting as freedom fighters rather than terrorists, and one could argue over whether the Irgun's apparent attempt to issue a warning substantially differentiates their actions from the actions of the PLO.. I was talking about after the "Illegal" UN declaration that "gave" Israel to the Israelis - i.e. what they did to legitimize their Statehood after it was given to them.
And we could sit here all night arguing over whether there's a difference in legitimacy between the actions of 'freedom fighters' versus the actions of 'terrorists'.

But however we define it, the fact remains that some Jewish residents of the Palestine mandate were prepared to take violent action against the then-governing authorities in the Palestine mandate, that said violent action resulted in the deaths of 91 people, of which 28 were Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others. Furthermore, that violent action was resolutely denounced by the Jewish Agency and David Ben-Gurion, who declared the Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people".

Now, a single bombing of a hotel hardly equates with an organised campaign of suicide bombing, and I'm by no means using this to try and engage in a pointless argument over moral equivalency, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that forty years ago some Jewish residents of the Palestine mandate were prepared to engage in what in modern terms would be described as acts of terrorism. Issuing statements along the lines of "I am speaking on behalf of the Hebrew underground. We have placed an explosive device in the hotel. Evacuate it at once - you have been warned" is perhaps something we're more likely to associate with the Irish Republican Army than the future leaders of the State of Israel.

So I'd politely note that Syniks is perhaps guilty of oversimplification.Nope, not in context anyway. As for the 1947 bombing (which I have little information on)

You answer your whole question/refute your point in your statement.

(A) Violent action was taken against the seat of government - not random civillians.
(B) Warning was issued, i.e. the intent was destruction/destabilization of government process more than loss of life.
(C) The violent action was decried and not repeated because it was too close to terrorisim to be palatable.

So, while there were (and still are) some Jews willing to take violent actions, the King David Hotel/British Govt Offices event seems to me more in the vein of "Guerilla warfare" than terrorisim.

And Menacham Begin? Future Prime Minister of Israel. Who says violent action against the internationally recognised governing authorities of a territorial area doesn't get you anywhere?See Bold. That makes it not terrorisim.

(NOTE: IMO the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was "terrorisim" only in that they used a civillian airline for the attack. The Pentagon IS a legitimate military target (as are any of the Federal Buildings) - the WTCs were NOT.)

Well, personally, I believe that, after WWII, instead of allowing them to kick the Palestinians out and create a new country in Israel, the US and Britain and the other Allied nations involved in that, if they really cared so much, should've let all the displaced Jews come into [I]their[I] countries. Then there wouldn't be some of the conflicts there are now. Personally, I don't think that applies to your little theory, since it's not really hateful, it's just an idea of how things could've been resolved so that there were fewer conflicts and disputes over a "holy" land.

Well, personally, I believe that, after WWII, instead of allowing them to kick the Palestinians out
They didn't kick the Pali's out! The Palistinians REFUSED the offer of their own "homeland". and create a new country in Israel, the US and Britain and the other Allied nations involved in that, if they really cared so much, should've let all the displaced Jews come into [I]their[I] countries. There are more Jews in NYC than TelAviv. What's your point? Then there wouldn't be some of the conflicts there are now. Bull. As long as there are "Jooooos" in Palestine the Arabs/Palis will try to kick them out. Personally, I don't think that applies to your little theory, since it's not really hateful, it's just an idea of how things could've been resolved so that there were fewer conflicts and disputes over a "holy" land.:confused: Non sequiter. Please clarify.

Israeli moved into Judea, Samaria, and Gaza during the 1967 War, which was started by the Arabs cutting off Israel's access to the Straits of Tiran, and ordering the UN out of the Sinai moving Egyptian troops in to replace them, and Jordan attacking Israel after the war started.


No, all the Egyptian acts were acts of war. Why? Ordering the UN out of Sinai and moving Egyptian troops violated the 1956 ceasefire.

The Jordanians directly attacked Israel.


25 October 1956 Egypt, Syria and Jordan agree to form a unified Arab military command
29 October 1956 Start of the Sinai campaign. Israel launches a surprise attack on Egypt in support of the Anglo-French attempt to retake the Suez Canal
6 November 1956 Ceasefire comes into effect. United Nations monitors Israeli withdrawl

On May 17, Nasser demanded that the U.N.E.F. evacuate the Sinai, a request with which UN Secretary-General U Thant complied, thus removing the international buffer which had existed along the Egyptian-Israeli border since 1957. [10] The UN asked to move its force to Israel, but Israel refused to allow UN peacekeepers to deploy on its territory. Nasser then began the re-militarization of the Sinai, and concentrated tanks and troops on the border with Israel.

On May 23, Egypt closured the Straits of Tiran to all shipments bound for Israel, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba.

5 June 1967 Start of the Six Day War. Pre-emptive strike on Arab airfields destroys many aircraft on the ground. Israel recaptures the Sinai

Israel was the first to have attacked (you know... air strikes)... Jordanians were defending.


Or... if you want it explained by someone else

Israel's foreign minister Abba Eban wrote in his autobiography that when he was told by U Thant of Nasser's promise not to attack Israel he found this reassurance convincing as "...Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war". [20] [21] Writing from Egypt on 4 June New York Times journalist James Reston observed: "Cairo does not want war and it is certainly not ready for war. But it has already accepted the possibility, even the likelihood, of war, as if it had lost control of the situation." [22]

In a speech before Israeli National Defense College, Menachem Begin stated that Israel was the one who made the decision to attack: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."


Let me give you some history (the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this), France and the UK signed a mutual defence agreement with Poland. Germany invaded Poland, therefore Germany committed an act of war against not only Poland, but France and the UK too. France did not start a war with Germany.

Now let me explain some history... note that I didn't use UK as an example; but I did use France...
Aug 25, 1939 - Britain and Poland sign a Mutual Assistance Treaty.
Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland.
Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.

Poland and France didn't have a MAT. France declared war on Germany, not vice versa.

Poland and France didn't have a MAT. France declared war on Germany, not vice versa.
You say that like it was a bad thing... :rolleyes:

When you know (have obvious proof) someone is going to try to hand you your ass, hit first. Nothing untehical about that.

How is this anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist?

It isn't. Which does not stop some people from calling it anti-Semitic anyway.

Look at it this way - there are lots of people who can't distinguish between the Republican party and the United States. Criticize the actions of Bush & Co., and they call you "anti-American". In the same way, there are lots of people who will call you "anti-Semitic" if you criticize Sharon & Co. in any way.

I'm just trying to determine how oversimplified your classification system is. If you're willing to accept that it's possible to criticize the actions of the state of Israel, or the actions of an individual Jew, without necessarily being anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic, then your system isn't quite as simplistic as it appears at first glance.

:p

25 October 1956 Egypt, Syria and Jordan agree to form a unified Arab military command
29 October 1956 Start of the Sinai campaign. Israel launches a surprise attack on Egypt in support of the Anglo-French attempt to retake the Suez Canal
6 November 1956 Ceasefire comes into effect. United Nations monitors Israeli withdrawl

On May 17, Nasser demanded that the U.N.E.F. evacuate the Sinai, a request with which UN Secretary-General U Thant complied, thus removing the international buffer which had existed along the Egyptian-Israeli border since 1957. [10] The UN asked to move its force to Israel, but Israel refused to allow UN peacekeepers to deploy on its territory. Nasser then began the re-militarization of the Sinai, and concentrated tanks and troops on the border with Israel.

On May 23, Egypt closured the Straits of Tiran to all shipments bound for Israel, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba.

5 June 1967 Start of the Six Day War. Pre-emptive strike on Arab airfields destroys many aircraft on the ground. Israel recaptures the Sinai

Israel was the first to have attacked (you know... air strikes)... Jordanians were defending.

U Thant didn't have much of a choice. If he had said no, Nasser would have attacked.

Jordan was advised of the strikes (which followed acts of war by Egypt), and told that if they stayed out, they would be spared. Jordan came in instead.

Do you know what an act of war is?

Poland and France didn't have a MAT. France declared war on Germany, not vice versa.

Wrong, on 21FEB21, France and Poland signed a Treaty of Mutual Guarantee.

They signed another on 16OCT25.

On 30MAR39, France agreed to guarantee Poland's independence.

U Thant didn't have much of a choice. If he had said no, Nasser would have attacked.

Jordan was advised of the strikes (which followed acts of war by Egypt), and told that if they stayed out, they would be spared. Jordan came in instead.

Do you know what an act of war is?

Yes... act of war is sending your troops to another country. Re-deploying your own troops on your own territory is called excercising sovereignity.



Wrong, on 21FEB21, France and Poland signed a Treaty of Mutual Guarantee.

They signed another on 16OCT25.

On 30MAR39, France agreed to guarantee Poland's independence.

I stand corrected... feb 21 1921 they did sign a mutual aid treaty
Thus: The French and Polish governments signed a defensive treaty, promising aid to the other in the event of an attack by a third party.
But: France still declared war and not vice versa ;)

PS: didn't find any france-poland treaty signed on 16th of october of 1925

PPS: 30th of march 1939 it was chamberlain that promised help of both french and british forces; I'd hardly call that agreeing to guaranteeing poland's independence

PPS:
August 31, 1939 The German government published a 16-point proposal for the Polish government. Before the proposal could be transmitted to Warsaw, communications between the two states were cut off. Chancellor Adolf Hitler, arguing that his proposals to the Polish government had been rejected, issued orders to invade Poland.
Lesson of the story: "Don't hang up the phone when speaking to someone with the big guns" :D

I'm against all nationstates, particularly those based on race. No one here would argue for a "white nation" and for good reason. I happen to apply the same idea to everyone regardless of race.

Yes... act of war is sending your troops to another country. Re-deploying your own troops on your own territory is called excercising sovereignity.

An act of war includes many things, including cutting a country access to the world, which Egypt did when it banned Israeli from the Straits of Tiran.

Breaking a ceasefire is also an act of war.

PPS:
August 31, 1939 The German government published a 16-point proposal for the Polish government. Before the proposal could be transmitted to Warsaw, communications between the two states were cut off. Chancellor Adolf Hitler, arguing that his proposals to the Polish government had been rejected, issued orders to invade Poland.
Lesson of the story: "Don't hang up the phone when speaking to someone with the big guns"

The lesson is "Don't bother to negotiate with socialist extremists like Hitler"

The lesson is "Don't bother to negotiate with socialist [sic] extremists like Hitler"

Hitler was not a socialist. At most, he was for heavy regulation, though that hardly makes him socialist. Even the US government had car companies producing military vehicles and had implimented a number of welfare programs not long before, but that didn't make the US socialist.

I hate to go off topic, but it particularly irritates me when people try to push the blame for all the major atrocities of the 20th century on socialism even though they were committed by people with only nominal ties to the left. Calling Hitler socialist is like calling Kim Jong-Il democratic (North Korea calls itself a democracy).

Socialists advocate state control over the entire economy, there are two brands of socialism, fascism and communism (social-democrats are not socialists because they balk at the violence socialism requires). Communists achieve their aims by seizing all property. Fascists by controlling the use and exchange of property, and taking the rewards of ownership, though nominal title remains.

Most of the crimes in the 20th century were committed by socialists.

Some reading for you:

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

Some viewing for you: (ADSL recommended)

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/video/ss05/ss05-Reisman.wmv

More viewing/listening for you:

http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=82

Socialists advocate state control over the entire economy, there are two brands of socialism, fascism and communism (social-democrats are not socialists because they balk at the violence socialism requires). Communists achieve their aims by seizing all property. Fascists by controlling the use and exchange of property, and taking the rewards of ownership, though nominal title remains.

No, no, no, socialism is a society where the working class owns and manages the means of production. Fascism was a reaction to the "threat" of socialism, not a form of socialism. Many fascists hated socialists almost as much as the Jews and many capitalists were quite supportive of fascism before WWII, I hear.

No, no, no, socialism is a society where the working class owns and manages the means of production.

They "appoint" the people who do it. In practice it means state control.

Did you even consult the sources I gave?

Fascism was a reaction to the "threat" of socialism, not a form of socialism.

Fascism was a reaction to competitive markets.

Many fascists hated socialists almost as much as the Jews and many capitalists were quite supportive of fascism before WWII, I hear.

None of which proves anything. Of course Fascists hated other socialists, they were rivals for power. Capitalists supported fascists not because fascists favoured free markets, but because they fell for the old fallacy of giving up liberty for security.

You should read/view/listen to the sources I gave.

Fascism was a reaction to competitive markets.
I fail to see how this helps your "capitalism good" argument. If capitalism as an economic system pushes people to join fascist and Nazi parties because of its vagaries, you'd think there'd be a problem with that system. Just a thought.

Oh, and Hitler wore pants. Just because Hitler didn't like some aspects of free markets doesn't mean that Communists are Hitler.

I fail to see how this helps your "capitalism good" argument. If capitalism as an economic system pushes people to join fascist and Nazi parties because of its vagaries, you'd think there'd be a problem with that system. Just a thought.

I wouldn't have called it a thought.

People generally get taken in by the argument that trading off some liberty for security will improve their interests, and they are always wrong. The same fallacious logic gets workers voting for social democrats.

A general idiocy in human nature doesn't argue against a specific system.

Just because Hitler didn't like some aspects of free markets doesn't mean that Communists are Hitler.

Your dead right, Hitler was more responsive to public opinion (abandoning the T4 "euthenasia" program after that priest kicked up all that fuss, under communism this priest would have been shot for being a priest, or shot for making a fuss), and Hitler allowed the appearance of private property (without the powers and rewards of ownership)

They "appoint" the people who do it. In practice it means state control.

Did you even consult the sources I gave?

Actually, that came from Lenin, who proposed a vanguard party that represented the working class. While this later had disasterous consequences, it is not inherent to socialism but is merely one theory out of many on socialism.

None of which proves anything. Of course Fascists hated other socialists, they were rivals for power. Capitalists supported fascists not because fascists favoured free markets, but because they fell for the old fallacy of giving up liberty for security.

The fascists favored markets, though. They may not have been free, but they were markets. Capitalists aren't concerned whether markets uphold freedom, but whether they put profit in their pockets. Capitalists will and have supported highly oppressive markets because they made capitalists rich.

Actually, that came from Lenin, who proposed a vanguard party that represented the working class. While this later had disasterous consequences, it is not inherent to socialism but is merely one theory out of many on socialism.

It is inherient to socialism. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There will always be a group in any movement that comes to the fore and leads. If you hand a factory to the workers, what will happen is that some of them will learn to be managers, and put themselves in offices.

The fascists favored markets, though.

No, they didn't, they favoured state control, and practiced it.

Capitalists aren't concerned whether markets uphold freedom, but whether they put profit in their pockets. Capitalists will and have supported highly oppressive markets because they made capitalists rich.

They didn't, though. Not to the extent that free markets do.


Once again, did you read/view/listen to the sources I posted, or are you merely spouting dogma?

It is inherient to socialism. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There will always be a group in any movement that comes to the fore and leads. If you hand a factory to the workers, what will happen is that some of them will learn to be managers, and put themselves in offices.

By that reasoning, capitalism is always doomed to be lead by élites pushing others down and is no better.

No, they didn't, they favoured state control, and practiced it.

To what extent? Even in North Korea, there are markets. They might have controlled them tightly (like most nations in war do, to churn out military stuff), but there were still markets and other features associated with capitalism.

They didn't, though. Not to the extent that free markets do.

I suppose that depends on how you define "free". A market that free to the rich isn't necessarily free to all.

Once again, did you read/view/listen to the sources I posted, or are you merely spouting dogma?

I'm not interested in what Mises has to say. I'm debating you, not him.

By that reasoning, capitalism is always doomed to be lead by élites pushing others down and is no better.

Nope, capitalism is better because it relies on voluntary trade by people acting in their own interests.

To what extent?

They ended in complete central planning.

Even in North Korea, there are markets. They might have controlled them tightly (like most nations in war do, to churn out military stuff), but there were still markets and other features associated with capitalism.

Superficiality changes nothing.

I'm not interested in what Mises has to say. I'm debating you, not him.

You're not interested in learning anything new. Watch the video, if you are open minded enough to have your views challenged.

Nope, capitalism is better because it relies on voluntary trade by people acting in their own interests.

A thought terminating cliché if there ever was one. I'm sure the sweatshop workers are "voluntarily trading" alright. I suggest you read up on the history of capitalism, maybe back when child labor was still legal here. What a paradise of free enterprise that was.

Given what I've seen, you are almost certainly a well-off member of a first world nation, so I'm trying to be understanding. However, your understanding of capitalism sounds like quotes from an economic textbook.

They ended in complete central planning.

Superficiality changes nothing.

Ok, that's just too much. If you're so fond of links, try this one:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

You're not interested in learning anything new. Watch the video, if you are open minded enough to have your views challenged.

I not rich like you are and can't afford your high speed connection. Sorry, but we noncapitalists sometimes have to forgo luxuries like quickloading videos over the internet. At least I can get the internet at all.

Whereupon it is specifically illegal (a war crime) to target civillians...So, that doesn't mean they can't fight a guerilla war against the government/military No, it is not resistance. It is a criminal act. Guerilla war is an effective form of military resistance. See VietNam. Not by blowing up French Schoolchildren they didn't. Then you verify that you are an idiot and would, and should be convicted of war crimes. :mad:

I don't recall giving you any permission to use personal attacks against me. Stop being immature.

The French Maquis targeted German civilians working in France during the occupation. They also targeted Germans in uniform. Both methods were vital to holding back German troops from being send to the front lines in Soviet Russia. In any case, they contributed greatly to the cause of history. They wouldn't blow up French schoolchildren because they weren't German schoolchildren. To make it more clear which civilians I am speaking of, I refer to collaborators and German civilians working for the military. Both are targets of war. I never said I would condone the bombing of innocents.

When you mention Vietnam, you forget that the Vietnamese killed their own people in senseless acts of destruction.

Stop making half-assed comparisons and assuming things about people you don't know.

I don't recall giving you any permission to use personal attacks against me. Stop being immature.Since when is stating the obvious and legal conclusion a personal attack?
The French Maquis targeted German civilians working in France during the occupation. They also targeted Germans in uniform. Both methods were vital to holding back German troops from being send to the front lines in Soviet Russia. [In any case, they contributed greatly to the cause of history. They wouldn't blow up French schoolchildren because they weren't German schoolchildren To make it more clear which civilians I am speaking of, I refer to collaborators and German civilians working for the military. Both are targets of war. .And here is another example of willful blindness. Are you suggesting the French would have blown up German schoolchildren - in French schools - if they had the chance? That's what the Splodydope Palis are doing. The two groups are incomparable.
I never said I would condone the bombing of innocents.by condoning terrorisim, you condone the bombing of innocents. It's definitional.
When you mention Vietnam, you forget that the Vietnamese killed their own people in senseless acts of destruction.But that was not their primary method of trying to drive the US (or French) out of VietNam. They attacked the militaries. What actions the VC took against the locals was designed to keep the locals from giving them away. Yes, that was terror, but they weren't blowing up schoolbusses (had they had them).
Stop making half-assed comparisons and assuming things about people you don't know.
I base my comments on your statements. Nothing else.

Ok... here it goes:

On the point of Socialism; Slovenia was once a part of Yugoslavia a socialist country. We lived well, anyone that wanted a job got one, free health care, free education, relative freedom of speech (less censorship than most newspapers have in the west... although they call them editors; we called them censors - different word, same job).
At the moment, we're a democracy - a republic. Our health care is being privatised, free education is about to get replaced by vouchers (uni level) (not that they'll succeed in doing this, cause if they do it they'll see student protests unparalleled in slovenian history :sniper:). Also, our unemployment level is at 6,4% by international standards (11,3% by slovenian standards).

Comparing the two... I think socialism was better than "democracy" :rolleyes:

*and before you try to make an argument out of it, Yugoslavia fell apart because the serbs wanted too much control over it, and Slovenia with its 1/10 of the Yugoslav population contributed 30% to Yugoslavian GDP - you can imagine what the serbs wanted to do with what we had :p. 10 days of war and we were home free :) (eventhough they outnumbered us 10:1 and had the air force :eek: , but when the war ended we had their tanks, some of their air force and 4945 prisoners:cool: ) http://www.uvi.si/10years/path/war/

In case anyone actually wants to know :rolleyes:





And on the second point... freedom fighters Vs terrorists.
Terrorist kills civilians who don't belong to either side (random killings; hotels, busses...), freedom fighter kills soldiers and civilians who work for the other side - in WWII our partisans also killed slovenians, but mostly (I can't say all, because we all know what happens in wars :( ) those that worked with/for the germans.

Yes, people who blow up schoolchildren are scum of the earth that should be used as work force in the mines/quarries (no sleep, no food, no water, no sun... work till you drop - if you know what I mean). Basically death penalty but with a bit of torture.
I also agree that some of the palestinians are terrorists (look above), but not all, and one person shouldn't suffer for the faults of another.
While dealing with its problems israel is forgetting:
1) innocent untill proven guilty
2) courts (look the point above)
3) collateral damage (I don't see a difference between a terrorist blowing himself up on a bus and military dropping a 1 ton bomb on a house full of children)
4) that religion should never be the standard of the nation


PS: On the 4th point, I have a collection of books on a shelf; I like to call it the bloodiest books of all times: The bible, Mahabharata, The Talmud, Mein Kampf, Kapital

"And jews have plenty of countries to go to where they have a powerfull jewish lobby... like the USA. My proposal thus has just as much legitimacy as yours when it comes to relocating the arabs.
And your promised land... all because of a book; fiction book at that."

I'm talking about a country where more than half the government's influence and people are Jewish. Sure, others can coexist with us, but we need our own place to call home. Having a few senators and representatives here and there in a vast majority of Christians is not what I would call a powerful Jewish lobby. Arabs (Palestinians are included), on the other hand, have quite a few countries in which Islam has the vast majority of influence.

As for the book of fiction, prove it wrong. Until you can utterly wipe out relgion with pure scientific fact, it is still as good as any other theory. Analogy: I refuse to believe in Evolution or the Big Bang, because it isn't proven yet. I in particular use the Torah as a template for morality, and as a great source of my heritage. While I by no means believe that it is flawless (it was written by man), I believe it to an extent.


"Yes... a situation like this happened before; see WWII, under the topic of holocaust. You'll notice exactly the same arguments used."

The Nazis argued that Jews had dedicated themselves to the destruction of the German people and their way of life? Or did I misunderstand your statement?

"*cough* Jerusalem *Cough*
What made you guys stop the terrorist acts before israel came to be (king david hotel,...)... actually w8, you're still doing it, only now it's sanctioned by the state. Go to some nice search engine and insert in the following terms: "state terrorism"."

State terrorism? I did as you said, and the 1st relevent result directed me to a hate site dedicated to issuing out propaganda to denounce Israel. They show 1 side of the story. How bout that side of the story where terrorists blow up school buses, movie theaters, cafes, etc.

The stupid Palestinian children shout out threats, throw rocks, and are general little shits to soldiers and civilians, and are expected to be high fived? Give me a break. They get shot by rubber bullets because of throwing rocks at the military, not for being Palestinian. Try throwing rocks at a police officer. I guarantee he'll whip out his nightstick and ruff you up.

As for the terrorist (if you can even call it that) act the Israelis did? Not only did they send a note in advance, but it was done to sabotage the government, not the civilians.



"And there were people living there before the jews (eventhough that 3000 year figure is a bit of a lie, based on that fiction book). I wonder what happened with those people, didn't they by any chance get slaughtered by the jews?"

The United States, Mexico, Canada, and all other colonized countries of the American must immediately hand back all lands taken from the Native Americans, going with your logic. The problem is, Israel has been connected to the Jews ever since written history has begun. You want to track down some (most-likely dead race like Babylonians) descendents of the original inhabitants of Israel and give it back to them? Be my guest, and good luck finding them.

The 3,000 year figure is a lie? Copied straight from Wikipedia:

For over 3,000 years, Jews have held the Land of Israel to be their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised Land. As a result, the Land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations and Judaism's most important sites, including the remains of the First and Second Temple.


"Yeah... an accident that they throw a 1 ton bomb on a house of a suspected leader, killing 14 people (9 of them children) and still missing their target. Then they're surprised that that general is being wanted by the ICC."

Yeah, just like how it is a mysterious coincidence that civilians, not military is being targeted by "freedom fighters." As I've said before, there are always people caught in the crossfire when assassinating terrorist leaders. They like to hide behind children and women, so that their deaths can be seen as honorable, and the Israelis seen as evil bad guys. Blame the terrorists themselves for Palestinian civilians dying, they're the ones that use them for shields.


"Sure, let me inform you that most of the people in the history books are actually dead... romans and all, why they persecuted you... all dead, gone and (almost) forgotten.
We don't hate jewish people due to their religion, (some of us) dislike israel due to its recent actions."

Just like white supremacy, nazis, and discrimination are "dead?" You'd be surprised by how many anti-semites there are out there. Heck, a lot of people even think racism is dead. I respect those that dislike Israel based on its government, because at least they don't hate in ignorance. For instance, I don't like the Patriot Act in America, and its response to Hurricane Katrina. I dislike the government of the USA at the moment. That kind of dislike is totally acceptable.


"Israel needs to learn that theocratic states are disliked by the civilised states; when it comes to political freedoms and rights state religion is an obstacle. Religion is something for the deluded people who think that they need more than they have, now both sides in this conflict are dead wrong in both their convictions and their actions."

You're implying that theocratic states are uncivilized? Hmm. I see no problem in adopting laws based on relgious texts. United States Constitution anyone? It was written with Christian ideals in mind. Deluded people you say? Once again, until you can prove, without a doubt, that religion is total fallacy, you just can't make that statement. You have your theories, I have mine.

By the way, last I checked Israel wasn't controlled by relgion.


"PS:
After all, we all know that the only real god is the bunny with the pancake on his head, and I'm his avatar (and yes, that was meant as a joke)"

I did find that amusing.

Since when is stating the obvious and legal conclusion a personal attack?
And here is another example of willful blindness. Are you suggesting the French would have blown up German schoolchildren - in French schools - if they had the chance? That's what the Splodydope Palis are doing. The two groups are incomparable.
by condoning terrorisim, you condone the bombing of innocents. It's definitional.
But that was not their primary method of trying to drive the US (or French) out of VietNam. They attacked the militaries. What actions the VC took against the locals was designed to keep the locals from giving them away. Yes, that was terror, but they weren't blowing up schoolbusses (had they had them).

I base my comments on your statements. Nothing else.

I made it clear that the French killed German civilians working in occupied France, and French that collaborated. I never said they actively sought out civilians that weren't involved in the war (children).

I condone military resistance, which can be viewed as terrorism. I don't condone acts of war against civilians that aren't involved in the war.

You're basing your comments upon assumptions. You could have simply asked me if I believed it was right to kill children instead of declaring that I support that.

The Nazis argued that Jews had dedicated themselves to the destruction of the German people and their way of life? Or did I misunderstand your statement?


Go read mein kampf... basically, yes.


State terrorism? I did as you said, and the 1st relevent result directed me to a hate site dedicated to issuing out propaganda to denounce Israel.
Sorry about that, I meant it in general; I didn't actually know that there was such a site. Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism



Just like white supremacy, nazis, and discrimination are "dead?" You'd be surprised by how many anti-semites there are out there. Heck, a lot of people even think racism is dead. I respect those that dislike Israel based on its government, because at least they don't hate in ignorance. For instance, I don't like the Patriot Act in America, and its response to Hurricane Katrina. I dislike the government of the USA at the moment. That kind of dislike is totally acceptable.
I'm not a nazi :) although I also realize you never implied that :p . Just trying to prove that europeans and americans don't dislike israel just because it is jewish, but due to its governments actions.


You're implying that theocratic states are uncivilized?
YES!



Hmm. I see no problem in adopting laws based on relgious texts. United States Constitution anyone? It was written with Christian ideals in mind.

Ever noticed me saying that I consider usa civilized? ;)


Deluded people you say? Once again, until you can prove, without a doubt, that religion is total fallacy, you just can't make that statement. You have your theories, I have mine.
Islam came out of christianity, christianity came out of jewish religion, jewish religion came out of babylonian religion,...:D (In case if you want proof of that there's a thread in that likeness on another forum - although it didn't start like that, or ended like that... silly thread really http://forum.neverlands.org/viewtopic.php?t=19589

need to sleep now :fluffle:
hugs & licks for everyone around :p

I'm just trying to determine how oversimplified your classification system is. If you're willing to accept that it's possible to criticize the actions of the state of Israel, or the actions of an individual Jew, without necessarily being anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic, then your system isn't quite as simplistic as it appears at first glance.

:p
You could have had the answer to that in the thread title. Duh!:p

A thought terminating cliché if there ever was one. I'm sure the sweatshop workers are "voluntarily trading" alright.

They are voluntarily trading, and another point, those "sweatshops" are the only economic opportunity those people have, and arrogant Westerners like you would take it away from them, you are not their friends, you are their worst enemies.

Ok, that's just too much. If you're so fond of links, try this one:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

You seem to have this concrete wall against new information.

Your site has an interesting thesis that is the same as the propaganda of all socialist dictators, namely that socialism is a perfect system whose problems are the doing of evil men.

According to that site, anyone who has to consider the practical implications of introducing socialism "strays" from the path and becomes non-socialist of anything bad happens.

Pure theoretical socialism is not relevant, Hitler considered the practical imposition of socialism, and used the state terror necessary to do it. The appointment of Albert Speer to the Armaments Ministry marked the transition central state planning (though before that, the German economy was based in non-central state planning with different departments of central government and the Gauleiters squabbling over things. Speer told everyone that he was to be obeyed, or Himmler would deal with them)

Fascist economics, being socialist, requires massive state intervention. They impose price and wage controls, production quotas, they centralise the capital investment market with central banking policies, they plan distribution, allocate raw materals and labour, and because of the interhent inefficiencies of socialist systems, impose rationing.

State interventionism is always a self-sustaining system. The failure of the first intervention creates the pretext for the next (but the irony is that few actually recognise that the government is trying to "solve" problems it created)

I not rich like you are and can't afford your high speed connection. Sorry, but we noncapitalists sometimes have to forgo luxuries like quickloading videos over the internet. At least I can get the internet at all.

I'm not rich, and before I had high speed internet at home, I could access it elsewhere. Not hard at all. The mp3 of the same lecture is much smaller. Of course there is one problem in downloading and listening to it, namely it will challenge your indoctrination.

On the point of Socialism; Slovenia was once a part of Yugoslavia a socialist country. We lived well, anyone that wanted a job got one, free health care, free education, relative freedom of speech (less censorship than most newspapers have in the west... although they call them editors; we called them censors - different word, same job).

Free speech, and socialism are not compatible, because the state owns and controls all the means of speech, from TV stations to meeting halls, and nothing can be said without their approval.

Editors in Western papers are not state censors.

Comparing the two... I think socialism was better than "democracy"

Another one, who surrenders essential liberty for security ... and gets neither. Of course such liberty dies with "thunderous applause".

Free speech, and socialism are not compatible, because the state owns and controls all the means of speech, from TV stations to meeting halls, and nothing can be said without their approval.

Editors in Western papers are not state censors.


1) There are many types of socialism: like... self governing socialism Yugoslavia had
"But one crack within that sphere of influence emerged after 1948, when Marshal Tito, a/k/a Josip Broz, (1892 - 1980) became the president of Yugoslavia. Initial disagreement was over the level of independence claimed by Tito as the only East European communist ruler commanding a strong domestic majority. Later the gap widened when Tito's government initiated a system of decentralized profit-sharing workers' councils, in effect a self-governing, somewhat market-oriented socialism, which Stalin considered dangerously revisionist."

2) Don't equate socialism with communism.
Our socialism included freedom of speech, we had a right to demonstrate (both rights were excercised, with quite some success). We had private newspapers and private tv/radio stations, sure... in the first years after the war (like 5-10 years) we had censorship, but in the 60/70/80's the censorship was gone.

3) Tell "Editors in Western papers are not state censors." to the journalists, I'm sure that they will disagree ;)

4) Who do you think has more perspective on the democracy/socialism debate, someone who lived in both systems, or someone who constantly heard only democratic propaganda (seriously, soviets had communism - state ownership over everything, we had socialism - state ownership over the largest companies (and even then Edvard Kardelj introduced the self governing system, which is very similar to share holders convention - not sure about the phrase here, basically they (the workers) decided what the company should do).


We had no wire fences here, we were allowed to travel around Europe (or most other countries - including the usa) freely [you had to get a passport, but that was merely a formality, and I don't know of any case where a passport would not be issued].
How many americans were allowed to travel to the soviet union during the cold war?

They are voluntarily trading, and another point, those "sweatshops" are the only economic opportunity those people have, and arrogant Westerners like you would take it away from them, you are not their friends, you are their worst enemies.

What, because I believe they deserve better than to work in sweatshops believing that they are getting a good deal? They don't voluntarily work in sweatshops; they work there because, as you said, that is the only economic opportunity.

If you ask me, considering accepting a single alternative to be a form of voluntary choice sounds familiar, like a certain form of government that tends to call itself a "people's republic" even though free elections are nonexistant.

You seem to have this concrete wall against new information.

Your site has an interesting thesis that is the same as the propaganda of all socialist dictators, namely that socialism is a perfect system whose problems are the doing of evil men.

According to that site, anyone who has to consider the practical implications of introducing socialism "strays" from the path and becomes non-socialist of anything bad happens.

I could say the same about you.

Pure theoretical socialism is not relevant, Hitler considered the practical imposition of socialism, and used the state terror necessary to do it. The appointment of Albert Speer to the Armaments Ministry marked the transition central state planning (though before that, the German economy was based in non-central state planning with different departments of central government and the Gauleiters squabbling over things. Speer told everyone that he was to be obeyed, or Himmler would deal with them)

Fascist economics, being socialist, requires massive state intervention. They impose price and wage controls, production quotas, they centralise the capital investment market with central banking policies, they plan distribution, allocate raw materals and labour, and because of the interhent inefficiencies of socialist systems, impose rationing.

State interventionism is always a self-sustaining system. The failure of the first intervention creates the pretext for the next (but the irony is that few actually recognise that the government is trying to "solve" problems it created)

Socialism is not defined by state intervention. State intervention is only one form of socialism, and by far the least pure form. Trying to lump the dream of a stateless classless society with dictatorships like Nazi Germany and the USSR is dishonest and betrays a great deal of ignorance concerning socialism.

The command economy of the USSR has more in common with the hierarchial and collectivist structure of the corporation than with the economics of most socialists. There's more to socialism than "Nationalize that sucker!"

I'm not rich, and before I had high speed internet at home, I could access it elsewhere. Not hard at all. The mp3 of the same lecture is much smaller. Of course there is one problem in downloading and listening to it, namely it will challenge your indoctrination.

Indoctrination by who? The corporate media? My pro-capitalist peers? Last time I checked, in the US, at least, communist indoctrination was quite rare. I became a socialist under my own thought by questioning pervasive capitalist indoctrination.

What, because I believe they deserve better than to work in sweatshops believing that they are getting a good deal? They don't voluntarily work in sweatshops; they work there because, as you said, that is the only economic opportunity.

There is always a sustenance based existance, they are getting a better deal than they had before.

I could say the same about you.

Without any ability to substantiate it. I post sources, you so far as I can tell, refuse to even comtemplate them.

Socialism is not defined by state intervention. State intervention is only one form of socialism, and by far the least pure form. Trying to lump the dream of a stateless classless society with dictatorships like Nazi Germany and the USSR is dishonest and betrays a great deal of ignorance concerning socialism.

The "dream" is irrelevant in evaluating socialism, and socialists. It is about as relevant to socialism as the Medieval Teutonic horseshit Himmler went on about. Practical socialism is what matters.

Socialism is a statist idea. There are some social groupings that follow some socialist ideas, like a commune, but they are not socialist, trying to assert they are is dishonest.

Socialism requires terror because it is not a positive economic philisophy, it simply seeks to destroy the price system upon which capitalism is based. In doing so (by introducing price and wage controls, as all socialist states do) they create shortages that cannot be solved (shortages under capitalism are solved in the price system, prices increase making production more profitable, so more people produce, and the shortage is over and prices return to normal), the further removal of economic incentive gives rise to a black market. This black market, if left unchecked will totally destroy the price and wage control system upon which socialist states are based. This means that the state must make people fearful of conducting a black market transaction. This requires two things: 1, making it very likely to be caught, and 2, making punishment severe, and certain if caught.

To address the likelyhood of being caught, the state must make you fear everyone, including the person with whom the transaction is being conducted. Make you afraid that they are agents of the state, or informers. This requires an extensive secret police apparatus not subject to the normal limitations of power that apply to normal police. This must be supported by informers who are attracted by the prestige and money giving information to the authorities can provide.

On the subject of punishment, fines are not enough, they would simply be a "business expense", long prison terms are better, particularly if the prison system consists of isolated labour camps such as the Concentration Camp System in National Socialist Germany, or the Gulag in the USSR. The state must also make it certain that people who trade in the black market will be sent. Jury trials are insufficient, no jury will send a man to a concentration camp for 20 years for trying to buy meat for his family. Therefore sentencing is left to administrative tribunals with politicised judges, or the secret police themselves. Furthermore, since blackmarketeering sabotages the state's plan, and in the case of Bolshevik states, theft of state property, the offence is considered a form of treason, which is punished by death. In wartime this is particularly the case.

I became a socialist under my own thought by questioning pervasive capitalist indoctrination.

You must be joking. You've thrown nothing but socialists' cliches at me, while I have laid out arguments and supported them, and you claim to have reached socialism by a thought process.

Are you for voluntary socialism, or involuntary socialism?

1) There are many types of socialism: like... self governing socialism Yugoslavia had
"But one crack within that sphere of influence emerged after 1948, when Marshal Tito, a/k/a Josip Broz, (1892 - 1980) became the president of Yugoslavia. Initial disagreement was over the level of independence claimed by Tito as the only East European communist ruler commanding a strong domestic majority. Later the gap widened when Tito's government initiated a system of decentralized profit-sharing workers' councils, in effect a self-governing, somewhat market-oriented socialism, which Stalin considered dangerously revisionist."

All that says is that Tito didn't toe the Soviet line. You also ask me to accept, without any real reason for doing so, the premise that Tito was a socialist.

As to the economic policies, the driving force of Yugoslavia's economy was state decree, not voluntary trading between private individuals motivated by private profit/gain.

The state still exercised the substantial powers of ownership, they merely allowed some veneer of ownership, and a state-determined share of the profits, with worker participation in management to compensate for the problems of state central planning. In this sense, the economy was socialist, but closer to socialism on the Italian, or fascist model, a more nationalist socialism then socialism on the Soviet, or communist model.

2) Don't equate socialism with communism.
Our socialism included freedom of speech, we had a right to demonstrate (both rights were excercised, with quite some success). We had private newspapers and private tv/radio stations, sure... in the first years after the war (like 5-10 years) we had censorship, but in the 60/70/80's the censorship was gone.

Really. Hard to prove without evidence.

3) Tell "Editors in Western papers are not state censors." to the journalists, I'm sure that they will disagree

You didn't read what I wrote, I referred to "state censors", by definition, censorship is something done by the state.

As for editors, they are employed by the owners of media firms to run them. The owners of media firms have the right to control their property, and how it is used, which includes editorial control. You socialists refuse to accept that we Westerners have rights, one of these is the right to property, without which all other rights are meaningless.

Even if editorial control were a violation of free speech rights, it is still an irrelevant point as it doesn't address the point of the impossibility of free speech under socialism.

4) Who do you think has more perspective on the democracy/socialism debate, someone who lived in both systems, or someone who constantly heard only democratic propaganda (seriously, soviets had communism - state ownership over everything, we had socialism - state ownership over the largest companies (and even then Edvard Kardelj introduced the self governing system, which is very similar to share holders convention - not sure about the phrase here, basically they (the workers) decided what the company should do).

Leaving aside trhe ad hominem, and the appeal to authority fallacy, "workers" councils is not akin to a share holders meeting. In one case, people are exercising a privilege doled out by a state unwilling to commit itself to the state terror required to implement absolute control, the other consists of people who have engaged in voluntary trades exercising their property rights in deciding how their property is used.

Workers' Councils have the trappings of an Annual General Meeting, but in terms of substance, they are not alike at all because of the key thing socialists destroy: property rights.

I don't know of any case where a passport would not be issued.

Maybe you had a limited circle of friends? Not having known everyone you have met makes it difficult to assess that claim. If the best you've got to throw at me is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, you're on the ropes, buddy.

How many americans were allowed to travel to the soviet union during the cold war?

Find me some evidence of travel restrictions imposed by the US Government upon travel to the USSR, and then start with the socialist cliche of making accusations against the United States every time someone finds a flaw (not difficult) in your precious and highly destructive socialism.

Oh sorry, was that pack of bullshit option 1 or pack of bullshit option 2. From what Ive said Ive shat all over your ratings system in the least literal sense of the word
*Gives The Commie a Cookie*