NationStates Jolt Archive

As a person who is very pro-Israeli, I've noticed that most people don't understand what the term Zionist really means.

By definition, a Zionist is a person who believes in the idea of an Israeli State. You can support a Palestinian State and still be a Zionist so long as you believe Israel should also exist.

The anti-semitic crowd has used the term as an insult and a blanket term for the Jews. They of course hide behind the term because they can't use the word "Jew" in their insult or else it becomes blatantly clear what their true intentions are.

Now this isn't everyone on the forum. There are people who aren't anti-semitic who argue against Israel like Nodinia, but he seems to be in the minority here.

A key to determining whether criticism of Israel is leAntgitimate criticism or anti-semitism is whether or not a double standard exists. Nodinia and other legitimate critics acknowledge Israel has a right to exists and that the Palestinians are far from angels.

To quote Mitchell G. Bard in his book "Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict:

Criticising Israel does not necessarily make someone anti-Semitic. The determining factor is the intent of the commentator. Legitimate critics accept Israel's right to exist, whereas anti-Semites do not. Anti-Semites use double standards when they criticize Israel, for example denying Israelis the right to pursue their legitimate claims while encouraging the Palestinians to do so.

Anti-Semites deny ISrael the right to defend itself, and ignore Jewish victims while blaming Israel for pursuing their murderers. Anti-Semites rarely, if ever, make positive statements about Israel. Anti-Semites describe Israelis using pejorative terms and hate-speech, suggesting, for example, that they are 'racists' or 'Nazis.'

Natan Sharansky has suggested a 3-D test for differentiating legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. The first "D" is the test of whehter Israel or its leaders are being demonized or their actions are blown out of proportion. Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is one example of demonization.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. AN example is when Israel is singled out for condemnation at the UN for perceived human rights abuses while nations that violate human rights on a massive scaqle such as Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are not even mentioned.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization. Questioning Israel's legitimacy, that is, its right to exist is always anti-semitic.

No Campaign exists to prevent people from expressing negative opinions about Israeli policy. In fact, the most vociferous critics of Israel are Israelis themselves who use their freedom of speech to express their concerns every day.

A glance at any Israeli newspaper will reveal a surfeit of articles questioning particular government policies. Anti-Semites, however, do not share Israeli's interest in improving the society; their goal is to delegitimize the state ain the short-run, and destroy it in the long-run.


Just wanted to get this off my chest.

[/rant]

Many Orthodox Jews are very anti-Zionist. They see Israel as blasphemous.

Many Orthodox Jews are very anti-Zionist. They see Israel as blasphemous.

That's really a different animal though. I don't think any NS posters fall in that particular category.

I'd like to keep my discussion away from those sects of Orthodox. I might point out it is only a couple of groups and most Orthodox Jews see it otherwise. The reform movement even used to be anti-Israel back in the 30s, but the Holocaust changed that one.

Many Orthodox Jews are very anti-Zionist. They see Israel as blasphemous.

Thats interesting.
Why is that?

Many Orthodox Jews are very anti-Zionist. They see Israel as blasphemous.

Very true. I've been on anti-Israel marches and demonstrations with them. OP I have the same problem as you from a different perspective. I am a secular (atheist) Jew. I have a great distaste for the religion and all its tenents but I am, nonetheless, Jewish and proud of my Jewishness in my own small way.

However, I belong to a group named Jews for Justic for Palestinians. I am totally anti-zionist and anti the state of Israel and I am deeply pained when I tell people I'm Jewish and they equate me to Israel - I don't want to be asociated with a state I consider to have blood on its hands.....

Thats interesting.
Why is that?

Israel was supposed to be a promised land given to them by God, but the nation of Israel today is a man-made country.

Thats interesting.
Why is that?

Because G-d himself didn't create it. I don't want the topic to really veer off in the direction of the Orthodox Jews. They're reasons aren't what this thread is about.

Wait? So if I don’t think Israel has a right to exist, I’m anti-Semitic? Huh. Never knew I actually hated all the Jewish friends I had growing up in South Florida.

All and all, a clever bit of nonsense. Mitchell Bard is a highly talented propagandist and distorter; he has impressed me before.

Legitimate critics accept Israel's right to exist, whereas anti-Semites do not.

No state has the right to exist, states founded through bloodshed and expulsion especially. Am I an anti-Semite?

Anti-Semites use double standards when they criticize Israel, for example denying Israelis the right to pursue their legitimate claims while encouraging the Palestinians to do so.

Most likely the difference is in one's conception of "legitimate", not in a double standard. And double standards are not anti-Semitic. They may be hypocritical, but they are not anti-Semitic. There are other reasons for irrationally disliking Israel beyond anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semites deny ISrael the right to defend itself,

So do ultra-pacifists. Are they anti-Semites?

and ignore Jewish victims while blaming Israel for pursuing their murderers.

Again, this kind of double standard may be hypocritical and irrational, but that does not mean the reason it is hypocritical and irrational is anti-Semitism. Of course, it may also not be a double standard at all. Perhaps I am an egoist and merely dislike the way Israel's military operations affect my life.

Anti-Semites rarely, if ever, make positive statements about Israel.

"Israel is necessary for the Rapture."

Anti-Semites describe Israelis using pejorative terms and hate-speech, suggesting, for example, that they are 'racists' or 'Nazis.'

Neither of which is anti-Semitic. If Israelis really are racists or Nazis (and many of them are the former and some of them are analogous to the latter), is reality anti-Semitic?

Natan Sharansky has suggested a 3-D test for differentiating legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. The first "D" is the test of whehter Israel or its leaders are being demonized or their actions are blown out of proportion. Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is one example of demonization.

Okay, so the person irrationally dislikes Israel; thus, they blow things out of proportion.

Why on Earth does it follow that their irrational dislike is founded in anti-Semitism?

The second "D" is the test of double standards. AN example is when Israel is singled out for condemnation at the UN for perceived human rights abuses while nations that violate human rights on a massive scaqle such as Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are not even mentioned.

Apparently Mr. Sharansky is fond of redundancy. The second test is the same as the first.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization. Questioning Israel's legitimacy, that is, its right to exist is always anti-semitic.

No, it isn't. It only is when such questioning is based on a double standard and that double standard is one based on hatred for Jews.

Wait? So if I don’t think Israel has a right to exist, I’m anti-Semitic? Huh. Never knew I actually hated all the Jewish friends I had growing up in South Florida.

Are you saying the Jews don't have a right to a homeland?

If so why?

I think the 1878 years of the Diaspara have proven that in order to survive as a people, the Jews need a homeland of their own. Anti-Semitism is a live and well across the world.

Heck, just look at how across Asia and Africa how people are taught the "Protocols" is an actual book and not a forgery from the Czars.

People are so obbesesive over religion, that they have now invented a term to label people who think that a jewish state can't exist?


The world needs to smack itself.....

Are you saying the Jews don't have a right to a homeland?

If so why?
No. I'm saying I disagree with the state of Israel and I believe that all it does is create unnecessary tension in the world.
I think the 1878 years of the Diaspara have proven that in order to survive as a people, the Jews need a homeland of their own. Anti-Semitism is a live and well across the world.

Heck, just look at how across Asia and Africa how people are taught the "Protocols" is an actual book and not a forgery from the Czars.
Similar things could be said of the Roma, homosexuals or the Kurds. Those groups just have worse publicists.

I can attest to the fact, though, that Jews are quite safe in the United States.

Thats interesting.
Why is that?

The retaking of the Land of Israel is supposed to coincide with the coming of the Messiah and be ordained by God, not taken directly into the hands of human beings.

IIRC this is part of a framework the Jews allegedly entered into upon being sent into exile. God would stop them from being exterminated by their Gentile rulers, but they had to obey the laws of their nations and avoid returning to reclaim the Land of Israel.

I find it very amusing that Israel supporters think that in order to stop anti-Semitism they must isolate themselves in one nation as one people but I guess that makes me an anti-Semite right?

With that said don’t Zionists want a bit more than Israel’s current borders?

Well, I myself am a Kanuckist. :rolleyes:

I dunno, I always percieved them as sort of a right-wing bogeyman. Like the liberal media.

All and all, a clever bit of nonsense. Mitchell Bard is a highly talented propagandist and distorter; he has impressed me before.



No state has the right to exist, states founded through bloodshed and expulsion especially. Am I an anti-Semite?



Most likely the difference is in one's conception of "legitimate", not in a double standard. And double standards are not anti-Semitic. They may be hypocritical, but they are not anti-Semitic. There are other reasons for irrationally disliking Israel beyond anti-Semitism.



So do ultra-pacifists. Are they anti-Semites?



Again, this kind of double standard may be hypocritical and irrational, but that does not mean the reason it is hypocritical and irrational is anti-Semitism. Of course, it may also not be a double standard at all. Perhaps I am an egoist and merely dislike the way Israel's military operations affect my life.

Okay, so the person irrationally dislikes Israel; thus, they blow things out of proportion.

Why on Earth does it follow that their irrational dislike is founded in anti-Semitism?

No, it isn't. It only is when such questioning is based on a double standard and that double standard is one based on hatred for Jews.You point out that irrational double standards and predjudice against Israel aren't necessarily a result of anti-semetism (hatred of Jews). I agree with you. However, when illegitimate, absurd criticism is levelled so often, one is left to wonder what the reason could be. Anti-semetism is a realistic progenator. Delusion, misunderstanding, emotional appeals, skewed understanding of history, and media spin could be others, but in fact, what these add up to is the hatred of a large group of Jews (those in Israel) on a basis of folly. Whether or not *that* comprises anti-semetism is a question that can be asked. It certainly isn't the traditional type, if it is at all, though it is often based on ideas almost as ridiculous as blood libels and christ-murderers.

With that said don’t Zionists want a bit more than Israel’s current borders?No. I'm a Zionist and I would be satisfied with one West Bank + one Gaza Strip less.

By definition, a Zionist is a person who believes in the idea of an Israeli State. You can support a Palestinian State and still be a Zionist so long as you believe Israel should also exist.

Actually, no.

If you read Borochov, or Ben Gurion, or the other founders of Classical Zionism, they had a quite particular idea in mind. They supported not just 'any Jewish state', but a Jewish state founded on the ideas of Socialism (thus Kibbutzim for instance). These Zionists were ready to go to the extent of anything to ensure only their kind of Israel would get founded.

Read up on the 'Season' - a Haganah operation where dozens of fellow Jewish operatives were hunted, killed, tortured, or turned over to the British.

Zionism isn't just about *any* Jewish State.

It's about a Socialist Jewish state.

Even today, with the Ma'arach not in power, the views of 'Ben-Gurionist Statism' are very powerful still - to this day, 'anti-statist' is a political insult in Israel.

And how do I know this?

I'm an Israeli citizen and a student in Tel-Aviv University.

Having taken a course in History of the Jewish-Arab conflict rawks. :D

If you read Borochov, or Ben Gurion, or the other founders of Classical Zionism, they had a quite particular idea in mind. They supported not just 'any Jewish state', but a Jewish state founded on the ideas of Socialism (thus Kibbutzim for instance). These Zionists were ready to go to the extent of anything to ensure only their kind of Israel would get founded.

While very specific socialist visions of Israel were possesed by many of the most eminent leaders in the Jewish yishuv in Israel, and ended up in the first governemnt, neither the Zionism of Herzl, nor the Zionism of later decades has that narrower range. I think it is fair to call Zionism, in the more general sense, the support of the existence of a Jewish Sate, like IDF suggested.

Modern-day zionism IS rather socialist... but I'll be back later to post.

Modern-day zionism IS rather socialist... but I'll be back later to post.HOW? Modern Zionism is varried. Some of the most virulent nationlists of Israel are kippa sruga types, or more recent immigrants with no particular history in the original kibbutz movement or histadrut - Russians, the various sephardic/misrahi likudniks, etc. I don't see any reasonable definition that would not include them as Zionists.

Delusion, misunderstanding, emotional appeals, skewed understanding of history, and media spin could be others, but in fact, what these add up to is the hatred of a large group of Jews (those in Israel) on a basis of folly. Whether or not *that* comprises anti-semetism is a question that can be asked.

It does not unless it comprises bias against Jews because they are Jews. Otherwise the Jewish status of the inhabitants of Israel is simply incidental to the hatred, making the hatred not anti-Semitic.

The longer people attempt to make criticisms of Israel's actions akin to anti-Semitism (and while it's true that no one says all criticism qualifies, there are dozens of poorly thought-out standards like this one whose intentions are pretty clearly the deflection of criticism), the easier it will be for the real anti-Semites to come out and equate all Jews with every Israeli atrocity. For if Israel = Jews, and thus bias against Israel amounts to bias against Jews, then everything Israel does, good or bad, becomes linked to us.

It certainly isn't the traditional type, if it is at all, though it is often based on ideas almost as ridiculous as blood libels and christ-murderers.

But absurdity in and of itself is just not a very good standard. There are lots of absurd views that are not anti-Semitic.

I find it very amusing that Israel supporters think that in order to stop anti-Semitism they must isolate themselves in one nation as one people but I guess that makes me an anti-Semite right?it isn't to stop anti-semitism. it because you can't stop anti-semitism.
herztel which is the father of zionism, saw the european anti-semitism in his days, and thought jewish should get homeland like the others, so they will be able to defend themselves. the idea evolve from that, and divide to many streams inside the zionists, with different ideas about the way the jewish state will run (btw, jewish isn't necceserilly relegious. it can be modern state with jewish majority).

With that said don’t Zionists want a bit more than Israel’s current borders?
the left zionists accept even less for peace.
the right zionists want the current borders.
little group of radicals want the historical borders which are much largers, but most of them aren't zionist since they are against the main principals of zionism as democratic nature of state or jewish majority in the state border.

Zionism is an aggressive expansionist policy very similar to Lebensraum, and implies subjugation and oppression of the Palestinian land and people for a political aim. Zionism is the kind of crap that used to indocrinate Jewish kids that 'after the holocaust the Jews needed a new home so they came back to the Canaan desert and the desert bloomed' and any mention of the oppressed Palestinians was 'Oh and some people didnt like it, but just cause they hated Jews'.

It's unfortunate Israeli politics has been hijacked by the zionists, those bloody ideology is abhorrent to even the most basic aspects of morality and religion to the Jews.

Zionist to Jew is what Nazi is to German, it's just a shame the zionists used the holocaust to justify an oppression unrightfully in the name of the Jews that rivals any the Nazis ever did.

Modern-day zionism IS rather socialist...

Israel barely even has a socialist Zionist party any more. Hadash probably qualifies as socialist, but it's not Zionist. Yachad might qualify, but it's really more social democratic; Labor seemed to take a turn to the left with Peretz, but it seems to be keeping politically to the center despite that, and the Lebanon War devastated him and Olmert politically anyway. He may not last long.

Histadrut and the Kibbutzim are a shadow of their former selves, however planned and statist the Israeli economy may be, the consquence of these characteristics is not greater equality, cuts in social programs have been coming for years, child poverty is egregiously high, senior poverty is, IIRC, among the highest in industrialized nations, inequality has skyrocketed, superexploited labor is imported from the Palestinian territories and elsewhere in the Third World, and so on.

I Zionist is someone who wishes to steal land to Muslims and give to jews. Actually its someone supports stealing land from anyone to give to jews.

I Zionist is someone who wishes to steal land to Muslims and give to jews. Actually its someone supports stealing land from anyone to give to jews.

False and false.

IDF's definition of "Zionist" is accurate.

False and false.

IDF's definition of "Zionist" is accurate.

IDF's 'definition' has blood all over it, they will use any excuse to subjugate and murder arabs, zionism is an ideological excuse.

What is a Zionist?

You, you Bizarro-Nazi.

IDF's 'definition' has blood all over it,

Indeed. So?

There is no necessity for Zionists to support Israel's actions, merely its existence as a Jewish homeland.

they will use any excuse to subjugate and murder arabs,

Doubtful. Were that true, they would be more brutal.

why isnt there a country solely for gays? why isnt there a country solely for gypsies? why isnt there a country for the mentally ill? they all had their own privet holocaust,s. they all were exterminated by the nazi,s long befor they started exterminating the jews, they were always persecuted through the ages and had pogrom,s and torture done to people relating to those nations. why dont this people have a country that sits in the heart of the arabic people like a festering western wound ,imprisons and tortures 3.5 million people and starts wars that result in the death of thousands the destruction of countless of lifes? why??!?!?!?!?! whats so bloody special?!?!?!?! you know what?
NOTHING!!!
scre,w this holocaus,t bullshit as justification for the continuing holocaus,ts of other nations. you think jews who died horribly in the holocaus,t will want their names to be used in such a cynical way? by people like olmert? its like murdering them all over again. how dare the israelis jews use them as an excuse to justify the genocides being commited by "nice" people like them!!?!?! they died because of racism, the same racism that is turned against the palestinians and arabs in general by "nice" people like them and their elected goverments.

piss off

an israeli pissed off jew

False and false.

IDF's definition of "Zionist" is accurate.Zionism is a form of racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379

It's funny how the Jewish people only accept UN resolutions when they are in their favor. Those with the double standards is the the Jewish people. Zionism was and is the movement to create a Jewish state in Palestine regardless of the needs and wishes of those humans already living there (90-95% Arabs). Zionists assumed that Palestine was an empty land only waiting for them to inhabit it. Zionism is a form of nationalism if not national socialism, a call for all Jews to unite into a community to pursue a common cause based on an assumed ethnic affiliation which is rather a religious one, no matter who else might be affected or might suffer from it. Yehud Yehud uber alles.

Zionism is a form of racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379

It's funny how the Jewish people only accept UN resolutions when they are in their favor. .

Your statement that "the jewish people only accept...." seems to presume the existence of a block called "the Jews". Yet here we have people (who happen to be Jews) dissenting.

Your statement that "the jewish people only accept...." seems to presume the existence of a block called "the Jews". Yet here we have people (who happen to be Jews) dissenting.That's the term the Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog used himself.

That's the term the Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog used himself.

Yes, and it was no less stupid when he used it.

Yes, and it was no less stupid when he used it.You disagree with Herzog? So this isn't Yahweh himself speaking through one of his chosen seed? :rolleyes: And in the end Zionism is a form of racism?

So this isn't Yahweh himself speaking through one of his chosen seed? :rolleyes:

No, it isn't.

And in the end Zionism is a form of racism?

No, it isn't. Zionism does not necessarily have anything to do with racism; all it constitutes is support for Israel as a Jewish state.

No, it isn't. Zionism does not necessarily have anything to do with racism; all it constitutes is support for Israel as a Jewish state.... in Palestine. If they were just for a Jewish state in some place where it would have affected nobody, they wouldn't be called Zionists. So how could they wish to have a Jewish state in Palestine without wanting to remove those Arabs who already live(d) there? Since it is impossible to want to live on a piece of land without wanting the prior inhabitant to be removed, I have to wonder how Zionists were planning to accomplish a Jewish state without ethnic cleansing, which is an ultimate form of racism.

... in Palestine. If they were just for a Jewish state in some place where it would have affected nobody, they wouldn't be called Zionists. So how could they wish to have a Jewish state in Palestine without wanting to remove those Arabs who already live(d) there?

By including them in their state.

(I agree with you that the Zionist project could not have been accomplished without atrocities against the Palestinians, and that is one of the reasons I consider myself an anti-Zionist, but it is perfectly possible for a non-racist Zionist to disagree with that notion, or to argue that the benefits outweighed the costs.)

To dismiss legitimate criticism of Israel's corruption and misconduct as "anti-semitic" is a straw man and a cop out.

By including them in their state.Although they did not want to be included in a state of foreigners? That's called imperialism.
And why then would the Jews not be included in an Arab state?

I agree with you that the Zionist project could not have been accomplished without atrocities against the Palestinians, and that is one of the reasons I consider myself an anti-Zionist, but it is perfectly possible for a non-racist Zionist to disagree with that notion, or to argue that the benefits outweighed the costs.The benefit for Jews and cost for who? You speak of dead Arabs?

If referring to language it is important to be correct. The use of the term anti-semitic to refer to prejudice purely against Jewish people is wrong.
Semitic refers to the language family which includes Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Ge'ez, Hebrew, Maltese, Tigrinya. As the use of the word developed it was expanded to include these as cultural and ethnic groupings.

In the 19th century the term anti-semitic developed to refer to discrimination against these groupings. However in a European context much of the visable aspect of discrimination was against the Jewish community. This was utilised by aspects of the Zionist groupings and led to the misused of the phrase anti-semitic to refer to discrimination against Jewish people.

However to suggest that being anti-semitic is just about being anti Jewish denies the other Semitic cultures and ethnicities and is thus a form of discrimination itself.

I am very clearly convinced from what I have seen, read and heard that the Palestinians have been denied rights and existence by the Israeli State and many Israeli citizens. This state is a deomcracy and therefore its people are theoretically ultimately responsible for its govenments actions. For this reason I am anti Israel. This does not mean I think all Israelis are bad or wrong but that they have a responsibility to take action to improve their countrie's actions.
you may call me anti-Israel but not anti-jewish or anti semitic.

They should have named the state not Israel but Elijah.

Although they did not want to be included in a state of foreigners? That's called imperialism.

Ideally the economic benefits would ensure that they did.

And why then would the Jews not be included in an Arab state?

Because there would be a Jewish minority.

The benefit for Jews and cost for who? You speak of dead Arabs?

Yes. Nothing done to the Palestinians is even close to the harm inflicted on the Jews by the Holocaust.

You disagree with Herzog? So this isn't Yahweh himself speaking through one of his chosen seed? :rolleyes: And in the end Zionism is a form of racism?

Yes, I disagree with him, neither exists and the last is debatable.

This kind of argument only diverts attention away from the actual issues at hand. What we really need is to debate how best to create the situation where we don't have to criticise Israeli policy any more and no longer have to have "anti-Semite!" and "Zionist!" everywhere.

Just my thoughts:(

By definition, a Zionist is a person who believes in the idea of an Israeli State.

Almost, but not quite. You should add, an Israeli state in the very same places where the Jews used to live before the Diaspora enforced by the Roman Empire. I don't think that calling for a jewish country like Birobidz'an qualifies as Zionism, because it lacks the city of Zion!


Anyway, in your following statements and quotations, it really seems that you're surreptitiously equating any critical voices speaking against the policies of the Israeli government to anti-semitism - that is, equating critical voices to Nazis - that's demonisation, by your own words...;)

The part about the double standard was the most interesting to me.
Let's make some things clear, just not to be called a Nazi by the most vociferous pro-Israeli folks:
1.I recognise the right of both Israeli and Palestinians to a country.
2.I can hardly be called anti-semite: example, when I was at the lyceum, I knocked out a guy because he chanted things on the line of "let's put the jews in the ovens".

The problem is, that I have a double standard. That is:
1.I recognise Israel as a democracy, while the surrounding countries aren't yet (ok, Egypt and Lebanon are trying, but they have still a lot of road to walk)
2.Many organisation Israel is confronting aren't states, they're armed organisations/political parties who also use terrorism (like Hezbollah and Hamas).

My double standard is this: I expect from a democracy A LOT MORE than I expect from a terrorist organisation. Terrorist are supposed to behave like criminals, to disregard human life, to strike indiscriminately fighting and non-fighting targets. The militaries and the police forces of a democracy should behave better than that - yes, it is difficult to walk the straight and narrow path of the law (and yes, even international laws and UN resolutions!) while you're fighting terrorism, but it can -and it must- be done. It is the only path a democracy can walk; failing that, it fails to be a democracy.

I criticise strongly Israel every time it fails to behave like a democracy should behave - just like I criticise my own country, Italy, every time it fails to behave like it should, or the USA, or Britain, or Germany, etc.
I want Israel to be ethically better than the terrorist, and I'm angry every time it fails to be so - like when Israeli air strikes kill non-combatants, for example: it isn't different from a bomb blasting in a crowded Israeli marketplace.
I'm aware that this is a double standard. But I don't think this makes me an anti-Israeli person, and least of all an anti-semite or a racist.

Ideally the economic benefits would ensure that they did.To be ruled by foreigners? No way.
Your "Ideally" is supposed to be sarcasm, right?

Because there would be a Jewish minority.They were a minority in all three sections of the UN division plan for Palestine. But your answer fails the point. Why would Jews force Arabs to be included in their state but not suffer it in the inverse situation. Why should Arabs suffer Jewish rule? And why should they give away their heartland because of the Jews?

Yes. Nothing done to the Palestinians is even close to the harm inflicted on the Jews by the Holocaust.And? What have Arabs to do with the holocaust? And in what way does the holocaust justify suffering for Arabs?

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but did the first Zionists not consider having a Jewish homeland somewhere rather then specifically Palestine. I have a vague memory of reading something about this and consideration being given to some area in South America. If right this got guddled in discussions with the British govenment (surprising that!).

Risottia you make some really important points about what we expect of democracies thanks.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but did the first Zionists not consider having a Jewish homeland somewhere rather then specifically Palestine. I have a vague memory of reading something about this and consideration being given to some area in South America. If right this got guddled in discussions with the British govenment (surprising that!).No. Zion is a hill in Jerusalem. Hence the word Zionism.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but did the first Zionists not consider having a Jewish homeland somewhere rather then specifically Palestine. I have a vague memory of reading something about this and consideration being given to some area in South America. If right this got guddled in discussions with the British govenment (surprising that!).

Risottia you make some really important points about what we expect of democracies thanks.
I believe Kenya was the first offer from the British government, but the 'Zionists' refused.

EDIT: Here we go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Uganda_Program)

No. Zion is a hill in Jerusalem. Hence the word Zionism.

There were Zionists before the term "Zionist" existed. Aleshia is correct.

There were Zionists before the term "Zionist" existed. Aleshia is correct.So a Zionist who is not named a Zionist is no Zionist? So why is Zion the significant part of the word? And why would you call a person who wants a Jewish state not near Zion a Zionist (regardless whether or not the term existed) ?
And in what way does the holocaust justify suffering for Arabs?

And why would you call a person who wants a Jewish state not near Zion a Zionist (regardless whether or not the term existed) ?

Because they did indeed become the first Zionists. Theodore Herzl is generally regarded as the founder of Zionism, and he was open to the idea of a Jewish state elsewhere in the world.

Apparently one of the earliest proposals (1820s) was by a Modecai Manuel Noah who proposed the establishment of a Jewish homeland on Grand Island New York. Noah later advocated a "land of Israel"

Because G-d himself didn't create it. I don't want the topic to really veer off in the direction of the Orthodox Jews. They're reasons aren't what this thread is about.

God God God God God God. Not G-d. That looks like its short for G-dawg or something. It is stupid. It's not special not saying somebodies name correctly its stupid. Go die.

Because they did indeed become the first Zionists. Theodore Herzl is generally regarded as the founder of Zionism, and he was open to the idea of a Jewish state elsewhere in the world.So if they became Zionists they weren't before.
And in what way does the holocaust justify suffering for Arabs?

God God God God God God. Not G-d. That looks like its short for G-dawg or something. It is stupid. It's not special not saying somebodies name correctly its stupid. Go die.

It's against Jewish faith to speak (and write or type) god's name, hence they censor it with the dash. So you, sir, can go die.

P.S. I'm an atheist and think it's silly myself, but I like to practice a little tact and tolerance.

hehe....I was driving by Berkeley today...going to the Krishna temple there...and I saw 2 dozen jews lined up on both sides of the Ashby st....one side holding anti-war placards like "war is terror"..."peace in middle east"..and something about Israel....and the other side holding signs such as "Stand for Peace, Stand for Israel" and the star of David etc...

Quite a spectacle...what with the black dress and skull caps...lol..

It's against Jewish faith to speak (and write or type) god's name, hince they censor it with the dash. God is no name, it's a designation. The name would be Yah. So you, sir, can go die.

It's against Jewish faith to speak (and write or type) god's name

No, it isn't. It's against the Jewish faith to do so casually, just as it is with Christians.

God is no name, it's a designation. The name would be Yah. So you, sir, can go die.

Uh, that's all cute and interesting.

Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god) > random nobody.

No, it isn't. It's against the Jewish faith to do so casually, just as it is with Christians.Exactly. Nevertheless "god" is not a name.
And in what way does the holocaust justify suffering for Arabs?

And in what way does the holocaust justify suffering for Arabs?

It doesn't. Did I say it did?

All I said was that a non-racist Zionist could easily argue that the benefit of avoiding another Holocaust justifies the cost of harm to the Palestinians.

It doesn't. Did I say it did?

All I said was that a non-racist Zionist could easily argue that the benefit of avoiding another Holocaust justifies the cost of harm to the Palestinians.

Who exactly could successfully carry out another holocaust and get away with it?

It doesn't. Did I say it did?
All I said was that a non-racist Zionist could easily argue that the benefit of avoiding another Holocaust justifies the cost of harm to the Palestinians.Nothing done to the Palestinians is even close to the harm inflicted on the Jews by the Holocaust.You justify suffering for Arabs by the holocaust or "another" imagined holocaust because it's not as bad.
And BTW I'm not so sure about that. The Holocaust lasted only for 6 years, while the suffering of Arabs continues for almost 60 years now, that's two or three generations. Those who died in the Holocaust had it over with, while Palestinian Arabs haven't

You justify suffering for Arabs by the holocaust or "another" imagined holocaust because it's not as bad.

Indeed - but not because they're Arabs. The difference is one of scale.

Who exactly could successfully carry out another holocaust and get away with it?

No one. It is a poor justification, but one that nevertheless is regularly used and quite sincerely believed.

Indeed - but not because they're Arabs.But because by chance they live in the land you want to possess?

The difference is one of scale.The scale is irrelevant.

But because by chance they live in the land you want to possess?

No.

The scale is irrelevant.

Why is it?

A key to determining whether criticism of Israel is leAntgitimate criticism or anti-semitism is whether or not a double standard exists. Nodinia and other legitimate critics acknowledge Israel has a right to exists and that the Palestinians are far from angels.

To quote Mitchell G. Bard in his book "Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict:

Criticising Israel does not necessarily make someone anti-Semitic. The determining factor is the intent of the commentator. Legitimate critics accept Israel's right to exist, whereas anti-Semites do not.

And he gets to define what is legitimate because? I don't consider myself anti-Semitic, but don't agree with the logic behind Israel's right to exist.

There are many groups who've been persecuted, yet only the Jews get a state based on the notion that "they might be persecuted again".


Also as an uninformed comment, I always read zionist as someone who wanted the restoration of the state of Israel. As in with Israel's historical boundaries with no Palestinian State within the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

As in with Israel's historical boundariesWhat historical boundaries?

What historical boundaries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
conceived historical boundaries if you prefer.

No.Then what?

Why is it?Why would it be relevant? There is no connexion between the holocaust and the suffering inflicted on the Palestinian Arabs. Since Zionism predates the holocaust it could not be used as a reason anyway. Zionists are anti-Arabs and thus in fact anti-Semites. There is no way that someone could want a Jewish state in Palestine without wanting the Arabs out. There is nothing to justify this ethnic cleansing, the replacement of one population with another foreign one.

Why would it be relevant? There is no connexion between the holocaust and the suffering inflicted on the Palestinian Arabs.

Have you ignored everything I've said?

All I said was that a non-racist Zionist could easily argue that the benefit of avoiding another Holocaust justifies the cost of harm to the Palestinians.

Since Zionism predates the holocaust it could not be used as a reason anyway.

It shows they were right about the danger of anti-Semitism and the uselessness many of the proposed solutions, doesn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
conceived historical boundaries if you prefer.Israel ceased to exist in 722 BCE, and then it was only half the territory of Palestine in 1923. How could anyone seriously require a territory because some assumed ancestors lived there over 2600 years ago? What about those whose ancestors lived there in over 1500 years until the day modern Israel was created?

conceived historical boundaries if you prefer.

"Imaginary" is the right word here. There never was such an entity.

Have you ignored everything I've said?What have you said? You justify Zionist arguments or accept them as valid.

It shows they were right about the danger of anti-Semitism and the uselessness many of the proposed solutions, doesn't it?Nevertheless that didn't justify a Jewish state in an already populated area, the population of which didn't want more Jews. It's not the Palestinian Arab's fault that Jews couldn't get along in Europe, so there was no reason at all for them to share their homeland, and thus there is none today.

"Imaginary" is the right word here. There never was such an entity.What do you mean? You doubt the existence of a state named Israel in the 10th century BCE?

What do you mean? You doubt the existence of a state named Israel in the 10th century BCE?

Actually, sort of. There are good reasons to suspect that a truly state-like entity did not arise until much later, and David and Solomon were merely tribal leaders of Judah, at most.

But what I was doubting in that post was the existence of the entity as described, not of "a state named Israel."

It's not the Palestinian Arab's fault that Jews couldn't get along in Europe

And it wasn't the Jews' fault, either. So you have a greater injustice prevented (or so the argument goes, anyway) by a lesser one.

Actually, sort of. There are good reasons to suspect that a truly state-like entity did not arise until much later, and David and Solomon were merely tribal leaders of Judah, at most.

But what I was doubting in that post was the existence of the entity as described, not of "a state named Israel."??

And it wasn't the Jews' fault, either. So you have a greater injustice prevented (or so the argument goes, anyway) by a lesser one.Do you share that argument or accept it as valid?

??

I advise you read a decent recent book on the subject, preferably by someone who does not start from the assumption that Biblical history is literally true.

In regard to this particular question, the book that moved me towards my present position is The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

Do you share that argument or accept it as valid?

Accept it as valid and non-racist. I reject the premise that the creation of Israel will help prevent another Holocaust - indeed, if it will be repeated anywhere, it will be repeated against Israel's population.

Been looking at some of the history. See here for a description of Balfour Declaration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Home) 3 sentences & 125 words to a whole lot of destruction and suffering.

I advise you read a decent recent book on the subject, preferably by someone who does not start from the assumption that Biblical history is literally true.

In regard to this particular question, the book that moved me towards my present position is The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.I have read some of Finkelstein, but certainly not much. Finkelstein himself now seems to be inclined towards the ideas laid out by David Rohl. It's basically all a problem of chronology.

Accept it as valid and non-racist. I reject the premise that the creation of Israel will help prevent another Holocaust - indeed, if it will be repeated anywhere, it will be repeated against Israel's population.So basically Zionists (and you?) accept injustices as long as they are not directed against themselves. Thus you justify injustices against Palestinian Arabs. From a Israeli/Jewish perspective that means to justify injustices against non-Jews by past and possible future injustices against Jews. I call that racism.

I have read some of Finkelstein, but certainly not much. Finkelstein himself now seems to be inclined towards the ideas laid out by David Rohl. It's basically all a problem of chronology.

Well, you said tenth century BCE, and at least according to Finkelstein and Silberman's book, the archaeological evidence indicates that no well-developed state emerged until at least two centuries later.

Edit: But that is with regard to Judah, not Israel. Of course, modern Jews are descended from the tribe of Judah, and the right they claim is based on that, so the possible existence of a northern state in the tenth century (one that certainly did not encompass anything close to the borders indicated in the map) is irrelevant.

So basically Zionists (and you?) accept injustices as long as they are not directed against themselves. Thus you justify injustices against Palestinian Arabs. From a Israeli/Jewish perspective that means to justify injustices against non-Jews by past and possible future injustices against Jews. I call that racism.

You are being disingenuous. I do indeed justify injustices that are not directed against me. But I do not do so because they are not directed against me - I do so for reasons of scale.

Israel ceased to exist in 722 BCE, and then it was only half the territory of Palestine in 1923. How could anyone seriously require a territory because some assumed ancestors lived there over 2600 years ago? What about those whose ancestors lived there in over 1500 years until the day modern Israel was created?


"Imaginary" is the right word here. There never was such an entity.


I said conceived meaning it was (as stated in the article) "a concept".

I'm not arguing the merits of it. I'm merely saying that my idea of a zionist was someone who supported the restoration of a Jewish states fulfilling the same area (or close to it) as the Biblical Israel.

I do indeed justify injustices that are not directed against me.Of course thus you also accept if someone else justifies injustices against you?
But I do not do so because they are not directed against me - I do so for reasons of scale.I didn't know injustices come in scales.

Of course thus you also accept if someone else justifies injustices against you?

Yes, I do.

I didn't know injustices come in scales.

So you think stealing a trinket from someone is equivalent to genocide?

Well, you said tenth century BCE, and at least according to Finkelstein and Silberman's book, the archaeological evidence indicates that no well-developed state emerged until at least two centuries later.Well, Finkelstein still applies the orthodox chronology.

Edit: But that is with regard to Judah, not Israel. Of course, modern Jews are descended from the tribe of Judah, and the right they claim is based on that, so the possible existence of a northern state in the tenth century (one that certainly did not encompass anything close to the borders indicated in the map) is irrelevant.1. I doubt that modern Jews from a tribe of Judah.
2. I do in fact accept that David's realm, or hegemony extended to the Firat, but only for less than two years.

Yes, I do.

So you think stealing a trinket from someone is equivalent to genocide?

So if person A shoots person B in the chest, then person B is entitled to shoot person C in the foot since it's not as bad as getting shot in the chest?

Yes, I do.I'll keep that in mind.
So you think stealing a trinket from someone is equivalent to genocide?Depends on what the trinket meant to that someone.
And the point was whether anti-Arab actions are justified because of the European holocaust.

you're a zionist.
i havent noticed any anti-semetic people on the forums. israel is the promised land of the christian empire! take it back i say dam it! come on people.

So if person A shoots person B in the chest, then person B is entitled to shoot person C in the foot since it's not as bad as getting shot in the chest?

No. If person A can be prevented from shooting person B in the chest by shooting person C in the foot, then it should be done, assuming that there are no other alternatives.

Depends on what the trinket meant to that someone.

Really? So if I value a trinket enough, that trinket is worth just as much as tens of thousands of people's lives?

And the point was whether anti-Arab actions are justified because of the European holocaust.

No, it wasn't. I never said they were.

1. I doubt that modern Jews from a tribe of Judah.

Well, the mythology says they are, anyway. Out of curiosity, why do you doubt it?

2. I do in fact accept that David's realm, or hegemony extended to the Firat, but only for less than two years.

Explain.

No. If person A can be prevented from shooting person B in the chest by shooting person C in the foot, then it should be done, assuming that there are no other alternatives.The alternative would be not to shoot C in the foot. Just that.

Really? So if I value a trinket enough, that trinket is worth just as much as tens of thousands of people's lives?Yes. One injustice weighs the same as another. If you break justice it doesn't matter how hard you break it.

No, it wasn't. I never said they were.You said you accepted the Zionist argument. That argument was that anti-Arab actions are justified because of the European holocaust. You also said you didn't see it as anti-Arab but that's in fact what it is and was.

Yes. One injustice weighs the same as another. If you break justice it doesn't matter how hard you break it.

So you wouldn't support stealing a trinket to save a million people?

What's the moral difference between that position and supporting the killing of a million people to prevent the theft of a trinket?

You said you accepted the Zionist argument.

As reasonable, yes. As true, no.

That argument was that anti-Arab actions are justified because of the European holocaust.

No, it's that the Jewish state is justified as a refuge for anti-Semitism, with the deadly consequences of anti-Semitism demonstrated in the Holocaust. There are some good reasons (though questionable ones) for associating a Jewish state in Palestine with a necessity for anti-Arab actions, and from that perspective, it might be further argued that those are justified in the context of providing such a refuge - again, citing the catastrophe of the Holocaust not as itself a justification, but as an indicator of what the state would (ostensibly) prevent.

Well, the mythology says they are, anyway. Out of curiosity, why do you doubt it?That would require that Jews have reproduced incestuously for over 1900 years. (Also I was told that most Jews are descended from folks who converted to Judaism in the 2nd to 6th century CE, i.e. in the era of the Roman Empire after the destruction of Jerusalem, but I haven't checked this)

Explain.After the defeat of the Arameans David managed to (opportunistically) extend his rule on Aram/Amurru until the political vacuum there was filled again by the Hittites.

So you wouldn't support stealing a trinket to save a million people?
What's the moral difference between that position and supporting the killing of a million people to prevent the theft of a trinket?I support neither. And since there is no possible connexion between these two injustices they weigh equally.
As reasonable, yes. As true, no.??

No, it's that the Jewish state is justified as a refuge for anti-Semitism, with the deadly consequences of anti-Semitism demonstrated in the Holocaust. There are some good reasons (though questionable ones) for associating a Jewish state in Palestine with a necessity for anti-Arab actions, and from that perspective, it might be further argued that those are justified in the context of providing such a refuge - again, citing the catastrophe of the Holocaust not as itself a justification, but as an indicator of what the state would (ostensibly) prevent.It is impossible to have a Jewish state in Palestine as refuge from anti-Semitism without actually replacing the original population with foreigners, which is then an anti-Arab action no matter how you turn it. Your justification completely leaves out the Arab needs and their perspective in favor of some strange insubstantial idea. There is no reason for any Arab to give up his land (freely or forced) to a foreign Jew only because this Jew may have suffered elsewhere. No matter what catastrophes the Jews were citing, it wasn't the Arabs' fault and thus not their obligation to cede land to Jews.
-------------------------------------------
I do indeed justify injustices that are not directed against me.Of course thus you also accept if someone else justifies injustices against you?Yes, I do.Again so I get this right: you condone atrocities against Palestinian Arabs because you are no Palestinian Arab. And you accept that others condone violence against Jews because they are not Jews themselves?

Now this isn't everyone on the forum. There are people who aren't anti-semitic who argue against Israel like Nodinia, but he seems to be in the minority here.



Thanks for the acknowledgment btw. Nice to know somebody reads whats actually there now and again.

I've never quite understood the isolationist and non-integrating ideas that have seemed to accompany the Jews, and why they seem to be far more concerned about their ethnic heritage than others, is it a hangover from religious writings about them being the 'chosen race' or a reaction to being persecuted? (and surely they must be the most persecuted group in human history?). I certainly don't think isolating themselves from others will help anti-semitism, infact, I'd go as far to say it has worsened it in muslim countries. So, I suppose you could say I'm anti-zionist, but certainly not anti-semitic. Please correct me if my thoughts are mis-informed.

Who exactly could successfully carry out another holocaust and get away with it?

Not to the jews maybe. But genocides did happen after WWII and the people who did it did get away with it - Bangladesh, Rwanda and Darfur.

Not to the jews maybe. But genocides did happen after WWII and the people who did it did get away with it - Bangladesh, Rwanda and Darfur.


Don't you mean Pakistan?

Are you saying the Jews don't have a right to a homeland?

If so why?
Why should a religion be given a homeland?
There are hundreds if not thousands of religions out there that do not have 'homelands' where their ethnic group rules over others. They live with other people.


I think the 1878 years of the Diaspara have proven that in order to survive as a people, the Jews need a homeland of their own. Anti-Semitism is a live and well across the world.

Heck, just look at how across Asia and Africa how people are taught the "Protocols" is an actual book and not a forgery from the Czars.

1. And all this is the palastinians fault how?
2. As you say - they have survived almost 2000 years just fine without a homeland. Why do they suddenly need one now?
3. Are you saying Jews in America (For example) are unsafe?