Status Of Palestine [Archive]

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th April 2009, 00:01

Because the global beourgiose hegemony needs resources, the middle east region is an oil rich area and Israel makes a convienient friend and watchdog in that region to look out for it's interests.

Its all linked you see. Until you understand that, you are a poorly informed progressive radical.

One of my favourite quotes, i forget who it's by but it oozes truthism - ''Without McDonald's there would be no Mc Donnell Douglas''.

That may be true, I'm not denying that the West uses Israel as a tool.

However, Israelis do not view themselves as such. They see themselves as people who would be wiped out by their neighbors if they ever let down their guard. They don't see Israel as a colony or a watchdog for the US, they see it as home.

They aren't like Lebanon, or Syria, or Egypt, where if a war is lost then there is a loss of prestige and maybe some territory. No, if Israel loses a war there will be a definite end. A bitter end.

Not that I'm saying that Israeli repression of Palestinians is justified by any stretch, but the Palestinians have to accept that Jews have a real right to live there and stop trying to kill them. I am confident that peace can be worked out and Israel will become a much more tolerant state to all ethnicities, but claiming the goal is to 'drive the jews into the sea' probably isn't the best attitude if you want the incredibly superior military force to end the blockade, for example.

Angry Young Man

24th April 2009, 00:06

Oop... Looks like the anti-Semitism accusations start. Starting to sound an awful lot like a Zionist. Are you going to justify atrocities with the Holocaust next?

Plagueround

24th April 2009, 00:07

They aren't like Lebanon, or Syria, or Egypt, where if a war is lost then there is a loss of prestige and maybe some territory. No, if Israel loses a war there will be a definite end. A bitter end.

That's a rather one sided and chavinistic view. Why is it that the only loss for them would be prestige and territory? Last I checked, Israel was killing civilians in the surrounding area like flies, and a pretense of self defense simply doesn't fly.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th April 2009, 00:07

The Palestinian people weren't consulted. And they'd been living there for centuries. It usually will start a conflict if you shoo a whole population out if their homes. You deserve to be called a **** for your flagrant ignorance as to the I/P conflict far outdoing your right to have an opinion. Now fuck off, you ignorant twat.

Fuck you too.

All I'm saying is that the Palestinians have lost every confrontation with Israel, and most of the time there's a lot more dead Arabs than jews at the end of the day. Actually, every time.

Time to hang up the gloves. Been a good fight. Been a good long fight. Start demanding legal rights, higher wages, a right to vote and serve in the military. Give up the whole 'drive the jews to the sea' mentality. It's begining to make little sense and has accomplished absolutely nothing.

I'm getting sick of people here seeing the Pals as there proxies, off to fight the evil dragon while we 'support them' from home. How about we give them some decent advice?

btw, perhaps this should be split off into another thread, eh?

Angry Young Man

24th April 2009, 00:08

Or how about... They demand they're fucking territory back.

Plagueround

24th April 2009, 00:11

Time to hang up the gloves. Been a good fight. Been a good long fight. Start demanding legal rights, higher wages, a right to vote and serve in the military. Give up the whole 'drive the jews too the sea' mentality. It's begining to make little sense and has accomplished absolutely nothing.

They've demanded and been denied those things.

I'm getting sick of people here seeing the Pals as there prozies, off to fight the evil dragon while we 'support them' from home. How about we give them some decent advice?

btw, perhaps this should be split off into another thread, eh?

I don't particular care for some people's take on it either, but I feel yours is a bit too one sided as well.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th April 2009, 00:11

That's a rather one sided and chavinistic view. Why is it that the only loss for them would be prestige and territory? Last I checked, Israel killing civilians in the surrounding area like flies.

Lebanon and Syria and Egypt and Jordan have all lost wars with Israel. Yet they still exist, do they not? There are still Egyptians and Lebanese and Syrians.

If Israel lost, there wouldn't be any Israel anymore, and, potentially, all Israelis would be wiped out.

Again, I'm not trying to defend Israel's human rights record, or the demonize its neighbors for their less-than-spectacular performance in this regard.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th April 2009, 00:15

They've demanded and been denied those things.

Very true, and I hope the US will begin to pressure Israel to accept major changes. Something that needs to happen if we're going to avoid regional war in the decade, and I honestly feel there is a chance, even with Crazy ass BB as PM, that changes will occur.

I don't particular care for some people's take on it either, but I feel yours is a bit too one sided as well.

All right, let me state what I am 'for' loud and clear.

A state from the river to the sea which is democratic and completely blind to ethnicity in every way, including with economic disparity, and equal rights to all members of the country.

And yes, I fully admit that Israel is at least as much of an impediment to that as the Palestinians are.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th April 2009, 00:17

Or how about... They demand they're fucking territory back.

Um, yeah, this has gotten them where exactly?

There's been 60 years of this mentality being the guiding light. And it's accomplished absolutely nothing for the Palestinians.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th April 2009, 00:19

Oop... Looks like the anti-Semitism accusations start. Starting to sound an awful lot like a Zionist. Are you going to justify atrocities with the Holocaust next?

What the fuck are you talking about?

I haven't accused anyone of anti-semitism. Stop debating the neo-con caricature in your head and start with the debate we're actually having.

Angry Young Man

24th April 2009, 00:20

Very true, and I hope the US will begin to pressure Israel to accept major changes.
O for Christ's sake are you really that naive? Israel is there because of the US. Since when would the DC make any decision that isn't directly beneficial to it?

Dr Mindbender

24th April 2009, 00:22

O for Christ's sake are you really that naive? Israel is there because of the US.

Well actually, thats only half the story. Israel is there because of the UK. The USA has only sustained Israel militarilly and economically because it was politically convienient for it to do so.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th April 2009, 00:25

O for Christ's sake are you really that naive? Israel is there because of the US. Since when would the DC make any decision that isn't directly beneficial to it?

Uggh We have strong ties with Israel mainly because there's a very vocal group of people who carry a lot of weight in politics, business, and media who back Israel unequivacally because they are.....The same reason we don't have relations with Cuba.

Israel is there because Israel defeats any power that threatens it.

Dr Mindbender

24th April 2009, 00:26

Uggh We have strong ties with Israel because there's a very vocal group of people who carry a lot of weight in politics....

and these strong ties have nothing to do at all with their proximity to the world's oil pump that is the middle east?

:rolleyes:

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th April 2009, 07:06

and these strong ties have nothing to do at all with their proximity to the world's oil pump that is the middle east?

:rolleyes:

Just noticed this one, have to comment on it. Sorry in advance.

America gets more oil from Canada than the entire middle east combined.

And it's not like Israel is needed to keep a leash on Saudi Arabia (the only supplier in the ME which even comes close to the levels of oil export to the US from either of our North American neighbors), or the UAE. Or Qatar/Kuwait, which both house US Military bases and both served as the launching pad into Iraq (troops massed in Kuwait, Air Force/Command in Qatar).

So, I don't really see your point on this one. The idea that the US needs Israel to be its watchdog is absurd in my opinion.

Israel isn't a US base. It's a home to millions of jews who take the actions they do in their own self-interest.

Oh, and you're a mod. Can you split off the side-debate into its own thread, please?

Dr Mindbender

25th April 2009, 11:32

Just noticed this one, have to comment on it. Sorry in advance.

America gets more oil from Canada than the entire middle east combined.

The thing about the 2 locations is this-

The canadian and alaskan oil is awkward to get to because of the topography. It's frozen and so fourth which makes drilling a labourious task.
Secondly, the workers there live a 1st world standard of living so they have to be paid more.
Compare that to the soft, desert conditions of Iraq, Saudi etc and the comparitive lower expectations of workers means its much cheaper.

So, I don't really see your point on this one. The idea that the US needs Israel to be its watchdog is absurd in my opinion.

It does, because the oil rich nations in that region are hostile to american interests. It needs a local 'friend' there to act as leverage.Part of the reason countries like Iran or Syria don't get involved against US activities im the region is the threat of Israeli retaliation. Israel keeps America sweet, in return it gets lots of money and toys.

Israel isn't a US base.

I know, its a business partner to the US.

It's a home to millions of jews who take the actions they do in their own self-interest.
No they're there because of some batshit theocratic belief they have that they think gives them the right to drive the legitimate owners of the land with impunity and not have to face the chastisement of the civilised world.

Oh, and you're a mod. Can you split off the side-debate into its own thread, please?
I can't, I'm only a local mod. My powers only cover anti-fascism.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

25th April 2009, 21:08

The thing about the 2 locations is this-

The canadian and alaskan oil is awkward to get to because of the topography. It's frozen and so fourth which makes drilling a labourious task.
Secondly, the workers there live a 1st world standard of living so they have to be paid more.
Compare that to the soft, desert conditions of Iraq, Saudi etc and the comparitive lower expectations of workers means its much cheaper.

True, Arabian oil tends to be much, much cheaper to get out of the ground. However, infrastructure in Canada has been improved to the point that despite the large drop in price, which previously would have meant an end to Canadian export due to uncompetitive costs, nowadays the US is going to continue to rely on Canada pretty much regardless. Alaska is a different story and I personally feel that drilling in ANWR like all the republicans want to isn't going to change much of anything after the decades needed to build up infrastructure.

By the way, it should be noted that most studies of 'peak oil' don't even take Canadian oil into consideration. What they should say is the end of really cheap and accessible oil. The majority of oil in Canada (and there is a lot of it) is in tar sands which require a comparitively expensive process to seperate the oil from the sand.

A study from a few years ago estimated that it costs about three times as much to go with the tar sands as compared to conventional. However, the actual costs of getting the oil out of the ground, even in the first world, is miniscule to the price of oil in the marketplace (which is why increasingly dry West Texas crude is still a very profitable endeavor).

It does, because the oil rich nations in that region are hostile to american interests. It needs a local 'friend' there to act as leverage.Part of the reason countries like Iran or Syria don't get involved against US activities im the region is the threat of Israeli retaliation. Israel keeps America sweet, in return it gets lots of money and toys.Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that having a militarily superior friend in the region is helpful to American interests, though it should be noted that America has supported Israel even at the direct cost to its own interests. For example, in 1973 American support for Israel resulted in the Arab Oil Embargo whose direct result was the equivalent of billions of dollars purchasing Soviet oil. By the way, it could also be said that the one thing Reagan did that really hurt the USSR was restoring oil flow from the gulf but that's another topic.

However, back to the topic at hand, do you really think the truly oil rich countries in the region (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, et al) are going to choose confrontation with either the US or Israel at the expense of their dollar flow?

Also, while Israel has done enough on its own, it has not really helped out with the US in their actions. In the Persian Gulf War, for example, Iraq launched dozens of Scuds at Israel yet they made no response because the US knew that Israeli help would break up their own Arab coalition, which included thousands of Syrian troops.

I know, its a business partner to the US.Very true, and the US is in the unique position of being the only country on Earth that can demand real concessions from Israel. No power can do so militarily, not only because of the IDF but also their nuclear armament, but many Israelis see the US as Israel's only real friend.

No they're there because of some batshit theocratic belief they have that they think gives them the right to drive the legitimate owners of the land with impunity and not have to face the chastisement of the civilised world.That only explains part of it though. Yes, there are many Israelis who feel some messianic or religious reason to have Israel, and yes many of them are batshit crazy, the west bank settlers and Gush Emunim come immediately to mind. However, this protion of the population does not even come close to being a majority of the Israeli populace, which is overall pretty secular. And please don't misunderstand me, I concede fully that Israel is at least as responsible for 60 years of constant conflict, and 25 or so in the Occupied territories, with only minor interuption.

But Israel is also what the UN agreed to give the Jewish people when they were walking out of Nazi death camps, and millions of the jews who live in Israel were born there. They aren't going to give it up, and they obviously will fight to remain there.

I understand this position, and I find fault with either side which claims that "we're 100% right, the solution is to get rid of the others." If that is what either side believes then the conflict will never be resolved, and, honestly, I don't believe the last 60 years should lead anyone to the belief that the Palestinians would get anything in return but only see more and more go away.

I'm not questioning the right to resist, I'm questioning the accomplishments, and future prospects, of armed resistance with the goal being to eradicate Israel completely.

I can't, I'm only a local mod. My powers only cover anti-fascism.ah, understood.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

26th April 2009, 06:18

No, really, I'm intrigued. Because they are..... what?

Generally, the most adamant supporters of Israel in the US are liberal, zionist Jews and christian evangelicals who believe that the creation of Israel is the first step towards Jesus coming back. Though they are on opposite ends of the political system, they have the similarity of defending the actions of Israel no matter what they do.

And, of course, many Americans support Israel because they are ignorant of the situation on the ground.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

26th April 2009, 06:47

You post a dead palestinian kid to discount the Pontiac GTO, something that has no logical, direct connection in any way, shape, or form.

Yet you have a taste for a product whose main ingredient is mainly gathered through what is practically third world slave labor involving, for the most part, young children.

What the fuck?

Read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_cocoa_production). What's next, are you going to miss your taste for the liver of abandoned orphans?

You sicken me.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

26th April 2009, 10:02

So in order to like chocolate you have to be some kind of face-stomping neo-liberal nazi imperialist. There was me just thinking I have a sweet tooth. What happens to the communities who farm cocoa when Chairman Cultofabelincoln burns all the plantations down? The link didn't work. If you can write it up, that'd be great. I was always under the impression that cadburys paid comparatively reasonable amounts.

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

From the link:

The issue of children in cocoa production, especially in West Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa), has been a point of much controversy. The work of children in cocoa production has been viewed through the narratives of child labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor) and exploitation. In 2006, Côte d'Ivoire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire) (Ivory Coast) was the world's largest producer and exporter of cocoa, supplying 46% of the world cocoa production. West Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa), collectively supplies nearly 80% of the world's cocoa.Large chocolate producers such as Cadbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadbury_Schweppes), Hershey's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey%27s), and Nestle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestle) buy cocoa at commodities exchanges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodities_exchange) where Ivorian cocoa is mixed with other cocoa, as reported in a study by Oxfam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam).Again, you posted a dead kid in response to me posting a GTO.

Buying a product propped up by slave labor is a lot worse than a Detroit-made automobile I'm pretty sure.

I'm really not one of those people who refuses to buy something because of some outside reason. Salmoenella outbreak? Who cares, besides if I catch it I can sue. Dead rats in the factory? So what, I got dead rats in a trap right over here. Lead poisoning? Maybe it'll get me a little high, and I have too many brain cells as is. Made from endangered monkeys? So what, I'm a monkey too and we already wiped out neanderthals so really this isn't anything to be worried about at all.

But every time you eat a chocolate bar from a major manufacturer you are funding slave labor. I can't live with that one.

By the way, burning the plantation down? That's the answer to the problem? Gee, maybe if we blow up all factories wage slavery will go away too.

But on the other hand, since when do I take moral advice from a zionist who wants to steal my chocolate bars?I'm not a zionist. I just have common sense.

Tank > Rock

The Palestinians are never ever going to get all of their land back. The sooner they realize that the better. If they hold on to the fantasy that one day the jews will pack up and leave then they'll never see the outside of their cinder-block housing ever again.

It's not fair, no. But it makes sense to cut a deal. Or at least, just fucking say that the jews have a right to live there. Not in the 1967 boundaries. Not even in the 1948 boundaries. Just that jews have a right to live there with arabs. Instead of holding on to some pipe dream about getting the farm in Haifa back, Hamas should admit such and thereby allow the west to pressure Israel to end the blockade. Right now, thats all that the US demands, along declaring an end to violent tactics. Because, let's face it, the US State Dept could do more to help the Palestinians in a phone call then all the leftist talk about solidariy with the jihadists and whatnot has done in the past 60 years.

The Palestinians are never going to get all of their land back. We ought to be encouraging them to come to grips with reality instead of just urging them on a quest that is never ever going to come to fruition.

And if you are unwilling to admit such and would rather shout some pointless slogan then go ahead. Ain't going to matter and accomplishes jack shit. Oh wait I forgot the Palestinians got some of thei--Oh wait never mind. They've had exactly zero victories and seen most of what they did have (the west bank) go to jews.

Here's the forecast for the next 60 years if they refuse to acknowledge reality:

No more West Bank. That'll be Judea. No more Gaza. That'll be Sumeria, or whatever the fuck the Israelis call it. edit: The Israelis use Samarra as the name to make Gaza sound more jewish. Sumeria is the name of perhaps the oldest civilization on earth, or at least, one of the oldest writing systems we know of. My bad, I've honestly been kicking myself in the ass over that all day. Had to fix it.

Peaceful co-existence between jews and arabs with a democratic (workers) state which doesn't even care about the difference is the only way for their to be a peaceful and free society in the region. Non-violent protest and civil disobediance (refusing to build Israeli settlements would be a nice start to that) is the only forward and the only way the west (or US, since that's all that really matters) will force Israel, and, hopefully, greater Israeli society itself, into coming to terms with the fact that its an oppressive, undemocratic regime.

As long as Palestinians sanction and sponsor young men blowing up busses or running into schools and shooting the place up, the powers that be will always side with Israel (Including the arab states, who may cry about the Palestinians all the want but do very little. Especially regarding those in which action may compromise the flow of oil money).

But if you can provide a blue print for how the Palestinians win and actually accomplish something other than pissing off the susperior military force and having it rain death and destruction down on them, I'm all ears. Please tell, what will the next bottle rocket campaign accomplish, exactly?

BobKKKindle$

26th April 2009, 13:20

The conflict in Palestine is not in any way a "tribal" conflict. I would advise you to go and read a book on the modern history of Palestine such as John Rose's 'Myths of Zionism' so you can learn about the ways in which the current conflict is bound up with the interests of the imperialist powers, and not, as supporters of Israel tend to argue, due to inherent cultural or religious differences. This narrative of a tragic conflict between Jews and Muslims is not only factually inaccurate, given that a significant proportion of the Palestinian population is actually Christian, and Zionism has historically been a secular movement, it also serves a political purpose in that it allows Zionists to dismiss the possibility of a one-state solution on the grounds that there can never be peace between two communities that have never been able to get along, and it also justifies Israel's current aggression as necessary to defend the Jewish people against Palestinians who are, many Zionists would argue, intent on pushing Israel's Jewish population into the sea, because they hold a consuming hatred of all things Jewish. The reality is very different, of course. Prior to the influx of Zionist settlers in the 1930s as well as the creation of the Israeli state in 1948, Arab and Jewish communities lived together in relative peace, with mutual acceptance of each other's customs and beliefs, and there were even cases of intermarriage between the two communities. There were cases of the region's Arab inhabitants revolting against Jewish communities and demanding that the British authorities reduce the level of Jewish immigration but these revolts only took place once it became clear that the most recent waves of immigrants were moving to Palestine with the intention of creating a state based solely on the interests of the Jewish people, at the expense of all other ethnic groups living in the region, an intention that manifested itself early on in the attempts of Zionists to eliminate economic links between Jewish and Arab communities through Histadrut, which was established in 1920.

The Palestinians are never ever going to get all of their land backYou have absolutely no basis for saying this. It's true that Hamas is incapable of liberating Palestine on its own, both because it lacks sufficient military resources, but also because bourgeois political movements are fundamentally incapable of carrying democratic demands such as the right to self-determination to their ultimate conclusion due to the fact that the achievement of these demands would inevitably generate a confident proletariat, capable of challenging the bourgeoisie's own power. However, simply saying that Hamas is incapable does not mean that the liberation of Palestine is an inherently nonviable prospect. Instead, we have to look towards the proletariats of surrounding countries, and examine the role that these countries currently play in relation to Israel. The countries that have historically been seen as Israel's most dangerous opponents, especially Egypt, have entered into a compromise with Israel by recognizing Israel's rights to exist in exchange for acceptance into the imperialist bloc, and by doing so have demonstrated that they are no longer capable of having any progressive anti-imperialist role, and contributing towards the struggles of the Palestinian people, as long as the governments that currently rule these countries are still in power. In other words, in order to challenge Israel, and eventually smash the links between the Israeli proletariat and Zionism, there need to be dramatic political changes in the surrounding countries, in the form of proletarian revolutions, as only workers states are capable of rejecting all ties with imperialism and giving the Palestinian people the political and material support that they so urgently need. The destruction of capitalism throughout the Middle East is a necessary precursor to proletarian revolution within Israel and the creation of a single state encompassing the whole of historic Palestine because the institutions of Zionism and the benefits that Israel derives in exchange for its role as the forward base of the imperialist bloc in the Middle East means that only a small minority of the Israeli proletariat is capable of becoming revolutionary and breaking with Zionism at the current time, as explained in this essay: The Class Character of Israel (http://www.isreview.org/issues/23/class_character_israel.shtml). The authors of that article argue that when imperialism in the Middle East is defeated through proletarian revolution the initial response of the imperialist powers would be to use Israel as a means to re-establish their dominance, but that once such an attempt fails, Israel would no longer be able to function as a forward base, and the imperialist powers would therefore choose to withdraw their economic and political support, an event that would, in time, lead to greater class struggle within Israel, and the eventual destruction of Israeli capitalism.

robbo203

26th April 2009, 14:03

Or how about... They demand they're fucking territory back.

So you advocate nationalism then and all the crap about palestinian workers sharing a common identity and interest with their capitalist exploiters. Becuase afterall according to you it is "their" territory. What a load of nationalist bollocks!

PRC-UTE

26th April 2009, 15:46

Imperialism? How does that fit the definition of imperialism?

Choose from any of the following:

Israel was created by Lord Balfour acting in the interests of the British Empire to create a pro-West colony in Palestine

Israel is a settler state where someone from NY is legally considered more of a native than someone whose family has been there for hundreds of year

Israel depends on the west for its continued existence

Saorsa

26th April 2009, 15:51

A state from the river to the sea which is democratic and completely blind to ethnicity in every way, including with economic disparity, and equal rights to all members of the country.

A worthy goal Lincoln. And also one that would in practice mean the destruction of the state of Israel. Israel is an explicitly Jewish state, and this is the fundamental aspect of it's existence - it being the "Jewish state". The be all and end all of Zionism is the idea of this explicitly Jewish state that discriminates against other ethnicities and allows first class citizenship only to Jews. For these kind of changes to take place, for there to be a secular worker's state from the Jordan to the sea, Israel and the Zionist ideology that is behind it have to be destroyed.

Arab parties in Israel are discriminated against and prevented from participating in elections based solely on their opposition to Zionism. Arabs in Israel are repressed worse than blacks were in south africa, and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are locked in virtual concentration camps and forced to live in inhuman conditions. They have every right to resist this oppression, and the state of Israel does have to be destroyed - it is unreformable.

BobKKKindle$

26th April 2009, 16:33

A worthy goal Lincoln. And also one that would in practice mean the destruction of the state of IsraelYou're right - the continued existence of the state of Israel is incompatible with a just and sustainable peace. In addition to the creation of a unitary state, a solution to the oppression of the Palestinian people will also have to involve the injustices of the past being addressed and rectified - Palestinians who were driven out of their homes and forced to live in refugee camps or set up new homes in other villages as a result of the Naqba and subsequent acts of Zionist aggression should be able to return to historic Palestine and reclaim their property, which is something that Palestinians should currently be allowed to do anyway under the terms of UN Resolution 194, although Israel has obviously not recognized this right because doing so would lead to Jewish communities being forced to hand over land that was originally the property of Palestinians, and a massive influx of Palestinian refugees would also pose a threat to the political supremacy of the Jewish majority inside Israel by shifting the demographic balance in favour of Palestinians. The Israeli state has created a legal category termed "present absentees" for Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, and are currently living inside Israel, but were not at their homes at some point during the 1948 conflict - many of the people who fall into this category still hold documents from the British or Ottoman authorities which establish them as the legitimate owners of the land they inhabited before the Naqba, as well as the keys to their homes, but are still not allowed to return because of their brief absence, which allows the Israeli state to take control of their property. I find it hard to imagine what it's like to be forced to flee from your home during a war and then not be allowed to go back to your home once the fighting is over because you live under the rule of a government that systematically discriminates your ethnic group - but that's the reality for internally displaced Palestinians. I read a book recently called 'The Other Side of Israel' by an ex-Zionist called Susan Nathan* who lived in an Arab community, Tamra, for a year (something which is apparently unthinkable for most Jewish people inside Israel) and in one section she recounted the experiences of one of her Palestinian friends who returned to their village, Ein Hod, which has since been turned into an artist community, in order to visit her home, and was turned away by its current inhabitants. That chapter affected me a lot, and I know now more than ever that only a one-state solution in which Resolution 194 is fully enforced can ever give the Palestinian people the justice they deserve. Anyone who says that giving people their homes back is unattainable and unnecessary is no comrade of mine.

* Incidentally, has anyone heard of this author?

VukBZ2005

26th April 2009, 21:07

PRC-UTE:

Israel is a settler state where someone from NY is legally considered more of a native than someone whose family has been there for hundreds of yearYour claim that Israel is a settler state is false, as it has been a mostly-proven fact that the Jews who established Israel have both a Middle Eastern origin and a historical connection to the area that was formerly the British Mandate of Palestine, not to mention the fact that there has been a continuous Jewish presence in what was formerly the British Mandate of Palestine, whether in the form of a majority or in the form of a minority, for almost 3,700 years.

This point also proves that, since there is a historical backing for the revival of a generalized Jewish presence in that region, the Jewish people have the right to claim they should be able to re-assert their sovereignty in their ancestral place of origin.

That, however, does not mean that the Arabs do not have the right to live to live in that land, it just means that the Jewish right to live in that land and the Jewish right to re-assert their sovereignty in that land has a more viable, historical basis.

SocialismOrBarbarism

26th April 2009, 21:57

Why hasn't anyone brought up all the American and Israeli corporations that profit from the occupation? They're the ones rebuilding Gaza, building the barriers, the military equipment, etc. Someone posted a link to a site on here once listing all of the companies benefitting from it, but I'm not sure of the address. The campaign against caterpillar also comes to mind.

Pogue

26th April 2009, 22:03

Yehuda Stern

26th April 2009, 22:37

Your claim that Israel is a settler state is false, as it has been a mostly-proven fact that the Jews who established Israel have both a Middle Eastern origin and a historical connection to the area that was formerly the British Mandate of Palestine

It hasn't - it's obviously false too, as the earliest Zionist were all European Jews.

there has been a continuous Jewish presence in what was formerly the British Mandate of Palestine, whether in the form of a majority or in the form of a minority, for almost 3,700 years.

A marginal presence at best - though even if it were otherwise, I do not understand how this changes everything in regards to the rights of Jews who have no history in Palestine.

Basically you're just claiming a lot of things without backing, and my hunch is that you really have no way to back them up besides all sorts of myths you've been fed through the media and other such sources.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

27th April 2009, 00:39

Cultofabe, surely if your a revolutionary leftist you'd believe that the Israeli state is an oppresive bourgeois state which contains many elements of bourgeois ideology, such as nationalism and racism, and thus 'reforming' it is a stupid idea, and the only thing which would liberate the people of the region is a classless stateless society?

Surely that is all of our opinions? That Israel needs to be removed same as all capitalist states need to be removed, by a revolution of the oppressed class, the working class?

Yes, of course. But that's no different than all other states bourgeois states which exist and what I am referring too is the creation of a bourgeois state that will give all people in the region more freedom than they have now.

But, of course, exploitation will still occur, but I am confident that peace, stability, and a greater level of freedom can come to the region even without a worldwide workers revolution.

skki

27th April 2009, 00:45

Was Capitalism also the cause of the Roman squashing of Palestinian inhabitants 1900 years ago?
In a sense. Moreso the urge to make profit above all else. Which is pretty much the core of Capitalism.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

27th April 2009, 00:56

A worthy goal Lincoln. And also one that would in practice mean the destruction of the state of Israel. Israel is an explicitly Jewish state, and this is the fundamental aspect of it's existence - it being the "Jewish state". The be all and end all of Zionism is the idea of this explicitly Jewish state that discriminates against other ethnicities and allows first class citizenship only to Jews. For these kind of changes to take place, for there to be a secular worker's state from the Jordan to the sea, Israel and the Zionist ideology that is behind it have to be destroyed.

Yes, I've stated earlier that Israel is just as responsible for creating 60 years of conflict, and is most likely much more so responsible than anybody outside of the left (and the, um, extreme right) notes.

But zionism as a goal in and of itself ended a long time ago.

Zionism, as laid out by Theodor Herzl, states that the zionist state must

a. Be all Jewish
b. Be democratic and
c. Encompass all of the land of ancient Israel

Obviously, the state of Israel cannot possibly meet all those criteria. If it encompasses all of the land of ancient Israel, it cannot be all Jewish. If it is kept all Jewish in such a situation, it cannot possibly democratic. It's a catch-22.

But as I stated earlier I would like to see a workers state from the river to the sea which does not even care about ethnicity in any way (unless, of course, when dealing with discrimination issues and such).

But I also believe that the call to destroy Israel-- Well, what does that mean exactly? To throw all the jews out of Palestine, or to destroy the idea of a state which is composed by and for a single ethnicity? Obviously, one of those is always going to be opposed by those who have been born and raised in a country they believe they have a right to and will obviously fight it as such. The second, however, is the goal that we should all be pushing for. But it will never come about as long as the first motion is held on to in any way. The Palestinians need to convince the Jews that their goal is to live with them in peace before the Israelis will give any concessions. Which I know sounds like a ***** and, yes, we should try and keep pressure on both but Israel is holding all the cards at the moment.

They have every right to resist this oppression, and the state of Israel does have to be destroyed - it is unreformable.Sure, they have the right to resist oppression. Everyone does. But responding to oppression with violence serves as an end in and of itself and moves the situation forward in no real way. Israel, as an all-Jewish state, has to be destroyed. But it's never going to happen through the sword.

Non-violent civil disobediance is the only tactic that works against modern militaries. Blacks in both South Africa and the United States understood this and used it to bring down two racist legacies.

I shudder to think of what would have happened had blacks rosen up and tried to amend the state here via violence in the wake of the Selma incident, for example. Segregation in the south would never have ended. Progress would have been halted completely and the American south would still have exclusively 19th century social institutions.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

27th April 2009, 01:01

Choose from any of the following:

Israel was created by Lord Balfour acting in the interests of the British Empire to create a pro-West colony in Palestine

Israel was created by Jewish soldiers who fought and died for it in its war of independence.

Israel depends on the west for its continued existence

No, it doesn't.

Patchd

27th April 2009, 05:12

Well, first of all, the GTO is the greatest car of all time. It is not made anymore in it's most perfect form, true, but I was referring to all high-horsepower beasts of the road, even though they've gotten uglier with time.

I'm confused?

Secondly, dead Palestinians, while horrific, don't negate the worldwide capitalist system. People have been dying in tribal battles in the area since the Canaanites and the Philistines were going at it. That's like saying the gang-battles of Los Angeles negate attempts to create ethnically diverse neighborhoods.We should make a distinction between gang warfare, and Imperialism. Gangs hold none, or very little influence over the state, and the ruling class, instead they are tools that can be used by the state and the ruling class and has been used by them before. They are private organisations, unlike the state.

How exactly is Capitalism the sole cause of the Palestinian-Israel conflict? Obviously it's not the "sole" and only cause, but it is the main cause in our current time.

Was Capitalism also the cause of the Roman squashing of Palestinian inhabitants 1900 years ago?No, but oppressive and competitive societies were the reason for that. Competition is not inherently bad, but under oppressive systems it is utilised in such a way that benefits the few, to the detriment of the many, as opposed to being used as a self-improvement tool. So no, Capitalism wasn't necessarily the cause for the problems in the region 1900 years ago, or so I don't think so, I'm not too clued up on the economic set up of the Roman Empire, instead, the violence and economic, social and political competition inherent in oppressive societies were the causes.

EDIT: Also dammit bob, use paragraphs! :lol:

Hoxhaist

27th April 2009, 05:28

how can any leftist support the occupation of Palestine and the imperialist, capitalist colony of Israel?

Hoxhaist

27th April 2009, 05:31

Israel is the offspring of the reactionary and colonialist ideology of Zionism that is an ethno-religious chauvinist belief that ought to have no place in socialism!

TheCultofAbeLincoln

27th April 2009, 07:23

I'm confused?

This was branched of from the chit-chat "what will you miss" thread.

We should make a distinction between gang warfare, and Imperialism. Gangs hold none, or very little influence over the state, and the ruling class, instead they are tools that can be used by the state and the ruling class and has been used by them before. They are private organisations, unlike the state.

My point being that you can't really take one instance of ongoing violence and claim it discredits a worldwide economic system.

But yes I agree with you, I'm just saying that gang violence between blacks and latinos in LA could be used to suggest that the two ethnicities cannot co-exist in peace, when in reality it's socio-economic and other factors which cause the symptom of gang violence, if you can ge my drift.

Obviously it's not the "sole" and only cause, but it is the main cause in our current time.

I'm not denying that he ecomonomic system we have leads to violence, don't get me wrong.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

27th April 2009, 07:33

how can any leftist support the occupation of Palestine and the imperialist, capitalist colony of Israel?

Nobody here is saying that Israel in its present form is just or should be allowed to continue. But Israel has long moved past 'colony' status into having firm roots in the ground that are simply not going to be uprooted.

Also, I still fail to see how Israel is imperialist as imperialism is defined as the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. Israel doesn't have to answer to anybody, and it sure as hell is not a dependent or colony of the west. It's its own nation which was created through military victory...just like every other state in existence or that has ever existed.

If Israel is an imperialist state then the United States is also because, let's face it, without those redcoats back in the day this country would never have gotten off the ground.

Israel is the offspring of the reactionary and colonialist ideology of Zionism that is an ethno-religious chauvinist belief that ought to have no place in socialism! 'Ought to have no place in socialism"...what does that mean exactly? Israel is not allowed to be socialist, or socialist plans should not include Israel? Or Israel, in and of itself, shouldn't be considered a socialist state?

But seriously, Israel is the offspring of the United Nations giving the Jewish people some space on the map after the Europeans launched one too many pogroms. That, combined with multiple military victories and zero losses.

But please tell me, what is your stance on the issue?

That Israel as an all-Jewish state which denies arabs equal rights must be destroyed

or

That all jews who have emigrated to the region should be forced to leave?

ComradeR

27th April 2009, 12:33

Your claim that Israel is a settler state is false, as it has been a mostly-proven fact that the Jews who established Israel have both a Middle Eastern origin and a historical connection to the area that was formerly the British Mandate of Palestine, not to mention the fact that there has been a continuous Jewish presence in what was formerly the British Mandate of Palestine, whether in the form of a majority or in the form of a minority, for almost 3,700 years.
You know what is ridicules about this statement? The notion that somehow a religious identity constitutes a race. The Jews are a Semitic people but so are the other peoples who originate out of that area. The only thing that separates them is this artificial ethno-religious identity. Thus this claim has no real legs to stand on. This is of course ignoring the fact that the vast majority of settlers are from Europe, Russia, and the US and all it takes is to show you had a Jewish ancestor at some point in your family tree. There are so called Jews in Israel that aren't ethnically Jewish!

That, however, does not mean that the Arabs do not have the right to live to live in that land, it just means that the Jewish right to live in that land and the Jewish right to re-assert their sovereignty in that land has a more viable, historical basis.
Jews and Arabs were already living peacefully in that land. But I fail to see how foreign settlers can use an artificial ethno-religious identity as a reason to create a racist apartheid state and engage in a campaign of ethnic cleansing in order to establish it.

Israel was created by Jewish soldiers who fought and died for it in its war of independence.
Israel was created by the proposed United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 with strong backing from the UK and US. It only secured it's existence in the war which it used to engage in a campaign of ethnic cleansing and expand it's territory.

No, it doesn't.
The US quickly became Israels greatest backer which has come to rely on the US for it's continued survival (for example without this support Israel would have lost the Yom Kippur War). Israel relies on it's military dominance in the region in order to survive and without the financial and military aid from the US it would not be able to maintain it.

But In the end the I think I see what TheCultofAbeLincoln is saying. Israel must be dissolved and a secular non racist state that includes all ethnic groups established. The idea of "drive all Israeli Jews into the sea" is just as bad as Israelis trying to drive all Palestinians out. It is the apartheid state of Israel we are against, not the Israeli people themselves.

Chicano Shamrock

27th April 2009, 13:34

Nobody here is saying that Israel in its present form is just or should be allowed to continue. But Israel has long moved past 'colony' status into having firm roots in the ground that are simply not going to be uprooted.

Also, I still fail to see how Israel is imperialist as imperialism is defined as the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. Israel doesn't have to answer to anybody, and it sure as hell is not a dependent or colony of the west. It's its own nation which was created through military victory...just like every other state in existence or that has ever existed.

If Israel is an imperialist state then the United States is also because, let's face it, without those redcoats back in the day this country would never have gotten off the ground.

'Ought to have no place in socialism"...what does that mean exactly? Israel is not allowed to be socialist, or socialist plans should not include Israel? Or Israel, in and of itself, shouldn't be considered a socialist state?

But seriously, Israel is the offspring of the United Nations giving the Jewish people some space on the map after the Europeans launched one too many pogroms. That, combined with multiple military victories and zero losses.

But please tell me, what is your stance on the issue?

That Israel as an all-Jewish state which denies arabs equal rights must be destroyed

or

That all jews who have emigrated to the region should be forced to leave?
Firstly, I think you are confused about what imperialism is. Saying Israel is an imperialist state is not saying that it is the result of imperialism but that it is imperialist. It is imperialist because it spreads it's territory by creating wars and taking the land over. Sure Israel is not a colony of the west but it is definitely dependent on the west. If the west didn't back it with military support Israel would have had no chance. Unfortunately that place now has nuclear weapons.

The state of Israel reminds me of how the USA was made. Europeans come to North America and meet the natives of the land. They kill them off and push them off of the land. The same thing is happening to the Palestinians that happened to the Native Americans. It is disgusting. Israeli's are even worse than how the USA started.

At least the people that came to the new world didn't really claim some false ethnic right to the land. I mean the whites of North America did have manifest destiny which is kind of like the same thing that Israel is doing but that is a little less silly to me somehow.

Stop fucking bringing up Jews. That is just a cheap way to get people to accept the Israeli actions. Why give Jews more respect than any of us would give Christians? It is a fucking religion. Saying things like "you want to push jews into the sea" or whatever is a dishonest tactic in debate. If you change the word to something that isn't there to make you feel guilty and with context it isn't as horrible sounding. Like:

A group of people planted itself on your homeland and killed millions of you and you want to push the murderers into the sea.

If someone did that shit to you then you would feel the same way. By the way you keep saying how it is on the Palestinian people to accept Israel and stop the violence. The facts are that Israel is the one that causes much much much more violence. They have tanks going through Palestinian neighborhoods. You are assuming that Israel wants to accept a compromise when it has been proven that they don't want to go through with the peace talks.

Dr Mindbender

27th April 2009, 18:10

If Israel is an imperialist state then the United States is also because, let's face it, without those redcoats back in the day this country would never have gotten off the ground.

Thats a dangerous attitude to have, because to say ''oh we were once like that'' is to effectively legitimate any imperalist power.

Angry Young Man

27th April 2009, 18:21

So you advocate nationalism then and all the crap about palestinian workers sharing a common identity and interest with their capitalist exploiters. Becuase afterall according to you it is "their" territory. What a load of nationalist bollocks!

Well, it is there living space in the sense that everyone has a right to a living space. This is in contrast to it being forcibly removed from them. Yes Jews, in my eye, also have a right to live in Palestine, on the proviso that they do not clear out an area for themselves. Of course a state would have to keep down ethnic conflicts on both sides.

Angry Young Man

27th April 2009, 18:30

I'm confused?

Patchy, it started in a chit chat thread about things we'd miss about capitalism. Someone said "there's nothing to miss. This is capitalism" (with a picture of four starving Indian children.) Cult said "Really," with a picture of a Pontiac GTO; and I said "Yes, really" with a picture of a fatally wounded Palestinian boy. Thence came an acid vomit of Zionist crap.

STJ

27th April 2009, 20:06

Israel is an imperialist lap dog of the US.

el_chavista

28th April 2009, 03:24

People have been dying in tribal battles in the area since the Canaanites and the Philistines were going at it. That's like saying the gang-battles of Los Angeles negate attempts to create ethnically diverse neighborhoods.

This is not the case between Arabs and Israelites. They lived in peace for millennia before 1948, when the first Zionist terrorists arrived to Palestine.

ComradeR

28th April 2009, 03:32

Firstly, I think you are confused about what imperialism is. Saying Israel is an imperialist state is not saying that it is the result of imperialism but that it is imperialist. It is imperialist because it spreads it's territory by creating wars and taking the land over.
Israel is not an Imperialist power but is used in the interests of US imperialism. If you (as you seem to be) confused about what modern imperialism is I suggest checking out the thread on it here in politics.

Of course a state would have to keep down ethnic conflicts on both sides.
The ethnic groups in that area lived in relative peace prior to the creation of the racist apartheid state of Israel which escalated and even created ethnic conflicts in the area.

robbo203

28th April 2009, 09:32

[QUOTE=TheCultofAbeLincoln;1427256]'Ought to have no place in socialism"...what does that mean exactly? Israel is not allowed to be socialist, or socialist plans should not include Israel? Or Israel, in and of itself, shouldn't be considered a socialist state?
QUOTE]

I think what Hoxhaist was saying is that zionism ought to have no place in socialism which is quite true but, by the same,token palestinian nationalism ought to have no place in socialism either. Those who advocate palestinian nationalism or support for the Israeli state - or any other state - demonstrate thereby that they have abandoned socialism - Socialism is completely incompatible with any form of nationalism which cons workers into believing they have some common interest with the capitalists in some fictional territory called the "nation" which is actually a creation of capitalism. Moreover, a socialist state is an oxymoron.

Speed the day when "Israeli" workers stand side by side with "Palestinian" workers and refuse any longer to get drawn into the nationalist squabbles of their ruling class. In the meanwhile, ignorant leftists perpetuate this phoney nationalist struggle by urging fellow workers to take one side or another and, in so doing, do the dirty work of ideological mystification on behalf of the capitalists and their system which they inadvertently and ultimately help to entrench

Chicano Shamrock

28th April 2009, 09:51

robbo203

28th April 2009, 09:53

Well, it is there living space in the sense that everyone has a right to a living space. This is in contrast to it being forcibly removed from them. Yes Jews, in my eye, also have a right to live in Palestine, on the proviso that they do not clear out an area for themselves. Of course a state would have to keep down ethnic conflicts on both sides.

What on earth does this mean - a right to living space? How the fcuk does this justify nationalism? Does the slum dweller of any cramped and overflowing slum anywhere in the world not have a right to living space that does not involve any kind of nationalistic rationalisation?

You talked about the palestinians having "their" territory. No doubt equally deluded "Israeli" workers will talk about the right to maintain "their" territory as well. Do you not see that what you are only helping to perpetuate one of the biggest lies that keeps capitalism going - that groups of workers have a common interest with sections of the global capitalist class to assert a right to have a particular territory of "their" own as against as against the conflicting rights of other combinations of workers and capitalists?

Who was it who said that the workers have no country and ..oh yes... that they have a world to win. Not a friggin "independent" nation state! In a world of global capitalism that is a pathetic illusion anyway

Chicano Shamrock

28th April 2009, 09:56

Israel is not an Imperialist power but is used in the interests of US imperialism. If you (as you seem to be) confused about what modern imperialism is I suggest checking out the thread on it here in politics.

.

Imperialism -

The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

By this standard Israel is Imperialistic. I don't really care about Lenin's definition about something. I use the words how they are commonly used. I don't need any pretentious outdated definitions. ;)

robbo203

28th April 2009, 10:04

[QUOTE=robbo203;1428342]
Well socialism is a ways off probably so whats wrong with supporting national liberation to stop the killing? Sure it is short sighted but it would save lives that wouls otherwise be lost in bombing raids.

You kidding? National liberation struggles do not stop the killing. They are part of the problem not the solution . They help to perpetuate the mind set that perpetuates capitalism and, with that, the cause of the killings

Im getting tired of leftist opportunism which constantly justfies the need to defer or postpone the struggle for a genuine socialism on the grounds that something else is more pressing in the meantime. It is not only shortsighted, it is downright obstructive to the goal of achieving a genuine socialist society.

Ironically, the quickest way to ensure that the violence and the killings will abate is to build up a strong socialist movement that unequivocally rejects all nationalism

Angry Young Man

28th April 2009, 15:59

What on earth does this mean - a right to living space? How the fcuk does this justify nationalism? Does the slum dweller of any cramped and overflowing slum anywhere in the world not have a right to living space that does not involve any kind of nationalistic rationalisation?

You talked about the palestinians having "their" territory. No doubt equally deluded "Israeli" workers will talk about the right to maintain "their" territory as well. Do you not see that what you are only helping to perpetuate one of the biggest lies that keeps capitalism going - that groups of workers have a common interest with sections of the global capitalist class to assert a right to have a particular territory of "their" own as against as against the conflicting rights of other combinations of workers and capitalists?

Who was it who said that the workers have no country and ..oh yes... that they have a world to win. Not a friggin "independent" nation state! In a world of global capitalism that is a pathetic illusion anyway

I draw attention to Palestinians' right to a territory (this is what the thread's about, afterall. If you want to talk about the favelas of Sao Paolo, feel welcome to open another thread) is because, over the course of the last sixty years, they've been cleared out of their homes. THAT is my contention. They have had the right to territory (as in, somewhere to live, not as some natural right to that 'nation') taken away.

As to your statement about the socialist state being an oxymoron, if there is no transitory state, then nothing is going to assuage ethnic conflicts with the interests of both sides.

Finally, before you go running your mouth off about nationalism, James Connoley. As in, the one who developed a Marxist version of the 'nationalism' (meaning freedom from the oppressor country, not some holy claptrap to possess that territory) of the oppressed

robbo203

28th April 2009, 17:14

I draw attention to Palestinians' right to a territory (this is what the thread's about, afterall. If you want to talk about the favelas of Sao Paolo, feel welcome to open another thread) is because, over the course of the last sixty years, they've been cleared out of their homes. THAT is my contention. They have had the right to territory (as in, somewhere to live, not as some natural right to that 'nation') taken away.

As to your statement about the socialist state being an oxymoron, if there is no transitory state, then nothing is going to assuage ethnic conflicts with the interests of both sides.

Finally, before you go running your mouth off about nationalism, James Connoley. As in, the one who developed a Marxist version of the 'nationalism' (meaning freedom from the oppressor country, not some holy claptrap to possess that territory) of the oppressed

Connolly was utterly confused. The Marxist view on nations is that the working class has no country. To believe otherwise is to subscribe to the capitalist myth of of an identity of interests between workers and capitalists within something called a nation state, a creation of capitalism.

And what am I to make of your comments? What exactly are you saying? How is advocating the palestinians right to a territory not nationalism? There is a huge difference between advocating that and suggesting that the residents of Sao Paolo´s favelas fight dispossession. Apparently you have not discened the difference

Angry Young Man

28th April 2009, 23:10

robbo203

28th April 2009, 23:27

Well, in terms of fighting dispossession, no, I don't really see the difference. And I contest your claim that Connolly was utterly confused, as he believed that the best path to socialism in Ireland was without English oppression. And I daresay he knew a shag sight more about Marx than you.

Do you now? And I daresay you will next be trying to explain how it is that promoting national identity is the best way of realising class identity or how socialism can exist in one country (Ireland) or how anything you say is compatible with the idea that "workers have no country". Oh and in case you didnt know it, the geezer who said that was someone called Marx and Im not talking about Groucho here.

Angry Young Man

29th April 2009, 00:15

I didn't say it could exist in just one country, neither did Connolly, and I take the side of the Palestinians for the same reasons as all leftists.

ComradeMan

3rd January 2010, 17:42

A couple of points to make:-

1. Denying the existence of the Jewish people as a people with a right to self-determination is anti-Semitic. How can you expect Jewish people to even listen to these arguments when they themselves have been systematically persecuted throughout the centuries for their "otherness", i.e. being a different people, and then when they try to assert themselves they are no longer allowed to be a people?

2. I have all along said that the one-state solution which would guarantee self-determination and equal rights to all the people of present-day Israel is the only one that a socialists can ideologically hold.

3. Some of the so-called socialists here seem to think that opposing the state of Israel and criticising her government, as any other nation state, is carte blanche an excuse to justify every and any group who call for the absolute destruction of Israel- This is working along the basis of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and it is not only historically been proven to be a bad idea but it is downright dangerous. Yes the IDF have shot Palestinians and that is a tragedy inasmuch as the loss of human life is always a tragedy, but one could equally post pictures of the innocent civilians killed in attacks against presumed Israeli targets- and there we go again, all this eye for an eye stuff and we all end up blind. I never heard anyone calling for the complete annihilation of South Africa for example- the apartheid state.

4. Just because some people here do not support the extreme views of others on the whole matter of Israel there seems to be a carte blanche to troll, abuse and insult with the rabid hue and cry of "Zionist" (when Zionism itself can be debated in different ways and is by no means a single unitary ideology). There also seems to be a lack of a realistic discussion of the problem.

5. I have seen several comments on the various threads that are very anti-Semitic in their nature and this whole subtle form of anti-Semitism under the guise of being anti-Zionist is downright transparent. One comment that came to mind was when a user suggested that the very idea of Judaism and a Jewish identity were products of Zionist propaganda.

6. The other thing that strikes me is that no one dares tackle the vile anti-Semitism that is rife in the Arab world and does nothing other than add fuel to the fire. I challenge anyone here to take a brief surf around the net, have a look at the "mainstream" Arab press and the comments of groups not even perceived as terroristic to see the same venomous imagery that one would expect from Nazi Germany.

It is one thing to criticise the policies of the state of Israel, all governments need to have a healthy opposition, it is another thing to turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism, take an entirely non-pragmatic approach to the situation and thus hypocritcally support other theocractic and nationalistic movements.

Sam_b

3rd January 2010, 17:49

Yes the IDF have shot Palestinians and that is a tragedy inasmuch as the loss of human life is always a tragedy, but one could equally post pictures of the innocent civilians killed in attacks against presumed Israeli targets

How the hell can you equate mutual harm between the genocide against the Palestinian people, including the use of chemical weaponry; and the civilian casualties by some Palestinians firing rockets into illegal settler communities? Well, probably quite easily with your anti-Arab and anti-Muslim filth that you band around this forum.

ComradeMan

3rd January 2010, 18:03

How the hell can you equate mutual harm between the genocide against the Palestinian people, including the use of chemical weaponry; and the civilian casualties by some Palestinians firing rockets into illegal settler communities? Well, probably quite easily with your anti-Arab and anti-Muslim filth that you band around this forum.

So if you are the victim of a suicide bombing with your guts all over the pavement then you ought to feel better because it wasn't a "professional job". I deplore the use of violence by any group- that was my point.

Just because I am not going to jump on people's blind Islamist bandwagon that makes me a racist? Anti-Muslim filth? Where? The Qu'ran preaches that Allah turned the Jews into pigs.... come off it? But I am not allowed to mention that am I? Or that Islamic groups have been funded by Nazis in the past- a fact, hard and proven, for which I was accused of posting Zionist lies. Or when I talk of the rampant and documented anti-Semitism in the Arab world that is anti-Arab filth is it?
Come off it.

Sam_b

3rd January 2010, 18:05

Wow, what a load of reactionary bile.

Edit - yor above generalisations, moron.

ComradeMan

3rd January 2010, 18:08

Wow, what a load of reactionary bile.

Please show me where? When you haven't got an answer you denounce things outright as reactionary.... pitiful.

Dimentio

3rd January 2010, 18:35

A couple of points to make:-

1. Denying the existence of the Jewish people as a people with a right to self-determination is anti-Semitic. How can you expect Jewish people to even listen to these arguments when they themselves have been systematically persecuted throughout the centuries for their "otherness", i.e. being a different people, and then when they try to assert themselves they are no longer allowed to be a people?

Having the right to be a people is not the same thing as having the right to found a state. Progressives should not uphold states, and certainly not states founded on relatively recent cases of ethnic cleansing.

. I have all along said that the one-state solution which would guarantee self-determination and equal rights to all the people of present-day Israel is the only one that a socialists can ideologically hold.

Yes.

. Some of the so-called socialists here seem to think that opposing the state of Israel and criticising her government, as any other nation state, is carte blanche an excuse to justify every and any group who call for the absolute destruction of Israel- This is working along the basis of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and it is not only historically been proven to be a bad idea but it is downright dangerous. Yes the IDF have shot Palestinians and that is a tragedy inasmuch as the loss of human life is always a tragedy, but one could equally post pictures of the innocent civilians killed in attacks against presumed Israeli targets- and there we go again, all this eye for an eye stuff and we all end up blind. I never heard anyone calling for the complete annihilation of South Africa for example- the apartheid state.

It is not a conflict between two equal sides. I too abhor the killing of civilians as well as reactionary religious cults. But the conflict was started by the establishment of a national home for one ethnicity on land inhabitated by many ethnicities. That's the core of the poodle.

4. Just because some people here do not support the extreme views of others on the whole matter of Israel there seems to be a carte blanche to troll, abuse and insult with the rabid hue and cry of "Zionist" (when Zionism itself can be debated in different ways and is by no means a single unitary ideology). There also seems to be a lack of a realistic discussion of the problem.

Agreed.

5. I have seen several comments on the various threads that are very anti-Semitic in their nature and this whole subtle form of anti-Semitism under the guise of being anti-Zionist is downright transparent. One comment that came to mind was when a user suggested that the very idea of Judaism and a Jewish identity were products of Zionist propaganda.

I don't follow.

6. The other thing that strikes me is that no one dares tackle the vile anti-Semitism that is rife in the Arab world and does nothing other than add fuel to the fire. I challenge anyone here to take a brief surf around the net, have a look at the "mainstream" Arab press and the comments of groups not even perceived as terroristic to see the same venomous imagery that one would expect from Nazi Germany.

I have seen a lot of it. Yes, it is antisemitic and yes it is used by corrupt governments in the Arab world to deflect popular anger against a perceived or real foreign threat. But is it really right to hold a permanent occupation of some territory because someone is writing bad things about you?

I would have to break someone's precious nose if I had followed the same logic.

It is one thing to criticise the policies of the state of Israel, all governments need to have a healthy opposition, it is another thing to turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism, take an entirely non-pragmatic approach to the situation and thus hypocritcally support other theocractic and nationalistic movements.

We should support progressive movements and ignore or verbally attack those movements which are reactionary.