View Full Version : Is Israel a legitimate state?
Anarkiwi
5th July 2009, 06:06
Right i know the repercussions of me posting this ie,i will be labeled Anti-Semectic but you know what i couldent care less Anti zionisim is not Anti Semectic
Now israle is it legimate or not if so why? if not why?
Consider these,
The Holocaust
The Establishment of israle at the expense of palestein
Israle is a therocracy
Palestinian Terrorisim
Peace comrades
label me laugh whatever
give your opinions thats all i want.
Anarkiwi
5th July 2009, 06:15
Obviously i voted no
as an anarchist no state is legitimate.
Coggeh
5th July 2009, 06:44
No. As you said no state is legitimate if you go back far enough . Most states are the the product of colonisation and war.The state of Palestine is also a result of the same methods.However , the this question is a red herring , leftists shouldn't get bogged down in the nationalist semantics of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but should concentrate on fighting for a united workers front of Palestinian and Israeli workers against the ruling classes .
Referring to your opening post: don't worry , leftists see clearly what is anti-semetic and what is anti-zionist .
You worry too much. You'll find very, very few people in this board, anarchist or otherwise, who would argue Israel is a legitimate state. Most of us are also of the opinion that anti-Zionism =/= anti-Semitism.
LOLseph Stalin
5th July 2009, 08:46
I have mixed feelings about Israel. If you look back in history, much of the land that is now Israel was originally the Jew's area of settlement before they got exiled by the Romans. Of course as leftists who believe in Internationalism there wouldn't be legitimate states in our eyes, but in a Bourgeois sense Israel is indeed a legitimate state. After WW II many people felt sympathy towards the Jewish people and this gave the Zionists a chance to push for a Jewish homeland. Of course, this sympathy worked in their favor and the UN officially created Israel. Now of course with the UN being a Bourgeois organization there would be problems caused by this too: there were Palestinians living in the area. They were denied a nation, and their territory was actually taken from them. It's the continous expansion that Israel is partaking in that bothers alot of people. Of course, it's only a minority of Israeli citizens, but it's creating bloodshed among the Palestinians who are now fighting back. So I say ask yourself this: If Israel is legitimate then why isn't there a legitimate Palestinian state?
OriginalGumby
5th July 2009, 09:43
Israel exists today as a result of imperial ambitions from the west, zionism as a political ideology that could be used to that interest, and mass violent expulsion and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians taking their land and pushing them away. israel is a colonial-settler state that has a huge amount of blood and anguish on its hands.
Check out readings here on the right hand side of the page.
http://www.isreview.org/
robbo203
5th July 2009, 09:54
Obviously i voted no
as an anarchist no state is legitimate.
Exactly. We can leave questions of legitimacy to the pro-capitalist left, the people who drone on and on about the need for so called national liberation struggle and fighting "imperialism", all of which deflects from the basic cause of the problem which is global capitalism. Anyone who supports nationalism and engages in the mythology of nationalism to justify the existence of this or that particular state thereby places himself of herself fundamentally outside of the movement for revolutionary change and in a position of oppostion to it.
The working class has no country. Workers of all lands unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains and the pernicious divisive delusion that is nationalism
scarletghoul
5th July 2009, 11:32
Most states exist as a result of imperialism and ethnic cleansing and things like that. Israel isn't any less 'legitimate' than the others, it's just one of the more recent and potent examples. If Israel is illegitimate because of this then so is every country in North and South America, Africa, and much of Asia and Europe. We have to accept that Israel exists and is as legitimate as any other state, whether you like it or not.
Yehuda Stern
5th July 2009, 14:06
I have obviously voted no. Anyone who voted yes should be at the very least restricted from the board, on the grounds of
1. Supporting the existence of a capitalist state;
2. Legitimizing the colonialism of Palestine by the Zionists.
ComradeOm
5th July 2009, 14:06
Obviously i voted no
as an anarchist no state is legitimate.Which makes the poll fairly redundant, no? Its impossible to question or discuss the "legitimacy" of the Israeli state when you hold that all states are illegitimate
Il Medico
5th July 2009, 14:12
No States are legitimate.
Israel= a State
Thus Israel is no more legitimate then any other bourgeois nation state.
RedAnarchist
5th July 2009, 14:14
No, it never was and never will be.
Edit - I voted yes instead of no. Who puts No above Yes in a poll?
FreeFocus
5th July 2009, 14:44
There's no such thing as a "legitimate state," and this is especially true for settler states such as Israel.
n0thing
5th July 2009, 15:52
It's as illegitimate as any other state.
We can debate whether or not it should have been set up in the first place, but the fact is that it's here now.
Communist Theory
5th July 2009, 18:30
Go Israel!!
They are quite good at killing innocents...
Stranger Than Paradise
5th July 2009, 20:38
There are no legitimate states. Communism is international, borderless and stateless.
Guerrilla22
6th July 2009, 06:02
The state of Israel exist, legitimate or not. I'm pretty sure they won't be going away anytime soon either.
Yehuda Stern
6th July 2009, 07:03
Analyzing Israel as a bourgeous state is not the same as "supporting" it. As a comunist i do not support any "state". I dont know about others here though who think some current or past states were worth supporting.
It was important to you enough to insist that it is legitimate. As far as I'm concerned, that shows at the very least a disrespectful attitude towards Israel's victimes.
The state of Israel exist, legitimate or not. I'm pretty sure they won't be going away anytime soon either.
You're a real revolutionary then, aren't you.
I have mixed feelings about Israel. If you look back in history, much of the land that is now Israel was originally the Jew's area of settlement before they got exiled by the Romans. Of course as leftists who believe in Internationalism there wouldn't be legitimate states in our eyes, but in a Bourgeois sense Israel is indeed a legitimate state. After WW II many people felt sympathy towards the Jewish people and this gave the Zionists a chance to push for a Jewish homeland. Of course, this sympathy worked in their favor and the UN officially created Israel. Now of course with the UN being a Bourgeois organization there would be problems caused by this too: there were Palestinians living in the area. They were denied a nation, and their territory was actually taken from them. It's the continous expansion that Israel is partaking in that bothers alot of people. Of course, it's only a minority of Israeli citizens, but it's creating bloodshed among the Palestinians who are now fighting back. So I say ask yourself this: If Israel is legitimate then why isn't there a legitimate Palestinian state?
That the land was the home of the "biblical Jews" holds no water as an argument for the legitimacy of the State of Israel. No one is pushing to make the US the national and exclusive homeland of the Native Americans, and they were virtually the sole inhabitants 500 years ago. So why should an exception be made for a people whose 'homeland' was taken from them 2,000 years ago? And this is assuming one is not aware of the genealogical research that demonstrates the present day genetic descendants of the Biblical Jews are actually Muslims living in what is now the Palestinian territories (as well as parts of the populations in other "Muslim" countries in the region such as Syria), which renders the "Biblical Homeland" argument even more irrelevant than it already was.
So no, Israel is not a legitimate state, but it is no less legitimate than the US or any other state - they are all illegitimate and they should all be dismantled.
Also, I have witnessed firsthand that the actions of Israel are fueling genuine anti-Semitism and giving it the facade of humanism. This seems to be becoming increasingly common within certain segments of the "left" and amongst groups of liberals who seem to think that Israel controls the US:rolleyes: Every time Israel commits one of its common acts of aggression, this sentiment seriously intensifies. And the fact that Israel equates legitimate criticism ("legitimate" being the key word) with "anti-Semitism" ultimately enables genuine anti-Semitic sentiment to thrive under the cloak of "righteous indignation".
I know many here will dismiss this as "identity politics", but I am dying to see a revival of something reminiscent of the Bund, or the Jewish Anarchists, or some organized stream of leftist Yiddishists in the US (and ideally, throughout the world).
Guerrilla22
6th July 2009, 09:00
You're a real revolutionary then, aren't you.
What does stating the facts have to do with being a "real revolutionary?" Debating whether or not Israel is a legit state is completely useless as the state of Israel exist. Is the US a legit state? It's sitting on stolen land too, as is every other country in the western hemisphere. Yet I haven't seen any polls about the US being a legit state or not.
progressive_lefty
6th July 2009, 09:52
I voted yes, but meant to vote NO. Dear moderators, can you change this? Thanks.
I voted No, because Israel is not legitimate in the same way other colonised countries should not be considerate legitimate. Australia and the US are not legitimate, because they were formed at the expense of another people. But in saying that, they are there now, so as colonisers or in Israel's case 'invaders', they have an obligation to work with the former owners of the land, or refugees that were created out of the land steal.
Israel has a right to exist, amongst suitable borders, but has no legitimacy or right to exist in its current form. No-one really concerned with Jewish people or Israel in their right mind, could defend settlement expansion and brutal wars against the Arabs.
Yehuda Stern
6th July 2009, 14:37
Do you think there are legitimate and illegitimate bourgeois states?I think all bourgeois states are illegitimate. That is why your position that Israel is a legitimate state is counterrevolutionary even ignoring Israel's colonialist nature. That you insist on calling Israel legitimate even though it is both a bourgeois state and a colonialist settler colony makes you doubly counterrevolutionary, doubly hypocritical, and putting in bold any part of that sentence changes nothing.
perhaps to your sectarian squabbling with the Israeli "people" and the Israeli "people's state" it wouldDo you actually bother to check the meaning of the terms that you use? Do you think of the things that you write before you hit 'submit reply'? How can I, an individual , squabble with the people of Israel or the state of Israel, in a sectarian way no less?
but not to a class based analysis that there are Israeli workers being oppressed by the Israeli state too. Like I said earlier, states are tools for the oppression of one class over another and the bourgeois Israeli state is no different or exceptional.Keep telling that to yourself. The truth is, if the Israeli working class is really a revolutionary class in the Marxist sense, it certainly doesn't look or act like one. It has never progressed even one iota in the direction of a revolutionary consciousness. Your analysis isn't class based; it's dry and empiricist, taking into account neither history nor reality, but only mindless left communist dogma.
Old Man Diogenes
6th July 2009, 18:30
I don't trust states generally, but I have even more distrust for ones with such religious ties.
Misanthrope
6th July 2009, 18:41
No state is legitimate.
piet11111
6th July 2009, 19:17
no any country that has to hold itself together through military violence against another people is not a legitimate state.
bricolage
6th July 2009, 19:33
no any country that has to hold itself together through military violence against another people is not a legitimate state.
So countries that hold themselves together through military violence against their own people are legitimate?
Yehuda Stern
6th July 2009, 20:34
Where did I "insist" on calling it a legitimate state?
In your first post:
Yes. It is a legitimate bourgeois state.
Or am I misquoting?
Well, including the Israeli workers in the exploiting camp is sectarian
Here you show that you do not know the meaning of sectarian: sectarianism is, say, to refuse to support a certain mass movement because it is not led exclusively by the particular group that you belong to. Something that left communists are certainly more famous for than my group.
and bordering on nationalist, not anything to do with socialism.
That's funny - you find yourself in the same camp as the Zionists, who blame those who insist that Israel is a colonialist state for being "nationalists." The reason why we argue that Israeli workers are not revolutionary is based on the fact that historically, whenever workers around the worlds radicalized, Jewish Israeli workers became more conservative and racist; under conditions where anywhere else workers moved to the left or at least came to support more liberal bourgeois politicians, Israelis stuck to the right wing hawks.
That you recognize that there Israeli workers makes you a very small genius. Anyone with eyes can see that there are Israeli workers. The question asked is - are Israeli workers a revolutionary class?
You answer: Yes! Why? Left communist dogma!
Our answer: For the most part, no. Why? Because we are Marxists who combine empiricist recognition of the existence of classes with a scientific analysis of them, not liberals in disguise who jump to the defense of the Zionist state when people question its legitimacy.
Yehuda Stern
7th July 2009, 17:27
You're hatred for the Israeli state seems to blind you to the situation of the Israeli workers who belong to the world proletariat who have no country.
Oh please, teach me the situation of Israeli workers! In fact, your last post just shows again that you have no analysis but only dogma:
the Israeli workers who belong to the world proletariat who have no country
The fact is that Israeli workers have never, in the entirety of the country's existence, even once made a symbolic step in the direction of developing a revolutionary consciousness. Palestinian workers have waited enough. Keep your dogma and your opportunism to yourself.
n0thing
7th July 2009, 23:07
in the entirety of the country's existence
About 60 years.
I know plenty of people older than that.
Israel is as legitimate as any other state. It isn’t going to go away, even if we all wish really really hard.
So, if in another 50 years Israel is still around (and I suspect it will be), will you still be going on about it? Was Australia a “legitimate” state in 1901?
How about you state fighting for world revolution, instead of whining about one particular state. What about all the other people being oppressed by other states (for example, in China, or Russia)?
Or is it that Israel is an evil US puppet that’s the problem, and China is “communist” and Russia, well they fight against the evil imperialists too (“Russia imperialist? No they aren’t.” Yes they fucking are…).
FreeFocus
8th July 2009, 04:41
Israel would not exist in 50 years - even the American imperialists (CIA) acknowledged this (a report was released a while back doubting Israel continuing to exist for 20+ years). Simple demographics undermine Israeli settler imperialism.
Although it obviously isn't a "solution," Palestinians certainly should not accept any two-state configuration, bearing the above in mind, and also bringing about socialism in historic Palestine, of course.
progressive_lefty
8th July 2009, 06:47
Everybody wonders why Israel is so often talked about, but it's not hard to think why. What country is treated above international law, and receives unconditional support from many Western countries, and most importantly the US? If a country received 'unconditional' support, no matter what country, shouldn't that be a concern of a that country's population? And it doesn't sit too well with Americans, knowing that they fund most of the IDF's military resources which are brutally used against women and children in Southern Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank, and not to mention with-in Israel proper.
People talk about Israel falling, people will say Israel will fall because of the 'demographics', which admits that Israel refuses to accept itself as a country of its citizens, as opposed to just a country for its Jewish citizens, which make up three quarters of the country's population. Israel could have had strong and secure borders long ago, its obvious that in the last 10 to 15 years, the country has been taken over by an extreme ideology that wants to expand settlements and make use of the 'deterrence strategy' against those bad bady Arabs.
The Something
8th July 2009, 08:40
It's all relative.
If we are looking at this through the view of "states are legit because....." Then I would say choice: D. It's very complex issue with more emotion than facts.
If we are looking at this through the view that no states are legit then it is very simple:No, because it is a state. :D
Yehuda Stern
8th July 2009, 13:53
You and your "critical support" for reactionary Palestinian nationalism!See, that's how I know that I won - when you make up stupid straw men and continue with your childish dogma.
redarmyfaction38
11th July 2009, 23:22
Right i know the repercussions of me posting this ie,i will be labeled Anti-Semectic but you know what i couldent care less Anti zionisim is not Anti Semectic
Now israle is it legimate or not if so why? if not why?
Consider these,
The Holocaust
The Establishment of israle at the expense of palestein
Israle is a therocracy
Palestinian Terrorisim
Peace comrades
label me laugh whatever
give your opinions thats all i want.
"legitimate"?
by whose judgement?
how can you even begin to think that questioning the existence of the israeli state, given it's history, would make you "anti semetic"?
"zionism" on the other hand is something that really needs to be discussed especially on the "revolutionary" left.
too busy being scared of labelled "racist" or "reformist" or "stupid" to actually have the balls to question.
respect to you mate.
go for it.
btw, the "zionists" collaborate with hitler to send non "zionist" jews to the death camps and allow them to escape to palestine......
after that...
Trystan
11th July 2009, 23:45
As legitimate as any other state; i.e., not legitimate.
"legitimate"?
by whose judgement?
how can you even begin to think that questioning the existence of the israeli state, given it's history, would make you "anti semetic"?
"zionism" on the other hand is something that really needs to be discussed especially on the "revolutionary" left.
too busy being scared of labelled "racist" or "reformist" or "stupid" to actually have the balls to question.
Who here "is too busy being scared of [being] labeled 'racist' or 'reformist' or 'stupid' to actually 'have the balls' to question"? Everyone here seems to be essentially in total agreement that Zionism is a racist ideology, it may be the single issue that the revolutionary left is broadly united on (other than the abolition of capitalism). The only reason the OP is worried about being labeled "anti-Semitic" is because he evidently is, as can be seen in his posts here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1484194&postcount=320
and here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1484195&postcount=321
the last donut of the night
12th July 2009, 02:14
Yes. It is a legitimate bourgeois state. Why do you think Israel alone is not legitimate? I have noticed the majority of the leftists here denouncing Israel alone as an "illetimate" state and thus getting into nationalist/quasi- racist arguments against "zionists" alone. I dont think any neutral observer would not conclude such stances as being heavily biased. The proper understanding of a state is it is the tool for CLASS RULE. So all bourgeois states are tools for bourgeois rule over the proletariat. The Israeli workers are equally being ruled over and expoited as any other working class. Imho blaming the entire Jewish "people" in Israel is very much against a class based analysis. The Israeli state is of course not in favor of the Israeli workers either. This is indeed where the non-class based or liberal analysis of a state fails. It is extremely important to not fall into the trap of "people"'s states. There is no such thing. A state by definition is meant for the oppression of one class over another class and Israel is no different than say the state of India or Australia.
No shit, sherlock. We know that. The question is if Israel isnt legitimate. Since no cappie state is, ergo Israel is also illegitimate.
Colonello Buendia
12th July 2009, 13:00
Israel is an absolute fabrication resulting from an anti-semitic declaration after WWI (I'm of course referring to Balfour.) The mass migration in 1947 resulted from holocaust survivors being refused residence in European countries and as such the powers that were have a lot of responsibility in that respect.
Israel encroached upon Palestinian territory and gradually reduced "Palestine" down to Gaza and parts of the West Bank. The settlements are highly Illegal as is the wall. No state is legitimate but Israel is in my view one of the least legitimate due to it's treatment of the Palestinians.
I do however believe that if as leftists we are to create a united workers movement in Palestine and the Occupied territories there needs to be the dissolution of both states and a unified one created. at that point we can more effectively foster a workers revolution.
TheCultofAbeLincoln
13th July 2009, 03:54
Yes, Israel is a legitimate state in the current world. Obviously in the prot-revolutionary paradise no state will exist, but in the contemporary world Israel is very much a "legitimate" state. Just like any other state that is able to defend what it calls itself, that is the only thing that matters.
Yes, we can call them names and say that their state is somehow less legitimate than our state, as though we're talking about people and somehow Israel turned out to be a bastard child while the US, or England, is legitimate despite bloodier roots.
Argue with the reality that is the state of Israel, and the cold hard fact that the IDF represents. Semantics are only so much bullshit.
Colonello Buendia
14th July 2009, 14:24
Yes but the fact is Israel is one state that could have been prevented and was created by one aristocrats written ramblings. While I agree that there is no legitimate state apparatus in the world. I think Israel is illegitimate even by the western definition of legitimate state.
Dr Mindbender
14th July 2009, 18:54
Those 18 people that voted yes should be restricted post haste.
Dimentio
14th July 2009, 19:07
Legitimacy is something established by the barrel of a gun. By that extent, Israel is as legitimate as any other state, sadly.
I think we should stop talk about legitimacy as it is a bourgeois and earlier feudal concept, employed by ruling classes to motivate their right to interpret reality. I think we should go one step back and point exclusively on the human rights violations which are necessited by the ethnocracy.
Dr Mindbender
14th July 2009, 19:30
Legitimacy is something established by the barrel of a gun. By that extent, Israel is as legitimate as any other state, sadly.
I am confused then. Are we talking about legitimate from the perspective of the actual socially just definition, or from the perspective of bourgeioise semantics?
I will retract the demand for restrictions if the afforementioned 18 can defend their position.
Dr Mindbender
14th July 2009, 20:00
Oh I know what to do... lets ask a meaningless question and restrict people based on that! For revolutionaries all states are neither legitimate nor illegitimate. They are simply instruments of class rule! All this huffing and puffing by some people over this absurd question is itself symptomatic of the degeneration of leftism.
If someone started a poll asking, ''are black people inferior'' i am in no doubt that no one would oppose immediate administrative action.
Approaching the question without the linguistic baggage attached there is no way anyone here could or should regard Israel legitimate, unless they were using the capitalist understanding of the term.
The early soviet union was a legitimate state, Israel and the USA are not.
Dr Mindbender
14th July 2009, 20:09
What about the other 250 odd countries of today? We should have polls for those as well if you want to be reasonable. I have already made it clear that I don't regard Israel as any other than a bourgeois state.
Then i think what it really boils down to is do you regard bourgeioise states as legitimate or not?
Assuming you're wearing your progressive hat then i think you know what the answer is.
Yehuda Stern
14th July 2009, 20:32
Anyone who answers yes to this must be restricted. My answer should be clear by now.
It is - your answer is 'yes', at least as far as Israel goes, and you should be restricted.
revolution inaction
14th July 2009, 23:57
Those 18 people that voted yes should be restricted post haste.
fuck you I'll vote what ever the fuck i want, what the fuck does "a legitimate state" mean? :mad: it's certainly a genuine state.
if we calling for restrictions and shit then anyone who thinks any state is acceptable should be banned right now, and that includes "workers states"
so fuck everyone who thinks this question is anything to do with communism :cursing:
Edit - I could maybe have said this more politely :closedeyes:
LOLseph Stalin
15th July 2009, 00:04
fuck you I'll vote what ever the fuck i want, what the fuck does "a legitimate state" mean? :mad: it's certainly a genuine state.
if we calling for restrictions and shit then anyone who thinks any state is acceptable should be banned right now, and that includes "workers states"
so fuck everyone who thinks this question is anything to do with communism :cursing:
It doesn't really have much to do with Communism. Of course Israel is a legitimate state...to the Bourgeoisie. They created it along with every other state, not taking into consideration the effect it would have on the Palestinian people. No state is truly legitimate in our sense, but we live in a world dominated by the Bourgeoisie so states are generally accepted as legitimate since we don't really have much of a say.
revolution inaction
15th July 2009, 12:09
I voted yes because Ulster Socialist said anyone who votes yes should be restricted, you can't take what people vote in this poles as representing what they really think, i could have voted no because no states are legitimate, on the other hand the question is based on the assumption that some states are legitimate and others are not, in which case israel is a legitimate state. Since i reject the question then it doesn't mater what i vote.
It is - your answer is 'yes', at least as far as Israel goes, and you should be restricted.
Its pretty clear to me that the vast majority of 'yes' votes were cast on the premise that
a) a bourgeois state is necessarily an instrument of subjugation and exploitation; and Israel, undoubtedly meeting these criteria, qualifies as a legitimate bourgeois state.
and/or
b) "legitimate state" is a contradiction in terms so the question is irrelevant.
While I voted 'no', I seriously doubt that a single one of the 'yes' votes was cast as a reflection of agreement with, approval of, or tolerance for the actions and ideology of the Zionist regime. The point of contention is clearly rooted in semantics and little else; it seems petty and basically ridiculous to suggest that members be restricted because of their response to a poorly formulated "yes or no" question that is rooted in a bourgeois construct.
Yehuda Stern
15th July 2009, 16:52
Quit putting words in my mouth. That was ironical
Oh really? I thought you were saying it was a "legitimate bourgeois state." So maybe you really meant what I said you meant and you're just desperate for excuses now to cover that?
While I voted 'no', I seriously doubt that a single one of the 'yes' votes was cast as a reflection of agreement with, approval of, or tolerance for the actions and ideology of the Zionist regime. The point of contention is clearly rooted in semantics and little else
Not really. I am willing to bet that no one would vote yes in a similar poll about the US - I just think many leftists feel the urge to defend Israel because Zionist propaganda has convinced that otherwise they are anti-Semites. This represents a dangerous capitulation to Zionism which I do not think should be tolerated on a revolutionary left wing forum.
narcomprom
15th July 2009, 18:52
Why does the revolutionary left have such great frills with this particular nation? If the same poll was made about any other state would the result be the same? Would any of you even participate in such a poll? Most of you are not too precise on wether you despise the particular brand of Jewish nationalism that is it's legitimating ideology or (nation-?/bourgeois-?)statehood as such.
I'm opening another topic "What is a legitimate state?". I can't link it yet, sadly, with only 5 posts.
Not really. I am willing to bet that no one would vote yes in a similar poll about the US - I just think many leftists feel the urge to defend Israel because Zionist propaganda has convinced that otherwise they are anti-Semites. This represents a dangerous capitulation to Zionism which I do not think should be tolerated on a revolutionary left wing forum.
While this is true of many liberals, and it is certainly the aim of much Zionist propaganda, I have honestly not encountered anyone amongst the revolutionary left who has defended the actions of the Zionist regime or the ideology of Zionism in general. To the extent that there may be people on this website who are confused about the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, it seems a worthwhile topic to address. It is clear, and you yourself have conceded, that much of the ambiguity here is a result of Zionist propaganda, in which case it is important (as far as I'm concerned) to attempt to correct such fallacies and misinformation and set the record straight. I don't see how implementing restrictions - even assuming they are imposed only upon the hypothetical minority that fails to distinguish anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism - would do anything to remedy the situation. To the contrary, I think such action would only perpetuate any misunderstandings that potentially are already in play.
At the very least, before resorting to restrictions, I would think another poll would be issued containing a much more coherently-structured version of the question (for example, 'do you agree with or support Zionism/the State of Israel?') to rule out semantics as a factor, as this undoubtedly played some part in the results here.
progressive_lefty
16th July 2009, 05:42
Why does the revolutionary left have such great frills with this particular nation?
How much time do you have? I could write a large essay as to how pathetic that argument is.
So your asking why so many people on revleft criticise Israel when so many UN resolutions against the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are frequently ignored? Your asking why so many people on revleft are frustrated by the support Israel has, despite its ability to kill significantly more civilians then those Arabs? You ask revleft to remain silent when Israel frequently violates the air space of Syria and Lebanon, and then chooses to destroy nuclear weaponry despite its own Nuclear arsenal? You expect revleft to remain silent despite the blockade Israel has placed on Gaza, which is seen as the only blockade on an occupied people in history? Your ok with Israel's human rights record, despite it being seen as the 'only democracy in the middle east'? Your ok with the fact that Arab-Israelis are becoming more and more marginalised and are now facing the prospect of a Government that wishes to transfer them out? Your ok with the fact that the IDF is seen as one of the most sophisticated army's in the world in terms of weaponry capability, but is frequently seen as the victim in fighting Hezbollah, Hamas or Palestinian suicide bombers?
Withdraw your comment.
narcomprom
16th July 2009, 11:01
Gaza and West Bank aren't occupied. A blockade wouldn't be nescessary if they were.
The only problem I have is that the refugee's kids and the gazans aren't given a citizenship and that is because the jews are afraid of the arabs exactly because USSR and Iran fed such scary people as Arafat and Yassin. It's not that the jews there are incurable racists. Most of them are secular, in fact.
My sympathies are with the Israeli non-zionist left, not with any of the religious warmongers.
Yehuda Stern
16th July 2009, 14:29
Look here you devious little bureaucrat
Haha! Devious little bureaucrat... you amuse me.
You're pathetic and so is everyone else in the bureaucratic "CC"
Aww... is someone sad that he is not let into the big boys club? In fact not being in the CC doesn't really say anything about you, but you do seem to be bearing quite a grudge. Might want to get that checked.
You're the one desperate to make up excuses for your witch hunt of those who do not join you on your racist party line against the Israeli working class.
You're such a Zionist - "you criticize Israel? You racist!" Find someone else to bother with your nonsense.
At the very least, before resorting to restrictions, I would think another poll would be issued containing a much more coherently-structured version of the question (for example, 'do you agree with or support Zionism/the State of Israel?') to rule out semantics as a factor
Well, yes, I never meant to suggest that people would be banned without warning. My point was that something had to be done. This is a moot point by now, though.
Gaza and West Bank aren't occupied. A blockade wouldn't be nescessary if they were.
This is just blatantly false. Your first sentence in and of itself discredits you, and I think generally its wise to avoid making sweeping assertions which dispute elementary facts when you clearly have not taken five minutes to educate yourself on the matter.
Even the mainstream media concedes the occupation.
from "Haaretz", the popular Israeli mainstream newspaper: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060043.html
WSWS: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/sett-j10.shtml
presstv.com: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=100140§ionid=351020202
The only problem I have is that the refugee's kids and the gazans aren't given a citizenship and that is because the jews are afraid of the arabs exactly because USSR and Iran fed such scary people as Arafat and Yassin. Why is it that Palestinians would need citizenship to live on their own land if, as you falsely suggest, there is no occupation?
And Arafat and Yassin?! These are your 'scary people'?
I highly recommend studying up on your history here. And its pretty recent history we're talking about, too. In particular, you should look into "Bar-Giora", "Haganah", the Irgun, the Stern Gang, the countless, countless other examples of Israeli offensive terrorism (most of these early terrorist organizations culminated into what is now the IDF) which far exceed, both in scope and barbarity, any and all acts of armed resistance by the Palestinians.
It's not that the jews there are incurable racists. Most of them are secular, in fact.And secularity is exclusive of racism how?
My sympathies are with the Israeli non-zionist left, not with any of the religious warmongers.And also clearly not with the myriad innocent civilians who are forced to exist in an open-air prison in a perpetual state of poverty without any prospects and without many basic necessities, such as access to drinking water.
Ismail
16th July 2009, 16:39
Israel is not much more legitimate than Rhodesia was. Both involved one group of people (the English in Rhodesia's case) declaring their own exclusive state after colonization, limiting the power of those who had actually lived in said areas (Blacks in Rhodesia, Arabs in Palestine), then of course fighting against liberation when the original peoples mobilize against them. (ZANU/ZAPU vs. Ian Smith, PLO/Fatah/Hamas/DFLP/PFLP/etc. vs. ... just about every Israeli leader)
If we apply a simple analysis of ethnic relations and such, it's pretty obvious that Israel is a racist society in a similar vein to the "If we give blacks power, those barbaric savages will come to our homes and kill us" attitude of whites in Rhodesia.
narcomprom
16th July 2009, 17:08
@Apikoros
Don't be so aggressive. I can well understand you without the exclamation marks and you can be a rebel without shouting.
The land in Israel does not belong to anyone. It is distributed by the parliament and confiscated if not used. Something I think we could praise this state for once it gives Palestinians the right of return.
HaAretz (a leftwing source, by the way, i respect) writes about illegal settlements, the Persian source and wsws quote Netanyahu on that he won't "hamper natural growth of the settlements" which he does to hamper the roadmap (not a bad thing imho but to that later). Gaza and the West Bank are nevertheless not occupied.
Arafat, the Stern gang and Yassin were all nationalist scum that have done nothing aside from radicalising the sides and entrenching them deeper in ethnical thinking. As the deeply convinced racist religious Jews are not the majority and the rest is secular, prejudices against Palestinians and Arabs in general could be eventually alleviated. I do believe peace can be a achieved in a unified state with an emancipated majority of Palestinians.
Wsws's contradicts itself claiming Israel's imperialist plans include both to oust the muslims and to keep the settlements. The part of the right that does speak of a "demographic bomb" of the disliked minority hardly wants to keep gaza and wb.
With the roadmap put in business a great deal of Palestinians lost the opportunity to work which in turn lead to immiseration and to radicalised them resulting in the Hamas election. The Hamas lives only off ethnic sentiments. It is the most radical nationalist party in palestine and it could not retain this reputation without attacking Israel after it's election.
That once again radicalised a great deal of Israelis and in turn it's government. Without the attacks and the blockade the Israeli counterpart to the Hamas under Liberman would gained many more voices.
The problem is best addressed by addressing the ethnic tensions that exist between the nation. It would be difficult to convince someone engaged in an ethnic conflict that nations are mere products of the economic base.
What we could is condemning the religious and nationlist right both in Israel and in the territories and speaking to the youth. I was to beirut and to tel aviv and in both places random students i spoke to there took surprisingly progressive positions.
@Ismail
I don't think the Mugabe's radical policies against whites were beneficial to the masses of Zimbabwe. All that changed was the skin colour of the land owning elites. That's why I don't trust ultranationalists no matter how oppressed their peoples comparatively are. The only viable solution I see are proposed by PLFP and the Israeli non-zionist left. The big issue is how they could gain more support without wallowing to deep in nationalistic rhetorics.
Comrade B
16th July 2009, 18:17
After all, wasn't it another Trotskyist who recently wanted to restrict all those who didn't support the Iranian uprising? You Trots are great mockeries of yourselves.
nice generalizing...
The different branches of Trotskyists greatly disagree with eachother. You are just being an ass with this statement.
Israel is presently in the same state that the US was in during its conquering of the West. The white population is getting the support from their other western allies to conquer the people they have portrayed as savages, and settling on their lands because of what they claim is a need for expansion to house the growing population (kinda like lebensraum... but that is for another argument) To create a legal excuse for why they are able to take the land they say that the Palestinians did not own the documentation for the land they had been living on (because they have been on the land before the Zionists arrived) and when the Palestinians fight back (admittedly often in a misdirected way), they declare each death a tragedy and respond massacres, similar to the response to the killing of the Whitman family.
Yehuda Stern
16th July 2009, 22:55
But you're one to talk, being such a Third Worldist! I know another Third Worldist was restricted. Perhaps, its time you examined your own bankrupt Third Worldist politics?
socialist, your hysteria doesn't help disguise the fact that
a. you clearly said you recognize Israel as legitimate state;
b. when confronted with this fact, you claimed you recognize as a legitimate bourgeois state, which is no better as to revolutionaries there are no legitimate bourgeois states, let alone colonialist Israel;
c. later on, you claimed you were being ironical, which obviously made you quite hysteric and led you to throw the still-persisting hissy fit.
d. now you claim that the same polls should be held with regards to other states, among them Nazi Germany. You are welcome to hold them all - of course, all who vote yes in these polls should be restricted if not banned, as should you.
Agrippa
17th July 2009, 00:48
The truth is, if the Israeli working class is really a revolutionary class in the Marxist sense, it certainly doesn't look or act like one. It has never progressed even one iota in the direction of a revolutionary consciousness.
I think that European workers (their Jewishness or Goyishness has little to do with it) settled in Palestine have white settler privilege, and obviously that has stunted their class-consciousness, but to suggest that the Israeli proletariat "has never progressed even one iota in the direction of a revolutionary consciousness" is just taking it to an absurd, irrational extreme. What's your solution? Should we just kill them all?
The otherwise brilliant J. Sakai makes the same asinine argument about white American proles, after doing some otherwise respectable research into counter-revolutionary tendencies among white American workers. What is to be gained? Why not radicalize the Israeli workers? They have nothing to lose, as well. The Palestinian workers don't need them to ensure their own freedom, no, but why miss up the opportunity for a useful ally?
"Working-class" is not synonymous with "ethically right"
Agrippa
17th July 2009, 01:04
While this is true of many liberals, and it is certainly the aim of much Zionist propaganda, I have honestly not encountered anyone amongst the revolutionary left who has defended the actions of the Zionist regime or the ideology of Zionism in general.
I guess you're lucky enough to have never encountered the "last superpower"/"anti-deutsche" crowd.
Or am I misquoting?
Yes. You are:
The proper understanding of a state is it is the tool for CLASS RULE. So all bourgeois states are tools for bourgeois rule over the proletariat. The Israeli workers are equally being ruled over and expoited as any other working class. [...] The Israeli state is of course not in favor of the Israeli workers either. This is indeed where the non-class based or liberal analysis of a state fails. It is extremely important to not fall into the trap of "people"'s states. There is no such thing. A state by definition is meant for the oppression of one class over another class and Israel is no different than say the state of India or Australia.
How can you possibly interpret that as a statement of support for the Israeli state?
Socialist is only guilty of underplaying certain issues, (such as racial discrimination/apartheid as a weapon of class-rule, especially in settler states such as Israel) which you've done a good job of pointing out. On the other hand, socialist has brilliantly addressed the primary problems with liberal and leftist "anti-imperialist" criticisms of Zionism, all of which are legitimate and intelligent, and none of which you have chosen to address. And, as a consequence of socialist making this argument, you're calling for her/his restriction. Who's the real sectarian?
HaAretz (a leftwing source, by the way, i respect) writes about illegal settlements, the Persian source and wsws quote Netanyahu on that he won't "hamper natural growth of the settlements" which he does to hamper the roadmap (not a bad thing imho but to that later). Gaza and the West Bank are nevertheless not occupied.
Haaretz is described as "left-wing" by the same people who describe the NY Times as "left-wing". Both are liberal, at best.
With regard to the territories..
Occupied, separated, controlled, restricted, isolated, divided, whichever word you feel the most comfortable with; I am not interested in arguing over semantics.
From 'B'Tselem - The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories' (http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp): (http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp%29:)
Map of the splitting of the West Bank, Aug. 2007
http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/West_Bank_Fragmentation.jpg Full Map, PDF (http://www.btselem.org/Download/West_Bank_Fragmentation_Map_Eng.pdf)
The restrictions on movement that Israel has imposed on Palestinians in the West Bank have split the area into six major geographical units: North, Center, South, the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea, the enclaves resulting from the Separation Barrier, and East Jerusalem . In addition to the restrictions on movement from section to section, Israel also severely restricts movement within the sections by splitting them up into subsections, and by controlling and limiting movement between them.
Detailed maps of the splitting of the West Bank : Northern West Bank (http://www.btselem.org/Download/Northern_West_Bank_Fragmentation_Map_Eng.pdf), Central West Bank (http://www.btselem.org/Download/Central_West_Bank_Fragmentation_Map_Eng.pdf), Southern West Bank (http://www.btselem.org/Download/South_West_Bank_Fragmentation_Map_Eng.pdf), Isolation of East Jerusalem (http://www.btselem.org/Download/Map_of_the_Isolation_of_East_Jerusalem_Eng.pdf), Separation Barrier Enclaves (http://www.btselem.org/Download/Map_of_Separation_Barrier_Enclaves_Eng.pdf), Nablus Siege Checkpoints (http://www.btselem.org/Download/Nablus_Siege_Map_Eng.pdf).
More on the topic (http://www.btselem.org/English/Freedom_of_Movement/)
Map of restrictions in Hebron's center, May 2007
http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Hebron_Center.jpg Full Map, PDF (http://www.btselem.org/Download/200705_Hebron_Center_Map_Eng.pdf)
Map showing the restriction on movement of Palestinians and opening of businesses in Hebron's center.
More on the topic (http://www.btselem.org/English/Hebron/)
Map of Forbidden Roads in the West Bank, August 2004
http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Forbidden_Roads.jpg Full Map, PDF (http://www.btselem.org/Download/Forbbiden_Roads_Map_Eng.pdf)
The map displays three kinds of roads in the West Bank: roads on which Palestinian travel is restricted, although no special permit is required, roads on which Palestinians are forbidden to travel unless they have a special permit, and roads on which only Israeli citizens are allowed to travel.
The forbidden roads regime is based on the principle of separation based on discrimination, and assumes that every Palestinian constitutes a security threat. This assumption is racist and cannot justify a policy that indiscriminately harms the entire Palestinian population. Therefore, the policy violates human rights and international law.
More on the topic (http://www.btselem.org/English/Freedom_of_Movement/Checkpoints_and_Forbidden_Roads.asp)
Map of Jewish Settlements in the the West Bank, May 2002
http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Settlements.jpg Full Map, PDF (http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf)
As appears from the map, while the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank. Since 1967, Israel has established in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip 152 settlements that have been recognized by the Interior Ministry. In addition, dozens of outposts of varying size have been established. Some of these outposts are settlements for all intents and purposes, but the Interior Ministry has not recognized them as such.
Israel has established in the Occupied Territories a separation cum discrimination regime, in which it maintains two systems of laws, and a person’s rights are based on his or her national origin. This regime is the only of its kind in the world, and brings to mind dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
More on the topic (http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/)
Map of the Southern Hebron Hills, July 2005
http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Southern_Hebron_Hills.jpg Full Map, PDF (http://www.btselem.org/Download/Southern_Hebron_Hills_Map_Eng.pdf)
The map shows the Arab villages and the Jewish settlements in the southern West Bank. The area marked in red is home to about 1,000 Palestinians, who live in caves and maintain a traditional lifestyle. In the 1970s this are was declared by the Israeli military commander a "closed military area,". Since 1999, Israel has been trying to expel the inhabitants.
I guess you're lucky enough to have never encountered the "last superpower"/"anti-deutsche" crowd.
Yes, I was not familiar with this at all, though I just looked into it... Anti-German Pro-Israel....
"You're still your parents' children. Your Jew today is the State of Israel."
Oy fucking vey. A political philosophy rooted entirely in guilt, that's bound to be rational and free of contradictions.........:rolleyes:
yuon
17th July 2009, 08:18
OK, there are no legitimate states, we all agree... However, from a those in power at the moment perspective (i.e. the capitalists), most states are legitimate, including Israel.
The poll is badly worded due to not defining what "legitimate" meant.
I also question (again) the focus on Israel by international left-wingers. I obviously disagree with some who claim that it is worse than most (all?) other capitalist states.
If all states are considered (regardless of their ideology), I would suggest that for citizens North Korea is worse. (Though, I admit that Israel citizens are often quite mistreated, then again, so are Russian, Chinese and USA citizens.) For non-citizens, well, perhaps Israel is up there in the top ten, again though, compared to the super-powers (or the strong-powers at least), Israel is nothing.
This focus on Israel is distracting the movement (in places not affect by Israels actions directly).
Yehuda Stern
17th July 2009, 08:24
to suggest that the Israeli proletariat "has never progressed even one iota in the direction of a revolutionary consciousness" is just taking it to an absurd, irrational extreme. What's your solution? Should we just kill them all?
Don't be stupid, I never said that - all Jews who support the Palestinian revolution should be able to live in the new workers state and enjoy full rights. But I wonder why you think you can tell me that my position on revolutionary consciousness in Israel is irrational. Is anything I said in that quote wrong? Have Israeli workers ever reacted in a revolutionary way to any world or local event?
How can you possibly interpret that as a statement of support for the Israeli state?
He said that much later on, as one of the excuses he made for why he initially said he considers Israel legitimate. He offered two others, showing his inconsistency.
LeninKobaMao
17th July 2009, 08:33
I think both of them re legitimate and they should just co exist peacefully. Plus the Muslims have many many 'homelands' while Israel just has one I think it's only fair that there should be both Israel AND Palestine.
Agrippa
17th July 2009, 21:50
Have Israeli workers ever reacted in a revolutionary way to any world or local event?
Some have, yes. Are you saying that Israeli workers never strike, commit sabotage or urban guerrilla attacks, demonstrate against capitalist injustices, riot etc.?
Just by dicking around on Google I found a story (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443825185&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) about European Jewish religious anti-Zionists rioting and attacking Israeli cops after one of their own had her kid taken away from her by state-bureaucrats with right-wing religious sentiments. Also, many hits come up on Google for "Israeli workers' strike". And I just found something on Libcom (http://libcom.org/news/israel-electricity-workers-take-action-against-privatisation-18092006) about IEC workers committing sabotage in protest of electricity "market reform".
Do you think Israeli workers are uniquely counter-revolutionary, or do you also share this irrational view in regards to white Americans, Anglophone Canadians, white Australians, Sinhalese Sri Lankans, Afro-American Liberians, etc.?
He said that much later on, as one of the excuses he made for why he initially said he considers Israel legitimate.
No. That was the very first post he made on this thread. Lay off.
Yazman
18th July 2009, 05:51
European Jewish doesn't equal Israeli, Agrippa.
About the actual topic: I do not feel that Israel was formed in a legitimate manner or that it has a legitimate reason for existing. So I voted no. However the fact is that it already exists. and I feel that it is foolish to deny this. There are already people who have been living there for generations - people who had nothing to do with the original colonization of the area. What are we to do about them? I fully support Palestine but we can't act as if there aren't both Israelis and Palestinians living there now.
We have to make allowances for both, unless you want to "exile" an entire people again, and I feel that this is completely unacceptable.
Sasha
18th July 2009, 06:42
yes, they are as legitemat as every other nation state, be it the US or vietnam, DDR or BRD, china or taiwan, dprk or south korea etc etc.
the pressing problem with isreal is not its exsistence but that 1. its an racist apartheid state and 2. the ocupation of palestine.
Yehuda Stern
18th July 2009, 21:04
Just by dicking around on Google I found a story (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443825185&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) about European Jewish religious anti-Zionists rioting and attacking Israeli cops
Here is a classic example to show that if you have no idea what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk about it - these protesters come from a religious Jewish sect which has been anti-Zionist historically and which refuses to recognize the Zionist state since its establishment. Obviously, it is deceitful or ignorant - I'm assuming the latter - to use them as a counter-example.
Also, many hits come up on Google for "Israeli workers' strike". And I just found something on Libcom (http://libcom.org/news/israel-electricity-workers-take-action-against-privatisation-18092006) about IEC workers committing sabotage in protest of electricity "market reform".
I'm starting to bet more on deceitful - since when do strikes show that the workers are revolutionary? According to you, all workers in Europe and the USA are revolutionary for most of the year, as are white workers in SA who protested for more restrictions on employment of black workers.
Do you think Israeli workers are uniquely counter-revolutionary, or do you also share this irrational view in regards to white Americans, Anglophone Canadians, white Australians, Sinhalese Sri Lankans, Afro-American Liberians, etc.?
Cute. Anyway, like I said, I believe workers in colonialist societies have significant counter-interests to their revolutionary interests, which prevent them, at least until circumstances become very favorable to the revolution, from becoming revolutionary in any sense.
No. That was the very first post he made on this thread. Lay off.
Deceitful it is!
Comrade B
19th July 2009, 19:41
Remember people, this is a discussion website....
You are supposed to disagree with each other so that you can improve your understanding of your own political views.
If you disagree with someone on an issue, try swaying them towards your views, rather than sending them away.
Be nice, imagine actually saying your words to a person's face before writing them out.
FreeFocus
20th July 2009, 05:11
I think that European workers (their Jewishness or Goyishness has little to do with it) settled in Palestine have white settler privilege, and obviously that has stunted their class-consciousness, but to suggest that the Israeli proletariat "has never progressed even one iota in the direction of a revolutionary consciousness" is just taking it to an absurd, irrational extreme. What's your solution? Should we just kill them all?
The otherwise brilliant J. Sakai makes the same asinine argument about white American proles, after doing some otherwise respectable research into counter-revolutionary tendencies among white American workers. What is to be gained? Why not radicalize the Israeli workers? They have nothing to lose, as well. The Palestinian workers don't need them to ensure their own freedom, no, but why miss up the opportunity for a useful ally?
"Working-class" is not synonymous with "ethically right"
Palestinians also shouldn't have to wait for a largely reactionary Israeli working class (which exists only because of settler imperialism - even declaring oneself/identifying as Israeli, in effect, is a political statement) to magically become revolutionary. Sure, you can work at radicalizing them, I'm not the type to discourage that and paint an entire population as a lost cause - but don't expect to override material and historical circumstances that have shaped Israeli consciousness.
mikelepore
20th July 2009, 06:14
I voted no. Although "legitimate state" is a concept that most people around here don't use at all, perhaps the point of the question to was really to ask whether the idea of Jewish homeland deserves support. Not if it's going to be exclusionary, it doesn't. By way of comparison, I look at the U.S.composed of 50 states, and imagine that someone were to tell everyone: you people with brown eyes, go cram yourself into the little corner consisting of Maine and New Hampshire, and you people with blue eyes, you get the other 48 states. This is the kind of miserable treatment the 1947 partitioning by the United Nations gave to the Palestinian people. As for a Jewish homeland, a demographic group can claim a need for security, but it cannot claim a need to uproot some people and ship them away to produce the effect that one's neighbors will be sure to have the same language and religion as oneself.
I hardly hear anyone agree with me when I say this, but I also reject the equally-exclusionary "Palestinian state" proposal. The only solution for the Middle East is exactly the same as the solution for racist Alabama and Mississippi in the 1960s. When your nextdoor neighbors can look different from you or have different traditions, in a checkerboard pattern of ethnicity, and no one can claim the power to remove others from the neighborhood, that's the only real solution. A checkboard of ethnicity on every street, all the children sharing the same school playground, makes bigotry decay rapidly, and very noticably in one generation. I am not dissuaded when people tell me it's unlikely. Likely or unlikely, it's the only right thing to do.
Agrippa
20th July 2009, 21:35
Palestinians also shouldn't have to wait for a largely reactionary Israeli working class (which exists only because of settler imperialism - even declaring oneself/identifying as Israeli, in effect, is a political statement) to magically become revolutionary.
The idea of whole populations being "reactionary" and "revolutionary" is bourgeois moralistic populism, though. Palestinians, because of their material circumstances, are more likely to lash out against the material foundations of Israeli colonialism than Israelis, yes. However, many Palestinians who lash out against Israeli colonialism also have very "reactionary" tendencies. (Homophobia, male chauvinism, religious bigotry, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorism, etc.) I think propagating communist/anarchist principles and causes among their sisters and brothers is just as daunting of a task for our Palestinian Arab comrades as our Ashkenazi and Slavic settler comrades, which is about the same as everywhere else in the world. We shouldn't take a Polyanna view of our task in any reigon of the world or amongst any population, especially out of mere anti-imperialist nostalgia.
but don't expect to override material and historical circumstances that have shaped Israeli consciousness.
Ashkenazi and Slavic settler brains can't be "override[n]"? Are they computers?
Here is a classic example to show that if you have no idea what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk about it - these protesters come from a religious Jewish sect which has been anti-Zionist historically and which refuses to recognize the Zionist state since its establishment.
That's exactly my point, you rude, presumptuous, arrogant Trotskyite, you....how can you claim that "Israelis" (whoever that may be) are "reactionary" and "counter-revolutionary" as an entire race/nation/people, when there's a healthy and vibrant history and tradition of resistance to the Israeli state from the Euro-Jewish settler population?
How does this show I "have no idea what [I'm] talking about"? Because you've randomly changed the definition of Israeli, mid-debate, to "anyone who doesn't resist the state of Israel"? (Yeah, if that's your definition of "Israeli", I'll agree, there are no revolutionary Israelis, but I think that's a pretty obscurantist and intellectually dishonest use of the word) There are plenty of Palestinian Arabs who don't resist the state of Israel...are they "Israelis" too?
since when do strikes show that the workers are revolutionary? According to you, all workers in Europe and the USA are revolutionary for most of the year, as are white workers in SA who protested for more restrictions on employment of black workers.You didn't ask for proof that Israelis are "revolutionary" in all aspects of their political being, (although clearly, obviously, some of them are) you've asked for proof that significant segments of the Israeli population have responded progressively to political developments. Striking would be an example of that, just as Palestinian Arab youths throwing rocks at Israeli tanks would be an example, even if those Palestinian youths have mis-educated stances on the feminist and queer questions.
Cute. Anyway, like I said, I believe workers in colonialist societies have significant counter-interests to their revolutionary interests, which prevent them, at least until circumstances become very favorable to the revolution, from becoming revolutionary in any sense.All of themare prevented, though? Or just a good deal of them? Plenty of circumstances will prevent a good deal of "more oppressed" workers, such as those that are the colonized, from being revolutionary either. It's time for us to abandon this vulgar, sophomoric populism.
Deceitful it is!Can you link to a post he made before that one?
samizdat
20th July 2009, 22:47
I don't believe Israel is a theocracy, it has a parliament.
Is Israel a legitimate state? Sure. Afterall, some of the most dominant western powers have 'legitimized' themselves in the same fashion,and this country is just one example of it.
Now whether I agree about how they went about establishing themselves is a different story.
Comrade B
20th July 2009, 23:27
I don't believe Israel is a theocracy, it has a parliament.
The flag is a religious symbol
Their foreign minister stated that he wanted Israeli Arabs to be required to sign loyalty oaths to Israel as a Jewish state before being allowed to vote
LOLseph Stalin
20th July 2009, 23:57
I don't believe Israel is a theocracy, it has a parliament.
Is Israel a legitimate state? Sure. Afterall, some of the most dominant western powers have 'legitimized' themselves in the same fashion,and this country is just one example of it.
Now whether I agree about how they went about establishing themselves is a different story.
Dude, theocracies can have a parliament it's just that in a theocracy there is no separation of church and state thus the laws are created based on scriptures.
Yehuda Stern
21st July 2009, 06:52
That's exactly my point, you rude, presumptuous, arrogant Trotskyite, you....
Ah, such drama! Now I know how stupid I can expect the rest of your post to be.
how can you claim that "Israelis" (whoever that may be) are "reactionary" and "counter-revolutionary" as an entire race/nation/people, when there's a healthy and vibrant history and tradition of resistance to the Israeli state from the Euro-Jewish settler population?
Because there isn't one - you're fabricating that history, even though it is that of a religious sect which refuses to recognize Israel, and which would never define itself as Israeli, and which existed well before the creation of the Zionist state. I can see now that you really are a liar - if you insist on calling these people Israeli just to prove a point, you're being dishonest. Never mind the fact that even if they were Israeli, they are a tiny, static minority. Your 'example' makes as much sense as saying that I'm wrong because many Palestinians in Israel are anti-Zionist - clearly, when I'm talking about Israel, I'm talking about the Jewish colonialists.
You didn't ask for proof that Israelis are "revolutionary" in all aspects of their political being, (although clearly, obviously, some of them are) you've asked for proof that significant segments of the Israeli population have responded progressively to political developments. Striking would be an example of that
No, it isn't, and that's what you don't get or want to avoid - striking is nothing more than a proof that there is a working class in Israel. Since none of these strikes were ever political - at least, in a progressive way - or challenged the power of the state, they do not show what I was talking about. In fact, strikes in Israel are another of what I said - they always stop short of challenging state power and Jewish chauvinism and therefore fail miserably most of the time.
All of themare prevented, though? Or just a good deal of them? Plenty of circumstances will prevent a good deal of "more oppressed" workers, such as those that are the colonized, from being revolutionary either.
Well, judge for yourself. In more revolutionary periods, Palestinian workers became attracted to the pseudo-Marxist and socialist groups, while Israeli workers became more conservative and reactionary.
Can you link to a post he made before that one?
Don't play games with me, please. What he said in his first post was nothing like what you wrote.
Die Neue Zeit
21st July 2009, 07:05
The question is and should be almost irrelevant for even anti-Zionist workers in other developed countries seeking to build (as opposed to solidify) worker-class movements in their own countries.
The question is and should be almost irrelevant for even anti-Zionist workers in other developed countries seeking to build worker-class movements in their own countries.
Yes, because every anti-Zionist worker is a cold insular nationalist, to whom the subjugation and slaughter of a people from a different "nation" is of no relevance or concern...:rolleyes:
Die Neue Zeit
21st July 2009, 14:43
I beg your pardon. I edited my post above to make clear the distinction between "build" (the workers aren't ready to address national-liberation issues abroad) and "solidify."
-----
"The enemy is at home."
samizdat
21st July 2009, 18:09
Dude, theocracies can have a parliament it's just that in a theocracy there is no separation of church and state thus the laws are created based on scriptures.
According to that definition,technically any and all states can be a "theocracy" in theory simply on the basis that there is an inherent foundation of religious belief. Israel is a democracy elected by parliament, while Saudi Arabia is thoecratic monarchy.
narcomprom
24th July 2009, 05:42
Haaretz is described as "left-wing" by the same people who describe the NY Times as "left-wing". Both are liberal, at best.
With regard to the territories..
Occupied, separated, controlled, restricted, isolated, divided, whichever word you feel the most comfortable with; I am not interested in arguing over semantics.
From 'B'Tselem - The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories' (http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp): (http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp%29:)
Gaza is mostly occupied by Hamas, while W.J. is by Fatah. Now Jerusalem is, indeed, occupied by Israel. Of Hebron I know little. This holy cave was there with some holy corpse in it. Is their military presence related to that?
HaAretz did publish many things the majority of Israel's and world's public wouldn't be able to access. Therefore I like HaAretz. Of course it is as far left as bourgeois mass media get in capitalism. You are right to call them merely "liberal at best".
leochaos
28th July 2009, 16:33
Hi,
I am surprised to see that there are individuals who actually "voted" yes.
Of course we are against any state,this is the final goal.Reality is the present and we have to consider Israel as a colonial entity.If we had the chance to go back in time we should be supportinting almost all the struggles of national liberation.I write almost, because of course in some cases you better do nothing( if the oppressed classes are totally controlled by fascist elements etc etc).
I am an old timer, for militants in the 70ties it was easy to support the revolutionary palestinian groups.Autonomia operaia in Italy(supposedly marxist but with libertarian elements and an healthy refusal of leadership, even if Toni Negri was always on our backs) had militant contact with the Democratic Popular Front(hawatme's faction) to the point that some comrades were arrested transporting a sam earth to air missile.We accepted the concept of one state.You do not destroy a state before there is one,I guess.We may tallk of the destruction of the palestianian state when they get one(and when the palestianins would be open to the concept).Right now there is only one state to destroy.There is indeed a difference between Australia and Israel(one indigenous population has been wiped out,the other is growing in number).And at the moment the australian state is not openly killing anybody(in australia).The zionist jewish state is indeed going by the book in making itself the number one target for an international movememnt of response.It is of course unfortunate that we have to support Hamas etc, but they are the freedom fighters of the moment.Of this I am pretty sure.The more complicated part is: what is the concept of being a jew.It is pretty hard for me to qualify this term.The fact that there is a number of moronic racist around makes things more difficult,even if I do not buy the so called antisemitism of the left.What i have noticed is that "semi-political" individuals like Gilat Atzom(wrong spelling) are pretty silly talking to holocaust deniers.But then the guy is a musician,not a militant.You listen to his music and read his essays as a personal contribution(the latest I read was pro Obama!).And on a personal level he has ideas. Again, I find very difficult to understand what exactly is being a jew.I am supposedly italian and christian;if tomorrow Italy is invaded I"ll not give a damn.If the new masters act like swedish socialdemocratic for a while I would even welcome them.If they act like the germans did in italy in 1943 I would consider bombing them(as the libian freedom fighters fought the italian invaders).We all know how bad the israeli are acting, so they do indeed deserve whatever they get from the palestinian resistance.How do you defend yourself from a bully?By resisting and eventually teaching him a lesson.Israell (and it seems a lot of israelis,I am sorry to say)obiously needs a big one.So I believe we should support the resistance,never forgetting that the violence of the oppressed is a reaction to the real violence of the oppressors.
It beats me how comrades of "jewish descent" sort of spend their time creating mini groups of "jews for..." and I still remember Malcom x and his antipathy to the help(control?) from whites.It is not a question of race or whatever(we should have none on a political front).The oppressed are fighting and we should support them.We have of course to study the situation and try to give some (minimal) advice and a lot of support.
By by
Hi,
I am surprised to see that there are individuals who actually "voted" yes.
Of course we are against any state,this is the final goal.Reality is the present and we have to consider Israel as a colonial entity.If we had the chance to go back in time we should be supportinting almost all the struggles of national liberation.I write almost, because of course in some cases you better do nothing( if the oppressed classes are totally controlled by fascist elements etc etc).
I am an old timer, for militants in the 70ties it was easy to support the revolutionary palestinian groups.Autonomia operaia in Italy(supposedly marxist but with libertarian elements and an healthy refusal of leadership, even if Toni Negri was always on our backs) had militant contact with the Democratic Popular Front(hawatme's faction) to the point that some comrades were arrested transporting a sam earth to air missile.We accepted the concept of one state.You do not destroy a state before there is one,I guess.We may tallk of the destruction of the palestianian state when they get one(and when the palestianins would be open to the concept).Right now there is only one state to destroy.There is indeed a difference between Australia and Israel(one indigenous population has been wiped out,the other is growing in number).And at the moment the australian state is not openly killing anybody(in australia).The zionist jewish state is indeed going by the book in making itself the number one target for an international movememnt of response.It is of course unfortunate that we have to support Hamas etc, but they are the freedom fighters of the moment.Of this I am pretty sure.The more complicated part is: what is the concept of being a jew.It is pretty hard for me to qualify this term.The fact that there is a number of moronic racist around makes things more difficult,even if I do not buy the so called antisemitism of the left.What i have noticed is that "semi-political" individuals like Gilat Atzom(wrong spelling) are pretty silly talking to holocaust deniers.But then the guy is a musician,not a militant.You listen to his music and read his essays as a personal contribution(the latest I read was pro Obama!).And on a personal level he has ideas. Again, I find very difficult to understand what exactly is being a jew.I am supposedly italian and christian;if tomorrow Italy is invaded I"ll not give a damn.If the new masters act like swedish socialdemocratic for a while I would even welcome them.If they act like the germans did in italy in 1943 I would consider bombing them(as the libian freedom fighters fought the italian invaders).We all know how bad the israeli are acting, so they do indeed deserve whatever they get from the palestinian resistance.How do you defend yourself from a bully?By resisting and eventually teaching him a lesson.Israell (and it seems a lot of israelis,I am sorry to say)obiously needs a big one.So I believe we should support the resistance,never forgetting that the violence of the oppressed is a reaction to the real violence of the oppressors.
It beats me how comrades of "jewish descent" sort of spend their time creating mini groups of "jews for..." and I still remember Malcom x and his antipathy to the help(control?) from whites.It is not a question of race or whatever(we should have none on a political front).The oppressed are fighting and we should support them.We have of course to study the situation and try to give some (minimal) advice and a lot of support.
By by
I cannot speak for all movements or all people of Jewish descent, but I do understand the rationale behind the "Jews against Zionism" type of 'groups'. Zionist propaganda constantly seeks to portray the State of Israel as the "Jewish homeland" and on this fraudulent basis, legitimate critics of Zionism and the Israeli State are besmirched by claims of anti-Semitism. As a result, many are fearful about taking a public stance, or are merely uninformed and thus unaware that not only is there a world of difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but that many Jews are actually opposed to Zionism. I'm not sure what you are implying with the comment about Malcom X, but the comparison is really nonsensical because Jews are not victims of institutionalized oppression any longer so obviously anti-Zionist Jews are not suggesting that Jews 'unite and rise up to fight back against control by the goyim' or some shit like that. Its nothing like that at all, it's about countering Zionist propaganda in an attempt to encourage more people (who are presently intimidated by the prospect of being labeled an "anti-Semite") to speak up.
Yehuda Stern
28th July 2009, 18:50
It beats me how comrades of "jewish descent" sort of spend their time creating mini groups of "jews for..." and I still remember Malcom x and his antipathy to the help(control?) from whites.
Sometimes I'm not sure how effective that is either, but it helps dispel the Zionist lie that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. So I understand the motive.
Jews are not victims of institutionalized oppression any longer
Well, white Jews in Israel aren't. I think it's completely false, and flies in the face of reality, to even try to claim that the European and US ruling classes are no longer anti-Semitic. In Europe many center-right parties contain former members of fascist parties who condemn "Jewish Bolshevism," and the controversy around Madoff in the US also shows signs of increasing anti-Semitism there too.
Well, white Jews in Israel aren't. I think it's completely false, and flies in the face of reality, to even try to claim that the European and US ruling classes are no longer anti-Semitic. In Europe many center-right parties contain former members of fascist parties who condemn "Jewish Bolshevism," and the controversy around Madoff in the US also shows signs of increasing anti-Semitism there too.
I never said that anti-Semitism was dead, or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it is very much alive and seems to be gaining momentum thanks in part to the actions of the State of Israel. I live near a place called Whidbey Island, you may have heard of it - it is pretty famous for its neo-Nazi population, and I went to school in the city where the "National Socialists of Washington State" operate out of. I've dealt with it most of my life, I have no delusions about its prevalance. However, I was talking solely about institutionalized discrimination, and this was in response to the attempt (in the comment to which I was responding) to draw a parallel between the Black Panthers and organized Jewish anti-Zionists. I was merely noting that there is really no parallel to be drawn between the situation of Jews living in the United States today and the situation of blacks living in the United States in the times of Malcolm X. Getting called a 'kike' from time to time or, on a couple isolated occasions, leaving work to find a svastika drawn on the windshield of my car is hardly comparable to blacks having the weight of the institution of government (among other institutions) set against them. Yes, there is absolutely anti-Semitism, but Jews are not oppressed by the government simply for being Jews anymore.
The Feral Underclass
29th July 2009, 07:41
There's no such thing as a "legitimate state".
Yehuda Stern
29th July 2009, 09:46
Yes, there is absolutely anti-Semitism, but Jews are not oppressed by the government simply for being Jews anymore.
Yes I realize that this is what you think, but I believe that that is also true. Although you are right that oppression of blacks in the US is much harsher than that of Jews, I think it's clear that the US right still has anti-Semitic sympathies, and that reflects in the state's attitude to anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi groups.
narcomprom
31st July 2009, 21:14
Yes I realize that this is what you think, but I believe that that is also true. Although you are right that oppression of blacks in the US is much harsher than that of Jews, I think it's clear that the US right still has anti-Semitic sympathies, and that reflects in the state's attitude to anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi groups.
To my experience the Jews have been replaced by Muslims as the minority endangering the christian/western/national virtues. But then I am talking from europe.
Yehuda, why would the elites still want to propagate anti-semitism? This minority may have used to produce many progressive thinkers, but now it is not longer the case. It has been sedated through Israeli nationhood.
Yehuda Stern
1st August 2009, 11:24
To my experience the Jews have been replaced by Muslims as the minority endangering the christian/western/national virtues. But then I am talking from europe.
Yeah, this is pretty spot on, obviously Islamophobia fills the role anti-Semitism used to and then some. This is obviously also true in Israel and the US.
Yehuda, why would the elites still want to propagate anti-semitism? This minority may have used to produce many progressive thinkers, but now it is not longer the case. It has been sedated through Israeli nationhood.
I think you're over-simplifying the causes for anti-Semitism. Many Jews became progressive because of their oppression; this oppression had to do with the monetary rule Jews had under capitalism and in the feudal state, which made them at times useful to the ruling classes and at other times comfortable scapegoats.
This is still the case, although because of Israel's status this anti-Semitism must be a bit more hush hush. Still, Israel quietly tolerates leaders who are anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi, in Eastern Europe for example, if this support isn't loud enough to reach people in Israel.
chimx
1st August 2009, 11:37
What's an illegitimate state?
narcomprom
1st August 2009, 13:31
I think you're over-simplifying the causes for anti-Semitism. Many Jews became progressive because of their oppression; this oppression had to do with the monetary rule Jews had under capitalism and in the feudal state, which made them at times useful to the ruling classes and at other times comfortable scapegoats.
This is still the case, although because of Israel's status this anti-Semitism must be a bit more hush hush. Still, Israel quietly tolerates leaders who are anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi, in Eastern Europe for example, if this support isn't loud enough to reach people in Israel.
Do the Jews still really have this "monetary rule"? Most monetary institutions are now populated by a new American ethnicity of monetarists, of infamous protestant economists schooled in secular monetarist yeshivas from their early childhood on.
But I agree wholeheartedly anti-semitism is still on the agenda of the right in Poland and Russia. I would, however, see it as an idiosyncratic phenomenon due to
1. The "refrigerator effect"of real existing socialism. There was no discourse with the right in Soviet-type states thus it mostly adopted outdated ideologies that existed prior to Socialism in the respective countries.
2. For Poles antisemitism was aggrevated by the feeling of injustice between the treatment of people killed as Jude, as Zwangsarbeiter or as prisoner of war. Formal pubicity stunts in the west to promote Jewish suffering justifying in turn Israel gave everyone the feeling Jews somehow got more benefits than other victims of fascism. Same feelings of injustice plagued Russians to a degree.
3. There are too many Jewish geologists in Russia. In the 1980s ethnic quota barred Jews from studying field except those related to geology, forestry and chemistry as there were too many Jewish academics in the other fields. That in turn resulted in a disproportionate amount of Jews amongst post-soviet Russian oil industry.
To aggravate this problem even further same quota resulted in many other minorities such as Volga Germans, Native Siberians or Tatars ascending to the higher tiers of the society contributing even further ethnic sentiments amongst uneducated ethnic Russians.
Yes I realize that this is what you think, but I believe that that is also true. Although you are right that oppression of blacks in the US is much harsher than that of Jews, I think it's clear that the US right still has anti-Semitic sympathies, and that reflects in the state's attitude to anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi groups.
If you are talking about the willingness of the US government (among other "Western" allies) to turn a blind eye to genuine anti-Semitism (neo-Nazis, etc.), this is absolutely true, and it is typical of capitalist opportunism. However, I still don't see any real evidence to indicate that the domestic policies of the US government discriminate against Jews for being Jewish. I'm not positing that this is the result of benevolence or some kind of enlightenment among US elites; their political/economic interests are simply not served by policies of institutionalized discrimination against the Jewish population at the present time.
Tayo
1st August 2009, 15:02
I would like to ask Israel how do they justify all this aggression, the fascism, all this anger against innocent people? Bombing? How many kids have died?
Genocide is what happened. The Israel leaders should be taken to International Tribunals. These attitudes should end in the world. Fascist attitudes.
The Jews criticize the Nazis, we do the same, but what they have done something similar or even worse.
And why do they call the Palestine terrorists? Like the U.S calling the Iraqis terrorists? Why? For protecting their families? I call Israel and the U.S terrorists for bombing and killing innocent people.
Just my thoughts about Israel.:)
The Jews criticize the Nazis, we do the same, but what they have done something similar or even worse.
Contrary to Zionist propaganda, "The Jews" are not a homogeneous bloc with hive-mind. Do you implicate the Muslim population of the world in the crimes of the Turkish State? Many Jews are not Zionists and many Zionists are not Jewish. It is in the class interests of the Zionist elite to exploit the suffering of the Holocaust for political gains (evoking images and memories of devastation and persecution is an important part of scare-mongering, which seems to be perhaps the most effective means of enhancing popular support for the actions of a capitalist State among its citizenry).
And why do they call the Palestine terrorists? Like the U.S calling the Iraqis terrorists? Why? For protecting their families? I call Israel and the U.S terrorists for bombing and killing innocent people.Again, painting self-defense or legitimate armed resistance as terrorism is another tactic employed in scare-mongering. You seem to underestimate the ruthlessness of the capitalist class in advancing its interests. Nothing is too sacred to be exploited for profit - not innocent children, not the victims of genocide, nothing.
Yehuda Stern
1st August 2009, 17:18
Do the Jews still really have this "monetary rule"? Most monetary institutions are now populated by a new American ethnicity of monetarists, of infamous protestant economists schooled in secular monetarist yeshivas from their early childhood on.
Seems to me like that role still exists - certainly in the US, and even in Europe, though to a lesser extent than before: obviously, due to Nazism, there are a lot less Jews there. Keep in mind that Jews were never a majority of the ruling class, even the financial bourgeoisie - Nazi propaganda just blew their role out of proportion.
There was no discourse with the right in Soviet-type states thus it mostly adopted outdated ideologies that existed prior to Socialism in the respective countries.
Again, this seems somewhat simplistic. Stalinism revived anti-Semitism as part of its attack on Marxism in the 1930s. Other Stalinist regimes did so for similar reasons all over Eastern Europe, often under an "anti-Zionist" or "anti-cosmopolitan" guise. I doubt that it's a case of "old habits die hard."
Formal pubicity stunts in the west to promote Jewish suffering justifying in turn Israel gave everyone the feeling Jews somehow got more benefits than other victims of fascism. Same feelings of injustice plagued Russians to a degree.
This is actually a pretty interesting point; I thought about in the context of Jewish-Arab or Jewish-Muslim tensions, but not in the context of Eastern Europe. I think you're right here. At any rate, it's important to make the distinction between the anti-Semitism of the masses, which was probably ignited by what you say, and that of the rulers, who merely exploited such feelings.
I still don't see any real evidence to indicate that the domestic policies of the US government discriminate against Jews for being Jewish.
You may be right; if I'll think of an example to the contrary I'll let you know.
The Jews criticize the Nazis, we do the same, but what they have done something similar or even worse.
Well, I didn't do any of that to anyone, so I suggest you be careful with your borderline anti-Semitic rhetoric. Israel is a criminal colonialist state, but not all the Jews of the world are to blame for its actions.
Tayo
1st August 2009, 17:32
Do you implicate the Muslim population of the world in the crimes of the Turkish State?
Don't confuse my position, I am an atheist. I don't believe in any god. I don't differentiate people by race, culture or religion.
I'm only condemning the suffering, injustice and abuse of power from Israel.
Palestine is subjected to the most stubborn of wars, the opulence of Israel.
You seem to underestimate the ruthlessness of the capitalist class in advancing its interests. Nothing is too sacred to be exploited for profit - not innocent children, not the victims of genocide, nothing.
I understand Israel war techniques, that's why I talk about genocide.
Well, I didn't do any of that to anyone, so I suggest you be careful with your borderline anti-Semitic rhetoric. Israel is a criminal colonialist state, but not all the Jews of the world are to blame for its actions.
You are right. My mistake. I shall refer only as Israel in the future.
Comrade Anarchist
2nd August 2009, 17:40
no and i imagine many people think this but someone can think the truth but if the un pussies out to the U.s. like ususal and lets them run the world then it is.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.