Is pro-Zionism related to racism?

[Tyrannosaurus Che]

I wonder if the tendency for Americans to support Israel has something to do with racism against darker-skinned people. It is my perception that Jews of European descent, such as the people responsible for Israel's founding, have had an easier time passing off as "white" in most white Americans' eyes compared to Palestinians, which could lead to Americans feeling more sympathetic with the Israelis. I'm not saying that every Zionist or pro-Zionist is a white supremacist, but I feel that Americans would not feel so sorry for the Israelis if they were just another brown-skinned people.

[Random Precision]

I wonder if the tendency for Americans to support Israel has something to do with racism against darker-skinned people. It is my perception that Jews of European descent, such as the people responsible for Israel's founding, have had an easier time passing off as "white" in most white Americans' eyes compared to Palestinians, which could lead to Americans feeling more sympathetic with the Israelis. I'm not saying that every Zionist or pro-Zionist is a white supremacist, but I feel that Americans would not feel so sorry for the Israelis if they were just another brown-skinned people.

Point of fact, "non-occupied" Israel is hardly a "white" nation given the 20% Arab minority and that about 60% of the Jewish majority is from Middle Eastern nations.

I don't buy into the liberal screed that Americans are by and large racist. I think it has more to do with Israel's position relative to the United States, since 1948 more or less the media in the US has been bombarding us with the Zionist version of events or at best obscuring the nature of the conflict as one between rival religions. Israel and the Zionist movement in the US get a huge amount of support from our ruling class, and it shows.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Zionism is a form of bourgeois nationalism.

Pro-Zionism does not necessarily mean you're racist, just a reactionary, authoritarian warmonger.

[Robocommie]

I do believe that Israel's popularity in the US has a lot to do with the fact that the dominant Israeli demographic are light skinned Europeans, who are generally perceived to be more "western" than the Palestinians.

Mind you, I say this as a big fan of Edward Said, but there's a very old and well established tradition in the sphere of the western powers of seeing Islam as the "other" and as a threatening force of barbarism.

[blake 3:17]

Zionism is a form of bourgeois nationalism.

Pro-Zionism does not necessarily mean you're racist, just a reactionary, authoritarian warmonger.

No. Zionism is a viciously racist ideology.

And yes, a lot of support for Israel in the West comes out of bigotry and racism against Black people and Arabs. Within the radical Right, you find fair numbers of anti-Semitic Zionists. They are crazy. And racist.

[Steve_j]

about 60% of the Jewish majority is from Middle Eastern nations.


If you dont mind i would appreciate the source of that stat.

[ComradeMan]

I wonder if the tendency for Americans to support Israel has something to do with racism against darker-skinned people. It is my perception that Jews of European descent, such as the people responsible for Israel's founding, have had an easier time passing off as "white" in most white Americans' eyes compared to Palestinians, which could lead to Americans feeling more sympathetic with the Israelis. I'm not saying that every Zionist or pro-Zionist is a white supremacist, but I feel that Americans would not feel so sorry for the Israelis if they were just another brown-skinned people.

I don't think this is about colour of skin. Remember that from an extremist Christian apocalyptic view there is also a need to re-unite the tribes of Israel, then there will be Armageddon and then there will be the building of the New Jerusalem.

Don't forget that many Jewish peoples are not "white" at all and certainly the Sephardic and Yemenite Jews would be indistinguishable from Palestinians- I have also known Palestinians who were fair haired and blue eyed- it's not as easy as a mere colour issue.

[Dimentio]

I don't think this is about colour of skin. Remember that from an extremist Christian apocalyptic view there is also a need to re-unite the tribes of Israel, then there will be Armageddon and then there will be the building of the New Jerusalem.

Don't forget that many Jewish peoples are not "white" at all and certainly the Sephardic and Yemenite Jews would be indistinguishable from Palestinians- I have also known Palestinians who were fair haired and blue eyed- it's not as easy as a mere colour issue.

It is not about the colour of the skin.

Whether or not Jews are white, black, green or lollipop-coloured, it is still abhorrent for a migrant group to claim an inhabitated land to establish a state for that migrant group without any concerns for the people already living there since generations.

Jews should have the right to live in Palestine as they should have a right to live everywhere else as well, but no state should be established on an ethnic foundation. If there should be governments, they should be established for all the people, not just a select few.

[ComradeMan]

It is not about the colour of the skin.

Whether or not Jews are white, black, green or lollipop-coloured, it is still abhorrent for a migrant group to claim an inhabitated land to establish a state for that migrant group without any concerns for the people already living there since generations.

Jews should have the right to live in Palestine as they should have a right to live everywhere else as well, but no state should be established on an ethnic foundation. If there should be governments, they should be established for all the people, not just a select few.

I would have to agree with you there, but I think the original post was more about why the US is seemingly so nationalist-Zionist- hence the comments about the Christian extreme right.

PS Let's not lose sight of the matter and start using Jew and Zionist as synomyms, which I don't think you are doing anyway.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Whether or not Jews are white, black, green or lollipop-coloured


Lollipop coloured? haha.

Anyways just thought it is interesting to note, that black jews, especially from Somalia and Ethiopia actually have a very difficult time obtaining Israeli citizenship.

[Chambered Word]

Zionism seems to be another way of saying 'I have more right to this land than you just because I'm Jewish and my favourite fairytale book confirms my belief'.

Alot of Americans are Bible-thumpers and Islamophobes, which seems to tie in with Zionism.

[9]

Point of fact, "non-occupied" Israel is...

:confused: What is "non-occupied Israel"?



I don't buy into the liberal screed that Americans are by and large racist. I think it has more to do with Israel's position relative to the United States, since 1948 more or less the media in the US has been bombarding us with the Zionist version of events or at best obscuring the nature of the conflict as one between rival religions. Israel and the Zionist movement in the US get a huge amount of support from our ruling class, and it shows.I think this is basically correct with regard to the situation in the US. Regardless of whether or not most Americans are racist, most Americans do get their news from one of the primary three or so media conglomerates and the information with regard to Israel is very much as RP describes. This results in most working people possessing pro-Israel sentiments without really knowing anything about Israel or being able to articulate why they support it, beyond "they have every right to defend themselves from terrorists". And, while I'd certainly argue that the immediate association of Palestinians (and generally of most Arabs, from what I experience) with terrorists is racist, it is typically not the product of conscious hatred of other racial and ethnic groups; rather, it is the result of spending a lifetime indoctrinated with the views of the ruling class via the education system, and being submersed in propaganda under the guise of impartial information via the mass media. So in this sense, pro-Zionism isn't necessarily an expression of racism so much as it is an expression of ignorance, utter misinformation, and aggressive indoctrination.
On the other hand, pro-Zionism among leftists and others who pride themselves in possessing some understanding of politics, history, and current events in general is something quite different. In this case, it is racism; there is scarcely any other way to describe it. As someone else in this thread noted, Zionism is a ferociously racist ideology; most obviously it is racist against the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, but from the understanding I have from talking with Israelis and other American Jews who have visited Israel, the Zionist establishment is also quite racist against Jews who aren't Ashkenazim. And ironically, Zionism is also - at it's core - a capitulation to anti-Semitism; an internalization and affirmation of the long-propagated anti-Semitic myth that Jews outside of Israel are aliens - irredeemable foreigners in whatever nation they live who can never be integrated into the broader communities and enjoy the same lifestyles and conditions as their non-Jewish compatriots. It is not hard to see that this is a fundamentally anti-Semitic idea, and not only that, an idea which often lent itself to justifying their own persecution as perfectly legitimate because, according to Zionism, Jews in the mythical Diaspora do not belong there and are poison in the stomachs of the countries in which they reside. It is not surprising, then, that the Zionists and the Nazis, for a time, found common ground; from Lenni Brenner's magnificent book "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch07.htm)":

"By 1934 the SS had become the most pro-Zionist element in the Nazi Party. Other Nazis were even calling them “soft” on the Jews. Baron von Mildenstein had returned from his six-month visit to Palestine as an ardent Zionist sympathiser. Now as the head of the Jewish Department of the SS’s Security Service, he started studying Hebrew and collecting Hebrew records; when his former companion and guide, Kurt Tuchler, visited his office in 1934, he was greeted by the strains of familiar Jewish folk tunes. [16] (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch07.htm#n16) There were maps on the walls showing the rapidly increasing strength of Zionism inside Germany. [17] (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch07.htm#n17) Von Mildenstein was as good as his word: he not only wrote favourably about what he saw in the Zionist colonies in Palestine; he also persuaded Goebbels to run the report as a massive twelve-part series in his own Der Angriff (The Assault), the leading Nazi propaganda organ (26 September to 9 October 1934). His stay among the Zionists had shown the SS man “the way to curing a centuries-long wound on the body of the world: the Jewish question”. It was really amazing how some good Jewish boden under his feet could enliven the Jew: “The soil has reformed him and his kind in a decade. This new Jew will be a new people.” [18] (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch07.htm#n18) To commemorate the Baron’s expedition, Goebbels had a medal struck: on one side the swastika, on the other the Zionist star. [19] (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch07.htm#n19)"

Needless to say, Von Mildenstein would be right at home with the Antideutsche crowd today ;)

So, yes, Zionism is a racist ideology in more ways than one, and fiercely so; and what more could one expect from what is fundamentally a justification for ethnic cleansing and the continuation of an imperialist settler-colonialist State with an ethno-religious character representative of a regional minority. Whether people with pro-Israel views are racists depends on whether their views are shallow impressions based on propaganda and misinformation or whether they're deeply-held principles. Though really, the function these views serve is the same regardless of why people hold them. And the point is that Zionism cannot be separated from racism.

[Random Precision]

If you dont mind i would appreciate the source of that stat.

Well, according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel),


Nearly 60% of Israeli Jews are Arab Jews, Iranian Jews, Turkish Jews, Kurdish Jews, Berber Jews, Bukharan Jews, and other Afro-Asiatic countries or are descended from such Jews, and about 40% are European or descended from European Jews. Over two hundred thousand are, or are descended from, Ethiopian and Indian Jews.[4]

It cites this table from the Israeli government as a source:

http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton.html?num_tab=st02_23x&CYear=2005


What is "non-occupied Israel"?

Well, I meant Israeli territory minus the "occupied territories" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hence, "non-occupied" Israel.


I think this is basically correct with regard to the situation in the US. Regardless of whether or not most Americans are racist, most Americans do get their news from one of the primary three or so media conglomerates and the information with regard to Israel is very much as RP describes. This results in most working people possessing pro-Israel sentiments without really knowing anything about Israel or being able to articulate why they support it, beyond "they have every right to defend themselves from terrorists". And, while I'd certainly argue that the immediate association of Palestinians (and generally of most Arabs, from what I experience) with terrorists is racist, it is typically not the product of conscious hatred of other racial and ethnic groups; rather, it is the result of spending a lifetime indoctrinated with the views of the ruling class via the education system, and being submersed in propaganda under the guise of impartial information via the mass media. So in this sense, pro-Zionism isn't necessarily an expression of racism so much as it is an expression of ignorance, utter misinformation, and aggressive indoctrination.

This is exactly correct. I don't really watch the US media anymore, but when I did it would score points on the Palestinians all the time as being terrorists or whatever. When Yasir Arafat died in fact the first thing that they mentioned about him on the CBS news was that he set in motion "armed campaigns of terror" such as the Second Intifada, while conveniently forgetting this was in reaction to Ariel Sharon's "visit" to the Temple Mount and Israeli troops firing on peaceful protesters. Also after September 11th 2001 it showed Palestinians celebrating in the streets, while mentioning nothing of the ongoing occupation that the United States bankrolls.

[Le Libérer]

Most Christian Americans are Protestant. Christian Zionism is a movement among Protestant fundamentalists that understands the modern state of the region of Israel and Palestine as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and deserving of political, financial, and religious support. They see this support and their involvement as ushering in the Apocalypse. Protestant fundamentalism doctrine supports the claims of Jewish political Zionism, including Israel’s sovereignty over Palestine. The modern state of Israel is viewed as a fulfillment of the prophetic scriptures and is one of the necessary stages prior to the second coming of Jesus.

This is why Americans support Israel over Palestine. Its completely selfish on their part. It will get them into Heaven.

[Random Precision]

Most Christian Americans are Protestant. Christian Zionism is a movement among Protestant fundamentalists that understands the modern state of the region of Israel and Palestine as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and deserving of political, financial, and religious support. They see this support and their involvement as ushering in the Apocalypse. Protestant fundamentalism doctrine supports the claims of Jewish political Zionism, including Israel’s sovereignty over Palestine. The modern state of Israel is viewed as a fulfillment of the prophetic scriptures and is one of the necessary stages prior to the second coming of Jesus.

This is why Americans support Israel over Palestine. Its completely selfish on their part. It will get them into Heaven.

While it is correct to note that Christian Zionism has played into motivations for supporting Israel (and has since the 19th century more or less) I would question whether you can make such a generalization as "Americans" do this. A very sizable minority of American Christians are Catholic (the RCC is I believe the largest Christian church in the country with something like 40% of Christians total), and I wouldn't even say that most American Protestants are evangelical- they mostly belong to the mainline churches such as Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc. It is true that Protestant Evangelism is very vocal, probably the most vocal of American religious movements, and that it is very vocal in its support for Israel, but this doesn't really apply to other churches that most Americans identify themselves as part of.

[Le Libérer]

While it is correct to note that Christian Zionism has played into motivations for supporting Israel (and has since the 19th century more or less) I would question whether you can make such a generalization as "Americans" do this.

Its a well known fact that Catholicism is not as dominant a sect in the US as Protestantism.52% (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm)of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
And even if all do not hold to the doctrine of the Rapture, all believe that the "ingathering" of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus, including Catholics. Both believe that Jews are the Chosen people, both blindly support Israel because of the Bible Verse Genesis 12:3, "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

So whether you claim it matters whether they are evangelical or not, its of no consquence. They all support Israel for the reason I outlined earlier in this thread. To quote Redstar2000, they are all doing "the get in good with God" support of Israel. They be wanting teh pockylips. :)

As far as racism and Zionism, I would wager if you asked a typical Aryan racist fuck from the south to choose, between Jews or Palestinians, he would say neither, neither are white. When I venture out my door tomorrow, I may put my theory to test by asking random people outside the Walmart. :)

[Random Precision]

Its a well known fact that Catholicism is not as dominant a sect in the US as Protestantism.52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.

Um, great, but you're ignoring what I said in my previous post, which is that only a minority of Protestants are evangelical.


And even if all do not hold to the doctrine of the Rapture, all believe that the "ingathering" of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus, including Catholics.

I know for certain that the Catholic Church does not accept a literal interpretation of the Book of the Revelation. The Second Coming in the Catholic Church is only treated in a very abstracted manner that certainly does not involve a modern, political Jewish state in Palestine being a prerequisite for Jesus descending on a cloud. I would wager that it is the same for the Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican and other mainstream Protestant churches. The RCC at least does not "blindly" support Israel, and in fact has condemned Israel's role in the continuing conflict IIRC. I would guess the same is true of mainstream Protestant Churches.


Both believe that Jews are the Chosen people, both blindly support Israel because of the Bible Verse Genesis 12:3, "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

That makes no sense whatsoever.


So whether you claim it matters whether they are evangelical or not, its of no consquence. They all support Israel for the reason I outlined earlier in this thread. To quote Redstar2000, they are all doing "the get in good with God" support of Israel. They be wanting teh pockylips.

You will have to provide some better evidence then "they're all Christians" if you seriously want us to believe this.

[Le Libérer]

Um, great, but you're ignoring what I said in my previous post, which is that only a minority of Protestants are evangelical.
No I didnt. I said it wasnt irelevant to why Christians as a whole, cozy up to Israel.



I know for certain that the Catholic Church does not accept a literal interpretation of the Book of the Revelation. The Second Coming in the Catholic Church is only treated in a very abstracted manner that certainly does not involve a modern, political Jewish state in Palestine being a prerequisite for Jesus descending on a cloud. I would wager that it is the same for the Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican and other mainstream Protestant churches. The RCC at least does not "blindly" support Israel, and in fact has condemned Israel's role in the continuing conflict IIRC. Then you know for a fact, that even in the Mass, it is chanted, "The Coming of Christ".

I would guess the same is true of mainstream Protestant Churches. Thats what I thought.


That makes no sense whatsoever. I agree, Christianity makes no sense, none at all.



You will have to provide some better evidence then "they're all Christians" if you seriously want us to believe this. I dont care if you believe it or not. I could give a fuck. As far as "we" is you are referring to members of this board, well, if "we" object to what I have posted, then "we" can provide evidence to the contrary.

[Random Precision]

Then you know for a fact, that even in the Mass, it is chanted, "The Coming of Christ".

Sure. I chanted "...He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead/and His kingdom will have no end" every Sunday until I was 17 or so. The question is whether Catholics and other Christians, leaving aside Evangelical Protestants, equate this to the physical reincarnation of Christ on Earth and then that to political support for Israel, which you have yet to provide evidence that they do.


I agree, Chrisitianity makes no sense.

LOL. I was questioning how much a verse from Genesis really has to do with modern political support for Israel.


I dont care if you believe it or not. I could give a fuck. As far as "we" you are referring to members of this board, well, it anyone besides yourself objects to what I have posted, then they can prove otherwise with evidence.

It is for you, the one making the positive claim, to provide the evidence.

[Le Libérer]

Sure. I chanted "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead/and His kingdom will have no end" every Sunday until I was 17 or so. The question is whether Catholics and other Christians, leaving aside Evangelical Protestants, equate this to the physical reincarnation of Christ on Earth and then that to political support for Israel, which you have yet to provide evidence that they do. why are you even debating that fact when this thread is about racism and Israel? You are attempting to lead this discussion into something it isnt. As a mod you should know better.




LOL. I was questioning how much a verse from Genesis really has to do with modern political support for Israel. I'm not going to jump thru hoops with you on this, seeing you cant understand that there are Christians who base their whole belief sytem on single bible verses. I suggest you google Christian Zionism and you will find that one verse as the basis for it. Have fun!

[Random Precision]

why are you even debating that fact when this thread is about racism and Israel? You are attempting to lead this discussion into something it isnt. As a mod you should know better.

LOL. You were the one who started debating that with your ridiculous assertion that Americans "support Israel over Palestine... [because] it will get them into Heaven". That you are accusing me of distracting from the topic now certainly says something about you.


I'm not going to jump thru hoops with you on this, seeing you cant understand that there are Christians who base their whole belief sytem on single bible verses. I suggest you google Christian Zionism and you will find that one verse as the basis for it. Have fun!

Do they happen along that verse in Genesis and suddenly think, "Wow! I should support Israel!" or have they already decided on support for Israel and trawl through the Bible for things to justify it with? Those two are very different things.

[ComradeMan]

Whether or not Jews are white, black, green or lollipop-coloured, it is still abhorrent for a migrant group to claim an inhabitated land to establish a state for that migrant group without any concerns for the people already living there since generations.

Jews should have the right to live in Palestine as they should have a right to live everywhere else as well, but no state should be established on an ethnic foundation. If there should be governments, they should be established for all the people, not just a select few.

I agree with you but the problem is impossible, the devil is in the detail.

no state should be established on an ethnic foundation

So the Jewish people have no right to their own self-determination? It's a bit tricky when the rights to self-determination of nearly all other groups are supported around the world are.

no state should be established on an ethnic foundation

So a two-state solution, Jewish and Palestinian would also be a contradiction.

no state should be established on an ethnic foundation

In the event of the destruction of Israel what would happen to the Jewish people in Israel- approx 5 million or so? Would they not be victims of ethnic violence? Would not the old call of "driving the Jews into the sea." be heard again".

The trouble in this mess is that NO side comes out smelling of roses.
E.g.
"The Husseini clan led by Haj Amin El Husseini, the Grand Mufti. The Mufti and others convinced Palestinian Arabs that the Zionists were going to dispossess them of their lands by force, and spread false rumors that the Jews were going to desecrate the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Riots and pogroms were instigated in 1920, 1921 and 1929 resulting in deaths and injuries in Jaffa, Hebron, Jerusalem, Motza and elsewhere."

The problem is we have tit-for-tat, eye for an eye all over the place and no reasonable solution is ever going to please anyone in particular.
:(

[9]

Whether or not Jews are white, black, green or lollipop-coloured, it is still abhorrent for a migrant group to claim an inhabitated land to establish a state for that migrant group without any concerns for the people already living there since generations.

Jews should have the right to live in Palestine as they should have a right to live everywhere else as well, but no state should be established on an ethnic foundation. If there should be governments, they should be established for all the people, not just a select few.

I agree with you but the problem is impossible, the devil is in the detail.

Yeah, good argument...




:rolleyes:



no state should be established on an ethnic foundation

So the Jewish people have no right to their own self-determination? It's a bit tricky when the rights to self-determination of nearly all other groups are supported around the world are.Really? The self-determination of Mormons? Jehovah's witnesses? Redheads? Just because you take a particular commonality between people and ascribe the status of a nation to it, it doesn't make it so. My grandparents were/are Yiddish-speaking immigrants from Vitebsk and Odessa; they have never been to Israel and have as much of a connection to it as Santa Claus has to the Galapagos Islands. By which I mean none whatsoever.

It is funny how, in your post just before this one, you scold someone for what you (quite mistakenly) perceive as them blurring the line between Zionists and Jews, and now you are crying that, essentially, it is unfair of us to oppose Zionism because Zionism = Jewish right to self-determination, and opposing that would be unfair.
The truth, of course, is that there is really no such thing as a "Jewish right to self-determination" because there is really no such thing as a "Jewish nation" (and when I say "nation" there, I don't mean it in the context of a nation-state).
So what you are talking about is the right of the Israeli Jews to self-determination of occupied land, and communists do not support the right of oppressor nations to self-determination.



no state should be established on an ethnic foundation

So a two-state solution, Jewish and Palestinian would also be a contradiction. Absolutely, and a reactionary one at that.



no state should be established on an ethnic foundation

In the event of the destruction of Israel what would happen to the Jewish people in Israel- approx 5 million or so? Would they not be victims of ethnic violence? Would not the old call of "driving the Jews into the sea." be heard again".So in the meantime, for fear that racist colonialists could potentially reap what they've sown some day, let's continue driving Palestinians into the sea. Is that your argument? Do you even have an argument?
Alternatively, how about Israeli Jews who would like equality and cultural autonomy following the defeat of Israel join the struggle now for a Palestinian workers state?



The trouble in this mess is that NO side comes out smelling of roses.
E.g.
"The Husseini clan led by Haj Amin El Husseini, the Grand Mufti. The Mufti and others convinced Palestinian Arabs that the Zionists were going to dispossess them of their lands by force, and spread false rumors that the Jews were going to desecrate the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Riots and pogroms were instigated in 1920, 1921 and 1929 resulting in deaths and injuries in Jaffa, Hebron, Jerusalem, Motza and elsewhere."
lol stupid Palestinians convincing other stupid Palestinians that the settlers were going to dispossess them of their land by force! :lol:
That turned out to be wrong, didn't it?

On a serious note, no one has suggested that one side comes out "smelling of roses". There is obviously a Palestinian bourgeoisie (albeit not at all on the same level as the Israeli one), and I seriously doubt anyone has ever denied that; it's often been quite willing to sell out the resistance and collaborate with the Zionists when the chance presents itself. But what is your point? If you actually have one, I would like to hear it.



The problem is we have tit-for-tat, eye for an eye all over the place and no reasonable solution is ever going to please anyone in particular.
:(These arguments you make are not even arguments; just nonsense and conjecture. Go back to the drawing board and think up something new.

[ComradeMan]

To deny the existence of the Jewish people is anti-Semitic (weren't you arguing that the Jews were a race somewher else?) - and it's historically unfair. You know full well that the history of the Jewish people is rather unique in that a people who were driven out of their own land by an aggressor yet nevertheless maintained their sense of identity and bonds despite geographical differences, persecution, holocausts and pogroms over nearly two thousand years.

If being Jewish were just a mere religious idea there would probably be no Jews any more- since when has it ever been an advantage to be Jewish since the diaspora? People don't cling on to something that you seemed to suggest is as valid as Santa Claus in the Galapagos islands.


To compare speaking of the Jewish people as the same as saying redheads or Jehova's witnesses is the most ridiculous thing I have seen on this forum yet.

I couldn't care less that your grandparents spoke Yiddish or not, that does not make you some arbiter on all matters Jewish, Israeli and anti-/pro-Zionism or even post-Zionism- I'm only saying this because you seem to justify your posts on things Zionistic with this comment quite a lot? What's the matter? Feeling guilty about denying the Jewish people a right to even call themselves a people so you justify it by being Jewish yourself? Come on....!

You also seem to miss the point that only about 40% of Israel's Jewish population is Ashkenazi and that there have been Jewish people in the region since time immemorial. You also seem to omit that Jerusalem was a majority (slight) Jewish city at one point pre-foundation of Israel.

As for the grand Mufti, he was a Nazi sympathiser and collaborator and through his actions may or may not have contributed to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's also not forget Hamas with the basic principles declaredly anti-Semitic and founded on that garbage the "Protocols of the Elders of Sion"- vehemently racist and aggressive.

Alternatively, how about Israeli Jews who would like equality and cultural autonomy following the defeat of Israel join the struggle now for a Palestinian workers state?

For a start the Palestinian struggle is not about a worker's state it is an ethno-religious conflict and the irony in your statement is that a Palestinian state would also be founded on ethnic grounds wouldn't it? You are just reversing the system.

If we have a population which is roughly equal then they must both learn to get on with each other and a secular state must be created. Like I said before, I think there is not much chance of that happening- even the nomenclature "Israel" or "Palestine" is never going to sit well with one or other group.

NO ONE IS DEFENDING THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT(S), THE IRGUN OR THE EXCESSES BY THE COLONISTS SUCH AS THE RECENT ATTACK ON A MOSQUE BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO SAY THAT THE JEWISH PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO SOME SELF-DETERMINATION IS ALSO UNFAIR AND ANTI-SEMITIC

[9]

^I don't think I could possibly even begin to respond to any of your despicable ZIonist propaganda right now without saying something to get myself suspended

[Le Libérer]

LOL. You were the one who started debating that with your ridiculous assertion that Americans "support Israel over Palestine... [because] it will get them into Heaven". That you are accusing me of distracting from the topic now certainly says something about you.



Do they happen along that verse in Genesis and suddenly think, "Wow! I should support Israel!" or have they already decided on support for Israel and trawl through the Bible for things to justify it with? Those two are very different things.

Seeing you have already said your were just guessing as to the fundamental teachings of Protestantism, and therefore lack a few basic doctrines, I see no reason to waste my time debating you until you make the effort to catch up. I'm not here to teach you anything, outside the learning forum.

Unless you are willing to learn a few basic principles on the subject, I wont be engaging you on this subject. And really, you havent offered nothing constructive to this thread , but thats how you roll isnt it, taunt a valid point to get a reaction, and not really add anything valid to the debate. Educate yourself first on the subject, then maybe I may respond.

[Random Precision]

If the issue is a literal interpretation of the Bible (and hence of the Book of Revelation), take a look at the findings of this survey:


While a large majority of Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, the various Christian traditions are divided over whether or not the Bible should be interpreted literally, word for word. For example, a majority of members of historically black (62%) and evangelical (59%) Protestant churches say the Bible should be interpreted literally. By comparison, mainline Protestants, Catholics and Mormons are more likely to say the Bible, though the word of God, should not be interpreted literally.

Only 33% of Protestants see the Bible as the inerrant word of God, to be taken word for word. 60% of Baptists, 27% of Methodists, 30% of Lutherans, 25% pf Presbyterians, 70% of Pentecostals, 13% of Episcopalians, 18% of Congregationalists, and 49% of non-denominational Protestants. Only 23% of Catholics see the Bible this way.

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf


Unless you are willing to learn a few basic principles on the subject, I wont be engaging you on this subject. And really, you havent offered nothing constructive to this thread , but thats how you roll isnt it, taunt a valid point to get a reaction, and not really add anything valid to the debate. Educate yourself first on the subject, then maybe I may respond.

What I have learned on this subject has been from living among religious people in America. I find that people who support Israel do so much more because of portrayals of the conflict that favor Israel coming from either the media or directly from the Zionist movement, which dominates that discourse in this country. Support for Israel based on an expectation of literal fulfillment of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation is something that I have never run across personally, though it is out there. I think it is unfair to paint all Americans as supporting Israel for that reason.

I am not "taunting" you now or at any other point, I was just challenging a point of view that seems to me blatantly wrong. I believe this is acceptable on a discussion forum. You seem to be very afraid of having anything you say challenged though, whether about the running of the site or in the rare political post you make.

And as I said, if you want to prove your point, it is up to you to provide the evidence that backs it up.

[9]

To deny the existence of the Jewish people is anti-Semitic (weren't you arguing that the Jews were a race somewher else?) - and it's historically unfair. You know full well that the history of the Jewish people is rather unique in that a people who were driven out of their own land by an aggressor yet nevertheless maintained their sense of identity and bonds despite geographical differences, persecution, holocausts and pogroms over nearly two thousand years.

If being Jewish were just a mere religious idea there would probably be no Jews any more- since when has it ever been an advantage to be Jewish since the diaspora? People don't cling on to something that you seemed to suggest is as valid as Santa Claus in the Galapagos islands.


To compare speaking of the Jewish people as the same as saying redheads or Jehova's witnesses is the most ridiculous thing I have seen on this forum yet.

I couldn't care less that your grandparents spoke Yiddish or not, that does not make you some arbiter on all matters Jewish, Israeli and anti-/pro-Zionism or even post-Zionism- I'm only saying this because you seem to justify your posts on things Zionistic with this comment quite a lot? What's the matter? Feeling guilty about denying the Jewish people a right to even call themselves a people so you justify it by being Jewish yourself? Come on....!

You also seem to miss the point that only about 40% of Israel's Jewish population is Ashkenazi and that there have been Jewish people in the region since time immemorial. You also seem to omit that Jerusalem was a majority (slight) Jewish city at one point pre-foundation of Israel.

As for the grand Mufti, he was a Nazi sympathiser and collaborator and through his actions may or may not have contributed to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's also not forget Hamas with the basic principles declaredly anti-Semitic and founded on that garbage the "Protocols of the Elders of Sion"- vehemently racist and aggressive.

Alternatively, how about Israeli Jews who would like equality and cultural autonomy following the defeat of Israel join the struggle now for a Palestinian workers state?

For a start the Palestinian struggle is not about a worker's state it is an ethno-religious conflict and the irony in your statement is that a Palestinian state would also be founded on ethnic grounds wouldn't it? You are just reversing the system.

If we have a population which is roughly equal then they must both learn to get on with each other and a secular state must be created. Like I said before, I think there is not much chance of that happening- even the nomenclature "Israel" or "Palestine" is never going to sit well with one or other group.

NO ONE IS DEFENDING THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT(S), THE IRGUN OR THE EXCESSES BY THE COLONISTS SUCH AS THE RECENT ATTACK ON A MOSQUE BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO SAY THAT THE JEWISH PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO SOME SELF-DETERMINATION IS ALSO UNFAIR AND ANTI-SEMITIC



Okay, so let's see whose position - between the two of us - jives most with the anti-Semitic views of the German Zionists and the Nazis:



Originally Posted by Lenni Brenner
The London proceedings were typical of all further ZVfD behaviour. In 1937, after leaving Berlin for America, Rabbi Joachim Prinz wrote of his experiences in Germany and alluded to a memorandum which, it is now known, was sent to the Nazi Party by the ZVfD on 21 June 1933. Prinz’s article candidly describes the Zionist mood in the first months of 1933:



Originally Posted by the Prinz
Everyone in Germany knew that only the Zionists could responsibly represent the Jews in dealings with the Nazi government. We all felt sure that one day the government would arrange a round table conference with the Jews, at which – after the riots and atrocities of the revolution had passed – the new status of German Jewry could be considered. The government announced very solemnly that there was no country in the world which tried to solve the Jewish problem as seriously as did Germany. Solution of the Jewish question? It was our Zionist dream! We never denied the existence of the Jewish question! Dissimilation? It was our own appeal! ... In a statement notable for its pride and dignity, we called for a conference. [8] (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch05.htm#n8) The document remained buried until 1962, when it was finally printed, in German, in Israel. “Pride” and “dignity” are words open to interpretation but, it is safe to say, there was not one word that could be so construed today. This extraordinary memorandum demands extensive quotation. The Nazis were asked, very politely:



Originally Posted by the ZVfD
May we therefore be permitted to present our views, which, in our opinion, make possible a solution in keeping with the principles of the new German State of National Awakening and which at the same time might signify for Jews a new ordering of the conditions of their existence ... Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition ...
... an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural, and moral renewal of Jewry ... a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life ...
On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible ... Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group ...
... fidelity to their own kind and their own culture gives Jews the inner strength that prevents insult to the respect for the national sentiments and the imponderables of German nationality; and rootedness in one’s own spirituality protects the Jew from becoming the rootless critic of the national foundations of German essence. The national distancing which the state desires would thus be brought about easily as the result of an organic development.
Thus, a self-conscious Jewry here described, in whose name we speak, can find a place in the structure of the German state, because it is inwardly unembarrassed, free from the resentment which assimilated Jews must feel at the determination that they belong to Jewry, to the Jewish race and past. We believe in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a group-conscious Jewry and the German state ...
For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question no sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples, and at the present moment especially the German people. But wait, there's more:



Originally Posted by Lenni Brenner
Racism was now triumphant and the ZVfD ran with the winner. The talk of blut began to take hold with a statement by Blumenfeld in April 1933 that the Jews had previously been masking their natural blood-sanctioned apartness from the real Germans, but it reached Wagnerian proportions in the 4 August Rundschau with a long essay, “Rasse als Kulturfaktor”, which pondered on the intellectual implications for Jews of the Nazi victory. It argued that Jews should not merely accept silently the dictates of their new masters; they, too, had to realise that race separation was wholly to the good:
We who live here as a “foreign race” have to respect racial consciousness and the racial interest of the German people absolutely. This however does not preclude a peaceful living together of people of different racial membership. The smaller the possibility of an undesirable mixture, so much less is there need for “racial protection” ... There are differentiations that in the last analysis have their root in ancestry. Only rationalist newspapers who have lost feeling for the deeper reasons and profundities of the soul, and for the origins of communal consciousness, could put aside ancestry as simply in the realm of “natural history”.
In the past, the paper continued, it had been hard to get Jews to have an objective evaluation of racism. But now was the time, indeed past time, for a bit of “quiet evaluation”: “Race is undoubtedly a very important, yes, decisive momentum. Out of "blood and soil" really is determined the being of a people and their achievements.” Jews would have to make good for “the last generations when Jewish racial consciousness was largely neglected. [source] (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch05.htm)

You will also be interested - assuming you are not as hostile to learning as you appear from your comments in this thread - in reading the following article by Schlomo Sand entitled "Israel Deliberately Forgets it's History": http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel

Sand, who is a professor of history at Tel Aviv University, wrote a book recently entitled "The Invention of the Jewish People" which you should also really read. Maybe after you've bothered to inform yourself about what you're talking about you will be less eager to slander as "anti-Semites" Jews who dispute anti-Semitic myths. Sound good?

[ComradeMan]

^I don't think I could possibly even begin to respond to any of your despicable ZIonist propaganda right now without saying something to get myself suspended

You don't seem to get the point. My only point is this whole situation is a mess from bottom to top and the ONLY solution which is a reasonable solution and that would go some measure to safeguard the lives and rights of millions of people is sadly the only solution that NO ONE will probably want- a secular state of Israel with Jerusalem an international city and recognition from the Arab countries. These selfsame countries who refuse to enter into dialogue with the "Zionist entity" yet very often treat the Palestinians who live in their "realms" as second class citizens themselves- just adding even more to the woeful predicament of the Palestinians and the hypocrisy of certain members of the Arab league.

despicable ZIonist propaganda

As for despicable Zionist propaganda? Well, that's a laugh because I'm sure they'd absolutely love my point of view in the Knesset. :) I am not saying the Jewish people are the only people who have any right to live in Israel but I am saying that the Jewish people do have a right to self-determination.

But at the same time to deny the mere existence of a Jewish people is the classic ploy of anti-Semites. You should know, with your background, that the Jewish people are an ethno-religious group and it has been up until recent secular times, impossible to separate the two.

From a working paper on the EU definition of anti-Semitism.

"Denying the Jewish people their right to self* determination..."

Anyway, there is once again talk in more moderate circles in Israel of "Post-Zionism" and that the whole Zionism debate is unproductive. What people have to do now is take the situation as is and try to work out the most workable and reasonable plan for the future.

It's all very well "Shouting down with Israel" and burning flags, spewing out anti-Semitic hatred under the guise of "anti-Zionism" and all of that but what the people of that troubled land need is a voice of reason.

[ZeroNowhere]

To deny the existence of the Jewish people is anti-Semitic (weren't you arguing that the Jews were a race somewher else?) - and it's historically unfair.I'm sorry, but how the hell can you be anti-Semitic if you deny the existence of a Jewish race?

[9]

From a working paper on the EU definition of anti-Semitism.

"Denying the Jewish people their right to self* determination..."


Oh, well that settles it; EU - beacon of communist thought. Here is a lovely resource you can use to keep an eye on all of us: http://www.masada2000.org/shit-list.html



Anyway, there is once again talk in more moderate circles in Israel of "Post-Zionism" and that the whole Zionism debate is unproductive. What people have to do now is take the situation as is and try to work out the most workable and reasonable plan for the future.
Yes! Because what's more revolutionary than reformism?



It's all very well "Shouting down with Israel" and burning flags, spewing out anti-Semitic hatred under the guise of "anti-Zionism" and all of that...You really are disgusting.

[ComradeMan]

I'm sorry, but how the hell can you be anti-Semitic if you deny the existence of a Jewish race?

Denying the existence of the Jewish people is deemed anti-Semitic.

[ZeroNowhere]

I deem that inane.

[ComradeMan]

Oh, well that settles it; EU - beacon of communist thought. Here is a lovely resource you can use to keep an eye on all of us: http://www.masada2000.org/shit-list.html

Yes! Because what's more revolutionary than reformism?

You really are disgusting.

Since when has being anti-Semitic or not necessarily been connected to communist thought?

Revolutions begin in the mind.

It's called the difference between being a sensationalist, war-mongerer with little or no practical care or theory for the well-being of human beings or perhaps taking the line of Nelson Mandela or even the Mahatma, that's what Israel needs now.

You could easily put Mandela's words to an Israeli situation.

"Tonight I am reaching out to every single South African, black and white, from the very depths of my being. A white man, full of prejudice and hate, came to our country and committed a deed so foul that our whole nation now teeters on the brink of disaster. A white woman, of Afrikaner origin, risked her life so that we may know, and bring to justice, this assassin. The cold-blooded murder of Chris Hani has sent shock waves throughout the country and the world. ...Now is the time for all South Africans to stand together against those who, from any quarter, wish to destroy what Chris Hani gave his life for – the freedom of all of us."

If seeking a workable solution and peaceful solution is disgusting then I stand accused. And by the way, what's so revolutionary about armed struggles and slaughter- people have been doing it for millenia.

[Yehuda Stern]

I think Apikoros has been doing a great job demolishing CM's arguments. I'll just add a couple of factual points:


You know full well that the history of the Jewish people is rather unique in that a people who were driven out of their own land by an aggressor yet nevertheless maintained their sense of identity and bonds despite geographical differences, persecution, holocausts and pogroms over nearly two thousand years.
Those ideas are very common in Zionist propaganda, yet if we look at them closely, none are actually true. I will go one by one:

1. If the above description did fit the Jews (and not "the Jewish people", which is a Zionist / anti-Semitic invention), it would not make them unique: in fact, the Palestinian people is perfectly described by these words. They were driven out of their land by the Zionist aggressor, and despite being spread around the world, and despite being oppressed and facing pogroms everywhere (including in the Arab world), their national feelings are still very strong. Strong enough that they can spot pseudo-revolutionary Zionists like CM from miles away.

2. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand shows in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, the Jews were actually never expelled en masse from modern-day Palestine; in fact, only the ruling class was expelled as punishment for the Bar Kochba revolt. This lie is useful to the Zionists, though, because it allows them to claim that they are the descendants of the ancient Jews rather than the Palestinians, who seem like much more likely candidates.

3. The Jews hardly remained united. Different Jewish communities were often disconnected and developed very different customs, often very similar to those of the people amongst which they lived, a fact which causes a lot of friction in Israel to this day.


As for the grand Mufti, he was a Nazi sympathiser and collaborator and through his actions may or may not have contributed to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's also not forget Hamas with the basic principles declaredly anti-Semitic and founded on that garbage the "Protocols of the Elders of Sion"- vehemently racist and aggressive.Am I to understand that you blame the Mufti and Hamas for Zionist aggression? Do you also blame rape victims for what they went through because their clothes were too revealing etc.?

To the point, yes, the Mufti was pro-Nazi, just like all reactionaries in the 1930s - including the Zionists. Tom Segev wrote a fantastic book called The Seventh Million which deals with the Zionists' attitude to the Nazis and, at first, with their actual ties to the Nazis - the aid they gave them in breaking the anti-Nazi boycott, for example, or the fact that Zionist parties were allowed to function freely in Nazi Germany much later than any other party.

What does this show? That the Mufti was a reactionary. But we already knew that. Arguments like this, in fact, serve only to support Zionism and blame the Palestinians for what has been done to them.

So is there anything anti-Semitic about opposing a Jewish state? As history has shown, the anti-Semites have in fact been the most stern supporters of Zionism, and this can be seen to this day in the case of the Christian Zionists who are rabid anti-Semites.

Also, the claim that being for a Palestinian state is just as bad as being for a Jewish one is ridiculous. The Palestinian state will be liberating, and will be brought to life by the democratic and socialist revolution of the Arab workers; the Zionist state was brought to life through pogroms and oppression by murderous colonialists. Shame that a person can even suggest that the two are the same and still be called a leftist.


Anyway, there is once again talk in more moderate circles in Israel of "Post-Zionism" and that the whole Zionism debate is unproductive.Hah, do you know the numbers we're talking about? Can you find even a single survey which shows that there is even a meaningful percentage of Israeli Jews who believe in even post-Zionism, which is basically the belief that Zionist oppression was justified in the past, but isn't really necessary anymore? Even this very reactionary position is seen as extreme left compared to the opinions of mainstream Israelis!


Denying the existence of the Jewish people is deemed anti-Semitic.

Only by Zionists like yourself.

Are you quoting Nelson Mandela? I doubt anyone here but you approves of him. The Zionists like him because his role in South Africa was to make sure that the system which replaced Apartheid kept the oppressive capitalist state intact and kept power in the hands of the whites, while taking away some of the more blunt methods of legal oppression. Is this capitalist, pro-imperialist politician the person you bring as a model?

[ComradeMan]

I deem that inane.

There are two lines you can take if you want to actively destroy a people, you can either single them out as a race and destroy them, as in the Shoah, or you can simply deny that they even exist and thus defend yourself from an perception of racism by not acknowledging that there be any race in the first place. Cunning eh?

It seems to be the Jews are only allowed to be a race or a people when they are to be murdered, like in the Entebbe incident when the hostages were conveniently separated into "Jews" and "gentiles".

[Yehuda Stern]

Do you even realize how stupid you sound? Did anyone here talk about destroying a people? Do you really thing that saying that the Jews are not a people means you want to destroy them? Do you not know that the Nazis actually did say that all Jews are a people, and that was part of their argument for why they must be destroyed?

And yes, Jews and non-Jews were separated in Entebe - by Idi Amin who, moments earlier, was a pro-Zionist. This is just more proof that the equation Pro-Zionism = Anti-Semitism holds whenever one discusses modern day supporters of Israel.

[ComradeMan]

If the above description did fit the Jews (and not "the Jewish people", which is a Zionist / anti-Semitic invention), it would not make them unique: in fact, the Palestinian people is perfectly described by these words. They were driven out of their land by the Zionist aggressor, and despite being spread around the world, and despite being oppressed and facing pogroms everywhere (including in the Arab world), their national feelings are still very strong. Strong enough that they can spot pseudo-revolutionary Zionists like CM from miles away.

Good point but the problem is you use that which you deny to define something else. The Jewish people is an invention, so who were the people shoved in the ovens then? Pretend Jews?

As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand shows in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, the Jews were actually never expelled en masse from modern-day Palestine; in fact, only the ruling class was expelled as punishment for the Bar Kochba revolt. This lie is useful to the Zionists, though, because it allows them to claim that they are the descendants of the ancient Jews rather than the Palestinians, who seem like much more likely candidates.

Shlomo Sand has been ridiculed at academic level throughout the world-but you won't accept that because anyone who doesn't believe him is de facto a Zionist.

Sand's bases are about as scientific as those of British Israelitism. Leaving aside historiography, when interviewed on British television Sand could not seem to answer a simple non-religious question as to why empirical genetic DNA evidence suggested that the Jewish peoples were indeed related. DNA samples that were taken from Jewish groups dispersed throughout Europe, America, the Middle East, Africa and India. Added to which no serious Jewish scholar has ever spoken about a "pure" Jewish race in the firstplace, it comes through the mother afterall. :)

The Jews hardly remained united. Different Jewish communities were often disconnected and developed very different customs, often very similar to those of the people amongst which they lived, a fact which causes a lot of friction in Israel to this day.

Yes true, but at the same time if one were to be a stranger during Passover, or on Shabbat where would one be invited? No sense of community there I suppose. There is friction between different groups in every nation, northern Italians and southern Italians quite often hate each other but most normal people consider themselves to be Italian.

Am I to understand that you blame the Mufti and Hamas for Zionist aggression? Do you also blame rape victims for what they went through because their clothes were too revealing etc.?

No, I blame all of them from being part of the aggression. Your second point is a non sequitur.

To the point, yes, the Mufti was pro-Nazi, just like all reactionaries in the 1930s - including the Zionists. Tom Segev wrote a fantastic book called The Seventh Million which deals with the Zionists' attitude to the Nazis and, at first, with their actual ties to the Nazis - the aid they gave them in breaking the anti-Nazi boycott, for example, or the fact that Zionist parties were allowed to function freely in Nazi Germany much later than any other party.

Where did you get this rubbish from? "Jew Watch". Tom Segev has also been widely discredited for the basic factual inaccuracies of his work, especially about the Six Days War.


So is there anything anti-Semitic about opposing a Jewish state? As history has shown, the anti-Semites have in fact been the most stern supporters of Zionism, and this can be seen to this day in the case of the Christian Zionists who are rabid anti-Semites.

More stuff worthy of "Jew Watch". I keep repeating the point about a secular state- that, in no way supports a Jewish state nor does it eschew the complete and utter destruction of Israel.

Also, the claim that being for a Palestinian state is just as bad as being for a Jewish one is ridiculous. The Palestinian state will be liberating, and will be brought to life by the democratic and socialist revolution of the Arab workers;

How do you know? Where is your evidence for that? Hamas certainly haven't shown much love for the workers' cause.

the Zionist state was brought to life through pogroms and oppression by murderous colonialists. Shame that a person can even suggest that the two are the same and still be called a leftist.

Only? No one is denying the wrongs of the past, but the past is past. Hell, Zionists are always being accused of using the Holocaust as a way to justify what they do too. And anyway, I never said I supported the Zionist state, I have stated what I support.


Hah, do you know the numbers we're talking about? Can you find even a single survey which shows that there is even a meaningful percentage of Israeli Jews who believe in even post-Zionism, which is basically the belief that Zionist oppression was justified in the past, but isn't really necessary anymore? Even this very reactionary position is seen as extreme left compared to the opinions of mainstream Israelis!

Not really. Can you find my a meaningful survey that shows what all people in Israel think- your mainstream Israelis?

Are you quoting Nelson Mandela? I doubt anyone here but you approves of him. The Zionists like him because his role in South Africa was to make sure that the system which replaced Apartheid kept the oppressive capitalist state intact and kept power in the hands of the whites, while taking away some of the more blunt methods of legal oppression. Is this capitalist, pro-imperialist politician the person you bring as a model.

Your views would make for an interesting speech at COSATU, the South African Communist Party and the ANC.

LOL!!! What do you want, streets running with blood. Zimbabwe? Oh, I suppose we can support Mugabe however, afterall Chavez does.


THE FIRST VICTIM OF ANY WAR IS THE TRUTH, YOU HAVE TO SIFT CAREFULLY THROUGH THE LIES OF THE "VICTORS" AND THE LIES OF THE "VANQUISHED". TAKING POLARISED "GOOD" GUYS AND "BAD" GUYS STANCES DOESN'T GET ANYONE ANYWHERE.

[ComradeMan]

If the best you can come up with is Schlomo Sand... it doesn't say much.
:D

[Yehuda Stern]

Tell me, what sort of idiot are you? Shlomo Sand and Tom Segev have only been "discredited" in the eyes of Zionists like you because they challenge the myths you need to defend your state. No Zionist has been able to seriously disprove their claims. If Sand couldn't answer that "question", it's because there is no answer - an Israeli professor of genetics, Raphael Falk, has shown in his recent work that no such blood connection between Jews exists.


who were the people shoved in the ovens then? Pretend Jews?

Are you being stupid on purpose? The Jewish people is an invention, not Jews. Are you really that desperate?



Not really. Can you find my a meaningful survey that shows what all people in Israel think- your mainstream Israelis?

Why yes, I can (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3248693,00.html). Can you?



Your views would make for an interesting speech at COSATU, the South African Communist Party and the ANC.

It would, because these parties actually helped create the state which exists in SA today, something that you would know if you weren't a hopelessly ignorant Zionist.

[Le Libérer]

What I have learned on this subject has been from living among religious people in America.


Seeing you need a lesson in Protestantism and I am the nicest person on revleft, I'll give you a short summary. I do recommend you take the time to teach yourself these things in the future. I'm very happy you build your argument on "being around Americans who are Christians, but to debate, you may need more than personal experience. If that were the case, the fact I am Jewish, was raised Protestant, converted to Catholicism, (and worked for several years in the Diocese Tribunal specifically in Canon Law) and hold 2 minors in comparative religion and philosophy would trump "personal experience".


Only 33% of Protestants see the Bible as the inerrant word of God, to be taken word for word. 60% of Baptists, 27% of Methodists, 30% of Lutherans, 25% pf Presbyterians, 70% of Pentecostals, 13% of Episcopalians, 18% of Congregationalists, and 49% of non-denominational Protestants. Only 23% of Catholics see the Bible this way.You do realize of the groups you listed here, that Baptists (60%, Penetecostals (70%), and especially non-denominational Protestants (49%) are all, always evangelical, no exceptions. In fact all 3 sects adhere to the "Rapture" doctrine.


Do they happen along that verse in Genesis and suddenly think, "Wow! I should support Israel!" or have they already decided on support for Israel and trawl through the Bible for things to justify it with? Those two are very different things.Still the breakdown between the Protestant Sects is irrelevant to the doctrine of Christian Zionism. And there are those in all branches of Protestantism who adhere to the doctrine of Dispensationalism. John Nelson Darby was the forerunner to this doctrine, during the 1800s.

To break it down, as to why most Protestants adhere to this beliefs, Dispensationalism encompassed most of the US Protestant beliefs. Christian Zionism existed before Darby. Some Christian Zionists are not dispensationalists, but base their Christian Zionism on covenantal theology (which is pure Catholicism) and is a prominent feature in Protestant theology, especially in churches holding a Calvinist view of theology such as the Reformed churches and Presbyterian churches and,some Methodist churches.

Dispensationalism states that God has tried mankind with successive dispensations (these may be different in different versions) and mankind has failed all the tests. This is why I have said, that the base of the doctrines for Christian Zionism arent just with the evangelicals. All protestants believe in dispensationism. The one constant is "restoration of Israel" in the Old testament, is the physical return of the Jews to their homeland and reestablishment of a Jewish commonwealth. , The dispensationalist view of the Bible looks forward to Jesus’ second coming, an event only possible, it is believed, when the state of Israel reclaims its ancient borders with an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.

References to Israel and House of Jacob and my people in prophesy,now have been changed not to refer to the Jews, but to refer to Christians. They have adopted what was meant for the Jews to include themselves, and in the evangelical churches, Jews can be included, only if they convert to Christianity.

There are few scriptures that are sited for this, but its been thru dispensation, protestants adhere to these beliefs and its engrained into them thru indoctrination and fear. So to give you a list bible verses to examine so you can judge if they are correct or not, will keep one searching for eternity or until Christs return(which ever comes first) If you are interested enough you can search them out.

I hold to my opinion, that American Christians (77% (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm)) of the population) are more swayed by religion than by racism as to why they side with Israel against Palestine. They are looking out for their own spiritual asses, seeing they believe its all going to be theirs in the end.

Racism is secondary.

[ComradeMan]

For a start, when people resort to attacks ad hominem it shows they are running out of arguments or things to say.

Are you being stupid on purpose? The Jewish people is an invention, not Jews. Are you really that desperate?

Are you really so obtuse not to see the blatant fallacy in acknowledging that there are Jews but denying the existence of the Jewish people. Can you actually come up with stuff that doesn't come from anti-Semitic trashsites like Jew Watch? Some of th material I have seen come out of you two is worthy of Stormfront.

As for Schlomo, he was challenged to defend his denial of the existence of a Jewish people based on genetic research, never heard of the Cohen Model Haplotype , Y Chromosome Aaron, etc etc. That's science, although I suppose you will write this off as some weird zionist plot too. Schlomo could not defend his position on anything, and the scientific argument demolished his whole theory.

But then you are not going to credit anyone who does not agree with him, and ultimately you. Same sort of mentality you accuse the ultra-Zionists of.

You see if you were actually bothered about the future of the working classes of Israel/Palestine regardless of religion, ethnicity etc you would firstly direct your critique at the government of Israel and certain Palestinian groups such as Hamas instead of inventing a convenient "zionism" as the scapegoat for all the ills of the region in the year 2009, going on 2010.

Instead of sitting here and rattling sabres, making fine pronouncements about your enemy etc you might think of putting some constructive ideas together. I notice, neither of you seems to want to face the problem of 5 million or so Jewish Israelis, around half of the population of the region, you skirt round the issue of the Jews that have always lived in the region and you fail to mention the atmosphere of paranoia that is created largely by the vile anti-Semitism that spews forth from the surrounding countries on an official basis.

In one moment you talk about Jews, then you deny there be such a thing as the Jewish people, then you shift to Zionists etc etc. It seems you're not actually sure who or what to target- or perhaps you don't care.

I try to look at things pragmatically. I would be the first to acknowledge the wrongs done to the Palestinians but wrongs have been done to Israeli Jews and if all people do is sit around vindicating the errors of the past they are never going to get anywhere.

Where the hell will your workers state be if the Palestinians inherit some devasted and war torn land in the Middle East with no oil either. I notice neither of you actually state what your positive solution would be or how you would go about it. Like the Mohatma said, in a world of an eye for an eye we'll all be blind.

What makes me laugh is your attacking someone who was merely trying to point out the problem with an earlier poster's noble position that in the case of Israel it is a no win situation whatever way around other than the one reasonable solution that no one wants. That was all.

Saying you are not anti-Semitic and then denying the very idea of a Jewish people and then hiding by behind the old "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm anti-Zionist- hell, some of my best friends/grandparents/etc are Jews" is an old ploy and transparent too.

And to be quite honest with you, as far as I am concerned human life comes first and we can worry about ideologies and socio-economic policy after- but you're not going to have much of a workers state with everyone dead are you? Is that a hard concept to grasp?

As for the South African issue, well you would know how well-respected Nelson Mandela is and that he could practically walk down any street in any place in South Africa and have the love and respect of most of the people, even hardened Afrikaners. He doesn't get called Madiba for nothing nor is he acclaimed around the world for nothing. I challenge you to take your statements up with COSATU and the ANC and the SACP re Mandela.

But then, I am just an ignorant "zionist", who proposes a secular state of Israel with land retribution, Jerusalem an international city and equal rights for all- funny kind of zionism to me. But whatever, I'd rather be how I am than a schmuck.:)

[cska]

Yes, white Americans (and the same probably applies to white Europeans) are more inclined to look at Israel as an island of civilization amongst brown-skinned barbaric Arabs. No, I am not making this up, people have actually called Palestinians barbarians when debating the Israeli situation with me. Not that these people are overtly racist, but it does play a big part in their support of Israeli actions.

[black_tambourine]

Yes, white Americans (and the same probably applies to white Europeans) are more inclined to look at Israel as an island of civilization amongst brown-skinned barbaric Arabs. No, I am not making this up, people have actually called Palestinians barbarians when debating the Israeli situation with me. Not that these people are overtly racist, but it does play a big part in their support of Israeli actions.

What you're describing isn't uncommon at all. Palestinians are one of the few groups who are still fair game for open racism in the West. Even supposedly articulate and liberal supporters of Israel will go frothing at the mouth about how Palestinians are atavistic medieval scum and "have no culture" and would have just wasted the land that the Zionists took from them, since they are too degenerate to do things like adopt proper agricultural techniques.

[Revy]

Whether or not Jews are white, black, green or lollipop-coloured, it is still abhorrent for a migrant group to claim an inhabitated land to establish a state for that migrant group without any concerns for the people already living there since generations.

Jews should have the right to live in Palestine as they should have a right to live everywhere else as well, but no state should be established on an ethnic foundation. If there should be governments, they should be established for all the people, not just a select few.

I agree with you but the problem is impossible, the devil is in the detail.

no state should be established on an ethnic foundation

So the Jewish people have no right to their own self-determination? It's a bit tricky when the rights to self-determination of nearly all other groups are supported around the world are.


I support a one-state solution. And no, it should not be established on an ethnic, religious, cultural or linguistic foundation at all. The task for the Israelis and Palestinians should be establishing a state which meets their needs for mutual peace.

Somehow, there is supposedly this necessity of a "Jewish state". That is not 21st century thinking there. That's 19th century thinking being pushed in a period where multiculturalism, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity are considered part and parcel of many countries' conception of themselves. In many ways, most countries of the world are no longer divided in substance by anything but their geography and political systems.

A revolutionary solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be to put in place a secular, socialist, democratically organized community free from all the toxic ethno-nationalism, be it Zionist or Arab in nature.

[BobKKKindle$]

So the Jewish people have no right to their own self-determination? It's a bit tricky when the rights to self-determination of nearly all other groups are supported around the world are.There seems to be a lot of confusion here (and amongst leftists in general) about the meaning of a right to self-determination. Lenin did not oppose British colonialism in Ireland or Russia's role as a prison-house of nations because he thought that that the existence of national oppression in each case constituted the denial of a right to self-determination, in the sense of an abstract right that applies equally to all, divorced from material and historical conditions. The idea that individuals or communities have rights of any kind that can be used to impose moral claims on others is an idea that forms the basis of liberalism, and not Marxism - I don't think this is the place to go into it but some of you will know that there is a long-standing debate within the Marxist tradition and contemporary Marxism about whether Marx had a concept of justice and whether he condemned capitalism on the grounds that it violates the rights of workers, as distinct from other kinds of normative critique, but what we should be able to agree on (regardless of our personal views on this dispute, which is important and interesting) is that Marx's (and Marxism's) critique of liberalism is centered around the recognition that liberalism deals in abstractions, and not the world as it is, that is, with concrete phenomena, whereas Marxism strives to root itself in concrete analysis. Far from being abstract, Lenin's (and Marx's) position on the national question was determined by one concern and one concern only, a concern that is rooted in the interests of a particular class, in both oppressed and oppressor nations, and rooted in the conditions of the imperialist epoch of capitalism - namely, what is most likely to advance the cause of the international proletariat and bring the world closer to socialist revolution*.

Taking this as our premise, it should be clear that there is nothing wrong or inconsistent about being oppossed to Israel's right to exist as long as we can show that the initial creation of Israel and its current existence is not favorable for the interests of the international working class. If you accept that there is such a thing as an abstract and absolute right to self-determination then you are instantly faced with the dilemma of who should be considered a nation and who should not (this being the primary subject of Stalin's writings on the national question) and you also find yourself siding with imperialist powers when it appears that their so-called sovereignty is being threatened (the concept of sovereignty being the ultimate outcome of having an abstract and liberal conception of the national question) as with pseudo-leftists who defend Israel, or leftists who accepted Kosovo's secession from Serbia, despite Kosovo being an agent of US imperialism, and its secession therefore allowing for greater imperialist penetration in the Balkans.

Lenin, describing Marx's and his own views on the need for a concrete stance on the national question, orientated towards the proletariat, not rooted in liberal abstractions:

"Marx demanded the separation of Ireland from Britain “although after the separation there may come federation”, demanding it, not from the standpoint of the petty-bourgeois Utopia of a peaceful capitalism, or from considerations of “justice for Ireland”, but from the standpoint of the interests of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat of the oppressor, i.e., British, nation against capitalism"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/oct/16.htm

*By the same token, Marxists oppose censorship, not because we think that censorship violates some abstract right to freedom of speech, but because censorship is hostile to the interests of the working class. Furthermore, we do not think there is anything wrong with the right to vote being denied to former members of the bourgeoisie after a socialist revolution, or peasants receiving less representation than workers, because we have no obligations towards the idealist logic of liberalism - our central criterion as far as moral decision-making is concerned is what will advance socialism, which, given that the working class is the sole agent capable of introducing a socialist society, means what serves the interests of the working class.


a secular state of Israel with land retribution, Jerusalem an international city and equal rights for allAn Israel with equal rights for all is a contradiction in terms, because Israel's character as a Jewish state depends on the Arab population (by which I mean those Arabs who are Israeli citizens) being discriminated against - this discrimination being both ongoing (Arabs being denied access to certain kinds of employment, zoning laws preventing the expansion of Arab communities, for example) and in the form of specific decisions, as when multiple Arab parties were banned after having won seats in the legislative chamber. The growth of the Arab population as a proportion of the total means that the Israeli state is facing growing pressures to defend the position of the Jewish majority, and, assuming that Israel is not about to renounce its character as a Jewish state, or allow the Arab population to transform it through the political process, this means that there may be a shift from the current system of semi-hidden apartheid to a more open form of apartheid, with the Arab population being deprived of the small number of rights it currently has, whilst still being used as a source of cheap labour.

[ComradeMan]

The Human Condition and BobKindles have summed up my position on the matter. I no more support the Zionists expansion than I do the prospect of a Hamas led (non-secular) Islamic State- neither are desirable from a socialist point of view. We must learn to start thinking more out of the box here and we cannot continue to view things on the lines of my enemy's enemy is my friend, or good guys and bad guys.

My position is quite clear, although I repeat that I have little hope of it happening.
1, A secular state of Israel with equal rights for all and Jerusalem declared an international city.
2. The rights of all peoples, Jews, Muslims be the Palestinian or Bedouin, Christians, Druze or Bahai to be recognised and protected.
3. Localised, i.e. decentralised power, perhaps on a more federal system, that would allow each group its own level of autonomy and self-determination.

At the same time I maintain to deny the existence of the Jewish people, especially in the face of cold scientific evidence based on the genetic studies of peoples around the world who have kept their sense of Jewishness and to deny the right of the Jewish people a form of self-determination is anti-Semitic. This does not mean that I am some Ultra-Zionist who condones colonists invading mosques and vandalising it or driving innocent people from their land and homes or the morally undefendable actions of the Irgun and so on. Nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right.

[BobKKKindle$]

The Human Condition and BobKindles have summed up my position on the matterI'm not sure we do have the same position to be honest. I do not believe that there should be an Israeli state, and I reject the notion that denying Israel's right to exist is anti-semitic to any degree. I hold that the only conceivable solution to the oppression of the Palestinian people is a democratic and socialist state encompassing the whole of what is currently Israel and the Occupied Territories as part of a socialist federation of the Middle East, and in this respect I think we hold fundamentally different positions, as you seem to believe that there should be an Israeli state, despite the fact that Israel by its very nature cannot be anything other than an aggressive state based on racist oppression and the penetration of imperialism in the Middle East, even if Israel were to diminish its presence in Gaza and the West Bank. The reason I elaborated Lenin's position in my last post is that your entire argument (which is not actually an argument at all but a series of misleading justifications for Zionism, involving accusations of anti-semitism) has been based on the idea of the Jewish people and peoples in general having a right to self-determination, which is essentially a liberal view of the national question because it abstracts self-determination from the class interests of the proletariat and the conditions of the imperialist stage of capitalism. It is by having this liberal view that you can justify your support for Zionism because if you were forced to analyze Palestine and the national question in general from a working class standpoint you would be forced to acknowledge that the creation of Israel did not mark an advance for Jewish workers and certainly not non-Jewish workers, and that Israel's current role as an outpost of imperialism and militarism in the Middle East is not advantageous for workers either. You are apparently ignorant of the fact that Jewish people of a Marxist persuasion (for example, Tony Cliff) have frequently argued against Zionism not only on the grounds that it violates the interests of the Palestinian people but also because it effectively accepts that Jewish people can never live amongst other ethnic groups and that they therefore need an ethnically-defined state to protect themselves from anti-semitism - in other words, they recognized that Zionism accepts racism as a fact of life, instead of confronting it, which is what Marxists do. See the quote in Yehuda's signature for a example of this - in the Zionists' own words.

I support the resistance of the Palestinian people against Zionism even when this resistance is conducted through reactionary organizations such as Hamas and reject any suggestion that Hamas threatens the class interests of Gaza's workers in the same way or to the same degree as the Israeli state and the ongoing effects of the imperialist blockade.


At the same time I maintain to deny the existence of the Jewish people, especially in the face of cold scientific evidence based on the genetic studies of peoples around the world who have kept their sense of JewishnessYou presumably do not believe that Ethiopian Jews are part of "the Jewish people", then, given that your genetic definition of Jewishness is apparently based on Jews of European origin, or in some other way centered around genetics. The Chinese Jews of Kaifeng are not really Jewish either, I guess. Needless to say, I, like other users, do not believe that there is such a thing as the Jewish people at all, insofar as the category of "people" is ever useful in our understanding of the national question. There are lots of people who all identify as followers of the Jewish faith but this is where the links end, it seems, and this is confirmed by the fact, that, in addition to racism being directed against Arabs, Israeli society is also characterized by discrimination against those Jews of African and Middle Eastern descent.

So, please don't try and link our views. You are a Zionist, I am not. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your thanks from my last post. I don't know how you got the idea that we hold the same views.

[Devrim]

I wonder if the tendency for Americans to support Israel has something to do with racism against darker-skinned people. It is my perception that Jews of European descent, such as the people responsible for Israel's founding, have had an easier time passing off as "white" in most white Americans' eyes compared to Palestinians, which could lead to Americans feeling more sympathetic with the Israelis. I'm not saying that every Zionist or pro-Zionist is a white supremacist, but I feel that Americans would not feel so sorry for the Israelis if they were just another brown-skinned people.

I have always thought of Arabs, and other Middle Eastern peoples such as Persians, and Turks as being white. I am quite surprised that people in America don't look at it that way. What do you think about the Greeks?

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

1. There is no "logical fallacy" in recognizing that Jews exist but are not a people, just like Christians and Muslims exist but neither forms a people. You assume that Jews are a people, but never prove this assertion - that is the logical fallacy in this debate.

2. None of the material I mentioned comes from anti-Semitic "trashsites" but from well respected and well known Israeli scholars, who have never been discredited by anything but slander spread by pro-Zionist trolls like you.

3. The ISL has written many articles exposing the treacherous role of Hamas, and of course, exposing the lies and oppressive nature of the Zionist government and state. You, on the other hand, have made no real criticism of Israel, have in fact tried to whitewash left-wing Zionism from its role in the Nakba, and have tried to put all the blame on extremist Islamist groups - and when you did, you did not criticize them for betraying the Palestinian struggle but for engaging in it at all.

4. The ISL has also written time and time again about the issue of Israeli workers. That has nothing to do with the current debate, though, so this is just a transparent attempt to avoid answering the arguments that I have raised.

5. I'm not going to educate you on South Africa. If you don't know that Mandela was the leader of the ANC for decades and that the post-Apartheid governments have been ANC-SACP governments, then that's your problem.

That answers your blatant distortions and lies, and I'm not about to respond to your racist bullshit regarding Palestinians and the reactionary, Zionist claim that being anti-Zionist means that you are anti-Semitic - in fact, I have shown, along with others, that the opposite is the truth.

[ComradeMan]

You presumably do not believe that Ethiopian Jews are part of "the Jewish people", then, given that your genetic definition of Jewishness is apparently based on Jews of European origin, or in some other way centered around genetics.

No- because genetics is not the only argument, it is one of the arguments.

The Chinese Jews of Kaifeng are not really Jewish either, I guess. Needless to say, I, like other users, do not believe that there is such a thing as the Jewish people at all, insofar as the category of "people" is ever useful in our understanding of the national question. There are lots of people who all identify as followers of the Jewish faith but this is where the links end, it seems, and this is confirmed by the fact, that, in addition to racism being directed against Arabs, Israeli society is also characterized by discrimination against those Jews of African and Middle Eastern descent.

And that is wrong too. Not defending it either- never have done, never will.

A people is not defined by any one factor by a number of factors,
genetics, culture, language, tradition, geography and all peoples vary. You can't pick just one argument to prove a point but you may use arguments to demonstrate degrees of validity.

Going back to the genetics argument, if one can argue such a point it suggest all the more reason for unity in the area between Jews and Palestinians see below. In terms of the Jewish people, these factors plus the addition of religion, tradition and culture as well as the preservation of forms of the Hebrew language all go to argue the case for a Jewish people, who no one has ever claimed were 100% homogenous.

Apart from that if there is a claim that being Anti-Zionist is not being anti-Semitic then at the same time declaring the existence of the Jewish people is not de facto Zionism.

Taken from a quick wikipedia scan.
[/URL]

[URL="http://www.revleft.com/wiki/DNA"]Genetic (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Matrilineality) studies indicate various lineages found in modern Jewish populations, however, most of these populations share a lineage in common, traceable to an ancient population that underwent geographic branching and subsequent independent evolutions (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Evolution).[39] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-hammer-38) While DNA (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/DNA) tests have demonstrated inter-marriage in all of the various Jewish ethnic divisions (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions) over the last 3,000 years, it was substantially less than in other populations.[40] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-New_York_Times_Y_Chromosome-39) The findings lend support to traditional Jewish accounts accrediting their founding to exiled Israelite populations, and counters theories that many or most of the world's Jewish populations were founded entirely by local populations that adopted the Jewish faith, devoid of any actual Israelite genetic input.[40] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-New_York_Times_Y_Chromosome-39)[41] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-40)
DNA analysis further determined that modern Jews of the priesthood tribe—"Kohanim (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Kohen)"—share an ancestor dating back about 3,000 years.[42] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-hammer2-41) This result is consistent for all Jewish populations around the world.[42] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-hammer2-41) The researchers estimated that the most recent common ancestor (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor) of modern Kohanim lived between 1000 BCE (roughly the time of the Biblical Exodus (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/The_Exodus)) and 586 BCE, when the Babylonians (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Babylonia) destroyed the First Temple (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Solomon%27s_Temple).[43] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-American_Society_For_Technion-42) They found similar results analyzing DNA from Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews.[43] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-American_Society_For_Technion-42) The scientists estimated the date of the original priest based on genetic mutations, which indicated that the priest lived roughly 106 generations ago, between 2,650 and 3,180 years ago depending whether one counts a generation as 25 or 30 years.[43] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-American_Society_For_Technion-42)
Although individual and groups of converts to Judaism have historically been absorbed into contemporary Jewish populations — in the Khazars' case, absorbed into the Ashkenazim (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ashkenazim) — it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Jewish groups, and much less that they represented their genesis as Jewish communities.[44] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-43)
Male lineages: Y chromosomal DNA

A study published by the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences) found that "the paternal gene (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Y_chromosome) pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population", and suggested that "most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora".[39] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-hammer-38) Researchers expressed surprise at the remarkable genetic uniformity they found among modern Jews, no matter where the diaspora (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Diaspora) has become dispersed around the world.[39] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-hammer-38)
Other Y-chromosome (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Y-chromosome) findings show that the world's Jewish communities are closely related to Kurds (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Kurd), Syrians (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Syrian) and Palestinians (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Palestinian_people).[45] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-44)[42] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-hammer2-41) Skorecki and colleague wrote that "the extremely close affinity of Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations observed ... supports the hypothesis of a common Middle Eastern origin".[42] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-hammer2-41) According to another study of the same year, more than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men (inhabitants of Israel and the territories only) whose DNA was studied inherited their Y-chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years. The results are consistent with the Biblical account of Jews and Arabs having a common ancestor. About two-thirds of Israeli Arabs and Arabs in the territories and a similar proportion of Israeli Jews are the descendants of at least three common ancestors who lived in the Middle East in the Neolithic (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Neolithic) period. However, the Palestinian Arab clade includes two Arab modal haplotypes which are found at only very low frequency among Jews, reflecting divergence and/or large scale admixture from non-local populations to the Palestinians.[46] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-45)
Points in which Jewish groups differ is largely in the source and proportion of genetic contribution from host populations.[47] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Richards-46)[48] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Oppenheim.26Hammer-47) The proportion of male indigenous European genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to around 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, and a total admixture estimate "very similar to Motulsky's average estimate of 12.5%."[39] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-hammer-38) More recent study estimates an even lower European male contribution, and that only 5%–8% of the Ashkenazi gene pool is of European origin.[39] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-hammer-38)
Female lineages: Mitochondrial DNA

Before 2006, geneticists largely attributed the genesis of most of the world's Jewish populations (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions) to founding acts by males who migrated from the Middle East and "by the women from each local population whom they took as wives and converted to Judaism." However, more recent findings of studies of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA), at least in Ashkenazi Jews, has led to a review of this archetype (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Archetype).[49] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-wade-48) This research has suggested that, in addition to Israelite male and local female founders, significant female founder ancestry might also derive from the Middle East.[49] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-wade-48) In addition, Behar (2006) suggested that the rest of Ashkenazi mtDNA is originated from about 150 women, most of those were probably of Middle Eastern origin.[50] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-behar2006-49)

Research in 2008 found significant founder effects in many non-Asheknazi Jewish populations. In Belmonte (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Belmonte_Jews), Azerbaijani (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Azerbaijani_Jews), Georgian (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Georgian_Jews), Bene Israel (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bene_Israel) and Libyan (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Libyan_Jews) Jewish communities "a single mother was sufficient to explain at least 40% of their present-day mtDNA variation". In addition, "the Cochin (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cochin_Jews) and Tunisian (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Tunisian_Jews) Jewish communities show an attenuated pattern with two founding mothers explaining >30% of the variation." In contrast, Bulgarian (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bulgarian_Jews), Turkish (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Turkish_Jews), Moroccan (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Moroccan_Jews) and Ethiopian (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Beta_Israel) Jews were heterogeneous with no evidence "for a narrow founder effect or depletion of mtDNA variation attributable to drift". The authors noted that "the first three of these communities were established following the Spanish expulsion and/or received large influxes of individuals from the Iberian Peninsula and high variation presently observed, probably reflects high overall mtDNA diversity among Jews of Spanish descent. Likewise, the mtDNA pool of Ethiopian Jews reflects the rich maternal lineage variety of East Africa." Jewish communities from Iraq (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Iraqi_Jews), Iran (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Persian_Jews), and Yemen (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Yemenite_Jews) showed a "third and intermediate pattern... consistent with a founding event, but not a narrow one".[51] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-behar2008-50)

In this and other studies Yemenite Jews differ from other Mizrahim (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Mizrahim), as well as from Ashkenazim, in the proportion of sub-Saharan African (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa) gene types which have entered their gene pools (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Gene_pool).[47] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Richards-46) African-specific Hg L(xM,N) lineages were found only in Yemenite and Ethiopian Jewish populations.[51] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-behar2008-50) Among Yemenites (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Yemenites), the average stands at 35% lineages within the past 3,000 years.[47] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Richards-46)

[Woyzeck]

1. A secular state of Israel with equal rights for all and Jerusalem declared an international city.So let me get this straight - you think a reformed Zionist state, presumably based on a model like the new Northern Ireland, would adequately address the current injustices that underline the conflict in occupied Palestine and in some way undermine imperialist ambitions (Zionist, American, European...) in the Middle Eastern region? I think I'll stick with the option of a Palestinian workers state from the Jordan to the sea instead, thanks.
to deny the right of the Jewish people a form of self-determination is anti-Semitic. And to deny the right of the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist/British people of Ireland to self-determination is anti-British, right? I guess that makes me an anti-British bigot. The shame, the shame.

[Robocommie]

I have always thought of Arabs, and other Middle Eastern peoples such as Persians, and Turks as being white. I am quite surprised that people in America don't look at it that way. What do you think about the Greeks?

Devrim

Racial status in America is pretty much tied with skin color, in a hierarchy, because of our history of slavery.

[Woyzeck]

Instead of sitting here and rattling sabres, making fine pronouncements about your enemy etc you might think of putting some constructive ideas together. I notice, neither of you seems to want to face the problem of 5 million or so Jewish Israelis, around half of the population of the region, you skirt round the issue of the Jews that have always lived in the region and you fail to mention the atmosphere of paranoia that is created largely by the vile anti-Semitism that spews forth from the surrounding countries on an official basis.

In one moment you talk about Jews, then you deny there be such a thing as the Jewish people, then you shift to Zionists etc etc. It seems you're not actually sure who or what to target- or perhaps you don't care.

I try to look at things pragmatically. I would be the first to acknowledge the wrongs done to the Palestinians but wrongs have been done to Israeli Jews and if all people do is sit around vindicating the errors of the past they are never going to get anywhere.

There's an organisation in Ireland that applied a similarly disgraceful policy in relation to the Irish national question. They condemned nationalist violence but at the same time embraced pro-British reactionaries, responsible for countless brutal terrorist acts, in the name of "working class unity". Their name is the Workers' Party of Ireland.

[ComradeMan]

So let me get this straight - you think a reformed Zionist state, presumably based on a model like the new Northern Ireland, would adequately address the current injustices that underline the conflict in occupied Palestine and in some way undermine imperialist ambitions (Zionist, American, European...) in the Middle Eastern region?


But a secular state of Israel with equal rights for all would not be a Zionist state.

I think I'll stick with the option of a Palestinian workers state from the Jordan to the sea instead, thanks.


Then you would be discriminating against all the other groups. It's a contradiction.
Do you think Hamas want a workers state? Hamas are dedicated to creating a non-secular Islamic state, so you swap one "theological" regime for another.
And to deny the right of the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist/British people of Ireland to self-determination is anti-British, right? I guess that makes me an anti-British bigot. The shame, the shame.


No, but they do not have no rights. You can't compare the Protestant group in N.Ireland to the Jewish situation whatsoever other than some issues of religion were originally involved.

[ComradeMan]

There is no "logical fallacy" in recognizing that Jews exist but are not a people,


Utter anti-Semitic drivel. Jews exist but are not a people--- please. It would be wrong to speak of a Jewish "race" that would be a difficult matter and most Jews would deny that anyway, but a Jewish people is not the same. There is a big difference between the idea of "race", in itself controversial, and people.
just like Christians and Muslims exist but neither forms a people. You assume that Jews are a people, but never prove this assertion - that is the logical fallacy in this debate.


I have given ample evidence of religion, genetics, culture, language and unity.
None of the material I mentioned comes from anti-Semitic "trashsites" but from well respected and well known Israeli scholars, who have never been discredited by anything but slander spread by pro-Zionist trolls like you.


Well known Israeli scholars like Schlomo Sand who was condemned outright and made a fool of on British TV because he was incapable of answering the genetic debate. Most of your arguments can be found on notoriously anti-Semitic sites such as Jew Watch. By the way, what's Zionist about promoting a secular state of Israel with equal rights for all?
The ISL has written many articles exposing the treacherous role of Hamas, and of course, exposing the lies and oppressive nature of the Zionist government and state. You, on the other hand, have made no real criticism of Israel, have in fact tried to whitewash left-wing Zionism from its role in the Nakba, and have tried to put all the blame on extremist Islamist groups - and when you did, you did not criticize them for betraying the Palestinian struggle but for engaging in it at all.


Not at all, I haven't been given the chance to say anything much because I dared suggest that there is a Jewish people and that they have some right to self-determination as all peoples do.
I'm not going to educate you on South Africa. If you don't know that Mandela was the leader of the ANC for decades and that the post-Apartheid governments have been ANC-SACP governments, then that's your problem.


But I do know- Who's distorting things now? You or your other cronie was the one who was actually laying into Nelson Mandela for some perceived betrayal when I challenged you to take your criticisms to the SACP, ANC and COSATU.
That answers your blatant distortions and lies, and I'm not about to respond to your racist bullshit regarding Palestinians and the reactionary, Zionist claim that being anti-Zionist means that you are anti-Semitic - in fact, I have shown, along with others, that the opposite is the truth.


Blatant distortions and lies. Where are the lies? I have provided scientific evidence, facts and stats- all you have done is rant.
Nowhere do I claim that criticism of the government of Israel and/or Zionism is being anti-Semitic. I pointed out that denying there is a Jewish people and that they like all peoples have some right to self-determination- as is allowed practically every other group on the planet, is anti-Semitic.

[Woyzeck]

But a secular state of Israel with equal rights for all would not be a Zionist state.

Yes it would be.


Then you would be discriminating against all the other groups. It's a contradiction.So in your view Palestinian self-determination in the form of a workers state = anti-Semitism...em, right.


Do you think Hamas want a workers state? Hamas are dedicated to creating a non-secular Islamic state, so you swap one "theological" regime for another.Where did I say I support Hamas or that I think they want a workers state?


You can't compare the Protestant group in N.Ireland to the Jewish situation whatsoever other than some issues of religion were originally involved. There are very strong parallels between the two groups - both are colonialist settlers who drove native populations off their lands; both constitute a reactionary bloc manifested in their rabidly nationalistic, racist, sectarian and anti-worker politics and 'cultural traditions'; and both have benefited from economic incentives to maintain this bulwark against progress (admittedly to a much lesser extent these days in occupied Ireland, but historically Loyalist workers did form a labour aristocracy and illusions of a vested interest in continued ties to the "mainland" fostered by this linger on).

[ComradeMan]

Yes it would be.


Why the hell would a secular state corresponding to the borders of present day Israel in which the population would be roughly 50-50- allowing for other smaller groups and recognising the rights of all its inhabitants be a Zionist state? Please explain. Because this idea would never be accepted by ultra-Zionists.

So in your view Palestinian self-determination in the form of a workers state = anti-Semitism...em, right.


But Palestinian Muslims are also not the only historical inhabitants of the area, that's the problem.
Apart from that others may argue that there was never a Palestinian state either? How much self-determination was there under the successive Ottoman and British mandates?

Where did I say I support Hamas or that I think they want a workers state?


That's the reality. There is no "Palestinian Communist Party" campaigning for a worker's state and opposing Israel, there is Hamas with approximately 62% support of the Palestinians.

There are very strong parallels between the two groups - both are colonialist settlers who drove native populations off their lands; both constitute a reactionary bloc manifested in their rabidly nationalistic, racist, sectarian and anti-worker politics and 'cultural traditions'; and both have benefited from economic incentives to maintain this bulwark against progress


You could say that about Americans, Australians, New Zealanders or Canadians- don't see any sign of people here campaigning to free the Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, Maoris etc and said the colonial invaders home.

See the article written by Solidarity for the situation in N.Ireland and the comparison.

[manic expression]

Historically speaking, Jews from Europe have practically no connection to Palestine other than a.) religious claims, b.) the vague idea that Jews once came from the area (which is both tenuous and absurd, as the claim is as strong as Roma and Sinti peoples saying Pakistan and northern India belong to them, since they "originally" hailed from that area) and c.) the wholly artificial creation of Israel about 60 years ago by imperialists.

The few thousand Jews who lived in Palestine before Zionism had very little, if any, connection to the Zionist settlers who have now conquered the area through racist violence.

And communists do support unconditional self-determination for American Indians and other displaced victims of genocide. Lastly, it's not about sending anyone "home", that's the same cross-eyed and bigoted logic that gave rise to Zionist fascism in the first place.

[Yehuda Stern]

Please explain. Because this idea would never be accepted by ultra-Zionists.

No, but it would be accepted by left Zionists like yourself who think that Israel is strong enough to risk giving some crumbs to the Palestinians in order to win some more credit.


How much self-determination was there under the successive Ottoman and British mandates?

So what you're saying is that a people that didn't have self-determination doesn't have the right to fight for it? Am I to understand that this means that you accord that right to the Zionists but not to the Palestinians?


There is no "Palestinian Communist Party" campaigning for a worker's state and opposing Israel

There isn't an Israeli one either! There is only an Israeli "Communist" Party which fights for two states and which describes itself as a "patriotic Israeli party." Even they only have the support of a tiny percent of the Jewish population.


there is Hamas with approximately 62% support of the Palestinians.

So, again, you are against Palestinian self-determination because of its reactionary leadership, but you don't hold the Israeli leadership to the same standards. The jig is up - you're a Zionist and all your nonsense in this thread is just an excuse to refuse giving support to the Palestinian resistance.

[Devrim]

I have always thought of Arabs, and other Middle Eastern peoples such as Persians, and Turks as being white. I am quite surprised that people in America don't look at it that way. What do you think about the GreekRacial status in America is pretty much tied with skin color, in a hierarchy, because of our history of slavery.

But what I don't understand is that you see Arabs as 'black'. To me they are obviously 'white'. Obviously the average Arab is darker than the average Scandinavian, but I wouldn't say 'black'.

Really, I am interested to know what colour you would classify Greeks or Turks as.

Devrim

[9]

^It is actually not true that "whiteness" in America is simply a matter of skin pigmentation, although that is a popular misconception; it is quite a bit more complicated than that. For instance, Italians (and Irish, if I'm remembering this correctly) were actually not considered "white" in America until the 20th century; Jews were not considered "white" in America until the middle of the 20th century. And yet all of these groups are considered "white" now; obviously their skin pigmentation has not changed.
I think this is actually a good illustration of the fact that race is a social construct. I do believe that a lot of this has to do with the usefulness to the ruling class of maintaining the perception of "non-whites" as permanent "foreigners", thus keeping the class divided, and there is almost always a correlation between the extent to which a particular group in the US is subject to institutionalized discrimination and the perception of that group as "non-white" in some form.
Right now in the US, Arabs and most people who are (or who have parents/grandparents/etc. who were) from a country in which Islam is the dominant religion will not be considered "white". Often they are just referred to as "Muslims" and that's understood as a racial distinction, much as was the case with Jews in the US (who were racially classified as "Hebrews") throughout a lot of the last century.

[Devrim]

Right now in the US, Arabs and most people who are (or who have parents/grandparents/etc. who were) from a country in which Islam is the dominant religion will not be considered "white". Often they are just referred to as "Muslims" and that's understood as a racial distinction, much as was the case with Jews in the US (who were racially classified as "Hebrews") throughout a lot of the last century.

So would Bosnians be classified as 'non-white' then for example? Would Serbs or Croats be classified as 'white'? It all seems a bit bizarre to me bearing in mind that ethnically they are pretty much the same people.


It is actually not true that "whiteness" in America is simply a matter of skin pigmentation, although that is a popular misconception; it is quite a bit more complicated than that. For instance, Italians (and Irish, if I'm remembering this correctly) were actually not considered "white" in America until the 20th century; Jews were not considered "white" in America until the middle of the 20th century. And yet all of these groups are considered "white" now; obviously their skin pigmentation has not changed.

I am not claiming in anyway to be an expert on America racial issues, but surely it must have something to do with colour. While there are some features that we might say are typically Irish or English, on the whole it is pretty difficult to tell them apart (at least until they speak). How can you have irrational prejudice if you can't see who to be prejudiced against.


Often they are just referred to as "Muslims" and that's understood as a racial distinction,

But what if they are not Muslims? What if they are Christians as many Arabs are? And how do you know before you talk about religion?

Devrim

[9]

So would Bosnians be classified as 'non-white' then for example? Would Serbs or Croats be classified as 'white'? It all seems a bit bizarre to me bearing in mind that ethnically they are pretty much the same people. I don't know, to be honest; I don't know any American Bosnians or Serbs or Croats, so it is hard for me to say definitively.



I am not claiming in anyway to be an expert on America racial issues, but surely it must have something to do with colour. While there are some features that we might say are typically Irish or English, on the whole it is pretty difficult to tell them apart (at least until they speak). How can you have irrational prejudice if you can't see who to be prejudiced against.
To be clear, people who are not "white" by virtue of skin pigmentation are certainly subject to racism on that basis. What I am saying, though, is that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. Ashkenazi Jews and the Irish did not have darker skin than those considered "white" at the time, but that didn't preclude Ashkenazi Jews and Irish people from being considered not white. Of course, there were often other ways of telling their background: names, language/accent, sometimes the part of a city where they lived (there were Irish, Jewish, and Italian ghettos in the US in the 20th century also). But certainly there were at those times people who were of Irish/Ashkenazi/Italian background who didn't have accents, who had American-sounding names, and who didn't live in an 'ethnic' ghetto. In which case, there sometimes occurred a phenomenon called "passing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_%28sociology%29#Ethnicity)", where the person would simply claim they were "white" (whatever the definition of "white" happens to be at a given time) and no one else would know any different. Of course, they would frequently also have to lie about their ethnicity/background/etc. on any and all government documentation they filled out or forge new records to circumvent institutional discrimination as well.



But what if they are not Muslims? What if they are Christians as many Arabs are? And how do you know before you talk about religion?
It is not at all cut and dry. I do know that an Arab Christian or an Arab Jew (etc.) would not be considered white in the US by virtue of their being an Arab. But if they look white and they have an American-sounding name, and they don't have an accent, people will treat them like they are white so long as they don't find out that they are an Arab...

[ComradeMan]

No, but it would be accepted by left Zionists like yourself who think that Israel is strong enough to risk giving some crumbs to the Palestinians in order to win some more credit.

- Ah, so I am a left Zionist now. Well, that must be some improvement in your eyes then. Who is talking about the crumbs? A one-state secular solution in which equal rights and oppurtunities would be guaranteed to all would not be crumbs from the table.:)

So what you're saying is that a people that didn't have self-determination doesn't have the right to fight for it? Am I to understand that this means that you accord that right to the Zionists but not to the Palestinians?

- No I am not. What I am saying is to create a Palestinian State is no more historical than to create an Israel. But you see, I am trying to look at this from the point of view of all the peoples that live in the geographical region whereas you are constantly dividing this into a one-people are right the other people are wrong kind of argument which doesn't really work. What about the 600,000 Middle-Eastern Jews who fled to Israel for fear of retribution in Islamic countries? We can't work on a tit-for-tat basis. Two wrongs don't make a right.

There isn't an Israeli one either! There is only an Israeli "Communist" Party which fights for two states and which describes itself as a "patriotic Israeli party." Even they only have the support of a tiny percent of the Jewish population.

-Don't play the fool. You know that the consequences of this whole mess, and a mess it is, could be devastating for millions of people whatever their background. The comment about Hamas was in response to the idea of a Palestinian workers state. No one doubts that present day Israel is not a workers state but what I see here is classical polarised thinking. You are promoting the idea of some Palestinian workers state that the majority of Palestinians don't seem to support. Don't you see the problem here?

So, again, you are against Palestinian self-determination because of its reactionary leadership, but you don't hold the Israeli leadership to the same standards. The jig is up - you're a Zionist and all your nonsense in this thread is just an excuse to refuse giving support to the Palestinian resistance.

-Of course I do. I have never hesitated to criticise the Israeli government and I don't think you will find one post here where I defend the actions of any Israeli government- I am not a big fan of governments anyway.Would you like me to offer a critique on the wrongs of the Israeli government? You have never asked me.

-I repeat my idea, and it not only my idea alone, would not be very popular in the Knesset nor amongst Zionists. But you keep skirting around that issue.

-The dilemma here is quite simple yet quite problematic. From a non-statist leftwing point of view how the hell can I support the creation of just another state where another group will have the upper hand over the others?

-Or, how can I support the creation of two non-secular states which will in all likelihood be even more reactionary and theological/theocratic than the present one? Leaving aside ethnic and theological debates we could also analyse the complete impracticality of the two state solution too. In fact, the people who would probably come out worse in the two state solution would be the Palestinians themselves.

-No, the best I can do is support the seemingly sensible, yet unpopular, solution of a secular state with local autonomy in which all peoples had their own level of self-determination and respected the rights of others. The Jewish people would then feel safe and have the right to govern their own affairs autonomously and the Palestinians would also no longer be non-citizens/second-class citizens in the land of their birth. What the hell is wrong with that?

So far the people on the attack have said "you are this" and "you are that" but have not put forward any workable and fair solution themselves that does not, in my opinion, contradict leftist ideals too. I see this as a dilemma that the modern left has, the whole damn debate in Israel is between two sides who are both nationalistic and who both hold that they have not only an historical but also a religious "right" to live exclusively in this region. One side has been supported historically for various reasons more than the other and has been "successful"- whereas the other has been unsuccessful. But as leftists surely we should be arguing for equality and breaking down divisions between people not promoting them just because we feel (quite justifiably) that one side has been oppressed and the other is the oppressor. It's a moral dilemma is it not? I repeat the only fair solution is the secular one state one. That's all I have said right from the beginning.

[Revy]

But what I don't understand is that you see Arabs as 'black'. To me they are obviously 'white'. Obviously the average Arab is darker than the average Scandinavian, but I wouldn't say 'black'.

Really, I am interested to know what colour you would classify Greeks or Turks as.

Devrim

Arabs aren't seen as black...everyone isn't put into either the white or black category. There's white, black, Asian (applies mainly to East Asians), Native American, Middle Eastern, and Latino (even though that's not a race, but a culture). The idea of "white" is less about skin color and more about how someone looks, I think. I think the US Census sees Arabs as white though.

just explaining how people are classified in America, I don't want to offend anybody, because I don't care whether Arabs are white, it doesn't matter to me.

[Dimentio]

So the Jewish people have no right to their own self-determination? It's a bit tricky when the rights to self-determination of nearly all other groups are supported around the world are.


So a two-state solution, Jewish and Palestinian would also be a contradiction.


In the event of the destruction of Israel what would happen to the Jewish people in Israel- approx 5 million or so? Would they not be victims of ethnic violence? Would not the old call of "driving the Jews into the sea." be heard again".

The trouble in this mess is that NO side comes out smelling of roses.
E.g.
"The Husseini clan led by Haj Amin El Husseini, the Grand Mufti. The Mufti and others convinced Palestinian Arabs that the Zionists were going to dispossess them of their lands by force, and spread false rumors that the Jews were going to desecrate the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Riots and pogroms were instigated in 1920, 1921 and 1929 resulting in deaths and injuries in Jaffa, Hebron, Jerusalem, Motza and elsewhere."

The problem is we have tit-for-tat, eye for an eye all over the place and no reasonable solution is ever going to please anyone in particular.
:(

As I stated earlier in the text you so boldly quoted, I do not draw an equalisation between the terms self-determination and statehood.

I believe that states per definition are tools for repression over people, and that the decisions regarding peoples lives should be dealt with on such a localised level as it is feasible (technosphere is obviously requiring a different kind of management though).

If a state in Palestine (Both Israel and the Occupied Territories) should be established, it should be non-sectarian and it should not define itself in any religious or ethnic terms. Israelis and Palestines should both have the right to cultural autonomy and self-determination on a communal level, but the state should not exclude any group or place any group above the other.

Self-determination is not meaning the right to have an army and a state. On the contrary, self-determination means the right to not be repressed by an army or a state or another group which have an army or a state for themselves and only allow minorities partial inclusion into the community.

The reasons why antisemitism is so virulent in the Islamic World today is because of Israel's establishment as an exclusively Jewish state.

And Jewish terrorists have also had their fun with Arab civilians (Hint: Deir Yassin).

[Sov]

But what I don't understand is that you see Arabs as 'black'. To me they are obviously 'white'. Obviously the average Arab is darker than the average Scandinavian, but I wouldn't say 'black'.Depends on the Arabs. Most Sudanese Arabs for example are as dark or darker than was Malcolm X. They also tend to have rather 'black' facial morphology. Ironically I've seen people try to portray the conflict in Sudan as motivated by white racism against blacks.

[ComradeMan]

It all depends on our definitions, Mohammed said that an Arab is one who speaks Arabic, no more and no less.

[Sov]

As far as racism and Zionism go, here's one angle from which to look at things.

Thought experiment: consider an alternate reality in which the Third Reich did not invade numerous European countries and mass-murder millions of Europeans. Instead, the Third Reich opted to re-colonize Africa and murdered millions upon millions of dark-skinned tribal Africans to make way for German lebensraum. Would we be hearing much about a black African holocaust today? Probably not. Would any white western country have necessarily even lifted a finger to stop the Germans?

[9]

^I don't think World War II was about saving Jews, sorry.

[Dimentio]

Depends on the Arabs. Most Sudanese Arabs for example are as dark or darker than was Malcolm X. They also tend to have rather 'black' facial morphology. Ironically I've seen people try to portray the conflict in Sudan as motivated by white racism against blacks.


Arabic is more a language than an ethnicity today really.

[Revy]

It all depends on our definitions, Mohammed said that an Arab is one who speaks Arabic, no more and no less.

Not to be nitpicky, but if someone spoke Arabic (after having learned it) that wouldn't exactly make someone an Arab, would it?

[Yehuda Stern]

ComradeMan,
You keep saying that you have no problem with criticizing the Israeli government, but all I've seen you criticize is Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians and Hamas - not once Israel or the Israeli government. On the contrary, you insist on the Zionists' right for self-determination while denying it from the Palestinians because supposedly that will lead to violence against Jews, while the Zionists' current right to self determination - which again, you support - allows them to unleash unspeakable violence against the Palestinians.
You condemn me for suggesting a workers state even though most Palestinians wouldn't accept the idea - while suggesting unity between Jewish and Palestinian workers, which most Jewish workers would never accept.

I think your bias is clear. It doesn't matter what you say; your concrete positions expose you as a Zionist.

[Sov]

^I don't think World War II was about saving Jews, sorry.I said:

Thought experiment: consider an alternate reality in which the Third Reich did not invade numerous European countries and mass-murder millions of Europeans. Instead, the Third Reich opted to re-colonize Africa and murdered millions upon millions of dark-skinned tribal Africans to make way for German lebensraum. Would we be hearing much about a black African holocaust today? Probably not. Would any white western country have necessarily even lifted a finger to stop the Germans?

I can elaborate if you want, but nowhere did I claim that 'World War II was about saving Jews'.

[ComradeMan]

You keep saying that you have no problem with criticizing the Israeli government, but all I've seen you criticize is Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians and Hamas - not once Israel or the Israeli government.

There hasn't been a post that required such a critique in the answer. The original post here was whether Pro-Zionism in the US was related to racism to which I said no I didn't think it was and pointed out the Christian rights rather bizarre eschatological view on Zionism.

On the contrary, you insist on the Zionists' right for self-determination

Again, you are using weasel words and strawmen. Where did I say that Zionists have a right to self-determinism. I said the Jewish people have a right to self-determinism if all other people do (that includes Palestinians).

while denying it from the Palestinians

See above

because supposedly that will lead to violence against Jews,

This is called being a realist and looking at the situation as it is now. I have explained what I support which is decidedly non-Zionist.

while the Zionists' current right to self determination - which again, you support - allows them to unleash unspeakable violence against the Palestinians.

Of course not, I condemn the racist and violent actions of any group who persecute another- such as the attack and vandalism of the mosque by ultra-Zionist fanatics the other day- I think most Jewish people and even the hated Israeli government have also condemned it outright. But there you go again, substituting the word Jewish with Zionist. Is every Jewish person in Israel de facto a Zionist?

You condemn me for suggesting a workers state even though most Palestinians wouldn't accept the idea - while suggesting unity between Jewish and Palestinian workers, which most Jewish workers would never accept.

This is where the problem is, a Palestinian workers state suggests a workers state for Palestinians and is in a sense just as exclusive as that which you hate. I also pointed out that the reality is that the main Palestinian groups do not eschew any kind of workers state either. If most Jewish workers as you say, would not accept a non-secular state with equal rights for all then they too would be to blame.

I think your bias is clear. It doesn't matter what you say; your concrete positions expose you as a Zionist.

Here you show your concrete bias more than anything else, "it doesn't matter what you say".... I draw your attention to the fact that there others on this forum who hold similar positions and have the same viewpoint as I do. Is this forum now infested with Zionism? (See other thread too).

[ComradeMan]

Not to be nitpicky, but if someone spoke Arabic (after having learned it) that wouldn't exactly make someone an Arab, would it?

A good point, but those were the words of the Prophet. Do not forget that Arabic is the holy language of the Qu'ran and therefore there is the extra-dimension of its quasi divine status in Islamic culture. I think Mohamed was saying more than just offering a socio-linguistic comment. I have had this discussion with "Arabic" friends- the same friends who told me the words of the prophet and we all came to different conclusions and we all agreed that it is one of those words that mean different things to different people at different times!

[Yehuda Stern]

I think most Jewish people and even the hated Israeli government have also condemned it outright.

Which is exactly why I didn't mean that. It's easy for the government to pay lip service to non-violence when it is committed by the ultra-right - however, neither the government nor Israel's Jewish population condemn Israeli military brutalities, for example in Gaza. And neither do you.

To quote leader of the biggest party in Knesset and dear of the Zionist left, Tzipi Livni: "The operation in Gaza was necessary... I would make all those decisions again."


Is every Jewish person in Israel de facto a Zionist?

Do you really think this stupid little game will work for you? Everyone here can see that you are the one who identifies all Jews with Zionism, not me. I have explicitly made the difference in my posts between Zionists and Jews. You haven't; you only talk about the right of self determination for the Zionist state.

I say that what you say doesn't matter because you keep saying you're not a Zionist and you're for one democratic state, but you keep insisting that Jews have a right to self determination, and that there is a Jewish people, and that anyone who argues otherwise is an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew. That means that despite the rest of your nonsense, you're a Zionist. Anyone who isn't naive or stupid can see that.

[ComradeMan]

Which is exactly why I didn't mean that. It's easy for the government to pay lip service to non-violence when it is committed by the ultra-right - however, neither the government nor Israel's Jewish population condemn Israeli military brutalities, for example in Gaza. And neither do you.

How am I supposed to know what you mean? I am not telepathic!!! If you aren't clear and keep shifting the goalposts of your argument all the time and refusing outright to listen to anyone, rejecting all sources and evidence other than your own then what is someone supposed to do? Re the other comment how stupid is that? The Israeli government are no more going to condemn their own military actions than anyone else is. Governments don't usually do that, do they? I have nowhere stated tht I support the various Knesset regimes or their military actions. When was the last time any group that uses violence, government, non-government condemned outright its own actions?

I have said all along that I do not support an exclusively Jewish state nor do I support the violent actions of ANY group- not only but especially when the victims are the innocent people on the ground.

To quote leader of the biggest party in Knesset and dear of the Zionist left, Tzipi Livni: "The operation in Gaza was necessary... I would make all those decisions again."

I have no doubt. See comment above. Where did I say I was a supporter of Livni?

Do you really think this stupid little game will work for you? Everyone here can see that you are the one who identifies all Jews with Zionism, not me. I have explicitly made the difference in my posts between Zionists and Jews. You haven't; you only talk about the right of self determination for the Zionist state.

No, not at all. To the contrary you and your friend seem to be the confused ones as you've tripped up over your own words countless times. I never said that all Jews were Zionists nor that all Zionists were Jews. More strawmen I'm afraid.

I say that what you say doesn't matter because you keep saying you're not a Zionist and you're for one democratic state, but you keep insisting that Jews have a right to self determination,

The Jewish people have a right to self-determination inasmuch as ALL other peoples do- or then NO people have a right to self-determination. The difference between you and me is that whereas you support Palestinian self-determination to the exclusion of Jewish self-determination I support the Jewish right to self-determination inasmuch as the Palestinians and all other groups. I have stated quite clearly, as have others that self-determination is not synonymous with elitist and exclusive states.

and that there is a Jewish people,

Your denial of their being such a thing as the Jewish people is widely condemned by most from across the political spectrum as being a form of anti-Semitism, and it also flies in the face of science, history, anthropology and sociology, what most Jewish people and non-Jewish people agree on and what the groups you seem to support also appear to agree on. Your attempts to demolish my simple acceptance of there being a Jewish people (and not Jewish race as you asserted) are based on strawman arguments and the weird and wonderful fantasies of "dissident" scholars.

and that anyone who argues otherwise is an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew. That means that despite the rest of your nonsense, you're a Zionist. Anyone who isn't naive or stupid can see that.

Appeals to the mass now, anyone who isn't naive or stupid can see that? I give you top marks for being a demagogic popularist with that comment. No, I said that the arguments being presented were anti-Semitic.

1. You fail to deal with the actual matter in hand. All along and everywhere the subject has come up I have stated my position from a leftwing point of view that the only fair solution is the one-state secular solution. If I were a Zionists or an Islamist it would be far easier.

2. You conveniently break everything down into a simple "Palestinians" vs Zionists conflict- anyone who knows a little about the situation appreciates the complexity of the problem and how you cannot just break it down into two monolithic groups battling out- ironically the very ultra-Zionist approach.

3. You refuse to discuss actual problems such as the heterogenous nature of the entire population of Israel and the historic nightmare of defining any one group in particular. As much as you argue against there being a Jewish people some would argue against there being a Palestinian people? Who do you mean? Palestinian Muslims? Palestinian Christians? All Muslims are not Palestinians? You skirt around the issue of the "historic", i.e. non-Israel-era Jewish populations of the area or the Jewish refugees from Islamic countries and so on.

The one-state solution as supported by myself recognises the rights of all people equally and I am not the only one around here who has expressed support for it either. Whether I think it will become a reality is a different matter but that does not mean I have to support something else. I have also mentioned elsewhere why I feel the two-state solution is a very bad idea, mainly for the Palestinians and their right to self-determination but you have not really sought to answer that.

Now, if all you can do is hysterically scream "Zionist" when someone does not agree with you and is seeking to present a realistic, forward-looking and, dare I say, leftwing solution to a problem in the here and now it does not say much for your powers of argument. When you resort to attacks ad hominem and strawman arguments and then you have the audacity to challenge others and their information. Are you actually reading what I have said or is this a case of projection?

[blake 3:17]

^I don't think World War II was about saving Jews, sorry.

I wish Canada and the US had simply admitted Jewish refugees, that the allied forces had bombed the trains to Auschwitz, and that reparations for the Holocaust had been extracted from those who engineered it and profited from it. Instead the reparations were "exported" through simple theft of land and the displacement of people.


The original post here was whether Pro-Zionism in the US was related to racism to which I said no I didn't think it was and pointed out the Christian rights rather bizarre eschatological view on Zionism. So the Christian Right is not racist? Could it possibly be that there's a commonality between anti-Semitism, Zionism, white supremacy, racist imperial wars and callous indifference to the suffering of black, brown, yellow and red people?

Edited to add:

Childhood in ruins

Last December, Israel began a 23-day bombardment of Gaza, killing around 1,400 people. One year on, a generation of children is growing up amid the wreckage of that attack, traumatised – and radicalised – by the experience


...

Some children no longer look on their homes as a place of safety, security and comfort. Others don't even have a home to go to. The Israeli bombardment damaged or destroyed more than 20,000 houses, forcing some families into tents and others into crowding in with relatives. Hamas distributed money to displaced families to rebuild their homes but the Israeli blockade has created a desperate shortage of materials. Almost one year later, some children still have no roof over their head.
Hanan Attar, a slight 10-year-old wearing flip-flops several sizes too big for her small feet, is wistful as she recalls the house destroyed by an Israeli tank shell. "We had land, my father is a farmer," she says. "We used to grow watermelons, but the land was too close to the border and we can't get there now."

Home is now a tent on a patch of scrubby sand, shared by 10 members of her family, including a 50-day-old baby sister with a pinched face and a tin of formula milk perched on her rusting iron crib. The baby, Haneen, is seriously underweight at only 3kg, and is not growing. Her mother, Arfa, 40, cannot breastfeed because she is taking medication for back problems; the formula costs 45 shekels (£7.50) a tin, money that the family has to borrow. The father, too, is sick as well as unemployed. He reaches on top of a tall fridge that dominates the tent to pull down a sheaf of x-rays showing how his leg, broken in the conflict, is pinned together with metal.

"We are civilians, we don't belong to any faction," he says. "What are we guilty of so that we have to live like this? I spent my entire life building up my home. In one hour everything was gone."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/17/gaza-israel-invasion-children-traumatised

[Canadian Red]

I wonder if the tendency for Americans to support Israel has something to do with racism against darker-skinned people. It is my perception that Jews of European descent, such as the people responsible for Israel's founding, have had an easier time passing off as "white" in most white Americans' eyes compared to Palestinians, which could lead to Americans feeling more sympathetic with the Israelis. I'm not saying that every Zionist or pro-Zionist is a white supremacist, but I feel that Americans would not feel so sorry for the Israelis if they were just another brown-skinned people.
I wouldnt say its racist but its Nationalist... strongly nationalist and should be removed from society. Humanity can only move forward once all borders are desolved. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone regardless of colour,religion or language worked together shoulder to shoulder. EDIT: Workers of the WORLD unite!

[Chambered Word]

I have no doubt that Zionism is racist. It's the belief that - because of what religious scripture states - as a race the Jews have a right to steal Palestinian land. Can anyone here tell me that's not racist?

As for a solution to the problem, it really wouldn't worry me if they were pushed into the sea. After they elected yet another right-wing party I really think Israel has had enough chance for appeasement.

[blake 3:17]

I have no doubt that Zionism is racist. It's the belief that - because of what religious scripture states - as a race the Jews have a right to steal Palestinian land. Can anyone here tell me that's not racist?

The religious dimension keeps getting played up. Zionism started as a primarily secular movement. Religious and chiliastic movements (like Christian Zionism) have upped this. I don't feel the same hostility that some on the board to regarding a Jewish land -- should've been in Bavaria if anywhere.


As for a solution to the problem, it really wouldn't worry me if they were pushed into the sea. After they elected yet another right-wing party I really think Israel has had enough chance for appeasement.

That's not so useful. A single secular democratic state, which includes Palestinian refugees rights to return, is the goal to fight for. At present, the best means are through supporting the international Boycott Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement, breaking the sanctions on Gaza, and mass civil disobedience against Israeli apartheid.

For more on the BDS campaign, see http://www.bdsmovement.net/?q=node/73

[Reuben]

I have no doubt that Zionism is racist. It's the belief that - because of what religious scripture states - as a race the Jews have a right to steal Palestinian land. Can anyone here tell me that's not racist?

As for a solution to the problem, it really wouldn't worry me if they were pushed into the sea. After they elected yet another right-wing party I really think Israel has had enough chance for appeasement.

What a ridiculous comment. ou believe that the entire Israeli people should be collectively punished - to the extent of being pushed into the sea. Do you include Israeli Arabs in this. Or do you just want to pick out the jewish population of Israel - some of whom went there as refugees when virtually nobody would take them in - and 'push them into the sea'.

Comments like this have no place on a left wing message board.

[Yehuda Stern]

Colonialist settler state or not, if you hoenstly don't care about the deaths of millions of people - most of whom are not directly responsible for their state's crimes - you are not a revolutionary. I am saying this as a member of an organization completely and utterly opposed to Israel in any shape or form.

[The Red Next Door]

All forms of racial nationalism is related to some form of racism so yes.

[dar8888]

All forms of racial nationalism is related to some form of racism so yes.

Judaism is a faith, not an ethnicity. Jews of Middle Eastern descent and the Arabs are both Semitic people - it is not racism, per se. N. Ireland is not racist in it's attitude towards Ireland, but they still have problems.

The problem is the meeting of two religions that claim to be the "true" religion, and the Oligarchs of the world steadfastly supporting Israel in everything it chooses to do. Since Zionism is, ironically, similar to Hitler's "breathing room" idea, it is clear that it is, in fact, a form of extreme nationalism. Many Oligarchic powers throughout history have attempted to "restore" the ancient borders of their countries, and that is the aim of Zionism.

When you boil it down, Zionism is just another form of Imperialism.

[Muzk]

When you boil it down, Zionism is just another form of Imperialism.

Drop the oligarchic crap, for this shit to be an oligarchy the rulers would be part of us, but they are something new, a class for themselves, yes you got it: class dictatorship


Zionism is such an ultra-nationalism chauvinist crap... it's the belief that all the muslims are terrorists and should be bombed to death and lots of other irrational shit. It is racism in its purest form, yet they claim that we are the anti-semites. Yeah, right.

Also, even their own religion is not behind zionism. Hitler was a zionist too.

[dar8888]

Drop the oligarchic crap, for this shit to be an oligarchy the rulers would be part of us,

Oligarchs are not of the people - An oligarchy is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society.

[Muzk]

Oligarchs are not of the people - An oligarchy is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society.


Then, may I ask you, are they part of the society?



(if yes, define society)

[dar8888]

Of course they are a part of society - we all are. Capitalists, Imperialists, Oligarchs(sometimes one and the same), and all of the working class belong to some society or other(U.S.A., the P.R.C, Russia, Cuba, etc....

I hardly think it is necessary to define society.

[zimmerwald1915]

Of course they are a part of society - we all are. Capitalists, Imperialists, Oligarchs(sometimes one and the same), and all of the working class belong to some society or other(U.S.A., the P.R.C, Russia, Cuba, etc....

I hardly think it is necessary to define society.
Except that it is necessary to define society, if only because, in your own post, all the examples you give of "societies" are in fact states. Unless you want to make the argument that society only exists in the state, you're gonna need a definition of society.

[Muzk]

Of course they are a part of society - we all are. Capitalists, Imperialists, Oligarchs(sometimes one and the same), and all of the working class belong to some society or other(U.S.A., the P.R.C, Russia, Cuba, etc....

I hardly think it is necessary to define society.

Sorry but I will never see the bourgeoise as a part of our society.