Where's the qualm in ComradeMan and Malte's purported "Zionism"? [Archive]

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 12:22

>>What's Zionist about saying that the Jewish people, given history, should be able to live in their Holy Land and look after their own affairs<<
>>However other feels free to lambast me whilst they have declared their unconditional support for reactionary terror groups who are about as left as the KKK and yet sit their smugly hurling abuse and threats at me?<<
:glare:

ComradeMan:

Since you are not a Zionist, what do you think about finding, say, another subject to feel passionate about? There are plenty of other issues around. You are (apparently) well within your rights to spout all this non-Zionist blather around here, but whining about how others disagree and view it is now beyond tiresome...
And once you've stopped harping on this Israel thing, the people whose minds aren't going to change by your incessant interpretations and protestations - the vast majority of this board by the way - will eventually stop talking about you and your non-existent Zionism. You can melt back into the woodwork and just be!
Your persecution and loathing will whither away. That is what you want, right? I mean, this isn't all about attention, is it?
If you are unwilling to stop obsessing over this, there is probably someplace where your great interest would do some 'good' in this cause of yours, but nothing will come of it here if you haven't noticed by now.
Make sense, no?

:thumbup1:

Thanks for your psycho-analysis. But if you cared to look through the threads you would see where this started.

By the way, I didn't even post this thread? But am I not allowed to respond either? What is this, a Stalinist show trial? :D

PS. In a note to others. Comrade Joe was banned for support of Hezbollah I believe, or so he said, yet others here, notably Sam-b and his cohorts say that they unconditionally support both Hamas and Hezbollah who, amongst other things, have been guilty of shooting at striking workers and are Islamist theists.... very leftwing indeed.

Yazman

6th January 2010, 12:54

From what I know, ComradeMan isn't a zionist but just thinks its not feasible (or fair) to eject people who are now multiple generations separated from jewish colonists. The holy land is now their homeland - just as for the boer people, south africa is now their homeland. Yet he also feels that Palestinians should not be treated the way they are and that they deserve an equal status.

I'm pretty sure thats why he's a one-statist -and one-statism is not zionism. There are many one-statists here, just as there are many on the left that do not support organisations like hamas and hezbollah.

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 13:00

From what I know, ComradeMan isn't a zionist but just thinks its not feasible (or fair) to eject people who are now multiple generations separated from jewish colonists. The holy land is now their homeland - just as for the boer people, south africa is now their homeland. Yet he also feels that Palestinians should not be trated the way they are and that they deserve an equal status.

I'm pretty sure thats why he's a one-statist -and one-statism is not zionism. There are many one-statists here, just as there are many on the left that do not support organisations like hamas and hezbollah.

Thanks!!! That's what I have been trying to say all along.

Dean

6th January 2010, 15:04

BTW- as an unconditional supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah by your own admission I am surprised you are here with all these reds, anarchos and enemies of your theocratic vision.:D

As someone who supports "Jews' right to live in their holy land" under the auspices of a western invasion of said holy land, I'm surprised you have the gall to call someone else "theocratic."

What a fucking joke you are.

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 15:23

As someone who supports "Jews' right to live in their holy land" under the auspices of a western invasion of said holy land, I'm surprised you have the gall to call someone else "theocratic."

What a fucking joke you are.

More strawmen- whoever talked about the auspices of western invasion? Jews have been living in their Holy Land for centuries, long before the birth of Zionism. The other point being, those who say they oppose a Jewish ethnoreligious state on principal and then support groups who propose a radical theocratic religious state are just plain hypocrites.

By the way, Dean Sayer's homepage has the link to an essay, in which I found the following line

"I stand firmly behind my friends who advocate pacifistic Zionism, or for that matter any solutons to the Israeli – Palestinian problem that do not undermine human rights."
http://dean.roushimsx.com/essays/israel_palestine.htm

Is that not what I have been saying all along? How come now, here on this thread you suddenly start posturing? Could you explain what you mean by pacifistic Zionism perhaps because in the rest of your essay you talk about militant Zionism but don't state what you mean by pacifistic Zionism. Surely pacifistic Zionism is tantamount to allowing Jewish people to live peacefully in their Holy Land as long as it is not at the cost of others- something I have stated right from the beginning.

Dean

6th January 2010, 15:51

More strawmen- whoever talked about the auspices of western invasion? Jews have been living in their Holy Land for centuries, long before the birth of Zionism. The other point being, those who say they oppose a Jewish ethnoreligious state on principal and then support groups who propose a radical theocratic religious state are just plain hypocrites.

By the way, Dean Sayer's homepage has the link to an essay, in which I found the following line

"I stand firmly behind my friends who advocate pacifistic Zionism, or for that matter any solutons to the Israeli – Palestinian problem that do not undermine human rights."
http://dean.roushimsx.com/essays/israel_palestine.htm

Is that not what I have been saying all along? How come now, here on this thread you suddenly start posturing? Could you explain what you mean by pacifistic Zionism perhaps because in the rest of your essay you talk about militant Zionism but don't state what you mean by pacifistic Zionism. Surely pacifistic Zionism is tantamount to allowing Jewish people to live peacefully in their Holy Land as long as it is not at the cost of others- something I have stated right from the beginning.

The funny thing about you is that you consistently cry foul when anyone attacks Israeli white nationalism, and when people - accurately - describe Israeli Zionist aggression as the generative force for the conflict.

What you are complaining about above is a semantic argument, and while I would openly admit that the language on RevLeft has shifted over the years, none of my own principles have changed, and those people I cite as supporting "peaceful zionism" - namely Einstein and Chomsky - also openly reject the Israeli Program, and understand the Israel istate is the cause, not a symptom of the conflict.

You are just like one of the people who run around only whining about "white oppression" and yet claim that you want an equal world for all people.

And no, complaining about Israeli aggression or US aggression doesn't mean we "don't support US or Israeli rights," but rather that we don't support the right of the state to attack Palestinians or Afghanis. You need to get it through your pseudo-anarchist skull that people are not equivalent to a state, and that the Israeli state doesn't have "Jewish interests" at its heart, and rather that Israel is systematically using economic coercion to force middle and working class Jews into illegal settlements which serve as human-shield buffer zones for the colonial state. If you are concerned about evil anti-semitism, than I can't think oif anything worse than pushing Jews to the front line of a regional conflict.

Lyev

6th January 2010, 16:59

Please may someone post a clear-cut, concise definition of Zionism? I'm getting a tad confused.

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 17:57

The funny thing about you is that you consistently cry foul when anyone attacks Israeli white nationalism, and when people - accurately - describe Israeli Zionist aggression as the generative force for the conflict.

Where? Who? I have never supported an ethno-religious state, nor the Torah divine right to live in the Holy Land to the exclusion of others. Where have I cried foul? I have cried foul about 600,000 Jews being chased out of Arab lands in fear of their lives but no one seems to want to discuss that side of things either. The only people I have attacked are those like Hamas who seem to spend more time killing Palestinians than the IDF and the PFLP for their dubious origins and dubious tactics.

What you are complaining about above is a semantic argument, and while I would openly admit that the language on RevLeft has shifted over the years, none of my own principles have changed, and those people I cite as supporting "peaceful zionism" - namely Einstein and Chomsky - also openly reject the Israeli Program, and understand the Israel istate is the cause, not a symptom of the conflict.

So what is peaceful Zionism then? I don't care what Chomsky or Einstein think/thought, I am asking you what YOU think.

You are just like one of the people who run around only whining about "white oppression" and yet claim that you want an equal world for all people.

Eh? A minute ago I was supposedly defending white nationalist zionism... don't get you here. Who are these people who run around and complain about white oppression and then want an equal world for all? More strawmen here I am afraid.

And no, complaining about Israeli aggression or US aggression doesn't mean we "don't support US or Israeli rights," but rather that we don't support the right of the state to attack Palestinians or Afghanis. You need to get it through your pseudo-anarchist skull that people are not equivalent to a state, and that the Israeli state doesn't have "Jewish interests" at its heart, and rather that Israel is systematically using economic coercion to force middle and working class Jews into illegal settlements which serve as human-shield buffer zones for the colonial state. If you are concerned about evil anti-semitism, than I can't think oif anything worse than pushing Jews to the front line of a regional conflict.

Yet again, I never said that- you need to get it through your pseudo-whatever skull that strawman arguments are not productive. You seem to equate all of my statements about the Jewish people as being synonymous with the decisions of the Knesset. I don't think the settlements are a good idea at all and have never defended them whatsoever.

You also seem not to be able to grasp the concept of a "one state secular solution" in which I said all peoples should have a degree of autonomy and hence their own self-determination, that includes the Bedouin who serve in the IDF, the Druze, the Christians, the Palestinian Muslims, the Jews of all denominations and anyone else for that matter. That certainly isn't people = state.

Now, please explain what you mean by peaceful Zionism? Seeing as others here seem to maintain that ANY kind of Zionism is bad and you firmly support "pacifistic Zionism" I am curious to know what you mean- or are you just posturing and applying double standards here? I hope not.

Muzk

6th January 2010, 17:59

No, Zionism is the building of an exclusively Jewish state in the holy land with Jewish religious laws and to the exclusion of others.

What you are de facto saying is that Jewish people cannot live in the Holy Land... that's anti-Semitism.

Like I say, my line is basically the same- coincidentally, as Muammar al Ghaddaffi so you better tell him he is a Zionist too.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/ZionistState/elections.cfm

, you're alone with your racist bigotry, gtfo.
(Hitler approves of your zionism though, so have fun.)

Dean

6th January 2010, 18:29

Where? Who? I have never supported an ethno-religious state, nor the Torah divine right to live in the Holy Land to the exclusion of others. Where have I cried foul? I have cried foul about 600,000 Jews being chased out of Arab lands in fear of their lives but no one seems to want to discuss that side of things either. The only people I have attacked are those like Hamas who seem to spend more time killing Palestinians than the IDF and the PFLP for their dubious origins and dubious tactics.
You've consistently referred to attacks on the Israeli capitalist-colonial state as "antisemitic." And we are to conversely believe that you don't support Israel? Huh?

So what is peaceful Zionism then? I don't care what Chomsky or Einstein think/thought, I am asking you what YOU think.
Jews moving to the historical lands of Israel without the backing of Israeli racist colonialism.

You are just like one of the people who run around only whining about "white oppression" and yet claim that you want an equal world for all people.
Eh? A minute ago I was supposedly defending white nationalist zionism... don't get you here. Who are these people who run around and complain about white oppression and then want an equal world for all? More strawmen here I am afraid.
No, its not a strawman, because its a simile, not a metaphor.

Yet again, I never said that- you need to get it through your pseudo-whatever skull that strawman arguments are not productive. You seem to equate all of my statements about the Jewish people as being synonymous with the decisions of the Knesset. I don't think the settlements are a good idea at all and have never defended them whatsoever.
You called those who reject the Israeli state "antisemitic." Its quite simple.

But, you know I've debated with trolls like you before. You come off on the offensive, and then every retort is "I never siad that" because you conveniently have no real stances on the issues. I'm also interested to know why a supposed anarchist supports a state at all.

graffic

6th January 2010, 19:14

As someone who supports "Jews' right to live in their holy land" under the auspices of a western invasion of said holy land, I'm surprised you have the gall to call someone else "theocratic."

What a fucking joke you are.

Chomsky and Einstein supported Jews rights to live in the holy land. Zionism is a much more complex movement than you seem to be attempting to simplistically paint it as. Opposing "Jews" living in "Israel", *which is exactly what you have said* is racist bollocks, no matter what stance you take on the conflict.

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 19:31

---consistently referred to attacks on the Israeli capitalist-colonial state as "antisemitic." And we are to conversely believe that you don't support Israel? Huh?

No I haven't- you are lying again. Show me where---- please do? I have never once defended the Knesset, the Settlers, the Wall or cutting of the water supply, the Irgun or anything else. You are the ones who automatically assumed my preoccupation for the wellbeing of the Jewish people in the region was equivalent to ZIonism- thus revealing your own subconcious anti-Semitism.

Jews moving to the historical lands of Israel without the backing of Israeli racist colonialism.

What I have been saying all along.

You called those who reject the Israeli state "antisemitic." Its quite simple.

No, I didn't. You are yet again lying I called those who denied the right of the Jewish people to self-determination (and I never stated under the current Israeli regime) and those who went so far as to say that the very idea of a Jewish people was fiction invented by Zionists as anti-Semitic.

But, you know I've debated with trolls like you before. You come off on the offensive, and then every retort is "I never siad that" because you conveniently have no real stances on the issues. I'm also interested to know why a supposed anarchist supports a state at all.

You haven't debated anything with me when I challenged you on your stance I got restricted within 10 minutes....because I exposed your hypocritical posturing to look good here. What I have said time and time again conforms to your definition of pacifistic Zionism... but you and your buddies restrict me. Says it all.

But don't worry about it... it's fine, it's obvious to me that people can support reactionary movement all over the place with impunity, lie, twist and provoke with impunity- it just depends who our little clique are doesn't it? How dare I support the humanitarian agencies of the UN however.

Dean

6th January 2010, 19:36

Chomsky and Einstein supported Jews rights to live in the holy land. Zionism is a much more complex movement than you seem to be attempting to simplistically paint it as. Opposing "Jews" living in "Israel", *which is exactly what you have said* is racist bollocks, no matter what stance you take on the conflict.

No, I've said that anyone deserves to live anywhere, but nobody has the right to the backing of a racist state which is exclusory.

Its interesting how the Israeli apologists grasp at any petty statement they can to cry foul when Israeli's rights are concerned, but defending Palestinian rights is everywhere a secondary concern.

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 19:39

No, I've said that anyone deserves to live anywhere, but nobody has the right to the backing of a racist state which is exclusory.

Its interesting how the Israeli apologists grasp at any petty statement they can to cry foul when Israeli's rights are concerned, but defending Palestinian rights is everywhere a secondary concern.

It's because I care about Palestinian rights I don't support Hamas like Sam_b and BobK....

You still avoid my points, because you have none.

Dean

6th January 2010, 19:56

It's because I care about Palestinian rights I don't support Hamas like Sam_b and BobK....

You still avoid my points, because you have none.

Do you support the Isreali state? After all, if you can dissect which institutions you do and don't support within the state, why should support for Hamas or Hizb Allah necessary be in totality? I know for a fact that they don't support all of the works of those organizations.

Considering that 95% of Hamas' organization is social programs, shouldn't support of them be generally accepted as non-militant? Or does only Israel get the privilege of apologetic defense whererin only certain institutions can be criticised?

#FF0000

6th January 2010, 20:03

Jews moving to the historical lands of Israel without the backing of Israeli racist colonialism.

What I have been saying all along.

If you think Palestine is historically Jewish land then you ought to do some reading.

6th January 2010, 20:34

Sasha

6th January 2010, 20:53

LS, verbal warning for the oneliner.
pm warning for the predjuidiced language.

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 20:53

Go and kill yourself ****.

No restriction here? No warning? No infraction? What a hypocritical joke! Especially with regard to a Buddhaphobe racist like Is.

Sasha

6th January 2010, 20:58

and a verbal warning to comrade man for spamming.

anyone else?

graffic

6th January 2010, 21:13

anyone deserves to live anywhere, but nobody has the right to the backing of a racist state which is exclusory.

I agree with you entirely here.

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 22:21

"anyone deserves to live anywhere, but nobody has the right to the backing of a racist state which is exclusory.

That's all I have been bloody saying the whole time. Shit, people have been down on me like I was friggin Moshe Dayan, Golda Meir and Ariel Sharon rolled in one!!! All I said is that given the history of the Jewish people what was wrong with letting them live in their Holy Land so long as it is not at the cost of others. But I won't support Hamas et al either! Do you think an anarchist is going to condone an exlusory ethno-religious state? I take more or less the line of Chomsky, I just don't think the two state thing is so good either, for the Palestinians more than anyone else.

My own idea would be for a unified state with equal rights for all people and a high degree of local autonomy that would let people rule their own lives without state interference and in hope without interfering with others. I also support a right of return for Palestinians, if Jews have a right then so do Palestinians.

I would also demand that right be extended to the Jews dispossessed of land and property by the Arab nations, either that or pay up for the stuff they robbed from innocent people who had no part to play in the foundation of Israel other than the fact they were Jewish- afterall the Germans cough up too. This is where the Arab nations must also shoulder some blame, the Palestinians pleaded with them not to attack Jews in Arab lands knowing full well what would come next and they went ahead and did it. Who was it who spoke to the Arab league and said "Accept Israel now while she is a city?", I think he was a Tunisian- he got thrown out, they expelled the Jews- because they were Jewish... so if that ain't anti-Semitic I don't what is, and then all shit broke loose....

Now, show me where I am a Zionist.

#FF0000

6th January 2010, 22:57

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 23:30

I am preparing my case....

Have posted unfair restriction post.

danyboy27

6th January 2010, 23:39

I am preparing my case....

dude, you should cool down and take a little break of revleft for a while.
posting shit when you are upset will only make things worse you know.
go watch a movie, make love to a woman/man or go cook something great for your enjoyement.

then, when you will be relaxed come back and explain yourself quietly.

nobody listen to a dog who bark all the time, but everybody will notice the quiet one that only bark when its appropriate.

regards.

dan

ComradeMan

6th January 2010, 23:53

When fuckers threaten to burn me alive in the Israeli flag why the fuck should I respect their sensibilities? I have tried to remain polite up until now, but now I don't give a fuck! Thanks for the advice all the same- a lot of people have messages sympathy.

graffic

7th January 2010, 11:49

The restriction system needs reforming

freepalestine

7th January 2010, 20:37

yeh grafic it does because you both should be outright banned.

ComradeMan

7th January 2010, 20:39

yeh grafic it does because both you both should be outright banned.

Why- because we don't agree with you?

I still challenge anyone to show my why I am any more an "evil Zionist" than Dean, Chomsky or Muammar al Ghaddaffi?

Their silence speaks volumes.

freepalestine

7th January 2010, 21:01

this appears to be a leftwing site.and you and a 2 or 3 usernames are posting zionist posts on a left wing site.

you also claimed previously,the PFLP had dealings with swiss 'nazis'.when?maybe you mean karl-heinz hoffmann who had dealings with the lebanese phalange.he and his group where basically run by west german intelligence,and mossad etc..and kidnapped by PLO in beirut...

#FF0000

7th January 2010, 21:34

Why- because we don't agree with you?

I still challenge anyone to show my why I am any more an "evil Zionist" than Dean, Chomsky or Muammar al Ghaddaffi?

Their silence speaks volumes.

Jesus Fucking Christ kid no one's been silent. People have been arguing with you for the entirety of your fucking stay here.

I am so tired of your martyr complex and your constant demands for people to "address your points" when they already have many, many times over.

And why the fuck are you still on about this Zionism bullshit!? It's not even why you were restricted!

ComradeMan

7th January 2010, 21:54

graffic

7th January 2010, 22:18

this appears to be a leftwing site.and you and a 2 or 3 usernames are posting zionist posts on a left wing site.

Except that ComradeMan was not banned for being a zionist.

#FF0000

7th January 2010, 22:19

I could not give half a fuck where the PLFP got money from.

The U.S. space program got it's best minds right out of nazi germany. That means NASA is a nazi organization. ~ Comrademan's logic.

graffic

7th January 2010, 22:21

yeh grafic it does because you both should be outright banned.

Ooooh... I'm quaking in my boots :crying:

danyboy27

8th January 2010, 00:10

ComradeMan

8th January 2010, 10:05

I could not give half a fuck where the PLFP got money from.

The U.S. space program got it's best minds right out of nazi germany. That means NASA is a nazi organization. ~ Comrademan's logic.

NASA used Werner von Braun. The Allies in general, including the Soviets, seized the "brains" of Nazi Germany after the war to use for their own research, that does not make them Nazis but it does make one question the moral values of even the allies.

You can't compare Francis Genoud and Werner von Braun.

#FF0000

8th January 2010, 10:53

NASA used Werner von Braun. The Allies in general, including the Soviets, seized the "brains" of Nazi Germany after the war to use for their own research, that does not make them Nazis but it does make one question the moral values of even the allies.

You can't compare Francis Genoud and Werner von Braun.

Why not?

Also are you aware that white supremacists the world over just love the shit out of Israel?

Cause they do.

Chambered Word

8th January 2010, 11:35

Comrademan, please calm down! stop pissing people off and take it easy. if you dont stop dramatizing stuff you will never be unrestricted. go post a request in the unfair restriction thread and calm the fuck down!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RlftZfzHU-s/SJM0qXF2cFI/AAAAAAAAAB8/JbvjJQu3g9A/s400/CalvinHobbsCalmDown.jpg

Yeah, come on, play nice guys.

Anyway, the idea that homeland must be created for the Jewish people in the Holy Land is Zionism. The reason we leftists oppose it is because it is an illogical religious belief which advocates aggressive seizure of land from its residents and has led to horrific human rights violations.

If you really think the Jews should have their own state in the Holy Land, you are a Zionist and should seriously rethink your position if you want to call yourself a leftist.

ComradeMan I hope you realize you weren't actually restricted for allegedly being a Zionist, it was because of your supposedly liberal attitudes towards Afghanistan and the UN (which I have no idea about).

Sounds like somebody screwed up with your restriction, but I'll leave that to the mods to decide. :) Have a nice day.

#FF0000

8th January 2010, 11:47

ComradeMan I hope you realize you weren't actually restricted for allegedly being a Zionist, it was because of your supposedly liberal attitudes towards Afghanistan and the UN (which I have no idea about).

Sounds like somebody screwed up with your restriction, but I'll leave that to the mods to decide. :) Have a nice day.

No one screwed up anything. He's an apologist for imperialism.

Lyev

8th January 2010, 14:56

I could not give half a fuck where the PLFP got money from.

The U.S. space program got it's best minds right out of nazi germany. That means NASA is a nazi organization. ~ Comrademan's logic.

I think the main point is that the way anti-Israel resistance has manifested itself is in the form of the PFLP. Their dealing with a Nazi collaborator (Genoud) is somewhat questionable, but we can support the PFLP if only to the extent of them being a resistance to the Israeli oppression. (By the way, I'm not sure Genoud is actually a Nazi, he just gave them money, although saying that, he was still a bit of bastard). But anyway, like Loveshach said, they're not Nazis. I'm not sure if they had a whole lot of choice in the matter; they had to get armaments from somewhere. Although for a lot of western media it probably doesn't help the image of socialism, when they see Marxist-Leninists dealing with a man who affiliated himself with Nazis. So I support the PFLP only to the extent of them being a actualization of armed combat against the repressive Israeli regime. We don't necessarily have to concur with some of their methods or beliefs (dealing with Genoud for example) but as leftists I think we should support them as being an armed resistance, if you get what I mean.

ComradeMan

8th January 2010, 17:03

No one screwed up anything. He's an apologist for imperialism.

You understand nothing.

I did not apolgise for anything. People had already decided this long ago.
What about when others justify the occupation of Tibet? But that's all right I suppose because it's China that's doing it.

Anyone with half a brain can understand that however wrong the occupation is, and I do believe it was wrong and badly managed too, it has happened. The point should be about the de-occupation!

There was no apologism on my part. Show me where I justified the occupation?

I see the occupation along the lines of the analogy of a cancer. When a doctor finds a cancer he seeks to remove it, but the process of removal isn't just ripping it out, i.e. troops out within a month, the process has to be careful, monitored, and "surgical"- hence my response. Interestingly, others who actually bothered to read the post seemed to understand. But whereas I actually tried to tackle the matter realistically other just trotbag and shout "imperialist" "imperialist" with no clue about how they would actually handle the situation, if they care.

As for my "soft" approach on the UN, it strikes me as stunning hypocrisy when it is considered reactionary to support UN humanitarian missions but not reactionay to have a "Solidarity With Zimbabwe" group which hails Robert Mugabe amongst other things. Oh, I suppose if I dare criticise Mugabe I will now become an apologist for Rhodesia will I?

Pitiful.

8th January 2010, 18:18

Well, you think Britain's "cultural exchange" with India was equal as well, so it would hardly be surprising.

ComradeMan

8th January 2010, 18:59

Well, you think Britain's "cultural exchange" with India was equal as well, so it would hardly be surprising.

Where did I say "Britain's cultural exchange was equal"-? Why do you have to do this strawman thing on every damn post you moron? BTW- I think this counts as spamming- so I am going to report the post--- afterall that's what RevLeft seems to be about these days....

Dean

8th January 2010, 19:08

Where did I say "Britain's cultural exchange was equal"-? Why do you have to do this strawman thing on every damn post you moron? BTW- I think this counts as spamming- so I am going to report the post--- afterall that's what RevLeft seems to be about these days....

Verbal Warning for flaming.

If ls starts to make multiple threads as you did on the same topic, I'll give him a warnign for spamming as well. But I don't see that happening.

ComradeMan

8th January 2010, 19:12

Bud Struggle

8th January 2010, 19:15

Why is it spamming? I was replying to a comment that "spammed" the post..... pitiful. So Is posts spam on this post about me, I reply and highlight it and I get the warning.... well....welll....well........... speaks volumes.OK, lets calm this down.

So what is the difference between Israel that allows both Jews and Muslems (though only some) be citizens with full and equal rights and a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran which doesn't allown Jews to practice their religion there at all?

Shouldn't all these countries be treated equally?

Dimentio

8th January 2010, 20:55

Zionism is not about Jews having the right to live in Palestine. It is about the rights for Jews to have a Jewish state in Palestine. That wouldn't have been a problem had Palestine been a mono-ethnic territory.

#FF0000

8th January 2010, 21:04

sup guys i'm comrademan and i don't understand anti-imperialist struggle at all.

Fixed that for you.

And for the record we try our best to make revleft as pan-leftist as possible, which is pretty difficult as so much can pass for leftism, and there's so much disagreement between tendencies.

Folks support reactionary regimes in the 3rd world for a reason-- because it's better for a country to be independent than for a larger, more powerful country (or group of countries) to go and fuck around with any nation that they think deserves it.

Anyway, what it certainly NOT acceptable to the revolutionary left is support for imperialist countries in their imperialist endeavors. I think we learned that much from the last century, after the international working class (and the German working class in particular) absolutely squandered their opportunity by getting involved in World War I.

Long story short if you think that it's ever a good idea for the U.S. or Britain or any of these major, imperialist countries to fuck about with a smaller, weaker country, and that these endeavors by imperialist countries don't cause incredible harm to the working class in the target country, then you really deserve to be restricted.

#FF0000

8th January 2010, 21:15

OK, lets calm this down.

So what is the difference between Israel that allows both Jews and Muslems (though only some) be citizens with full and equal rights and a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran which doesn't allown Jews to practice their religion there at all?

Shouldn't all these countries be treated equally?

Jews in Iran aren't treated half as bad as Palestinians are treated in Palestine. Nowhere close.

Not sure about Saudi Arabia. Have to check with someone on that. However I know that Jews are allowed into the country at least, so long as they aren't Israeli.

9th January 2010, 00:39

So what is the difference between Israel that allows both Jews and Muslems (though only some) be citizens with full and equal rights...

Except that this is patently false. Muslims do not have the same rights as Jews in Israel. Which actually highlights one of the main problems with this issue which has characterized CM's attitude in every thread in which its been raised; if you don't know anything about the situation - and that is obviously very understandable - don't pretend like you do, particularly while slandering those who attempt to correct factual errors and present principled communist positions as "anti-Semites".

Bud Struggle

9th January 2010, 01:47

Except that this is patently false. Muslims do not have the same rights as Jews in Israel. Which actually highlights one of the main problems with this issue which has characterized CM's attitude in every thread in which its been raised; if you don't know anything about the situation - and that is obviously very understandable - don't pretend like you do, particularly while slandering those who attempt to correct factual errors and present principled communist positions as "anti-Semites".

Hopefully that little speech wasn't meant for me. :crying:

I've been to Israel a couple of times. The way things work is that the Moslems (Arabs) that were in Israel when it was created (in 1949) became citizens of Isreal--they are about 10% of the population and have all the rights and privileges of any Israel citizen. The people that are NOT citizens are those Arabs that were captured in the 1967 War. Those are the "Palestinians." And they have nothing. They are indeed treated like crap.

What I have trouble with are things like this:

Iran Arrests, Coerces Christians over Christmas Seasons

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11624602/

or

In Iran, Covert Christian Converts Live With Secrecy and Fear

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/05/08/in-iran-covert-christian-converts-live-with-secrecy-and-fear.html

or

Iraq: Christians Say Targeting By Extremists Amounts To Genocide

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1109587.html

or

Islamic Saudi Arabia and communist North Korea are expected to be the world’s worst persecutors of Christians in 2008, a church persecution advocacy group predicted.

In both countries, Christianity is illegal and practice of the religion is strictly forbidden and results in severe punishments

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080108/worst-christian-persecution-expected-in-saudi-arabia-n-korea/index.html

I could give you a hundred more--but they don't seem to be on your radar as much as Israel.

Listen: I disagree with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as much as anyone--but to just highlight this one country and not others--well, it seems like you are being a bit one sided.

Dimentio

9th January 2010, 06:19

Christianity, Judaism or Zoroastrianism are not forbidden in Iran. They even have their own parliament representatives. But for converts, I think the penalty is death, which is hardly anything unique.

In Saudi Arabia, there aren't any Jewish or Christian subjects at all. Neither does Saudi Arabia or Iran occupy any Jewish or christian land. Saudi Arabia is seldom criticised since it is on the "good" side, while Iran is demonised because its one of the leading countries of the "bad" side.

As for this blame game. I don't understand this tendency on both the right and the left to try to attack a regime on the other side, whether Israel or Iran or any other nation, when a regime on the own side is attacked.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are antiquated theocratic regimes which need to be scrapped asap. But not by the US Army.

graffic

9th January 2010, 09:57

Jews in Iran aren't treated half as bad as Palestinians are treated in Palestine. Nowhere close.

Not sure about Saudi Arabia. Have to check with someone on that. However I know that Jews are allowed into the country at least, so long as they aren't Israeli.

The Arab states don't give a shit about the palestinians. Look at the palestinian "refugee camps" in Egypt and Lebanon. They are treated worse than they ever would be under the harshest IDF platoon.

When the UN partition was established, Israel was attacked by every single Arab state. It was basically like having 7 kids who hate you, and have a history of violence towards you surround you on the playground and you go and punch them in the face. The IDF gained control of the areas under control of Egypt and Jordon (gaza strip/ west bank) inside Palestine after the six day war.

If you read the State of Israel Declaration of Independence, the Zionists say ". . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent." Which is nearly identical to saying "Palestinains should reclaim their land and a secular democratic Palestine should replace this colony where Jew and Arab have equal right".

But the rejectionist Hamas-Hizbollah-Iran circuit who see blowing up weddings full of civilians and buses full of children as "peoples resistance" are fantasists and they hate Zionism because it is Jewish. The IDF is not engaged in a medieval, religious fantasy like Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran. The suppression of the palestinians is an unfortunate result of war and conflict.

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 11:28

LOOK THEY ARE ALL BLOODY REACTIONARY THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

I have great difficulty in supporting any side because no side comes out smelling of roses. One side has had more success because of US backing. This does not affect my position that I think the Jewish people should have a right to live in their Holy Land, given persecution, pogroms, the Shoah etc but I have always stated NOT at the cost of others.

I know Arab-Israelis who live perfectly normal lives in Israel and get more shit from outside Israel. There are many Bedouin who serve in the IDF and the status of the Druze is also complicated.

That's why time and time again I have stated they all need a slap in the face with a wet fish, kosher or halaal, and learn to rise above their differences and live together and that's why I support the one-state secular solution that accommodates ALL. Jewish people could have their own autonomy, as Palestinians, as Muslims, as bloody Jedi Knights under a federalised system which would ideally be built on socialist principles. The only religious law would be to respect the religious rights of others.

NOTE TO DIMENTIO- I know some Iranian Zoroastrians who say they are treated like shit in Iran, keep their religion to themselves and were given Muslim names by their parents so as not to advertise their Zoroastrianism and face "unwritten" persecution. Iran basically tolerates them and not much more. I don't know how exactly true this is and all Iranians still celebrate the Iranian New Year with seven things that begin with "s" etc regardless of religion, but it is not as rosey in Iran as they make it out to be. When I challenged my Iranian friend he said "They lie..." and that was his answer.

BobKKKindle$

9th January 2010, 12:21

The way things work is that the Moslems (Arabs)

This says it all really doesn't it. I think Edward Said just died....again.

Dimentio

9th January 2010, 12:31

That's why time and time again I have stated they all need a slap in the face with a wet fish, kosher or halaal, and learn to rise above their differences and live together and that's why I support the one-state secular solution that accommodates ALL. Jewish people could have their own autonomy, as Palestinians, as Muslims, as bloody Jedi Knights under a federalised system which would ideally be built on socialist principles. The only religious law would be to respect the religious rights of others.

NOTE TO DIMENTIO- I know some Iranian Zoroastrians who say they are treated like shit in Iran, keep their religion to themselves and were given Muslim names by their parents so as not to advertise their Zoroastrianism and face "unwritten" persecution. Iran basically tolerates them and not much more. I don't know how exactly true this is and all Iranians still celebrate the Iranian New Year with seven things that begin with "s" etc regardless of religion, but it is not as rosey in Iran as they make it out to be. When I challenged my Iranian friend he said "They lie..." and that was his answer.

Did I claim that Iran was rosy?

This is your problem. You get all worked up and emotional over the slightest form of problematisation of the degree of repression in the muslim world, while you apologise for Israel in the extent they do similar offenses. You seem to be emotionally attached to the entire issue of "Israel vs the Muslim World". The only ones I have heard similar feelings or statements emanate from are christian evangelical zionists.

I remember a lecture about how water could create conflicts. The lecturer, who was a renowned professor, took up a point about how Israelis are taking water from Palestine. One lady at the front in her forties started to go berserk about that, claiming that the Israelis gave Palestinians schools, jobs and benefits better than any other Arabs and that it was antisemitic to claim that Israel stole water from Palestine.

Later on during the lecture, she made another interjection, about how terrible the Egyptians were who squandered the water of the Nile by having open sewers in Cairo.

Zionism in Europe and America is nothing else than a childish worldview where Israel and the West are defined as "The Elves" while the Muslim World (or the anti-western world) is defined as "Mordor", and everything else is made subservient to that worldview. On the other side of the fence, the islamists have built up similar demonisations. This conflict is very convenient for the ruling class, as it puts up two self-identified civilisational blocks against each-other, without any internal class divisions.

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 12:40

Dimentio- Where have I ever apologised for Israel? Show me....

I am not getting worked up at all. Having a cup of tea (not Tetley's...LOL!!) whilst I am writing...

Dean

9th January 2010, 13:21

Dimentio- Where have I ever apologised for Israel? Show me....

I am not getting worked up at all. Having a cup of tea (not Tetley's...LOL!!) whilst I am writing...

Let's start by the fact that you've refused to make any criticism of Israel, but made many of Muslim nations and peoples, and furthermore been intimately involved in the discussion. I have directly asked you very specific questions about Israel and you've consistently ignored me at those times, instead choosing to go on your tirade about how leftists are biased agaisnt Israel.

Well, we are everywhere biased against foreign imperial aggression expecially when done under a white nationalist system of expropriation of the local population in the stead of an ethnic body. Many of us are Marxists, and subsequently are itnerested in critiquing whatever creates these conflcits. Again, western imperial aggression is the clear generative force, and as such we oppose it.

If the PA was an absolute authority in the region, subverting Jewish rights, we'd absolutely be looking at it the other way. But as it stands, the PA and Hamas only act within the framework of the Israeli occupation and siege respectively. Not the other way around.

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 13:45

@Dean
Let's start by the fact that you've refused to make any criticism of Israel, but made many of Muslim nations and peoples, and furthermore been intimately involved in the discussion. I have directly asked you very specific questions about Israel and you've consistently ignored me at those times, instead choosing to go on your tirade about how leftists are biased agaisnt Israel.

False. I have never supported the aggressive Zionist regimes of the past, I condemned the Irgun and stated that I do not agree with theological Zionism from both a secular and non-secular point of view. No one ever asked me what I thought of the Knesset. Shall we took about the Irgun? Deir Yassan? The Stern Gang? I attacked people like Schlomo Sand for what is in my opinion a load of rubbish and was being used as some kind of evidence against me. What direct questions about Israel? I asked you a direct question about your definition of "pacifistic Zionism" which you staunchly advocate in one of your essays on your site and you refused to answer me directly- then I got infracted for spamming and the threads were closed.

If every criticism of Islamists, whether it overlaps with Israel or not is going to be taken as overt Zionism well then I don't know. On my original restriction thread I discussed in depth my views on currents within Islam and have stated quite often that I do support the Progressive Movements in Islam along with the more moderate schools of thought. However you cannot deny the reactionary elements in Islam, no more than they can be denied in Judaism or Christianity. What I do feel is that whereas Judaism and Christianity are often attack for their reactionary elements Islam has now become "untouchable" for fear of being branded an Islamophobe.

Well, we are everywhere biased against foreign imperial aggression expecially when done under a white nationalist system of expropriation of the local population in the stead of an ethnic body. Many of us are Marxists, and subsequently are itnerested in critiquing whatever creates these conflcits. Again, western imperial aggression is the clear generative force, and as such we oppose it.

This is where you show your feet of clay. You should be against every and any form of foreign imperial aggression not only when done under a white nationalist system. I also find this take on Israel interesting considering that 40-50% of Israeli Jews are Middle-Eastern-N.African in origin. I really don't see how you can turn this into a colour issue.

The other thing you appear to miss is this business of Western Imperial Aggression. Capitalist Imperial Aggression I can understand, but what about China'sn occupation of Tibet? Is that not condemnable too, and what about the Soviet Union's imperialist aggression too? Is Western imperial aggression the generative force in the oppression of workers in Iran? In the disappointing results of the Cuban revolution? Let's not even start about N.Korea. Come on, it's not so cut and dried as that.

As leftists we should condemn all reactionary, imperialist and capitalist movements, organisations etc and not just pick and choose selectively.

If the PA was an absolute authority in the region, subverting Jewish rights, we'd absolutely be looking at it the other way. But as it stands, the PA and Hamas only act within the framework of the Israeli occupation and siege respectively. Not the other way around.

Once again I point you to the fact that I have nowhere defended or tried to be an apologist for the Israeli regime but that does not mean I have to be an apologist for members of the Arab League either, nor do I have to ignore the fact that they have also contributed to the conflagration in the Middle East and elsewhere I have stated that the Palestinian leadership has been dreadful- who suffers? Well, the Palestinians of course...

Your citing Hamas in the name of the Palestinian cause does little from a leftist point of view.

1. A reactionary theocratic Islamist movement.
2. A movement that shoots at striking workers.
3. A movement that has been accused of being in cahoots with the Israeli and CIA secret services anyway.
4. A movement that has no qualms about slaughtering fellow Palestinians.
5. A movement that has no qualms about killing innocent people.

Have you never thought that two sides in a conflict could both be reactionary and as such deserve no support from the left?

I believe in the grassroots left, the ordinary people who just want to live in peace and have a safe place for their children to grow up. My historical analyses force me to call Devil's advocate on all and sundry and these have led me to the conclusion that most of history has been reactionary and that we cannot get involved in defending outright anyone from a leftist standpoint. History has happened, we need to analyse it objectively and move on. As leftists our goals should be about looking to build the future not about rewriting the past.

If that makes me reactionary, well I'm sorry!

Bud Struggle

9th January 2010, 14:37

This says it all really doesn't it. I think Edward Said just died....again.

I met Said once--at a (memorial) party for Nadia Boulanger in NYC.

BTW--I know Moslem doesn't = Arab that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that there is a part of the Arab population that is treated as (almost) normal citizens of Israel. They have the same rights as Jewish citizens but aren't conscripted into military (there may be a few other things there too.)

On the whole they are treated in actual life as second class citizens but under the law they have the same rights as Jews.

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 14:46

Originally Posted by ComradeMan http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1645199#post1645199)
sup guys i'm comrademan and i don't understand anti-imperialist struggle at all.

I NEVER POSTED THIS COMMENT. IT IS NOT MY COMMENT AT ALL. WHERE DID YOU GET THIS SUPPOSED QUOTE FROM?

Second Point

I NEVER SAID IT WAS A GOOD IDEA FOR BRITAIN OR THE US TO "FUCK ABOUT" WITH THESE COUNTRIES DID I? WHERE DID I SAY THAT? BUT THE DATE IS 2010 AND THE OCCUPATION ISN'T ABOUT TO HAPPEN, IT HAPPENED SO THE WHOLE POST WAS ABOUT WHAT DO WITH THE SITUATION NOW, NOT WHETHER IS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

BobKKKindle$

9th January 2010, 15:47

I met Said once--at a (memorial) party for Nadia Boulanger in NYC.

BTW--I know Moslem doesn't = Arab that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that there is a part of the Arab population that is treated as (almost) normal citizens of Israel. They have the same rights as Jewish citizens but aren't conscripted into military (there may be a few other things there too.)

On the whole they are treated in actual life as second class citizens but under the law they have the same rights as Jews.

It's not only true that not all Muslims are Arabs and that not all Arabs are Muslims, not to mention the fact that it's grossly offensive to suggest that the two words can be used interchangeably, as if to suggest that Arab people can be defined primarily in terms of their religion - the notion that peoples of non-European descent can be regarded as tied to religion and other forms of traditional belief is one of the central features of the orientalist worldview that Said seeks to expose and critique. In addition to these points it is also true and significant that Arabs are not the only people who were dispossessed and oppressed as a result of Israel's creation, as the Berber peoples who populate the south of Israel have also suffered a similar fate at the hands of the Israeli state and settler communities. Unfortunately there are many pro-Palestine activists who ignore this.

On the point of how Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship are oppressed and whether their oppression is sanctioned by law, it's simply not true to say that they have the same legal rights as Israel's Jewish citizens, and that their oppression is solely non-legal, or in violation of the law. The fact that Palestinians do not have to complete military service appears to be a blessing but is actually part of their oppression in that Israel's citizens are only allowed access to state benefits such as unemployment benefit once they have reached the age at which most young people either complete their military service or graduate from religious schools - 20 in most cases. This means that when Palestinian Israelis have completed their secondary education they have to survive for a number of years without receiving the most basic kinds of support from the state, a major problem when we consider the rates of youth unemployment amongst Palestinians in Israel, and there are also many companies in both the public and private sectors which have made serving in the military a condition for employment, further discriminating against non-Jewish workers, who are also denied membership of Histadrut. The absence of state services is also part of life for larger numbers of Palestinians because many Palestinian communities and villages are not recognized by the government, and as such they are not entitled to access to water or electricity, and the government has also enacted planning laws in a way that classifies the land which surrounds Palestinian communities as protected on ecological or security grounds, preventing the members of those communities from expanding as their populations grow. This is further reinforced by the fact that more than 90% of the land in Israel is owned by the Israel Land Administration, which is closely linked to the government, and prevents anyone who is not Jewish from leasing land. The state schools of these communities also receive inferior funding and are not allowed to teach the history of Israel in a way that encourages Palestinians to identify as part of the Palestinian nation. The Naqba, for example, is ignored. In addition, all school teachers are vetoed by the Shin Bet, and there are also reports of children being used as spies and informers to control classroom discussions and teaching.

I could go on as these are just a few of the ways in which Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship encounter discrimination from the state as well as from non-state or semi-governmental actors. It is partly in order to maintain these varied forms of discrimination that Israel is one of the only bourgeois democracies in the entire world not to have a written constitution, as a constitution would be expected to contain causes relating to equality, which could then be used by Palestinians to protest against the way they are treated. When Palestinians have threatened to combat their oppression through the formal political process Israel has shown itself to be more than capable of taking extra steps to prevent them from doing so - such as the banning of several Arab parties last year.

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 16:10

It's not only true that not all Muslims are Arabs and that not all Arabs are Muslims, not to mention the fact that it's grossly offensive to suggest that the two words can be used interchangeably, as if to suggest that Arab people can be defined primarily in terms of their religion

Who is saying that? You are jumping on your high-horse again. Only about 20% of the Muslim world is "Arabic" so to speak. However, it is not unreasonable to say that probably 94.5% of the Arab world is Islamic in culture/belief.

I found these stats but I can't vouch for them:-

Christians make up 5.5% of the population of the Near East.
In Lebanon they number about 39% of the population.
In Syria, Christians make up 16% of the population.
In Palestine before the creation of Israel estimates ranged as high as 25%, but is now 3.8% due largely to the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
In West Bank and in Gaza, Arab Christians make up 8% and 0.8% of the populations, respectively.
In Israel, Arab Christians constitute 1.7% (roughly 9% of the Palestinian Arab population).
Arab Christians make up 6% of the population of Jordan.
Most North and South American Arabs are Christian, as are about half of Arabs in Australia who come particularly from Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinian territories. I also refer you to this article which talks of the persecution of Palestinian Christians within the territories, albeit from a Christian source.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/palestines.christians.continue.to.suffer.persecuti on/5106.htm

Berber peoples?

As far as I knew the Berbers were from the Maghreb.

Who exactly are these Berber peoples who populate the South of Israel? I only found references to Berber Jews who emigrated to Israel from Morocco and speak a Judaeo-Berber language (the elderly mostly). If I am wrong please point this out:-

I also found this article at:-
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2006/07/new-berber-israeli-friendship.html
New Berber-Israeli friendship association

A new Berber-Israeli friendship association aims to develop relations between Berbers (also known as Amazighs) and Berber-speaking Jews in Israel.

According to Boubaker Ouadaadid, a German teacher in Casablanca, the association aims to fight antisemitism in Morocco and to spread Amazigh culture among Jews in Israel.

"Where I grew up (in the country) there was no difference between Jews and Muslims. We were very close to our Jewish brethren. When I moved to Casablanca, I was shocked by people's attitudes. They were frankly antisemitic. For example they would say, lihoudi hachack. That's one reason why we decided to set up this association."

The association aims to organise trips for Moroccan and Israeli Berbers (sic) to meet, encourage economic exchanges between the two countries and promote Israeli aid to rural Berber areas. It bucks the official trend, which aims to foster total rupture between the Moroccan state and Israel and runs counter to the pro-Palestinian sentiment prevailing among the Moroccan people.

Ouadaadid, together with Brahim Amekraz, believes that the Palestinian cause has been exploited by the country's policies for personal gain. "We do not feel any animoisity towards Israel. The conflict is between Palestinians and Israelis. The war is taking place thousands of kilometres away. It does not interest us."

The Jews who lived in Tinghir, Timit, Ouarzazate and Sefrou used to speak Berber and Hebrew. They sang in Berber at weddings or circumcisions.

The founders of the friendship association hope to meet in August. They have members in Casablanca, Rabat, Meknes and Tangiers. In Israel, M. Ouadaadid mentions as his associates Dr Bruce Weitzmann, the researcher Moshe Benarouch and the journalist Mira Africh
__________

You also mix up Arab-Israeli and Palestinians all the time so it is unclear whether you mean people in the occupied territories or not.

Look, no one is defending the current Israeli regime and set up, but you refuse to acknowledge the problems on the other side that hinder any progress in the whole damn mess.

BobKKKindle$

9th January 2010, 16:36

Who is saying that? BudStruggle, by referring to "Moslems (Arabs)" as if the two are interchangeable with one another.

As far as I knew the Berbers were from the Maghreb.You're right. I do of course mean the Bedouin peoples. An honest mistake in my part - probably because I've been reading about Algeria recently and haven't studied Israel for some time. Although it does make me seem a bit stupid, saying that it's something a lot of activists are not aware of, and then making a schoolboy error like that.

However, the fact that, upon being faced with an argument that the Berber people are oppressed, you produce a counter-argument that seeks to portray Israel as friendly, is very telling.

You also mix up Arab-Israeli and Palestinians all the time so it is unclear whether you mean people in the occupied territories or not.I'm not mixing anything up. It's entirely legitimate to refer to the Arabs who are Israeli citizens (or Arab Israelis if you prefer) as Palestinians because the vast majority of them consider themselves to be part of a Palestinian nation which has been occupied and oppressed as a result of Israel's creation and continued existence over half a century. In many if not all communities there are also extensive links and relationships between Palestinians living inside Israel and those in the occupied territories. This is to be expected given that in many cases whether Palestinians became Israeli citizens after the Naqba was a matter of chance, depending entirely on where their communities were located, whether they remained in their communities for the duration of the fighting, and so on. I don't expect you to be able to acknowledge this as a supporter of Israel but the mere existence of this group stands in tension with the purpose for which Israel was created, namely to be a Jewish state in an area that has historically been populated by non-Jewish peoples who would logically have no stake in any state with an ethnic basis. In order for Israel to remain a Jewish state it is necessary that the non-Jewish population within Israel's borders and to a lesser extent in the occupied territories not be allowed significant power within the framework of the existing political process, as this could lead to Palestinians forcing through anti-racist changes and reversing historic injustices, and this in turn requires both pressure to emigrate and the disenfranchisement of non-Jewish groups, both of these aims being served by the structures of oppression that I talked about in my previous post - and in light of the growing demographic strength of the Palestinian population it is likely that Israel will become even more oppressive in the future and that what is currently a somewhat hidden form of Apartheid will be replaced by a state that ever-larger numbers of people around the world can recognize as fundamentally racist.

the problems on the other side that hinder any progress in the whole damn mess. Only a liberal like you can reduce the issue to there being "problems" on both sides. The starting-point for any progressive analysis of Palestine has to be that the Israel is a fundamentally racist state, and that Palestinians have the status of an occupied people, with Israel's Jewish population having the role of a settler population. You deny this.

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 17:00

BudStruggle, by referring to "Moslems (Arabs)" as if the two are interchangeable with one another.

Okay, I agree. That is foolish indeed. You have to admit that a lot of people do tend to use the words synonymously though so perhaps you can let Bud off on the grounds of he has maybe been told this and you know what he probably meant.

You're right. I do of course mean the Bedouin peoples. An honest mistake in my part - probably because I've been reading about Algeria recently and haven't studied Israel for some time. Although it does make me seem a bit stupid, saying that it's something a lot of activists are not aware of, and then making a schoolboy error like that.

Ah, okay- on the first point fair enough. Anyone can make a mistake but it did throw me.:)

However, the fact that, upon being faced with an argument that the Berber people are oppressed, you produce a counter-argument that seeks to portray Israel as friendly, is very telling.

Come on.... I went off to look for information about Berber's in Israel and that is what I found, don't come down on me for that. You can hardly have a go at me for this can you when you made a mistake in the first place. Anyway, it's fine. I respect someone who can admit their own mistakes. All I found was stuff about the positive relationship between Israel and the Berbers.

I'm not mixing anything up. It's entirely legitimate to refer to the Arabs who are Israeli citizens (or Arab Israelis if you prefer) as Palestinians because the vast majority of them consider themselves to be part of a Palestinian nation which has been occupied and oppressed as a result of Israel's creation and continued existence over half a century.

Yeah okay.... I see what you mean. But at the same time you have to be clear and there are problems because everyone seems to be using different words for different things. You need to draw a distinction between Arab-Israelis who are Israeli citizens, Palestinians under the PA and in the territories. Interestingly, where does that leave all the Bedouin who serve in the IDF? Another distinction that needs to be made, or at least a factor that needs to be acknowledged.

In many if not all communities there are also extensive links and relationships between Palestinians living inside Israel and those in the occupied territories. This is to be expected given that in many cases whether Palestinians became Israeli citizens after the Naqba was a matter of chance, depending entirely on where their communities were located, whether they have remained in their communities for the duration of the fighting, and so on. I don't expect you to be able to acknowledge this as a supporter of Israel but the mere existence of this group stands in tension with the purpose for which Israel was created, namely to be a Jewish state in an area that has historically been populated by non-Jewish peoples who would logically have no stake in any state with an ethnic basis.

But I am not in conflict with you about this. I already knew this, I have also made it clear that the very idea of an ethno-religious exclusive state was and is a bad idea anyway. Hence my "secular" one state solution with equal rights for all. But you also need to acknowledge that Jewish people have also lived in the area, albeit in small numbers throughout history and that Jerusalem was a majority Jewish city at the beginning of the 20th century. You also need to acknowledge that about 40-50% of Israeli Jews are descended from those who fled persecution in Arab League states, despite the fact that the Palestinians themselves were totally against this persecution.

In order for Israel to remain a Jewish state it is necessary that the non-Jewish population within Israel's borders and to a lesser extent in the occupied territories not be allowed significant power within the framework of the existing political process, and this in turn requires both pressure to emigrate and the disenfranchisement of non-Jewish groups, both of these aims being served by the structures of oppression that I talked about in my previous post - and in light of the growing demographic strength of the Palestinian population it is likely that Israel will become even more oppressive in the future and that what is currently a somewhat hidden form of Apartheid will be replaced by a state that ever-larger numbers of people around the world can recognize as fundamentally racist.

About 80% of Israeli Jews are secular these days, they are as Jewish as most Europeans are "Christian", if you see what I mean. The problem is with a state based on religious laws that in turn lead to discrimination owing to the nature of Judaism itself in many senses. Nevertheless, any theocratic state is a bad idea in my opinion- hence my issues with Tibet.

Once again, I point you to the fact that I have all along said a one state secular solution but that does not mean I deny the Jewish people of Israel the right to live there in peace nor the right not to have their own self-determination inasmuch as all other peoples have. That's all I have ever said.

Only a liberal like you can reduce the issue to there being "problems" on both sides. The starting-point for any progressive analysis of Palestine has to be that the Israel is a fundamentally racist state, and that Palestinians have the status of an occupied people, with Israel's Jewish population having the role of a settler population. You deny this.

I have pointed out the problems on the other side too, but you don't want to listen You just want to support Hamas who are about as leftwing as the KKK and just as bad. You cannot say that "Israel's Jewish Population" is entirely made up of evil settlers, some yes, but not all. This is the problem with your analysis. You seek to be highly pedantic and accurate- fair enough- when it comes to the non-Jewish populations of Israel-Palestine but when it comes to the Jewish population you lump them all into one group. What about the Middle-Eastern Jews who fled there? What about the Jews that had always lived there? What about he Jews who had legally lived in the region from the time of the early aliyas long before the state of Israel existed?

Bud Struggle

9th January 2010, 17:37

It's not only true that not all Muslims are Arabs and that not all Arabs are Muslims, not to mention the fact that it's grossly offensive to suggest that the two words can be used interchangeably, as if to suggest that Arab people can be defined primarily in terms of their religion - the notion that peoples of non-European descent can be regarded as tied to religion and other forms of traditional belief is one of the central features of the orientalist worldview that Said seeks to expose and critique. In addition to these points it is also true and significant that Arabs are not the only people who were dispossessed and oppressed as a result of Israel's creation, as the Berber peoples who populate the south of Israel have also suffered a similar fate at the hands of the Israeli state and settler communities. Unfortunately there are many pro-Palestine activists who ignore this.

You got all of that out of my "Moslem (Arab)"? What the hell is the matter with you? The majority of Moslems in Israel are Arabs--or at least that's what they consider themselves. Moslems citizens of Israel almost universally call themselves "Arabs." "Palestinians" are the "non-citizens." If you'd take the trouble to visit there you would know that. That is all I was saying.

On the point of how Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship are oppressed and whether their oppression is sanctioned by law, it's simply not true to say that they have the same legal rights as Israel's Jewish citizens, and that their oppression is solely non-legal, or in violation of the law. The fact that Palestinians do not have to complete military service appears to be a blessing but is actually part of their oppression in that Israel's citizens are only allowed access to state benefits such as unemployment benefit once they have reached the age at which most young people either complete their military service or graduate from religious schools - 20 in most cases. This means that when Palestinian Israelis have completed their secondary education they have to survive for a number of years without receiving the most basic kinds of support from the state, a major problem when we consider the rates of youth unemployment amongst Palestinians in Israel, and there are also many companies in both the public and private sectors which have made serving in the military a condition for employment, further discriminating against non-Jewish workers, who are also denied membership of Histadrut. The absence of state services is also part of life for larger numbers of Palestinians because many Palestinian communities and villages are not recognized by the government, and as such they are not entitled to access to water or electricity, and the government has also enacted planning laws in a way that classifies the land which surrounds Palestinian communities as protected on ecological or security grounds, preventing the members of those communities from expanding as their populations grow. This is further reinforced by the fact that more than 90% of the land in Israel is owned by the Israel Land Administration, which is closely linked to the government, and prevents anyone who is not Jewish from leasing land. The state schools of these communities also receive inferior funding and are not allowed to teach the history of Israel in a way that encourages Palestinians to identify as part of the Palestinian nation. The Naqba, for example, is ignored. In addition, all school teachers are vetoed by the Shin Bet, and there are also reports of children being used as spies and informers to control classroom discussions and teaching. As I said they are treated like second class citizens.

I could go on as these are just a few of the ways in which Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship encounter discrimination from the state as well as from non-state or semi-governmental actors. It is partly in order to maintain these varied forms of discrimination that Israel is one of the only bourgeois democracies in the entire world not to have a written constitution, as a constitution would be expected to contain causes relating to equality, which could then be used by Palestinians to protest against the way they are treated. When Palestinians have threatened to combat their oppression through the formal political process Israel has shown itself to be more than capable of taking extra steps to prevent them from doing so - such as the banning of several Arab parties last year.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. That wasn't the point of my post at all--but you seem to feel it important that you take the point out of what I initially said with all of this verbage--the Left is singular on is policies of which groups of oppressed people it supports. The Palistinians (who are COMPLETELY worthy of support--I have no problem with RevLeft's position AT ALL) get the sympathy of the Left while oppressed Christians in Moslem countries are neglected.

My charge against the Left is that they are being Politically Correct in their defense of persecuted people to further their own agenda. It seems you really don't care about the people themselves--just your own ends.

BobKKKindle$

9th January 2010, 17:51

The majority of Moslems in Israel are ArabsIt's called coded language.

Moslems citizens of Israel almost universally call themselves "Arabs."

They identify as Palestinians, "Israeli Arab" is a term with a political aim - to ignore Palestinian identity and the process by which Israel came into being.

As I said they are treated like second class citizens.You also said "under the law they have the same rights as Jews". That's completely wrong, as I've just shown, because their oppression is directly sanctioned by the state and is inherent within Israel itself, as a state with an ethnic basis.

get the sympathy of the Left while oppressed Christians in Moslem countries are neglected.It's not that the left doesn't care about the conditions of religious minorities in "Moslem countries" (if you're going to describe countries as Muslim you should spell it properly at least, "Moslem" is a grossly archaic spelling and is widely regarded as having the same offensive and colonial connotations as words like "Mohammedean") it's that we don't make simplistic comparisons of the kind that you're trying to draw. For a start the oppression of the Palestinian people is not about religion at all, because Zionism has always been a primarily secular (and racist) movement, but most importantly Christian and other non-Muslim minorities in the Middle East outside of Israel do not have the same of a colonized population and are not being subject to active attempts on the part of governments to drive them from their homes and rob them of their basic rights. In other words, Israel is a settler state, countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia are not.

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 17:58

but most importantly Christian and other non-Muslim minorities in the Middle East outside of Israel do not have the same of a colonized population and are not being subject to active attempts on the part of governments to drive them from their homes and rob them of their basic rights. In other words, Israel is a settler state, countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia are not.

Well all the Jews have been driven out already, mostly going to Israel. I think the Egyptian Copts might be interested in your ideas of Islamist tolerance. Seeing as 40-50% of these "settlers" are there in Israel as a result of anti-Semitic persecution in Arab league states etc then it does call into question both "sides". What would you say to the Jews chased out of Arab league states? Would you call for reparations from those states for example?

Muslim- Moslem---- BobK, please you are scraping the barrel here a bit. Moslem is from the Persian and I only found one reference on Wiki to its presumed offensiveness on some PC pdf file from a British local government agency
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/151921.pdf

And this response at http://www.renaissance.com.pk/janq82y1.htm which said it basically depends on the intention of the speaker.

Question: Why do some people spell the word ‘Muslim’ as ‘Moslem’. Is it true that ‘Moslem’ is an offensive word, derived from Zulm? Many Muslim speakers take an offence to this word. Is this reaction justified?
Answer: This depends on the intention of the speaker. If this is a mere matter of pronouncing the Arabic word ‘Muslim’ in the typical English accent, then this cannot be objected to (which seems to be the case to me). If it is derived from Zulm, then Muzlim (the correct grammatical version of the word pronounced as Moslem) means a person who is oppressive, which of course is derogatory.
I think that Muslims are being over sensitive in this regard. The Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, USA has been publishing a journal ‘The Moslem World’ since the beginning of this century and none of the Muslims of yester years ever objected to the title. In my opinion, they thought that this was a difference of accent merely and had nothing to do with the word Zulm.

BobKKKindle$

9th January 2010, 18:08

BobK, please you are scraping the barrel here a bitI'm not scraping the barrel at all. The fact that it might be derived from a Persian word does not change the fact that it is currently used primarily as a term of abuse - that the UK government recognizes this despite not being known as exactly the most radical or progressive governments when it comes to tackling racist discrimination is proof in support of this regardless of whether you view it as "PC" or not. Now, as for the role of intention, this introduces a whole range of philosophical issues about why it means to intend to do something and the extent to which people are influenced by society without being aware of it, but we should at least be able to agree that someone not being immediately aware of a word's offensive connotations does not mean that person does not harbour prejudiced attitudes or that they should not be encouraged to use another way of expressing themselves. The word "Mohammedan" is a case in point in that it figures prominently in older accounts of Islam that were written by people from a non-Muslim background, but is critiqued by Said and today regarded as offensive, mainly because it totally distorts the role that Mohammed plays in Islam and makes it seem as if simple parallels can be drawn between Islam and Christianity. If I remember correctly the historic usage of the word "Mohammedan" is one of the first points raised in 'Orientalism'.

Well all the Jews have been driven out already, mostly going to Israel

Nonsense, there are at least 20,000 Jews in Iran alone, in spite of persecution.

I think the Egyptian Copts might be interested in your ideas of Islamist tolerance

I didn't mention "Islamist tolerance", I drew attention to the fact that Israel is a settler state, whereas Egypt is not.

Seeing as 40-50% of these "settlers" are there in Israel as a result of anti-Semitic persecution in Arab league states etc

Not that this is important for my view or anything, but I highly doubt this is true - the vast majority of Jews who are currently living in Israel are from Europe or North America, and of European descent, with especially large numbers from Russia. As for the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries you seem to be assuming that this is something people such as myself support or that these Jews having been expelled somehow means that Israel is not a settler state and should be allowed to exist - quite simply this is without basis, an ethnic group or community encountering oppression does not mean that they then have the right to carry out a program of ethnic cleansing against another ethnic group and to create a state that is designed to protect their interests at the expense of others, which is what has happened through the creation of Israel.

Bud Struggle

9th January 2010, 18:14

It's called coded language. For you. Maybe not so much in the real world. These are the kind of word games that the Left plays to see who is on the cutting edge of cool and who isn't.

You also said "under the law they have the same rights as Jews". That's completely wrong, as I've just shown, because their oppression is directly sanctioned by the state and is inherent within Israel itself, as a state with an ethnic basis. Basically the rights are the same--but as I mention there are difference and the Muslims are second class. If you want to spell them out that's your business.

It's not that the left doesn't care about the conditions of religious minorities in "Moslem countries" (if you're going to describe countries as Muslim you should spell it properly at least, "Moslem" is a grossly archaic spelling and is widely regarded as having the same offensive and colonial connotations as words like "Mohammedean") See my point on "Leftist chic" above. Here in America the Muslims that I speak to and do business with call themselves Moslems--and I believe in the right of self determination. (But in this case--I'm happy to do it your way.:))

it's that we don't make simplistic comparisons of the kind that you're trying to draw. For a start the oppression of the Palestinian people is not about religion at all, because Zionism has always been a primarily secular (and racist) movement, but most importantly Christian and other non-Muslim minorities in the Middle East outside of Israel do not have the same of a colonized population and are not being subject to active attempts on the part of governments to drive them from their homes and rob them of their basic rights. In other words, Israel is a settler state, countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia are not.

And the REASON you make these distinctions is that it is convenient. What does it matter if people are persecuted because one place is a settler state and another isn't? Nothing really. It's just that it's easy for Leftist posers to get behind some Politically Correct people--like the Palestinians, who are no ideological threat to Communism as opposed to Christians--whom the Left finds somewhat distasteful.

An interesting situation if that of Tibet. The Left is all over the place on that issue. Some support China under the mistaken belief that there still is anything "Communist" about the country. Some support Tibet even though the country was a autrocratic theocracy.

Anyway, you haven't made your case, Bobby.

And on a further note--on meeting Edward Said, at the party he played Brahm's Piano Sonata #2, pretty brilliantly. And interestingly it was on Daniel Barenboim's Bluthner which Barenboim told us John Lennon played the final chord of "A Day In the Life." He was nice enough to let me play that giant E chord, too. :)
.

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 20:28

Bob, you are getting slaughtered here. Why not give up being so ricalcitrant and actually admit that everyone here is not a rampant Zionist but we might not have your view either, especially when you pick at things and misrepresent stuff to support your own argument.:)

I'm not scraping the barrel at all. The fact that it might be derived from a Persian word does not change the fact that it is currently used primarily as a term of abuse -

By whom? It's a bloody spelling for crying out loud! Whether I write it Muslim or Moslem I say "muhzlim" anyway and an American would probably say "mahzlim". WTF. And the information I found came from an Islamic website.No one was using the word Mohammedan until you brought it up. We are not from the 18th century you know.

Nonsense, there are at least 20,000 Jews in Iran alone, in spite of persecution.

Ouch, firstly that seems good until you check and find that there were about 150,000 in 1948. Iran has been seemingly more tolerant, but when i spoke of the expulsions I was talking about the Arab League and not Iran. I take it you know the difference.... :)

You then say "in spite of persecution", de facto admitting they are persecuted when Iran is probably the only Islamic state where Jews are tolerated at all. Nevertheless, if I or someone else had said there are "x" amount of Arab-Israelis in spite of being treated like second class citizens blah blah blah you'd have been all over me like a rash. So it's all right to be persecuted in a certain sense.

I didn't mention "Islamist tolerance", I drew attention to the fact that Israel is a settler state, whereas Egypt is not. Well the Egyptian Copts might beg to differ seeing that as far as they are concerned Coptic speaking Christian Egypt was conquered by Islamic Arabi speaking Imperialists and they are all that is left of that original culture. I draw your attention to the fact that Coptic is the direct descendant of the language of the Pharaohs.

Back to Israel.Israel is a state with a lot of settlers. But like I have said before, I am not eschewing the current set up any more than anyone else is. According to stats I found they state that a total of 6.5% of Israelis are actually settlers in the disputed territories.
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-247) "Settlements in the Gaza Strip" (http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/gaza_strip_settlements.html). Settlement Information. Foundation for Middle East Peace.

Not that this is important for my view or anything, but I highly doubt this is true - the vast majority of Jews who are currently living in Israel are from Europe or North America, and of European descent, with especially large numbers from Russia.

About half actually at the max 60%. Not really a vast majority. Of course these Jews were of "European" descent, yes, a Europe that for centuries has persecuted, humiliated and massacred Jews- culminating in the Shoah- a Europe which had never wanted the Jews to assimilate, regarded them as an "alien race" and had implemented laws against them assimilating.

As for the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries you seem to be assuming that this is something people such as myself support or that these Jews having been expelled somehow means that Israel is not a settler state and should be allowed to exist - quite simply this is without basis, an ethnic group or community encountering oppression does not mean that they then have the right to carry out a program of ethnic cleansing against another ethnic group and to create a state that is designed to protect their interests at the expense of others, which is what has happened through the creation of Israel.

You make some fair points, but like Newton's law every action has a reaction. Can you not see that the actions of the Arab League, especially in terms of the expulsion of the Jews were not major contributory factors in the hardline attitude of successive Israeli regimes? If statistics are correct then a about 2.5-3-5 million Israeli Jews are the descendants of those expelled from Arab countries. People are people, what effect was that every going to have do you think?

Apart from all this whether they be of "European" or "Middle Eastern" or whatever descent, you have millions of second and third generation Israelis who were born in the region. They are going to feel they have as much right to be there as anyone else. What are you going to do about that?

That's why I say the one state solution, the one no one wants, is in fact the only solution that is workable.

Bud Struggle

9th January 2010, 21:21

Dimentio

9th January 2010, 21:31

As for Bob, he is practically the inversion of ComradeMan.

The Red Next Door

9th January 2010, 22:00

this getting old very quick. There more important stuff to talk about and we are *****ing about who is a zionist.

The Red Next Door

9th January 2010, 22:02

I'm not scraping the barrel at all. The fact that it might be derived from a Persian word does not change the fact that it is currently used primarily as a term of abuse - that the UK government recognizes this despite not being known as exactly the most radical or progressive governments when it comes to tackling racist discrimination is proof in support of this regardless of whether you view it as "PC" or not. Now, as for the role of intention, this introduces a whole range of philosophical issues about why it means to intend to do something and the extent to which people are influenced by society without being aware of it, but we should at least be able to agree that someone not being immediately aware of a word's offensive connotations does not mean that person does not harbour prejudiced attitudes or that they should not be encouraged to use another way of expressing themselves. The word "Mohammedan" is a case in point in that it figures prominently in older accounts of Islam that were written by people from a non-Muslim background, but is critiqued by Said and today regarded as offensive, mainly because it totally distorts the role that Mohammed plays in Islam and makes it seem as if simple parallels can be drawn between Islam and Christianity. If I remember correctly the historic usage of the word "Mohammedan" is one of the first points raised in 'Orientalism'.

Nonsense, there are at least 20,000 Jews in Iran alone, in spite of persecution.

I didn't mention "Islamist tolerance", I drew attention to the fact that Israel is a settler state, whereas Egypt is not.

Not that this is important for my view or anything, but I highly doubt this is true - the vast majority of Jews who are currently living in Israel are from Europe or North America, and of European descent, with especially large numbers from Russia. As for the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries you seem to be assuming that this is something people such as myself support or that these Jews having been expelled somehow means that Israel is not a settler state and should be allowed to exist - quite simply this is without basis, an ethnic group or community encountering oppression does not mean that they then have the right to carry out a program of ethnic cleansing against another ethnic group and to create a state that is designed to protect their interests at the expense of others, which is what has happened through the creation of Israel.
how long this is going to go on.

The Red Next Door

9th January 2010, 22:06

comrade man you need to chill too.

Bud Struggle

9th January 2010, 22:10

how long this is going to go on.

As long as there is persection in this world, Comrade, as long as there is persecution in this world.

Unfortunately for some, none of us is free to pick and choose which injustice we like and which one we don't like. Because an injustice to one--is an injustice to all. Each and every time, the world over.

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 22:12

As long as there is persection in this world, Comrade, as long as there is persecution in this world.

Unfortunately for some, none of us is free to pick and choose which injustice we like and which one we don't like. Because an injustice to one--is an injustice to all. Each and every time, the world over.

That could have come from Bakunin himself.
;)

Bud Struggle

9th January 2010, 22:45

That could have come from Bakunin himself.
;)

I try, I try. ;) :) (I did steal a bit of it from the IWW--not that anyone would notice. :D )

Dean

10th January 2010, 02:44

If the PA was an absolute authority in the region, subverting Jewish rights, we'd absolutely be looking at it the other way. But as it stands, the PA and Hamas only act within the framework of the Israeli occupation and siege respectively. Not the other way around.

Once again I point you to the fact that I have nowhere defended or tried to be an apologist for the Israeli regime but that does not mean I have to be an apologist for members of the Arab League either, nor do I have to ignore the fact that they have also contributed to the conflagration in the Middle East and elsewhere I have stated that the Palestinian leadership has been dreadful- who suffers? Well, the Palestinians of course...

Your citing Hamas in the name of the Palestinian cause does little from a leftist point of view.

I'm astounded at how many strawmen and lies you can condense into one post of shit. I'll simply throw the above words right back at you, and add one more point related here:

You are completely rejecting any serious materialist attempt to understand the generative forces and the role of capital behind and within these conflicts, points I've oft returned to. You aren't interested in analysis of the conflict, or in a comprehensive, revolutionary response to the conflict, but rather a very limited approach wherein you attack other leftists for being "soft" on petty liberation movements who utilize vile propaganda. You completely reject any serious analysis or critique of the Israeli state, instead attacking petty elements within the state, and as a result of this abhorrent stance, you fail at applying your supposedly leftist orientation to the one issue you seem to care about.

I'll leave it at that since you display very classic OI tendencies, not the least of which is your petty shotgun-style of debate, where you attack your opponent anywhere we appear weak, rather than directly responding to the primary points - mainly what the generative aspect of the conflict is, and what role western imperialism has in it.

BobKKKindle$

10th January 2010, 13:21

Basically the rights are the same-I've given you concrete examples of how the state sanctions the oppression of Palestinians in Israel, to evidently they don't have the same rights as the Jewish population. All you've done is assert that they do have the same rights without giving any evidence. This is important because if you accept that Palestinians and Jews are given the same rights under the law then the logical conclusion is that there is nothing inherently racist about the Zionist project and that where Palestinians encounter discrimination their conditions can be improved through gradual reform and campaigning - on the other hand if you accept the evidence as I do then it becomes clear that Israel cannot be anything but a racist state because the entire point of Zionism was/is to create and maintain a state that is concerned with the interests of one ethnic group in particular, at the expense of other ethnic groups such as the Palestinians.

What does it matter if people are persecuted because one place is a settler state and another isn't? Nothing really.It clearly matters because the Israel being a settler state means that the oppression that is directed against the Palestinian people is quantitatively and qualitatively different from the oppression that is directed against Christians and other non-Muslim religious groups in surrounding countries, and these differences also demand a different analysis and response. I've no wish to deny that Christians should be allowed to practice their religion in Saudi Arabia (a state which your government actively supports) but we do not find that the Saudi state is directing a program of ethnic cleansing against Christians simply because they do not share the faith of the majority and nor do we find that Muslims are allowed to kill Christians and steal their land with the active support of the government - these are things which happen in Israel on a regular basis in addition to the other forms of oppression I've already drawn your attention to. We also find that the Christians who do live in Saudi Arabia still identify as members of that nation in spite of their oppression, whereas the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel identify as part of the same nation as their friends and family members in the occupied territories and regard the presence of Israel as a form of ongoing colonization, which is why I've referred to this group as "Palestinians" during the course of our discussion and not "Israeli Arabs", which is the term that people such as yourself use to obscure the fact that Israel is a settler state.

The Left is all over the place on that issueWhich doesn't surprise me for one moment because "the left" is an incoherent group of different tendencies and organizations with very different analyses of the current world situation and different understandings of what it is we want to achieve. You could easily assert that the left is all over the place on Palestine as well because there are several organizations which identify as part of the left and yet are willing to defend Israel's right to exist and make excuses for the injustices that have been committed in the name of Zionism, CM being a clear example of this tendency, and even amongst those who condemn Israel there are different views on how we should relate to resistance movements like Hamas and what the Middle East might look like after the abolition of capitalism. As for Tibet, my own organization is an enthusiastic supporter of Tibet's right to self-determination, and accusing the left of picking and choosing when it comes to which causes we support and which nations we think have a right to independence is the worst kind of hypocrisy when you as an individual are directly complicit in an economic system that means destruction and pain for the vast majority of the world's population. I have no obligation to defend the left to someone like you, I've no illusions about the fact that you're the enemy.

Bob, you are getting slaughtered hereI'll let other people be the judge of that. So far we've had you and your capitalist friend claim that Jews and Palestinians have the same official rights in Israel which is a blatant lie, as anyone who knows anything about the conditions of Palestinians is aware - and yet you persist the promotion of this lie because you don't want to accept that the entire Zionist project is based on racism and that Israel is necessarily a racist state because offering equal treatment would threaten the political supremacy of the Jewish majority.

Ouch, firstly that seems good until you check and find that there were about 150,000 in 1948Which is irrelevant, because you previously stated "all the Jews have been driven out already". If there are still tens of thousands of Jews in one other country alone then that obviously proves that they can't all have fled and gone elsewhere, even if large numbers of them have. If there's anyone who's trying to twist what has been said so far in this discussion it's you, as every time someone points out a point that you've got completely wrong, such as claiming that all the Jews in the Middle East apart from Israel have been driven out of their countries, you fail to acknowledge your error and accuse them of arguing something that they haven't, like saying that these countries have never oppressed their Jewish populations. I've no intention of arguing that Jews haven't encountered oppression in the Middle East, what I deny is that all of them have been driven out, or that this legacy of oppression justifies the creation of Israel.

Well the Egyptian Copts might beg to differ...The difference being that apart from facing constraints on their ability to worship Copts are not being faced with systematic attempts on the part of the state to which they are supposed to belong as citizens to drive them out and to deprive them of basic rights such as having their communities supplied with water and electricity - this is what is happening in Israel because Israel came into being as a consequence of a racist ideology in the form of Zionism, whereas the Egyptian state is not underpinned by a similarly racist ideology, although at the same time I would also point out that Egypt is one of Israel's most important backers in the Middle East and is currently supporting Israel's blockade of Gaza by not allowing the aid convoy to pass through the Rafah crossing. It is partly as a result of Egypt not being a settler state that whereas Copts doubtless identify as Christians they also identify as Egyptians, as oppossed to viewing themselves as a colonized people.

According to stats I found they state that a total of 6.5% of Israelis are actually settlers in the disputed territories.Yes, the remainder are settlers in the territories which most people do not dispute. That's what saying Israel is a settler state means.

Of course these Jews were of "European" descentThere's no need for quotation marks, these Jews are of European descent and, within the Israeli context, are white, which is why they occupy a privileged position relative to Israel's Jews who are not of European descent.

a Europe which had never wanted the Jews to assimilateYet you fail to acknowledge that Zionism is reactionary not only from the viewpoint of the non-Jewish peoples of the Middle East but also for Jewish people themselves precisely because, by calling for a Jewish state, it implicitly accepts that Jewish people can never be full members of societies that are comprised mainly of non-Jewish groups and that the only way Jewish people can protect themselves from oppression is by shunning the societies in which they have historically lived and oppressing other nations and ethnic groups. By supporting the existence of Israel and the legitimacy of the Zionist project (keeping in mind that the oppression of Palestinians is not made any more legitimate by the Holocaust) you too are accepting the principle that Jews must always constitute themselves as a separate group and in doing so you are lining up alongside Zionists such as Chaim Weizmann, head of the World Zionist Organisation, who, in 1912, told a Berlin audience that "each country can only absorb a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany has already too many Jews" - clear evidence of how Zionism internalizes some of the basic principles of traditional antisemitism. The fact that Zionism does not present a radical response to antisemitism and that it accepts antisemitism as inevitable is why almost every Jewish socialist (and there have been many, including members of my own organization) has shunned Zionism and called for a class-based struggle against all forms of racist oppression.

The non-Jewish supporters of Zionism are some of the worst antisemites of all, in many ways.

not major contributory factors in the hardline attitude of successive Israeli regimesNo, I don't accept this at all, fundamentally the policies of successive Israeli governments need to be understood as determined by the logic of Zionism itself, as an ideology that is centered around racial exclusion. Your sole objective is to make it seem as if the creation of Israel was in some way legitimate because Jewish people were subject to oppression at the hands of governments in Europe and the Middle East, and you have demonstrated a persistent failure to acknowledge that Palestinians living inside Israel are subject to state-sanctioned racism, and that they have the right to struggle against Zionism by any means they deem necessary, alongside their brothers and sisters living in the occupied territories. You are branded a Zionist and quite rightly so because you do not acknowledge that Zionism is a racist ideology and that the idea of a peaceful or benevolent Israeli state is an impossibility.

ComradeMan

10th January 2010, 13:35

Dean- where have I posted strawmen and lies?

Right-
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17125
...This is the harsh choice the left in Israel faces – accept Zionism and accept that there will never be justice for Palestinians. Or advocate a one state solution, that is a democratic state for Arabs and Jews. But this means rejecting the notion of a “Jewish only state” and accepting that Palestinians have a right to return.

This has always been my position right from the beginning. The trouble is, we all know about Israel, we all know about Israeli regimes but what irritates me is that other factions and actions are never acknowledges as having played a role in the conflagration of the conflict. All we seem to find is apologists on both sides.
This binary analysis is quite startling. It works on the basis of because I criticise Hamas then I must be a Sharonist. What complete and utter rubbish analysis is that? I have no doubt that Mussolini and I both like(d) the same Chianti does that make me de facto a camicia nera?

Now you state on your website that your advocate "pacifistic Zionism", I don't even use the word Zionism, I state quite clearly my position, which is also an accepted leftist position if you like, and yet you and others feel free to attack.

I have provided time and again factual evidence and statistical proofs for my comments and have had the good grace to question my own sources when unsure. I have also repeated time and again what my revolutionary response is from a leftist position.

Hell, what's more revolutionary than putting the guns down, bringing people together and trying to create a state in which all people can live freely and equally with their own self-determination or autonomy? On the other hand what's more reactionary than the actions of groups like Hamas?

Before you start chirping about Zionism, the difference is this- we all know the radical Zionists are reactionary that is not the matter in question, the groups who oppose radical Zionism on the other hand claim to be non-reactionary/revolutionary resistance movements for which the left should sympathise and yet their very own behaviour and rhetoric leaves one wondering. The net result of Palestinian armed resistance and collaboration from elements within the Arab League has led to nothing other than the deaths of many innocent Palestinians and the radicalisation of Israeli society even more than it was. Hell, Hamas should get some kind of award from the rightwing Zionsists as they have managed to kill more Palestinians recently than the IDF in all likelihood and what a woeful situation is that is it not?

Bud Struggle

10th January 2010, 14:04

I've given you concrete examples of how the state sanctions the oppression of Palestinians in Israel, to evidently they don't have the same rights as the Jewish population. All you've done is assert that they do have the same rights without giving any evidence. This is important because if you accept that Palestinians and Jews are given the same rights under the law then the logical conclusion is that there is nothing inherently racist about the Zionist project and that where Palestinians encounter discrimination their conditions can be improved through gradual reform and campaigning - on the other hand if you accept the evidence as I do then it becomes clear that Israel cannot be anything but a racist state because the entire point of Zionism was/is to create and maintain a state that is concerned with the interests of one ethnic group in particular, at the expense of other ethnic groups such as the Palestinians. Woah! You are drawing too much from my comment. I don't deny that Israel is a racist state. Just because people have equal rights under the law doesn't mean anything if that law isn't executed fairly. Much the same as in the USA where in the Blacks and Whites were both theorectically equal under the law--but of course America was racist. Just so you understand--I believe the State of Israel is racist, discriminatory and wrong and it should be done away with. On the other hand I'm not interest in setting up ANOTHER racist, discriminatory and wrong government in its place.

It clearly matters because the Israel being a settler state means that the oppression that is directed against the Palestinian people is quantitatively and qualitatively different from the oppression that is directed against Christians and other non-Muslim religious groups in surrounding countries, and these differences also demand a different analysis and response. I've no wish to deny that Christians should be allowed to practice their religion in Saudi Arabia (a state which your government actively supports) but we do not find that the Saudi state is directing a program of ethnic cleansing against Christians simply because they do not share the faith of the majority and nor do we find that Muslims are allowed to kill Christians and steal their land with the active support of the government - these are things which happen in Israel on a regular basis in addition to the other forms of oppression I've already drawn your attention to. We also find that the Christians who do live in Saudi Arabia still identify as members of that nation in spite of their oppression, whereas the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel identify as part of the same nation as their friends and family members in the occupied territories and regard the presence of Israel as a form of ongoing colonization, which is why I've referred to this group as "Palestinians" during the course of our discussion and not "Israeli Arabs", which is the term that people such as yourself use to obscure the fact that Israel is a settler state. First of all in Israel a good portion of the the "non Jewish" citizens refer to themselves as Israeli Arabs, also all the ones I've met outside of Israel refer to themselves as Israeli Arabs--I honestly have never heard a Muslim Israeli citizen refer to him/herself as a "Palestinian." Anyway, I'm not deny that there are qualitative differences between the Palestinian and Christian persecutions--but I believe the Christian persecutions are more more extensive and pervasive than you might suggest.

Which doesn't surprise me for one moment because "the left" is an incoherent group of different tendencies and organizations with very different analyses of the current world situation and different understandings of what it is we want to achieve. You could easily assert that the left is all over the place on Palestine as well because there are several organizations which identify as part of the left and yet are willing to defend Israel's right to exist and make excuses for the injustices that have been committed in the name of Zionism, CM being a clear example of this tendency, and even amongst those who condemn Israel there are different views on how we should relate to resistance movements like Hamas and what the Middle East might look like after the abolition of capitalism. Just so you know--what the abolition of Israel will do in the Middle East will be to strengthen Capitalism not destroy it.

As for Tibet, my own organization is an enthusiastic supporter of Tibet's right to self-determination, and accusing the left of picking and choosing when it comes to which causes we support and which nations we think have a right to independence is the worst kind of hypocrisy when you as an individual are directly complicit in an economic system that means destruction and pain for the vast majority of the world's population. I have no obligation to defend the left to someone like you, I've no illusions about the fact that you're the enemy. Well the object of Capitalism is to make itself universal and equal so that every person can have an opportunity to share in the wealth generated by free enterprise. The Capitalist system is far from complete so many people at this time don't participate in it completely. It has to be extended. Also a social network of contribution by the wealthy through taxes and fees has to be brought into fruition so that social services could be extended to all people--that has to be done in the future. Social Democracy is the way of the future. Individualistic Capitalism's time has past as has the time of Communism.

ComradeMan

10th January 2010, 14:18

This is a laugh here, albeit bitterly.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/AZ.html#Nationalism

Nationalism. An ideology which emphasises the distinctiveness of a nation and usually points to its statehood. Nationalist movements arose with the development of capitalism and the state. In the nineteenth century, Karl Marx supported some nationalist movements because they were historically progressive in that they served the class interests of the rising bourgeoisie in its struggle against the traditional aristocracy. In the twentieth century, nationalism is associated with movements for ‘self-determination’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’.

Socialists do not support movements for national liberation. Certainly socialism will allow the fullest linguistic and cultural diversity, but this cannot be achieved through nationalism. Marxism explains how workers are exploited and unfree, not as particular nationalities, but as members of a class. To be in an ‘oppressed minority’ at all it is usually necessary to first belong to the working class. From this perspective, identifying with the working class provides a rational basis for political action. The objective is a stateless world community of free access. Given that nationalism does nothing to further this understanding, however, it is an obstruction to world socialism.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

Apart from the above comment what makes me laugh even more are those who think that the two state solution is anything more than the creation of an apartheid-like "Bantu Homeland". Whilst I am attacked for my socialist view on a one-state solution there are many who seem to think that the two-state solution is reasonable or viable despite it being socio-economically, ideologically and geo-politically flawed. Strangely, those who support the two-state solution, which is favoured by the more "moderate" Zionists are not attacked as Zionism's lackeys whereas I have been branded a Zionist for the one-state solution which is supported by various elements across the poltiical spectrum and in the Arab League itself.

Bud Struggle

10th January 2010, 14:39

So if I may ask for a time out here:

Exactly what is everyone looking for?

I want a single secular state with both Jewish and Muslim participation and everyone equal both de facto and de jure.

ComradeMan

10th January 2010, 14:57

So if I may ask for a time out here:

Exactly what is everyone looking for?

I want a single secular state with both Jewish and Muslim participation and everyone equal both de facto and de jure.

I second that and that's all I have been saying from the outset. I extend that of course to Christians, Druze and any other group within the state as such.

ComradeMan

10th January 2010, 23:19

Hey Bud... it's gone very quiet here... where have they all gone?:D

Bud Struggle

11th January 2010, 00:00

Hey Bud... it's gone very quiet here... where have they all gone?:D

It's funny isn't it?

11th January 2010, 01:11

First, I should say I haven’t been on revleft in a couple days and my time is very limited so I wasn’t able to read through many of the most recent comments in this thread beyond Bud Struggle’s response to me earlier. So apologies if others have already made any of these points or if the discussion has progressed beyond this. Also, it may be a few days before I’m able to come back and address any responses to this post as again I’m very busy; so I apologize in advance should that be the case.

Originally Posted by BS
Hopefully that little speech wasn't meant for me. :crying:
I’ve been to Israel a couple of times. The way things work is that… Uh..? I don’t know why you think this lends any credence to your argument. My mother and her sister lived on a Kibbutz in the Negev desert for a while in the early 70’s; forty years later, neither of them really even understands the meaning of the word “Zionism”, let alone “the way things work” with regard to the treatment of Palestinians in Israel. Also, I’ve been to Canada a couple times (hell, I practically live on its border) and I know fuck all about issues specific to Canada.
So I see what you were trying to do there, but I’m afraid it didn’t work out for you, and you’ll have to find a new way of proving the validity of your arguments.

The way things work is that the Moslems (Arabs) that were in Israel when it was created (in 1949) became citizens of Isreal--they are about 10% of the population and have all the rights and privileges of any Israel citizen.
The people that are NOT citizens are those Arabs that were captured in the 1967 War. Those are the "Palestinians." And they have nothing. They are indeed treated like crap.
Most of this is wrong.
First, Israel "declared independence" (i.e. was founded) in 1948, not ’49. Of course, the racism of the settlers well preceded the official foundation of the State. For example, the Kibbutzim and the Histadrut excluded Arabs flat out and from the start.
Also, contrary to your claim, “Palestinian” generally refers to the indigenous Arabic-speaking inhabitants of Palestine prior to the foundation of the state of Israel, and to their descendents.
Perhaps you have heard of the Nakba (although it would appear from your comment that you have not). From late 1947-49, close to 1,000,000 Arabs were forced to flea and/or were expelled from their homes, and much of their land was expropriated for use by Jewish settlers. I believe the term for such things is ‘ethnic cleansing’. It is a pretty big omission on your part. Perhaps another visit to Israel will provide you with the authority to deny that it ever happened at all.
Most of the Arabs who managed to stay within what became the Israeli state (which was a very small number relative to the number who became refugees) were still forced to leave their homes and land, most of which was expropriated by the Zionists (ever heard of “present absentees”?) and which the original inhabitants and their descendents are barred from returning to and reclaiming, even when they can show documentation proving their ownership of the property, even though they were involuntarily expelled, often at gunpoint. I presume that these are the Arabs you refer to who were granted citizenship by the state of Israel (a small number relative to the refugees, who were obviously not granted citizenship).
Since the foundation of the state of Israel, its Arab citizens have repeatedly been subject to restrictions on movement, martial law, additional expulsions and so-called “relocations”, curfews, groundless detentions, murder by the IDF simply for protesting their treatment by the state – really, the list could go on indefinitely, and much of this is ongoing. So I guess next you will argue that blacks in the American South during the early 1900’s had full and equal rights to their white compatriots. Or maybe that Native Americans have been treated just as well as the colonialists since 1776.

What I have trouble with are things like this:

[a bunch of links about Iran, the Iraq, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc.]

I could give you a hundred more--but they don't seem to be on your radar as much as Israel.

Listen: I disagree with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as much as anyone--but to just highlight this one country and not others--well, it seems like you are being a bit one sided. Israel is of particular interest to me for various reasons, most of which I don’t really wish to relate, nor do I see why it should be necessary or why it is relevant to the discussion at hand. As you may or may not know, this is a discussion forum where the discussions tend to have topics. Certainly I have no sympathies with the Iranian ruling class (granted they are not at all equivalent to an imperialist power like Israel), but when the topic of a thread is about Israel rather than Iran, you can expect when you read that thread that people will be discussing Israel rather than Iran. If you’d like to discuss Iran, start a thread dealing with Iran. This same concept applies to any of the countries that you listed links to. It’s pretty simple, really.

Bud Struggle

11th January 2010, 02:08

Uh..? I don’t know why you think this lends any credence to your argument. My mother and her sister lived on a Kibbutz in the Negev desert for a while in the early 70’s; forty years later, neither of them really even understands the meaning of the word “Zionism”, let alone “the way things work” with regard to the treatment of Palestinians in Israel. Also, I’ve been to Canada a couple times (hell, I practically live on its border) and I know fuck all about issues specific to Canada.
Where you're mom lived doesn't prove much on your part either. What your mom knows or doesn't know maybe an inherited trait--you should get it checked out. And what Canada has to do with this has nothing much to do with the argument either.

So I see what you were trying to do there, but I’m afraid it didn’t work out for you, and you’ll have to find a new way of proving the validity of your arguments. I think you either don't have a clue what I was trying to say or that you are being particularly meanspirited by representing me falsely--as a warmhearted and kind person, I prefer to think the former. :)

Most of this is wrong. Let's see.

First, Israel "declared independence" (i.e. was founded) in 1948, not ’49. You are right there.

Of course, the racism of the settlers well preceded the official foundation of the State. For example, the Kibbutzim and the Histadrut excluded Arabs flat out and from the start. I never said that the Israelis weren't racist--I said the state was racist from the outset.

Also, contrary to your claim, “Palestinian” generally refers to the indigenous Arabic-speaking inhabitants of Palestine prior to the foundation of the state of Israel, and to their descendents. I never said it didn't. I said that present Israeli Arabs don't call themselves Palestinians.

Perhaps you have heard of the Nakba (although it would appear from your comment that you have not). From late 1947-49, close to 1,000,000 Arabs were forced to flea and/or were expelled from their homes, and much of their land was expropriated for use by Jewish settlers. I believe the term for such things is ‘ethnic cleansing’. It is a pretty big omission on your part. Perhaps another visit to Israel will provide you with the authority to deny that it ever happened at all. I have heard of the Nakba and I think the one million mark might be overestimated--but I NEVER was discussing them or the past. I was discussing what is happening in the present and what could be done in the future. You are similar to Bobby--reading things into what I said--not arguing with what I actually have said.

Most of the Arabs who managed to stay within what became the Israeli state (which was a very small number relative to the number who became refugees) were still forced to leave their homes and land, most of which was expropriated by the Zionists (ever heard of “present absentees”?) and which the original inhabitants and their descendents are barred from returning to and reclaiming, even when they can show documentation proving their ownership of the property, even though they were involuntarily expelled, often at gunpoint. I presume that these are the Arabs you refer to who were granted citizenship by the state of Israel (a small number relative to the refugees, who were obviously not granted citizenship). Again I never brought up HISTORY--If you want to discuss that--fine, I can read a history book, too.

Since the foundation of the state of Israel, its Arab citizens have repeatedly been subject to restrictions on movement, martial law, additional expulsions and so-called “relocations”, curfews, groundless detentions, murder by the IDF simply for protesting their treatment by the state – really, the list could go on indefinitely, and much of this is ongoing. So I guess next you will argue that blacks in the American South during the early 1900’s had full and equal rights to their white compatriots. Or maybe that Native Americans have been treated just as well as the colonialists since 1776. I believe what I said is that the Blacks in the South and Arab citizens were treated as second class citizens (in much the same way). Each had theoretically the same rights under the law, but each were treated badly. Native Americans weren't American citizens until (I believe) 1936. FYI: Here's MY EXACT QUOTE on the subject: Much the same as in the USA where in the Blacks and Whites were both theorectically equal under the law--but of course America was racist. Just so you understand--I believe the State of Israel is racist, discriminatory and wrong and it should be done away with. It's pretty obvious you are not responding to anything I actually said, are you?

Israel is of particular interest to me for various reasons, most of which I don’t really wish to relate, nor do I see why it should be necessary or why it is relevant to the discussion at hand. As you may or may not know, this is a discussion forum where the discussions tend to have topics. Certainly I have no sympathies with the Iranian ruling class (granted they are not at all equivalent to an imperialist power like Israel), but when the topic of a thread is about Israel rather than Iran, you can expect when you read that thread that people will be discussing Israel rather than Iran. If you’d like to discuss Iran, start a thread dealing with Iran. This same concept applies to any of the countries that you listed links to. It’s pretty simple, really. Thanks for the lesson in netiquette, but maybe a more imporant lesson is that when you answer a post as you seemed to to mine--it would be polite if you didn't invent things I say and then pretend to shoot them down. Stick to what I really said.

Or are you sure it was me whose post you were actually answering?

Anyway, answer the question: what should be done with with Israel/Palestine? There my guess is--you get silent like all the rest. :(

Dean

11th January 2010, 04:27

11th January 2010, 08:11

Originally Posted by Bud Struggle
Where you're mom lived doesn't prove much on your part either. What your mom knows or doesn't know maybe an inherited trait--you should get it checked out. And what Canada has to do with this has nothing much to do with the argument either. Of course, what both of those points – my mother with Kibbutz Shoval and myself with Canada – were supposed to illustrate was that it’s perfectly possible and probably even typical for a person to visit a place and remain uninformed about the political climate and race relations of the place. At any rate, having visited somewhere does not in and of itself lend your claims any authority, as you seemed to be implying. Anyway, it’s really a moot point by now.

I think you either don't have a clue what I was trying to say or that you are being particularly meanspirited by representing me falsely--as a warmhearted and kind person, I prefer to think the former. Well, perhaps I have misunderstood the intention of that comment; regardless, it is of no consequence to the actual discussion.

Let's see.

I never said that the Israelis weren't racist--I said the state was racist from the outset.You also said that Israeli Arabs and Jews had equal rights and privileges; I’m arguing that they absolutely do not. I’m arguing that Arabs in Israel – even those with citizenship – are oppressed by the state. And when one group (or more) is oppressed by the state, the very nature of oppression is that another group is privileged as a result. The privileged group, in this instance, clearly being the Israeli Jews.

I never said it didn't. I said that present Israeli Arabs don't call themselves Palestinians.
That is also untrue. According to the referenced Wikipedia entry, a majority of Israeli Arabs identify as Palestinians, although the two different studies on this appear to report conflicting figures. Suffice to say, a substantial percentage identify as Palestinians.
At any rate, your original claim was this:

Originally Posted by Bud Struggle in his earlier post
The people that are NOT citizens are those Arabs that were captured in the 1967 War. Those are the "Palestinians." So moving on

I have heard of the Nakba and I think the one million mark might be overestimated--but I NEVER was discussing them or the past. I was discussing what is happening in the present and what could be done in the future. You are similar to Bobby--reading things into what I said--not arguing with what I actually have said.First, I did not say one million Arabs were expelled during the Nakba; I said close to one million. Indeed, the number is in the high hundred-thousands. I will deal with the rest of your claim below.

Again I never brought up HISTORY--If you want to discuss that--fine, I can read a history book, too.I don’t think one can separate the present relations between Israeli Arabs and Jews (and the treatment of each by the state) from the history, particularly in light of the fact that Israel is a state founded on an ethnic cleansing of the indigenous inhabitants (who were Arabs) by the settlers (who were Jews). It is inconceivable, in light of this fact, that the State could afford the same “rights and privileges” to the Israeli Arabs that it affords its Jewish citizens. This is particularly true in view of the fact that Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state is based on the maintenance of a Jewish demographic majority in a region where Jews are a tiny minority. How can a state which continues to expand its borders possibly maintain a Jewish demographic majority when Jews are a regional minority while affording the same “rights and privileges” to everyone else that it affords to Jews? It can’t. And indeed, it doesn’t.
Anyway, the point is that you can’t possibly separate the present treatment of Israeli Arabs by the state of Israel from the bloody history of Zionism and the state. The former will naturally reflect the latter.

I believe what I said is that the Blacks in the South and Arab citizens were treated as second class citizens (in much the same way). Each had theoretically the same rights under the law, but each were treated badly. Native Americans weren't American citizens until (I believe) 1936. FYI: Here's MY EXACT QUOTE on the subject: Much the same as in the USA where in the Blacks and Whites were both theorectically equal under the law--but of course America was racist. Just so you understand--I believe the State of Israel is racist, discriminatory and wrong and it should be done away with. It's pretty obvious you are not responding to anything I actually said, are you?This quote of yours certainly doesn’t come from anything you’ve said in the course of the back and forth between the two of us in this thread, which is the most that I’ve read of your posts on the subject.
Anyway, you seem to be making a contradictory argument. From what I can tell (and please correct me if I’m wrong), you are suggesting that Israel is a racist, discriminatory state and that Arabs in Israel are second class citizens, but that the racist, discriminatory state of Israel affords its second class Arab citizens the same rights and privileges as it affords its Jewish citizens. If this is indeed what you are arguing, how is Israel a racist, discriminatory state and how are Arabs second class citizens when the state does not treat Arabs any differently than it treats Jews?

Thanks for the lesson in netiquette, but maybe a more imporant lesson is that when you answer a post as you seemed to to mine--it would be polite if you didn't invent things I say and then pretend to shoot them down. Stick to what I really said. Firstly, it wasn’t a “lesson in etiquette”, it was a statement about the function of topics on a discussion board, and an explanation for why you can expect not to see a discussion on the persecution of minorities in Iran by the Iranian state in a thread in which the topic of discussion is Israel/Zionism.
As for you’re claim that I’ve “invent[ed] things” in order to “pretend to shoot them down”, it is simply untrue. Again, if I misunderstood your intention in claiming that you’ve visited Israel a couple times, I apologize. Beyond that, I’ve simply provided historical context regarding the treatment of Arabs by the state of Israel to back up my arguments.

Or are you sure it was me whose post you were actually answering?
Assuming there are not two Bud Struggles, I was and am addressing you.

Anyway, answer the question: what should be done with with Israel/Palestine? There my guess is--you get silent like all the rest. :( Answer the question? Since when is this “the question” in this thread? Surely this isn’t meant to imply that it’s been posed before and I’ve refused to answer? In any event, I assume you are asking what the solution is. In which case, being that I am a communist, the solution is proletarian revolution and the establishment of a Palestinian workers’ state. I’ve addressed this to some extent in an exchange with ComradeMan here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1627149&postcount=42), which will hopefully answer your question.
Also, just to make it clear so you don’t go ahead and assume I’ve “gone silent like the rest” if my response to subsequent posts is delayed; I’ve been busy and haven’t had a lot of time to be on revleft lately and this is likely to continue for a while. So don’t assume, if a couple days go by and I haven’t responded, that it is due to not being able to address an argument or not intending to respond, but most likely due to not having had the chance to sign on to revleft at all. Put simply, be patient; I’ll respond to arguments addressing me (if someone else doesn’t beat me to it), it just might be a few days before I have the chance to actually read them.

ComradeMan

11th January 2010, 09:35

Wow....... !

Let's all take a deep breath and re-assess our positions.

1. Firstly- I don't think anyone is denying the shit the Israeli regimes have got up to. By Israeli regimes I refer to the successive Zionist governments and their policies towards the Arab-Israelis- Palestinians. Governments in general are dodgy and no one here, neither myself, nor Bud would justify the Zionist regimes anymore than we would seek to justify the apartheid regimes in South Africa. I am not saying that Israel and South Africa are the same- but there are parallels. The ADL would love me for that....:)

2. The difference between Arab-Israelis and Palestinians is a valid distinction in terms of modern analysis. Most of the Arab-Israeli citizens I know refer to themselves as such whereas Palestinian has come to mean from the occupied territories in terms of being under the Palestinian Authority etc. We can argue all day about terminology but let's assume some good faith. How would you classify the Bedouin who serve in the IDF then? Are they Arabs? Arab-Israelis, Palestinians? They are Arabic speaking Muslims but the distinction is usually made.

3. What irritates me here is the crude binary analysis of the whole situation which does not seem to recognise or want to recognise a couple of important facts.
1. Jewish people have been living in the region for centuries. Jerusalem was a majority Jewish city within living memory- not just in the Tanakh!
2. Almost half of the Jewish people in Israel are or are descended from refugees from Arab and/or Islamic countries in the Middle-East and N.Africa now hostile to them. They were chased out in fear of their lives for none other than their Jewishness. You have to take this into account too.
3. There are also other historical groups in Israel too, the Christians, the Druze and additionlly recent immigrants from other parts of the world too.
4. A bitter pill to swallow, but Palestinian leadership has been atrocious and recently the Palestinians have spent more time slaughtering each other than working towards building a state.

My issue is that when I hear people shout "Palestinian Workers State", it seems to exclude all of the above and suggest an Arabic speaking state for Palestinians which is neither historically accurate or fair and would effectively alienate half of the population of said state in the first place.

I have said it before and I have said it again. From a socialist position the only state we can support is a pluralistic, secular and unified state with equal rights de jure and de facto for all groups. Given the specifics of Israel-Palestine I would argue that it is only fair and right that Jewish people, inasmuch as all other peoples in the region, have their own auntomy/self-determination within such a state and we'll take it from there. call it the "Palisra" solution if you like.

No one who understands the geopolitics of the region should support the two-state solution, which worryingly seems to be the way it's going, as the two-state solution would be the creation of an apartheid homeland and nothing more. It would also be highly detrimental to the Palestinians- just have a look at the map to see why. This is also a postion echoed on Socialist Worker. It is also echoed on an international socialist site that principled socialists cannot support national liberation movements along Marxist lines- as I have pointed out elsewhere.

Just because we criticise the policies of the various governments of Israel does not mean we have to support every and any group that declares itself enemy of Zionism despite having the most dubious of credentials, e.g. Hamas which Sam-B and BobK were championing the other day.

Is it so hard to understand?

PS I see Israel is proposing a wall along the Egyptian border, what's your take on that?

Bud Struggle

11th January 2010, 12:56

As for you’re claim that I’ve “invent[ed] things” in order to “pretend to shoot them down”, it is simply untrue. Again, if I misunderstood your intention in claiming that you’ve visited Israel a couple times, I apologize. Well most of the issues you mention were already address and discussed in subsequent posts to our initial discussion. It seems we actually were discussing two different things. I think we disagree on some minor issues--but we agree on the main point that the Israelis suck. (Besides it's difficult discussing things with you on a part time bases. :) )

Anyway, this is what is interesting:

Answer the question? Since when is this “the question” in this thread? Surely this isn’t meant to imply that it’s been posed before and I’ve refused to answer? In any event, I assume you are asking what the solution is. In which case, being that I am a communist, the solution is proletarian revolution and the establishment of a Palestinian workers’ state. I’ve addressed this to some extent in an exchange with ComradeMan here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1627149&postcount=42), which will hopefully answer your question.

It does! Thank you. A Communist state I guess like the Soviet Union or Poland. The idea of a Communist state seems a bit "retro" to me, but what do I know? Probably with soviets and cominterms and politboros. (Great and glorious Democratic People's Republic of Palestine! :D ) Good Luck!

But as the good Comrade says in the post above: under Communism could there be a Palestinian state with Jews excluded--just like if there was a French Communist state I'm sure the Muslim wouldn't be excluded. Actually what would it matter what religion, "race" or color one is under Communism? And as Communists should we be working for a "state" at all since we would like a stateless, classless world. Shouldn't the Plaestinian/Jewish issue be a moot point under Communism?

Very troubling.

graffic

11th January 2010, 19:41

Of course, the racism of the settlers well preceded the official foundation of the State. For example, the Kibbutzim and the Histadrut excluded Arabs flat out and from the start.

The Jewish agency tried to work with Arabs before the state of Israel was established. I imagine you have heard of the slogan "equality between the Jewish and Arab working classes in a binational state." which was common at one point in the zionist movement. The reality of anti-semitism in the 1940's and devastation of the holocaust changed the face of zionism to a more nationalist movement.

Most of the Arabs who managed to stay within what became the Israeli state (which was a very small number relative to the number who became refugees) were still forced to leave their homes and land, most of which was expropriated by the Zionists (ever heard of “present absentees”?) and which the original inhabitants and their descendents are barred from returning to and reclaiming, even when they can show documentation proving their ownership of the property, even though they were involuntarily expelled, often at gunpoint.

Have you ever heard of this place? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghosh The biggest ever hummus was recently created there. The Arabs of "Abu Ghosh" were kicked out and then they returned to their homes.

You also failed to point out that Israel said that it would be willing to look at land return or at the very least compensation, but only with in the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. The latter declined to hold such agreements.

Since the foundation of the state of Israel, its Arab citizens have repeatedly been subject to restrictions on movement, martial law, additional expulsions and so-called “relocations”, curfews, groundless detentions, murder by the IDF simply for protesting their treatment by the state – really, the list could go on indefinitely, and much of this is ongoing.

So what is the point of this paragraph? Other than stating the fucking obvious.

I would add that from what I have seen, (which admittedly is very little), , Israeli's at least on the whole tend to be conscious of the situation, and some protest for equal Arab rights.

freepalestine

11th January 2010, 19:57

2. The difference between Arab-Israelis and Palestinians is a valid distinction in terms of modern analysis. Most of the Arab-Israeli citizens I know refer to themselves as such whereas Palestinian has come to mean from the occupied territories in terms of being under the Palestinian Authority etc. We can argue all day about terminology but let's assume some good faith. How would you classify the Bedouin who serve in the IDF then? Are they Arabs? Arab-Israelis, Palestinians? They are Arabic speaking Muslims but the distinction is usually made.

1. Jewish people have been living in the region for centuries. Jerusalem was a majority Jewish city within living memory- not just in the Tanakh!

3. There are also other historical groups in Israel too, the Christians, the Druze and additionlly recent immigrants from other parts of the world too.

you dont really know palestinians in the 48 borders.they are palestinians end of.secondly jerusalem was never a zionist majority city.what makes you say that as a socialist?maybe ethnic cleansing helped your demographic racial arguments .
yes before the european zionist sttlement,there was a palestinian arabjewish community in jerusalem etc.and ofcourse many other minorities armenian,kurd,samaritans
...learn the history of palestine before spewing your half bait hasbara here.

ComradeMan

11th January 2010, 21:19

you dont really know palestinians in the 48 borders.they are palestinians end of.secondly jerusalem was never a zionist majority city.what makes you say that as a socialist?maybe ethnic cleansing helped your demographic racial arguments .
yes before the european zionist sttlement,there was a palestinian arabjewish community in jerusalem etc.and ofcourse many other minorities armenian,kurd,samaritans
...learn the history of palestine before spewing your half bait hasbara here.

I did not say a Zionist majority city, I said a Jewish majority city. There you go, a classic case of anti-Semitism equating Jews with Zionists automatically and indirectly stating that Jews have no right whatsoever to be in the area. Before the WW11 period people did not even talk about "Palestinians" as such. They spoke about Jews, Arabs and the various other groups of Palestine/Transjordania or they divided things by religion.

Karl Marx reported a Jewish majority in Jerusalem in 1854 in his article in the New York Daily Tribune, April 15, 1854.

So as a socialist that's where I get my information from. Marx took his information from Cesar Famin, a French diplomat, historian, and man of letters.

Here are Famin's numbers for Jerusalem's population in 1853. They are the same as those Marx reported in his article of April 1854. Famin's numbers were:-

"The sedentary population of Jerusalem is about 15,500 souls:"
Jews . . . 8,000 . . .
Muslims . .4,000 . . .
Christians 3,490 . . .

I suggest you learn you socialist history before spewing out anti-Semitism in the guise of anti-Zionism.

Jerusalem's population 1844-1948

YEAR JEWS MUSLIMS CHRISTIANS TOTAL

1844 7,120 5,000 3,390 15,510

1896 28,112 8,560 8,748 45,420

1948 100,000 40,000 25,000 165,000

From the stats I have been able to find you have to go back to 1824 to find a Muslim majority, 6000 Jews, 10,000 Muslims, 4000 Christians. The stats for years previously are all over the place and so it's difficult to tell, yet they suggest a strong Jewish presence in the city at least as far back as 1539. This is way back in Ottoman times. Early 1500s: The condition of Jews in Jerusalem is dismal, writes Fra Fancesco Suriano. 1533-1534: The Turkish tax register, Tahrir, documents approximately 80 Jewish households exist in the Acre area, 54 in Peqiin, 10 in Kefar Yasif and 10 in Shafaram and in 1538-1539: The Tahrir, the Turkish tax register,documents 1,630 Jews in Jerusalem. In fact various records, Byzantine, Persian, Medieval, Renaissance and Ottoman all attest to the presence of Jews in significant numbers throughout the region and especially Jerusalem.

This is no hasbarah (Israeli propaganda from the Hebrew "explanation", but facts drawn from non-Zionist sources, including Karl Marx!!!!

freepalestine

11th January 2010, 22:06

I did not say a Zionist majority city, I said a Jewish majority city. There you go, a classic case of anti-Semitism equating Jews with Zionists automatically and indirectly stating that Jews have no right whatsoever to be in the area. Before the WW11 period people did not even talk about "Palestinians" as such. They spoke about Jews, Arabs and the various other groups of Palestine/Transjordania or they divided things by religion.

first thing.my ancestry is christian/jewarab palestinian( ofjerusalem).secondly thats why i used the term "zionist", .has in the settlers,ok .thirdly get your facts right ,i.e. your sources ..every one knows their has been a jewish presense in palestine,and a few other "countries".although in palestine some through centuries became christian,muslim etc.and the nablus,samaritanpalestinians
the point is israel is a racist state.and it needs to be done away with.i agree with a onestate solution also,with no zionism.
n.b. rsa

Vladimir Innit Lenin

11th January 2010, 22:08

ComradeMan

11th January 2010, 22:14

first thing.my ancestry is christian/jewarab palestinian( ofjerusalem).secondly thats why i used the term "zionist", .has in the settlers,ok .thirdly get your facts right ,i.e. your sources ..every one knows their has been a jewish presense in palestine,and a few other "countries".although in palestine some through centuries became christian,muslim etc.and the nablus,samaritanpalestinians
the point is israel is a racist state.and it needs to be done away with.i agree with a onestate solution also,with no zionism.
n.b. rsa

I did get my facts straight, I suggest you sort your terminology out.

AkirAmaruBolivar

11th January 2010, 22:33

Will you lot grow the fuck up
you sound like a bunch of moaning sniping bastards.

Bud Struggle

12th January 2010, 01:04

freepalestine

12th January 2010, 19:38

first thing.my ancestry is christian/jewarab palestinian( of jerusalem).secondly thats why i used the term "zionist", .has in the settlers,ok .thirdly get your facts right ,i.e. your sources ..every one knows their has been a jewish presence in palestine,and a few other "countries".although in palestine some through centuries became christian,muslim etc.
and the nablus,samaritanpalestinians
the point is israel is a racist state.and it needs to be done away with.i agree with a onestate solution also,with no zionism.
e.g. the old rsa

I did get my facts straight, I suggest you sort your terminology out.
what terminology?

ComradeMan

12th January 2010, 20:05

what terminology?

You cast aspersions on my analysis and insinuated it were Zionist propaganda, beit hasbarah, and then when I confronted you and your anti-Semitic remarks you suddenly changed direction. Your facts were wrong and my sources were far from Zionist, you call Marx a Zionist do you? You don't even have the good grace to acknowledge you were mistaken. Equating the Jewish majority of the mid-19th century with Zionist settlers of today and indirectly suggesting that Jews have no place in the region is downright anti-Semtic. To dismiss statistical and sourced data from a century before the foundation of Israel and equate the Jewish population of the region as settlers and Zionists is likewise anti-Semitic. You also seem to miss the point that a hell of a lot of Jewish settlers in the early period, i.e. pre-1900 were people who came to an Ottoman region, i.e. Islamic, often as refugees from the persecution they faced in Europe. The modern term is asylum seekers.... were they to be refused entry to the "Holy Land"?

Sorry, but your double-standards and ignorance are quite shocking, especially surprising in the light of the background you claim.

And before you start, this is not a justification for the brutal acts of Israeli regimes.

Dean

13th January 2010, 03:32

I have to say it is pretty despicable the treatment that ComradeMan is being afforded.
Now, I will make it clear that I have not seen every single CM post, and thus if he has made obviously Zionist statements that are pro the Israeli government or any of it's corrupt and disgusting figures then I apologise for defending him and withdraw my support.

However, it is his stated position that he supports a secular state solution, with Jerusalem as an international city. It is also beyond debate that there has been a particular history relating to the Jews - admittedly this does not override the importance of historical materialism and we should not forget this when analysing the Israel-Palestine conflict; however, one must understand the religious and indeed racial sensitivities that are evident in this conflict, if we are to seek an agreeable solution.

Also, whilst it is the right of people on the left to actively support groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in the name of anti-Zionism and indeed anti-imperialism - and in certain circumstances one should support these groups, especially Hamas -, ComradeMan is perfectly within his rights, as a revolutionary, to oppose these groups on the premise that, despite their commendable anti-Zionism, they are still right-wing religious reactionaries. Defeat him intellectually within the context of a debate if you wish, but resorting to the widespread slander of labelling him a Zionist over and over again is not something which we should indulge in. It is not healthy and it is wrong.

Do you realize how ridiculous your statement sounds? none of us ever disagreed on his stance on a one-secular-state. However, he has spent a good portion of his time going around calling basic argumetns against zionism "anti-semitic" and refuses to criticize the israeli state in any meaningful way - that is, to call it the generative factor in the conflict and the primary tool of imperialism and capitalism in the former palestinian mandate.

When someone comes here talking about every little case in which white people are oppressed in white-controlled nations, we consider them racist turds because we know what the agenda is. The same is true for assholes like CM who ***** and moan about all the terrible antisemitic things Hamas or Hizb Allah say, while refusing to acknowledge what a limited presence that antisemitism has, and the fact that as marxists we should be primarily attacking the primary forces of institutional racism in the region - which are predominantly anti-arab and anti-muslim, not antisemitic.

I'll repeat it: ComradeMan has refused to attack any of Israel's founding principles or policies except a very limited number of contemporary ones. He consider's the impotent rhetoric of national liberation movements to be just as dangerous as a racist nation which has one of the most powerful defense-intelligence budgets in the world.* Its a ridiculous position which is neither humanist nor leftist in any way, shape or form.

*He'll probably deny this, but I'll let his posts speak for themselves. Truly, hes taken one of the classic cynical debating forms, and that is to consistently denigrate all of his opponents while offering nothing but the most rudimentary, cookie-cutter positions which he refuses to expand upon. It's obvious that he's come here to troll, not debate, learn or discuss anything in any serious fashion.

ComradeMan

13th January 2010, 11:40

Do you realize how ridiculous your statement sounds? none of us ever disagreed on his stance on a one-secular-state. However, he has spent a good portion of his time going around calling basic argumetns against zionism "anti-semitic" and refuses to criticize the israeli state in any meaningful way - that is, to call it the generative factor in the conflict and the primary tool of imperialism and capitalism in the former palestinian mandate.

No, I haven't. Because few people have actually presented a valid view. What's wrong with supporting Hadash for example? I don't agree with all of their stuff but still. Or what's wrong with the Maki? Just a couple of examples. I have criticised the Israeli regime but there is also the fact that everyone knows about Israel. During apartheid in South Africa was it necessary to spell out apartheid's evils in every single post/articla about South Africa? No. This is a leftist forum and I presume most people are fully aware of the issues surrounding Israel. If people come out with factually incorrect and inflammatory material that seems to attack the Jewish people then it will be deemed anti-semitic.

When someone comes here talking about every little case in which white people are oppressed in white-controlled nations, we consider them racist turds because we know what the agenda is. The same is true for assholes like CM who ***** and moan about all the terrible antisemitic things Hamas or Hizb Allah say, while refusing to acknowledge what a limited presence that antisemitism has, and the fact that as marxists we should be primarily attacking the primary forces of institutional racism in the region - which are predominantly anti-arab and anti-muslim, not antisemitic.

Why do you have to be so insulting? Is it perhaps because I called your bluff on your own position? I am not *****ing and moaning about Hams and Hezbollah but I maintain that there is a lot of anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism, have a look at some of the Islamic websites out there that purport to be in solidariety with the Palestinians. Your shifting the goalposts again. Since when can we not critique and evaluate any movement, regardless of affiliation?

I'll repeat it: ComradeMan has refused to attack any of Israel's founding principles or policies except a very limited number of contemporary ones. He consider's the impotent rhetoric of national liberation movements to be just as dangerous as a racist nation which has one of the most powerful defense-intelligence budgets in the world.* Its a ridiculous position which is neither humanist nor leftist in any way, shape or form.

Lies. I have made my position clear from the outset. I even asked a question about the new wall plan between Israel and Egypt but no one bothered to answer that.

*He'll probably deny this, but I'll let his posts speak for themselves. Truly, hes taken one of the classic cynical debating forms, and that is to consistently denigrate all of his opponents while offering nothing but the most rudimentary, cookie-cutter positions which he refuses to expand upon. It's obvious that he's come here to troll, not debate, learn or discuss anything in any serious fashion.

Rubbish, rubbish and more rubbish. The fact is that a lot of people here talk shit. I was even attacked for spreading Zionist propaganda re Jerusalem's Jewish minority when in fact my sources were from Karl Marx and drawn from the 19th century too. When I asked about the validity of peace movements in the region was that denigrating?

Dean, I don't what your grudge is seeing as you, by your own words, are a staunch advocate of "pacifistic Zionism", I don't even use the word ZIonism in my positions, you do....

Again, show me where I have produced factually incorrect statements and/or unsourced material?

BTW, it seems to me that some here have the mentality of if you can't stand the heat then throw someone else out the kitchen!!!!!!!! :D

ComradeMan

13th January 2010, 11:40

Dean- if I have missed something you have said then I do apologise but if you are going to flame people with terms like arsehole and turd all over the place and make no attempt to assume good faith- which is ridiculous in this case because we have more or less the same damn position, then don't be surprised if stuff you say gets overlooked.

Dean

13th January 2010, 13:03

These are exactly the ridiculous posts I'm talking about. If you look earlier in this thread, you'll see that I explained the position on peaceful Zionism - and ComradeMan never responded to it. Not terribly surprising.

freepalestine

13th January 2010, 20:30

You cast aspersions on my analysis and insinuated it where Zionist propaganda, beit hasbarah, and then when I confronted you and your anti-Semitic remarks you suddenly changed direction....... Your facts were wrong and my sources were far from Zionist, you call Marx a Zionist do you?
.......

And before you start, this is not a justification for the brutal acts of Israeli regimes.you are ridiculous.

ComradeMan

13th January 2010, 20:51

you are ridiculous.

Why?

13th January 2010, 23:56

You just are.

ComradeMan

14th January 2010, 13:04

Can we close this thread please? I think everything has been said and we all know where we stand.

Dean

14th January 2010, 13:22

Can we close this thread please? I think everything has been said and we all know where we stand.

What is your position on the generation of the conflict, the representation of capital and the character of imperialism in the conflict?

ComradeMan

14th January 2010, 14:05

What is your position on the generation of the conflict, the representation of capital and the character of imperialism in the conflict?

The generation and continuation of the conflict has complex origins.

One key issue that few mention is the topic of water rights. In fact water rights, water being like gold in the hot Middle East, is one of the hottest topics. In any Palestinian state full water rights would be required in order to build a viable society. There have been several issued surrounding water rights and Israel has been accused of using Palestinian water.

A more historical analysis

We have the basic idea of the transition from a largely agricultural colony into what has been dubbed a "welfare-warfare state".

Israel has been described by some, in terms of socio-economic analysis as a capitalist wolf in socialist sheep's clothing, especially in the early days. There are a number of different analysis but Bichler and Nitzen provide one interesting and relatively atypical analysis.
However it may be argued that Israeli economics have always been about the capitalist benefits of Israeli conglomerates.
The early Israeli regime from the outset has played a fundamental role in creating an institutional context for the development of so-called favoured capital groups in Israel. Historically speaking Israel used money from Germany and America assist the conglomerates that dominated Israeli economy. A state framework permitted these groups to expand at the expense of lesser capital. Various policies were followed whereby these groups and the state prospered. One such policy were the joint investment schemes with the government that permitted the manipulation of banking shares and which in turn led to the collapse of the banking system in 1983. The stocks of the four major banks in Israel collapsed and were nationalised by the state. Along withspecial development assistance, was given in oder to direct the process of proletarianization of Jewish immigrants who were to become the core of the industrial working class.
See also:
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w1822.pdf

Suggested reading:-
Global Political Economy of Israel. Bichler and Nitzan. (2002) Pluto
ISBN: 0745316751, ISBN13: 9780745316758.
Here's a review online
http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/164/01/041100_Wilson_Review_of_GPEofIsrael.pdf