The Brownshirts of Zionism. [Archive]

Palingenisis

25th January 2011, 00:22

Given the recent calls by Israelis to gas Palestinians this article written from a Council-Communist persecptive in the 1930s becomes very valuable to understand the nature of what supporters of the existence of the state of Israel are all about.

http://libcom.org/library/brownshirts-of-zionism-barnatan

"A few days after the termination of the Arab strike and revolt in Palestine, two unsuspected and harmless Arabs, passing thru the Jewish town of Tel Aviv in a carriage were fired at and wounded by "unknown assailants". Unknown for the reason that they escaped. Everybody, including the police, knows that they are to be found in the ranks of the "Revisionists" or extreme Zionist nationalists who have never concealed their liking for "direct action" and terrorism Needless to say, they are very vocal, but hardly convincing, in proclaiming their innocence and talking of "Marxist calumnies". Yet the fight against the Arabs, a fight in which all means may be employed, is one of the guiding principles of Revisionism which has justly earned the name of Zionist Fascism. And it deserves to be noted that the Tel Aviv outrage was preceeded by statements from authoritative Revisionist sources which are near to advocating the employment of terrorist tactics. In a statement on the situation in Palestine, made on Sept. 9, 1936, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Duce of Jewish Fascism, said: "During the first weeks of the struggle, the exercise of restraint served a useful purpose. It showed that the Jew, when armed, is content to defend himself and does not attack and try to revenge himself. For this reason, I vetoed all thoughts of retaliation; but now I consider it my duty to proclaim that I have withdrawn my veto".
This unmistakable signal for terrorism was supplemented a few days later by a statement from the Viennese organ of the Revisionists, the "Nation", referring to the situation in Palestine: "It happens nowadays that Jewish newspapers in Palestine publish reports, hidden away in small type between unimportant news, of Arabs killed here and there in Palestine, of Arabs wounded, of Jews arrested and acused, etc. Jewish papers published outside of Palestine go even farther in hiding facts. They talk of Arabs being killed by Arabs. What is the good of all this eyewash? Is it our fault that the world forces us to go its ways? The world today understands no language but that of guns, machine guns and pistols. Now we too begin to learn this language. Let it not be forgotten that ours is a talented people. We have aready learned many lessons. The time has come to learn the language of fire and blood". The shots in Tel Aviv provide the echo to this incitement.
The Jews are no chosen people. They are, in one respect, like other nations under capitalism, so much so, that there is even a Jewish brand of Fascism. This may surprise the casual observer who is inclined to regard Fascism as a kind of Anti-semitism, or, at least, as bound up with Anti-semitism. But it must be remembered that classical Fascism, that of Mussolini, was never Anti-semitic. Fascism is an international epidemic, although in each case profoundly nationalistic. Its roots are basically the same in all countries, and is worth noting that the epidemic has not stopped at the doors of the ghetto or at the border of Palestine"

25th January 2011, 02:21

The counterrevolutionary Trotskyite wrecker, Lenni Brenner, has a whole book on Revisionist Zionism, the full text of which is available online: http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/index.htm

FWIW, though, the modern political descendants of Revisionism are Likud and Kadima - Israel's moderate parties (Netanyahu being of the former, Tzipi Livni of the latter).

Today, the "brownshirts of Zionism" are the Kahanists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism).

ComradeMan

25th January 2011, 08:41

Palingenisis

25th January 2011, 17:54

Of course if Palestinians looked more "white" or whatever I doubt ComradeMan and those who thanked is post would be supporting zionism.

"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs."

Daniel Ben Gurion 1947.

Says it all really.

Dean

25th January 2011, 18:30

"Given the recent calls by Israelis to gas Palestinians this article written from a Council-Communist persecptive in the 1930s becomes very valuable to understand the nature of what supporters of the existence of the state of Israel are all about."

Which Israelis? When? A few nutcases.

I have no doubt there are people in Dublin, Rome, Milan, London, Washington etc who might say "gas them all" etc- but the way you put it you deliberately make it sound like Israel is the Nazi State of the 1940s- complete misrepresentation and political hyperbole.

You might also note that when accusations of "fascism" and collusion with the Nazis come into play people might also point to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem....

A document written in the 1930s is very "valuable to understand the nature of what supporters of the existence of the state of Israel are all about"- please.

A document written in the 1930s pre-dates the Shoah and of course in order to understand a lot of Israeli politics you must also look at it in the light of the actual foundation of Israel AFTER the Second World War and the Shoah.

Palengensis may inflate the value of certain documents in understanding Israeli history. But that in no way diminishes the fact that Israel has a racist, apartheid structure and policy. Israel, given massive concessions in negotiations, refuses even cursory steps in the cessation of expansion. It deliberately targets civilian infrastructure and targets Arabs in their program of expropriation and colonization.

Its bizarre that you would attack the OP without giving any hint of the above context.

bricolage

25th January 2011, 18:38

So what is this gas stuff all about?

Apoi_Viitor

25th January 2011, 18:49

So what is this gas stuff all about?

Some far-right Jewish leaders made comparisons between Palestinians and the historical Amalek peoples, claiming that Palestinians needed to be exterminated like the latter: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=73956

ComradeMan

25th January 2011, 20:20

Of course if Palestinians looked more "white" or whatever I doubt ComradeMan and those who thanked is post would be supporting zionism.

Of course if the Zionists were non Jewish-nationalists reclaiming their homeland or something you might not hold your stance.

All you do is constantly post everything negative about (Jewish) Israelis you can find, blow things out of proportion and ignore the positives- like when Krimskrams posted about a peace initiative, all you did was jump straight in about Zionism.

Stop trying to paint everyone who doesn't agree with your approach on this matter as some kind of racist Zionist all the damn time.

Palengensis may inflate the value of certain documents in understanding Israeli history. But that in no way diminishes the fact that Israel has a racist, apartheid structure and policy. Israel, given massive concessions in negotiations, refuses even cursory steps in the cessation of expansion. It deliberately targets civilian infrastructure and targets Arabs in their program of expropriation and colonization.

Its bizarre that you would attack the OP without giving any hint of the above context.

I am not here to approve of Israeli society or the regime. On the other hand bullshit statements are not helpful.

Now, apartheid regime...

Are Arab-Israelis barred from voting and segragated by law within Israel? Are Arab-Israelis not allowed to hold citizenship within Israel or forbidden to travel outside of Israel on Israeli documents? Are there no Arab-Israelis in the Knesset or in the IDF? Is there a structured and institutionalised system of "legal" segragation in Israel?

When there were moves to try and get rid of the Arab-Israeli parties in Israel it was the Israeli Supreme Court that threw it out.

I'm not saying it's pretty but it's not apartheid either.

Dimentio

25th January 2011, 20:24

Of course if the Zionists were Irish nationalists reclaiming their homeland or something and not Jewish you might not hold your stance.

Stop trying to paint everyone who doesn't agree with your approach on this matter as some kind of racist Zionist all the damn time.

Jews were a friggin' 8% of the population in 1948!

Rather, it is the Palestinian Arabs who could be compared with Irish nationalists.

I would like to write something nasty about you, but I refrain since ad hominems should not be encouraged. But I think you are a troll.

ComradeMan

25th January 2011, 20:30

Jews were a friggin' 8% of the population in 1948!

Rather, it is the Palestinian Arabs who could be compared with Irish nationalists.

I would like to write something nasty about you, but I refrain since ad hominems should not be encouraged. But I think you are a troll.

So what? I thought we didn't adhere to the whole genetic rights of people and land idea? That was then and this is now. What do you propose all the non-1948 8%- a fair couple of million people- what about them?

Read the points and think about them... you also forget to mention how the Jews were the majority in Jerusalem throughout the 19th century- before the State of Israel and how they were attacked and driven out... by whom?

The problem is digging up the history of either faction is not constructive because both have been guilty of creating the situation that is.

Palingenisis

25th January 2011, 20:43

Dimentio

25th January 2011, 20:46

So what? I thought we didn't adhere to the whole genetic rights of people and land idea? That was then and this is now. What do you propose all the non-1948 8%- a fair couple of million people- what about them?

Read the points and think about them... you also forget to mention how the Jews were the majority in Jerusalem throughout the 19th century- before the State of Israel and how they were attacked and driven out... by whom?

The problem is digging up the history of either faction is not constructive because both have been guilty of creating the situation that is.'

It is you who are using the "genetic rights paradigm" right now. I am of the opinion that the majority, no matter what ethnic group they belong to, should have the right to decide, and that all human beings living in an area have an equal right to that area.

ComradeMan

25th January 2011, 20:48

Some far-right Jewish leaders made comparisons between Palestinians and the historical Amalek peoples, claiming that Palestinians needed to be exterminated like the latter: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=73956

Good article and two poignant quotes from the article writer...

"These wicked men may be Jews and rabbis, but they don’t represent normative Judaism any more than Osama bin Laden represents normative Islam."
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=73956

"Do not make the mistake of conflating this idiocy with all of Israel or all of Judaism. Yes, these men are dangerous, they are hateful, and they must be challenged. But there is another face of Judaism and another face of Israel..."
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=73956

ComradeMan

25th January 2011, 20:50

'

It is you who are using the "genetic rights paradigm" right now. I am of the opinion that the majority, no matter what ethnic group they belong to, should have the right to decide, and that all human beings living in an area have an equal right to that area.

Err... you started bringing in the idea of only 8% in 1948.... not me.

I am not the one disingenuously painting 7 million people with the brush of minority/fringe extremists within a section of their community either.

Dimentio

25th January 2011, 21:24

Err... you started bringing in the idea of only 8% in 1948.... not me.

I am not the one disingenuously painting 7 million people with the brush of minority/fringe extremists within a section of their community either.

A constituency which is consisting of less than 10% of the inhabitants in a given region could not claim to represent the will of the people in said region.

Moreover, the Irish were clearly a majority in Ireland.

gorillafuck

25th January 2011, 22:07

I don't see why you're trying to make claims about how ethnicity should be a deciding factor in setting up bourgeois states Dimentio, even if it is to counter comrademans zionism.

Dimentio

25th January 2011, 22:13

I don't see why you're trying to make claims about how ethnicity should be a deciding factor in setting up bourgeois states Dimentio, even if it is to counter comrademans zionism.

Where have I said that?

I believe that I said the contrary?

gorillafuck

25th January 2011, 22:23

Oh, I see. I misinterpreted, sorry.

Dean

25th January 2011, 23:32

Are Arab-Israelis barred from voting and segragated by law within Israel? Are Arab-Israelis not allowed to hold citizenship within Israel or forbidden to travel outside of Israel on Israeli documents? Are there no Arab-Israelis in the Knesset or in the IDF? Is there a structured and institutionalised system of "legal" segragation in Israel?

When there were moves to try and get rid of the Arab-Israeli parties in Israel it was the Israeli Supreme Court that threw it out.

I'm not saying it's pretty but it's not apartheid either.

Oh, sure, occupying the land of natives, drawing your borders on ethnic lines and expropriating natives based on their ethnic identity isn't apartheid.

Israeli policy is to tend toward racial purism and exceptionalism. Whether or not specific steps in this line are taken does not diminish the real, racist steps which you are well aware of by now and have no place denying.

The declaration of Palestinian territories as "sovereign" is bullshit when they are basically under military and economic dominance of a state that has expropriated and walled in regions based on their ethnic division is enough to call it apartheid - and even if it wasn't, it's a moot point.

The policies are vile racist trash. Pedantry over the finer points of the debate which attempt to brighten Israel's image serve absolutely no value, except in the furtherance of a sick state of affairs.

Dean

25th January 2011, 23:33

ComradeMan

26th January 2011, 09:54

Oh, sure, occupying the land of natives, drawing your borders on ethnic lines and expropriating natives based on their ethnic identity isn't apartheid..

USA, Indian reservations? Australia? China occupying the land of Tibetans and basing things on ethnic idenity? Japan with it's racial policies viz citizenship- or these also apartheid states?

I said before- it isn't pretty but it isn't apartheid.

As for Palingenesis' political dishonesty in portraying this minority, rightwing view as some kind of general Israeli view, well are we to believe then that all Palestinians are Holocaust deniers or believe the Jews are a "virus like AIDS".... Sheikh Ibrahim Mudayri (2005)?
United States Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, International Religious Freedom Report 2007 - Israel and the Occupied Territories.

The policies are vile racist trash. Pedantry over the finer points of the debate which attempt to brighten Israel's image serve absolutely no value, except in the furtherance of a sick state of affairs.

Which policies? The policy of marriage law is probably the nearest thing to an apartheid style law. How about the state of "dhimmitude" in the Palestinian Authority for an analogy with apartheid?

But:-
Dr. Mohammed Wattad, 2010,

“As an Israeli citizen, I belong to a political entity… I have no other home than the State of Israel. I am a proud Israeli citizen but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize it… At the same time I am a proud Arab national...
“Is there discrimination in Israel? Yes - there is discrimination against women, elderly, Arabs, Russian Jews, Christians,… But the same goes for Canada. Is it good-No? But it means we have to deal with the problem from within…. The existence of discrimination in a state does not mean it is an apartheid state…There is a big difference between apartheid and discrimination,”

“In an apartheid regime, there is no possibility of judicial review, because the judges are appointed by the regime and all serve one ideology. This is not the case in Israel… There is a very strong, independent Supreme Court in Israel. In an apartheid regime [unlike in Israel] there is no place to go to argue against the government,”

http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=6929 (http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=6929)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#cite_note-wattad-280

By the way, what's more "apartheid" than calling for two states that will enivitably be based on ethnicity/religion and be antagonistic to each other.

You also have to bear in mind the aggravating circumstances of the surrounding countries that refuse to recognise Israel in any way, i.e. there is no place for a Jewish homeland in the Middle East according to them whatsoever- non, Israel must be wiped off the map- is this not based on denying people a right to live somewhere based on their ehtnicity/religion?

The whole situation is a mess and no side comes out with its hands clean, however this exaggerated hyperbole comparing to Israel to a Nazi regime or an apartheid state is not constructive.

Dean

26th January 2011, 13:27

The whole situation is a mess and no side comes out with its hands clean, however this exaggerated hyperbole comparing to Israel to a Nazi regime or an apartheid state is not constructive.

Actually, it is constructive, since Israel has been the chief architect and perpetuater of the conditions in both "nations." This point cannot be stressed enough: since Israel controls both, it is responsible for the disparate treatment that Jews and Arabs experience. Whether the laws are written or not is irrelevant; the law is enacted. US Slavery was anti-black even if blacks could free themselves.

Israel is a violent, racist colonial regime and the end of the conflict will end with its complete dissolution. It is very constructive to speak of the state on these terms since its entire foundation is built on the expropriation and ethnic cleansing which targeted Arabs.

That is racism and apartheid. And you're not being constructive by trying to justify this vile regime and its policies. Its no wonder that even the labor party has recently broken off and further marginalized the "left" in Israel: the state exists as a right wing, racist organ.

Frivolous quips about how "nobody's perfect man" don't do anything. Go take your peace pipe and see if the settlers and natives will drink your kool-aid over there - I guarantee you both sides will laugh at your childish antics in attempting to place equal blame across the spectrum. Even Israelis know its bullshit.

ComradeMan

26th January 2011, 13:35

Actually, it is constructive, since Israel has been the chief architect and perpetuater of the conditions in both "nations." This point cannot be stressed enough: since Israel controls both, it is responsible for the disparate treatment that Jews and Arabs experience. Whether the laws are written or not is irrelevant; the law is enacted. US Slavery was anti-black even if blacks could free themselves..

You haven't said which laws are equivalent to apartheid within the state of Israel, or of course the apartheidness of the Palestinian Authority. I mentioned the marriage law--- what else?

Israel is not the chief architect and perpetrator- there are many things at play here.

Israel is a violent, racist colonial regime and the end of the conflict will end with its complete dissolution. It is very constructive to speak of the state on these terms since its entire foundation is built on the expropriation and ethnic cleansing which targeted Arabs...

Didn't many Arabs sell their land too? Out of interest. And also Palestine did not "belong" to the Arabs any more than it did to the Jews. If we want to start getting into those arguments, at least for Jerusalem- then history is on the side of the Jewish argument.

That is racism and apartheid. And you're not being constructive by trying to justify this vile regime and its policies. Its no wonder that even the labor party has recently broken off and further marginalized the "left" in Israel: the state exists as a right wing, racist organ....

I am not trying to justify any regime- it's not apartheid. You see all you do is throw up rhetoric all the time, and as someone who has never once answered my questions to define what they mean by "peaceful Zionism" that YOU say YOU support on YOUR blogpage... well, it leaves me wondering.

All states exist in a sense of rightwing and racist organs if you so choose to look at it this way.

Frivolous quips about how "nobody's perfect man" don't do anything. Go take your peace pipe and see if the settlers and natives will drink your kool-aid over there - I guarantee you both sides will laugh at your childish antics in attempting to place equal blame across the spectrum. Even Israelis know its bullshit.

When in doubt, resort to the ad hominem. The problem in the whole damn situation is BOTH SIDES and I have always said that, but what you do is single out one side all the time and not see the bigger picture.

What is peaceful Zionism by the way?

"I stand firmly behind my friends who advocate pacifistic Zionism".
http://dean.roushimsx.com/essays/israel_palestine.htm

Dean

26th January 2011, 14:16

Same brain dead shit you've been posting for years. Get out of your narrow little ghetto, kid.

Dean

26th January 2011, 19:58

Also, you'll note that I'm not even using the term "zionist." As has been repeated ad nauseum, co-existential religious movements are directly in contradiction with the racist expropriation of any ethnic group. Where zionism manifests in such a way as to respect the native Palestinians, it is hardly a crime. Where zionism manifests as a racist program of expropriation, it is wrong. Israel's regime is a part of the latter paradigm.

But consideration of the religious-political movement "zionism" is not a game-changer to any discussion of Israeli policy.

ComradeMan

26th January 2011, 20:17

Same brain dead shit you've been posting for years. Get out of your narrow little ghetto, kid.

Ad hominem.... :lol:

Zionism in whatever form has the prerequisite of a Jewish homeland. There is now way you can get around that fact, that is the definition. Now, whether you see this as a Jewish state or a state for Jews it is in either sense a Jewish homeland. If you advocate a whatever-Zionism then you advocate a Jewish homeland of some sort.

From a leftist position then, how do you justify any form of nationalism based on ethnicity?

As for your anti-semitic reference to the ghetto- save it, you're disingenuously hypocritical on this issue.

I don't support Zionist exclusionism. I support a one state solution Israel-Palestine which safeguards the rights of self-determination for all its citizens and in which each "group" could govern itself autonomously within a kind of federation and added to which would give the Jewish people a safe homeland after centuries of anti-semitism, pogroms and of course the Holocaust. I don't support the two-state solution, certainly not from a leftist rationale and I am not enamoured of the Palestinian Authority's track record either.

But I wouldn't expect people here to support stuff as it's far easier to chant slogans and be anti-something than actually have any ideas for progess- that's what I call brain-dead.

Dean

26th January 2011, 20:55

Ad hominem.... :lol:

Zionism in whatever form has the prerequisite of a Jewish homeland. There is now way you can get around that fact, that is the definition. Now, whether you see this as a Jewish state or a state for Jews it is in either sense a Jewish homeland. If you advocate a whatever-Zionism then you advocate a Jewish homeland of some sort.

There's is nothing necessarily statist about a homeland.

From a leftist position then, how do you justify any form of nationalism based on ethnicity?
I don't, I oppose it. And most vehemently when it exists as a powerful, racist structure.

As for your anti-semitic reference to the ghetto- save it, you're disingenuously hypocritical on this issue.
There's nothing anti-semitic about using the term "ghetto." I'm not referring to the historical Jewish ghettos you're apparently talking about.

I don't support Zionist exclusionism. I support a one state solution Israel-Palestine which safeguards the rights of self-determination for all its citizens and in which each "group" could govern itself autonomously within a kind of federation and added to which would give the Jewish people a safe homeland after centuries of anti-semitism, pogroms and of course the Holocaust. I don't support the two-state solution, certainly not from a leftist rationale and I am not enamoured of the Palestinian Authority's track record either.
So you don't support a two-state solution, but you support segregation. Doesn't sound hypocritical at all. And how can Jews have a "homeland" without some kind of state? You're trying to attack me for this little nuance above, and now you take it on yourself. That's incredibly hypocritical.

But I wouldn't expect people here to support stuff as it's far easier to chant slogans and be anti-something than actually have any ideas for progess- that's what I call brain-dead.
Boo hoo. You have a soft spot for a white nationalist regime of expropriation. You haven't asked what I'm for, nor have you been constructive in your criticism, which has consistently existed as an attempt to diminish the crimes of the colonial state.

And now you basically want to say "you're not constructive so shut up"? Who are you to determine the conversation here? You are never constructive.

Get over yourself.

ComradeMan

26th January 2011, 21:07

There's is nothing necessarily statist about a homeland..

So creating a state is not statist? But a homeland is not a state- okay, but then what is it? How does it function? Within another state?

There's nothing anti-semitic about using the term "ghetto." I'm not referring to the historical Jewish ghettos you're apparently talking about.

What kind of ghetto do you mean then? And why used so negatively?

There's So you don't support a two-state solution, but you support segregation. Doesn't sound hypocritical at all. And how can Jews have a "homeland" without some kind of state? You're trying to attack me for this little nuance above, and now you take it on yourself. That's incredibly hypocritical..

It's incredibly hypocritical to throw up false accusations. Where have I supported segregation?

There is the problem- the right of self-determination, the right of a homeland, an ethnic state etc- the equation never balances. That's why I support the one-state/bi-national solution Israel-Palestine (as far as states go that is) with equal rights for all and autonomous self-determination within a federal system.

Boo hoo. You have a soft spot for a white nationalist regime of expropriation. You haven't asked what I'm for, nor have you been constructive in your criticism, which has consistently existed as an attempt to diminish the crimes of the colonial state. ..

More bullshit from you I see. You're using the same line that people tried to throw in the face of Chomsky when he said he supported Israel. You can't seem to separate the Israeli people, the territory of Israel (as is) and the Israeli government. Your last sentence is just plain rubbish- wtf does "exists as an attempt to diminish the crimes of the colonial state" mean? How does that reflect Israel anyway?

And now you basically want to say "you're not constructive so shut up?" Who are you to determine the rhetoric here? You are never constructive...Get over yourself.

I thought this was a discussion forum, but it seems anyone who doesn't agree with you or challenges some of your positions- politely I may add- just gets attack and "trotbagged" with ad hominems and strawmen.

You're idea of being constructive from a leftist point of view would, it seems, amount to the creation of two polarised ethnically exclusive and de facto capitalist states. Well done! ;)

Dean

26th January 2011, 21:18

So creating a state is not statist? But a homeland is not a state- okay, but then what is it? How does it function? Within another state?
As a community, with or without a state.

What kind of ghetto do you mean then? And why used so negatively?
Ghettos are bad. They are aggregations of a narrow group of people who cloister themselves (or are cloistered by outside forces, as often the case in historical Jewish ghettos).

In your case, your refusal to listen to anyone who doesn't fit your narrow mindset is basically a call for a ghetto of your own. You talk about issues of Israel as if you haven't been reading newspapers for the last 20 years. The same is the case for democrats who refuse to listen to any other ideas, etc.

It's incredibly hypocritical to throw up false accusations. Where have I supported segregation?
You implied that my characterization of a co-existential zionism is at fautl since a "homeland" must be established. Then you try to propose some co-existential model (or similar vision of Zionism sans its contemporary moral corruption) as if it were not subject to the same (faulty) criticism.

More bullshit from you I see. You're using the same line that people tried to throw in the face of Chomsky when he said he supported Israel. You can't seem to separate the Israeli people, the territory of Israel (as is) and the Israeli government.
I've never conflated the Israeli government or regime with the people of Israel. Only you have assumed that conflation.

Your last sentence is just plain rubbish- wtf does "exists as an attempt to diminish the crimes of the colonial state" mean? How does that reflect Israel anyway?
Your hysteria about Israel only serves to underplay the violent character of Israeli policy.

You're idea of being constructive from a leftist point of view would, it seems, amount to the creation of two polarised ethnically exclusive and de facto capitalist states. Well done! ;)
I don't support a 2-state solution, nor any race-warrior states. I said as much above, but you seem to have ignored it.

I'm not sure where you're getting this shit from.

ComradeMan

26th January 2011, 21:50

As a community, with or without a state..

That's a bullshit definition of "homeland" and I'm not sure how you corelate community and homeland.

Ghettos are bad. They are aggregations of a narrow group of people who cloister themselves (or are cloistered by outside forces, as often the case in historical Jewish ghettos)...

So how does that apply to my line of thinking on this issue?

In your case, your refusal to listen to anyone who doesn't fit your narrow mindset is basically a call for a ghetto of your own. You talk about issues of Israel as if you haven't been reading newspapers for the last 20 years. The same is the case for democrats who refuse to listen to any other ideas, etc.

Ah I see. How is the one state solution calling for a ghetto? I do listen, but when things like analogies with the Nazis and apartheid state etc are thrown out I feel I am within my right to say why I feel that this is incorrect, without having to endure a barrage of abuse and ad hominems as well as false accusations by some members here.

You, on the other hand, talk of issues about Israel as if you have deliberately ignored the last 300 years. The roots of this conflict are long and I am sure anyone who would perhaps appreciate historical materialism wouldn't stop at just 20 years of history.

You implied that my characterization of a co-existential zionism is at fautl since a "homeland" must be established. Then you try to propose some co-existential model (or similar vision of Zionism sans its contemporary moral corruption) as if it were not subject to the same (faulty) criticism..

:laugh:
Your idea of Zionism is basically err, well, not Zionism- you may as well propose Misean Communism or something like that. The one-state solution is the least Zionistic of any of the solutions if you like whilst my (far from perfect no doubt) model at least strives to maintain a leftist position that is remotely defensible and at the same time acknowledge the uniqueness of the situation viz the Jewish people.

I've never conflated the Israeli government or regime with the people of Israel. Only you have assumed that conflation...

Hmmm....

Your hysteria about Israel only serves to underplay the violent character of Israeli policy....

What hysteria? You are the one who uses charged and, at least in my opinion, hysterical rhetoric all over the place.

I don't support a 2-state solution, nor any race-warrior states. I said as much above, but you seem to have ignored it. I'm not sure where you're getting this shit from.

Well, okay- what do you support in practical terms?

hatzel

26th January 2011, 22:11

...half of me wanted to totally derail this whole thread by saying something about those Kahane-following (http://virtualjudah.wordpress.com/whose-idea-was-it-anyway/) Mao-loving (http://virtualjudah.wordpress.com/self-liberation-101-lesson-4-learning-from-the-chairman/) fascists (http://virtualjudah.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/avodah-ivrit-and-economic-independence/) over at Medinat Yehudah, but then I remembered that they're more the brownshirts of anti-Zionism, so actually it would be totally pointless to even mention them. Also it would just piss the Maoists off, and I don't want to do that...no, really, I don't...

Seriously, though, anybody care to peruse that site? It's a pretty weird, I'd call it national socialism at it's 'finest'...though as the last article I posted, on the word 'fascist', suggests, they seem pretty darn keen on labour vouchers! I'm sure they'd welcome the MLs with open arms! :laugh: If it weren't for the fact that they keep calling the Israeli government bolshie scumbags...they might not be as keen on communism as we first thought...shame, really...

EDIT: there's also a serious point that I'm sure that a lot of anti-Zionists types would happily talk about what this groups has to say, and say 'look how terrible and racist and horrible these Zionists are!', when in fact they're virulent anti-Israelis, virulent anti-Zionists, who would never pay a penny in tax to the Zionist state because they think it's abhorrent and a crime against G-d (I'm sure we all know how many religious Jews there are, including in Israel, who flatly refuse to support or acknowledge the state in any way), but still run around dancing and singing at their little shrine to Baruch Goldstein, only for anti-Israelis to use them as a case-study to show how terrible Israel and Zionism is...hmm...

Dean

27th January 2011, 14:54

Ah I see. How is the one state solution calling for a ghetto? I do listen, but when things like analogies with the Nazis and apartheid state etc are thrown out I feel I am within my right to say why I feel that this is incorrect, without having to endure a barrage of abuse and ad hominems as well as false accusations by some members here.
That's not how I represented my usage of the term at all.

You, on the other hand, talk of issues about Israel as if you have deliberately ignored the last 300 years. The roots of this conflict are long and I am sure anyone who would perhaps appreciate historical materialism wouldn't stop at just 20 years of history.
Right. Militant Zionism has existed for at least 150 years or so. Not sure of the first dates in which it manifested as the race-war policy of settlers, though.

Your idea of Zionism is basically err, well, not Zionism- you may as well propose Misean Communism or something like that. The one-state solution is the least Zionistic of any of the solutions if you like whilst my (far from perfect no doubt) model at least strives to maintain a leftist position that is remotely defensible and at the same time acknowledge the uniqueness of the situation viz the Jewish people.
I don't really give a damn about Zionism, or any religious politics for that matter. Even if you don't believe it, there are Zionists who don't believe in expropriation or violence.

What hysteria? You are the one who uses charged and, at least in my opinion, hysterical rhetoric all over the place.
"Oh no, someone criticized Israel so I have to rush to the regime's defense, without refuting the facts anyhow." <---that childishness

Well, okay- what do you support in practical terms?
The liquidation and re-appropriation of the military state of Israel, the PA and their capital. Dismantling militant settler outposts. Negotiations for housing rights for families which have lived in their homes for a given period with Palestinians who have been exiled. Working class hegemony. Egalitarian resource redistribution. Complete removal of the apartheid wall.

ComradeMan

27th January 2011, 20:28

That's not how I represented my usage of the term at all..Right. Militant Zionism has existed for at least 150 years or so. Not sure of the first dates in which it manifested as the race-war policy of settlers, though..

Yeah because all of the Jewish people in the successive aliyahs were not fleeing pogroms and persecution and of course the Holocaust.

"Oh no, someone criticized Israel so I have to rush to the regime's defense, without refuting the facts anyhow." <---that childishness..

Someone did not criticise Israel, someone took a minority view statement of an extremist and couples with a very old fact weaves together a disingenuous attempt to paint all Israelis as holding this nasty view when this is not the case. FFS. Someone could have a field day posting the vile anti-semitic hatred and ignorance spewed about by the very people who some here, if not you yourself, seem to support- but err... we don't.

"The liquidation and re-appropriation of the military state of Israel, the PA and their capital. Dismantling militant settler outposts. ..

The "liquidation" of the state of Israel- so you are basically calling for the destruction of Israel whilst at the same term claiming to support pacifistic Zionism which would de facto imply a Jewish homeland.

Don't you see any contradictions?

Apart from the fact that Israel is not now, nor is it ever going to abolish itself. You may as well call for the complete liquidation of most other nations on the planet.

Palingenisis

27th January 2011, 20:34

Apart from the fact that Israel is not now, nor is it ever going to abolish itself. You may as well call for the complete liquidation of most other nations on the planet.

You dont have much of a sense of history if you believe that because its lasted the few years that it has its going to last forever. Self-abolition would be good do. Save a lot of lives. You realize that the sensible Israelis have more or left leaving psycho-Russians (many of whom are even openly neo-Nazi :blushing:) and psycho-recently arrived USAans.

Self abolition would be best.

ComradeMan

27th January 2011, 20:38

You dont have much of a sense of history if you believe that because its lasted the few years that it has its going to last forever. Self-abolition would be good do. Save a lot of lives. You realize that the sensible Israelis have more or left leaving psycho-Russians (many of whom are even openly neo-Nazi :blushing:) and psycho-recently arrived USAans.

Self abolition would be best.

It won't happen though will it?

Palingenisis

27th January 2011, 20:50

Mao has thought us among the wretched of the earth that all reactionaires are paper tigers. "Israel" is a paper tiger...it wont exist in 20 years time.

ComradeMan

27th January 2011, 20:52

Mao has thought us among the wretched of the earth that all reactionaires are paper tigers. "Israel" is a paper tiger...it wont exist in 20 years time.

Yeah, so we should listen to the guy who was a flop in the end and whose system did not manage to continue.
;)

Dean

27th January 2011, 21:15

Yeah because all of the Jewish people in the successive aliyahs were not fleeing pogroms and persecution and of course the Holocaust.
This doesn't make the racist war on Palestinians any less vile.

Someone did not criticise Israel, someone took a minority view statement of an extremist and couples with a very old fact weaves together a disingenuous attempt to paint all Israelis as holding this nasty view when this is not the case. FFS. Someone could have a field day posting the vile anti-semitic hatred and ignorance spewed about by the very people who some here, if not you yourself, seem to support- but err... we don't.
How is critiquing a racist policy anti-semitic?

The "liquidation" of the state of Israel- so you are basically calling for the destruction of Israel whilst at the same term claiming to support pacifistic Zionism which would de facto imply a Jewish homeland.
Again, you're conflating statism with community determinism. Two different things.

Don't you see any contradictions?
Yes, namely that you claim to oppose "anti-semitism" and yet actively support a racist program of expropriation based on race-politics.

Apart from the fact that Israel is not now, nor is it ever going to abolish itself. You may as well call for the complete liquidation of most other nations on the planet.
I do, as an eventuality. But racist colonial regimes are near the top of my list for liquidation and re-appropriation of political and economic capital.

I've never said anything racist on these forums. I was taught as a child that racism is one of the most disgusting values to have. And I'm always careful when talking about Israel because the slander of antisemitism is so pervasive in that conversation, due to hack organizations like the ADL and the Wiesenthal Institute, which have erroneously called Chavez and Ramallah(band) anti-semitic for not supporting Israel's national interest.

You love authority, not Jews. Jews are targeted because of your racist bile.

Palingenisis

27th January 2011, 21:29

Someone did not criticise Israel, someone took a minority view statement of an extremist and couples with a very old fact weaves together a disingenuous attempt to paint all Israelis as holding this nasty view when this is not the case. FFS. Someone could have a field day posting the vile anti-semitic hatred and ignorance spewed about by the very people who some here, if not you yourself, seem to support- but err... we don't.
.

What are you talking about? Anyone being remotely anti-semitic would be banned straight away? Quite rightly so...But you and KrimKrams are allowed to spew your not very disguised racist filth.

You are an awful muppet.

PhoenixAsh

27th January 2011, 21:31

Ad hominem.... :lol:

Zionism in whatever form has the prerequisite of a Jewish homeland. There is now way you can get around that fact, that is the definition. Now, whether you see this as a Jewish state or a state for Jews it is in either sense a Jewish homeland. If you advocate a whatever-Zionism then you advocate a Jewish homeland of some sort.

From a leftist position then, how do you justify any form of nationalism based on ethnicity?

As for your anti-semitic reference to the ghetto- save it, you're disingenuously hypocritical on this issue.

I don't support Zionist exclusionism. I support a one state solution Israel-Palestine which safeguards the rights of self-determination for all its citizens and in which each "group" could govern itself autonomously within a kind of federation and added to which would give the Jewish people a safe homeland after centuries of anti-semitism, pogroms and of course the Holocaust. I don't support the two-state solution, certainly not from a leftist rationale and I am not enamoured of the Palestinian Authority's track record either.

But I wouldn't expect people here to support stuff as it's far easier to chant slogans and be anti-something than actually have any ideas for progess- that's what I call brain-dead.

Arabs have always opted for a one state solution for both Jews and Palestinians. The zionist movements have always rejected that proposal because they indeed want a state to be jewish in nature. Their arguments are that any other form of state is not a jewish national home and puts them in the same situation as they supposedly were in.

Now...proposing a one state nation includes denouncing zionism and arabism. But given Israeli policy and dominant position that is where the first priority and obstacle towards a one state solution lies.

Everybody is aware of the policies surrounding land Israel Land Administration and the Jewish National Fund. In those lights a state sanctioned exclusion of Arab landownership there is not much of an argument for a one nation solution within the zionist politics.

Whatever happened in Europe does not give anybody the right to enforce servitude on any other people. Pogroms and Holocaust are all big tragedies...problems to be solved within Europe. NOT to serve as an excuse to create your own state based on ethnicity or religion.

ComradeMan

27th January 2011, 21:31

This doesn't make the racist war on Palestinians any less vile..

What about the Arab-Israelis, the Bedouin and the Druze?

You love authority, not Jews. Jews are targeted because of your racist bile.

So now you are trying to twist around my position as being anti-semitic whilst calling for the annihilation of Israel? :laugh: Nice try...

The fact of the matter is the OP was distorted and that however pretty it may not be, and I'll be the first to agree that it definitely isn't pretty- it's not an apartheid state and beyond your rhetoric you haven't actually been able to discuss facts as such. Your and some others' here positions also hint at their being no validity for a Jewish homeland whatsoever and thus deny the Jewish people a right to self-determination that is granted or promoted for every other people on the face of the planet.

You say you would also like to "liquidate" the PA- and yet when I and some other criticise the PA and the so-called Palestinian movements were are instantly portrayed as hardcore Zionists.

The problem is that there are 7 million Israeli Jews who for the most part, whatever their position on Israeli politics, would probably want to remain being Israelis. I am fully aware of the problems of Israel within the Middle-Eastern context but you have to view these things in the light of the centuries of persecution and hounding of the Jewish people culminating in the Holocaust. When these refugees first arrived in their holy land, "safe" from pogroms and so on- it's hardly like they were always welcomed with open arms either.

But all this historical eye-for-an-eye will end up in a land of the blind. That's why I support a one-state/bi-national solution with equal rights for all- and the first step in this direction would for some sides in the issue to recognise the state of Israel. Until that happens it will get worse and worse and at the end of the day- I am more interested in the welfare of the people on the ground, regardless of background, than pandering to political whims and ideologies- the one as hypocritical and dishonest as the other.

Palingenisis

27th January 2011, 21:35

The problem is that there are 7 million Israeli Jews who for the most part, whatever their position on Israeli politics, would probably want to remain being Israelis. I am fully aware of the problems of Israel within the Middle-Eastern context but you have to view these things in the light of the centuries of persecution and hounding of the Jewish people culminating in the Holocaust. When these refugees first arrived in their holy land, "safe" from pogroms and so on- it's hardly like they were always welcomed with open arms either.

.

LOL....What about the Roma? And no you dont have to view the genocidal actions of Zionists in that light. Racial nationalist violence against anyone is wrong. And Zionists are ruthless violent racial nationalists.

ComradeMan

27th January 2011, 21:38

LOL....What about the Roma? And no you dont have to view the genocidal actions of Zionists in that light. Racial nationalist violence against anyone is wrong. And Zionists are ruthless violent racial nationalists.

The Roma aren't a political and demographic force in Israel-Palestine are they?

So you are denying that the aliyahs were not the result of centuries of persecution and that the Holocaust had no role in the foundation of the modern state of Israel?

You really are stupid.

Palingenisis

27th January 2011, 21:41

So you are denying that the aliyahs were not the result of centuries of persecution and that the Holocaust had no role in the foundation of the modern state of Israel?

You really are stupid.

Yes...Otherwise the Roma would have been given a state.

ComradeMan

27th January 2011, 21:45

Yes...Otherwise the Roma would have been given a state.

Well seeing as the Roma are nomads by culture and tradition it would be quite difficult unless they would be willing to find an area of North Western India where all the Roma agreed was their homeland and where all the Roma expressed a desire to create a Roma state.

It's not quite the same thing is it?

You really are stupid.

Palingenisis

27th January 2011, 21:58

Uh most Roma are settled now? And since they have ground down so much I doubt someone would ask their opinion.

PhoenixAsh

27th January 2011, 22:10

The fact of the matter is the OP was distorted and that however pretty it may not be, and I'll be the first to agree that it definitely isn't pretty- it's not an apartheid state and beyond your rhetoric you haven't actually been able to discuss facts as such. Your and some others' here positions also hint at their being no validity for a Jewish homeland whatsoever and thus deny the Jewish people a right to self-determination that is granted or promoted for every other people on the face of the planet.

I htink the land reform policy, Jewish National funds and the whole Israeli Land Administrations pretty much provide enough evidence that Isreal is indeed an apartheids state. If that is not enough. You can not legally marry when you are Jewish and do not want to marry a non-Jew in Israel. There are numeral reasons and evidence that as such Israel is an apartheids state.

Now as self determination goes.

Self determination is a vague terminology that gives nations the right to become souvereign if they so want. This goes for all the people within the nation.

Now...when you talk about jewish self determination. You are not talking about a nation...a territory or people living in a territory. What you are talking about was a globally devided and dispersed group of people who share a common faith (I will not bring the jewish hereditry viewpoints into the debate because that would make this a whole lot more complicated) who want teh right to selfdetermination in a land that is not their homeland that houses an other group who want exactly the same.

This is like saying the Scientologists deserve selfdetermination within Suadi Arabia. Its absurd.

So why then should Jewish selfdetermination be given exceptional status? Why? There is not one reason to do so.

You say you would also like to "liquidate" the PA- and yet when I and some other criticise the PA and the so-called Palestinian movements were are instantly portrayed as hardcore Zionists.

because the PA would not exist if it were not for Israel. Its the hard view that teh palestinians deserve criticism for symptomatic behaviour and denying the underlying causes for that behaviour. its like a surgeon saying...lets not treat the lungcancer, I blame you are not feeling well on the fact that you have trouble breathing.

The problem is that there are 7 million Israeli Jews who for the most part, whatever their position on Israeli politics, would probably want to remain being Israelis. I am fully aware of the problems of Israel within the Middle-Eastern context but you have to view these things in the light of the centuries of persecution and hounding of the Jewish people culminating in the Holocaust. When these refugees first arrived in their holy land, "safe" from pogroms and so on- it's hardly like they were always welcomed with open arms either.

No...I do not have to view it that way because it in no way gives them teh right to occupy territory that does not belong to them, that houses an other group that has equal rights to self determination.

The majority of the jewish people in Palestine got there with the specific aim in mind to claim the land as their own.They were not born there...their ancestors were not born there, they hadn't for centuries.

And yet somehow they decided that it was alright for them. Here are the facts:

at the time of the declaration of independence...1.2 milion jweish citizens lived in Palestine as opposed to 1.5 million arabs. 1.150.000 roughly...jewish citizens MIGRATED there...and were not born there. 1.4 million arabs were born in Palestine.

THAT is the light in which to view this.

now...for not being welcomed with open arms...that is true. They were not welcomed by their Jewish counterparts who had always lived in Palestine. As for the Arabs...well...that came later somewhere in the late 20's beginning of the 30's. But the main reason they were not welcomed by the arabs was because they came armed. They actively advocated the establishment of a jewish state.
And in the 30's started to use terrorist activities to advance that end. in the aftermath of WWII this grew in intensity.

DO not try to make it appear like they are somehow victims who fled teh evil empire...they actively sought to create their own state.

But all this historical eye-for-an-eye will end up in a land of the blind. That's why I support a one-state/bi-national solution with equal rights for all- and the first step in this direction would for some sides in the issue to recognise the state of Israel. Until that happens it will get worse and worse and at the end of the day- I am more interested in the welfare of the people on the ground, regardless of background, than pandering to political whims and ideologies- the one as hypocritical and dishonest as the other.

Neither of these are an option with the current state of Israel....at all. The only way for these options to come about is if Israel is dismantled of if Israel gives up the notion that it wants to be a purely jewish state.

ComradeMan

27th January 2011, 22:49

I htink the land reform policy, Jewish National funds and the whole Israeli Land Administrations pretty much provide enough evidence that Isreal is indeed an apartheids state. If that is not enough. You can not legally marry when you are Jewish and do not want to marry a non-Jew in Israel. There are numeral reasons and evidence that as such Israel is an apartheids state. .

No- I already said it isn't pretty. I already criticised the marriage law. However look at apartheid South Africa and look at Israel and think about the differences too. The differences outweigh the similarities.
1) Arab Israelis and non Jewish Israelis are Israeli citizens with a right to vote.
2) Non-Jewish Israelis are represented in democratically elected government.
3) Even the "hated" IDF is not exclusively Jewish.

I repeat- it's not apartheid.

Now as self determination goes. Self determination is a vague terminology that gives nations the right to become souvereign if they so want. This goes for all the people within the nation. .

There is no legal definition of people under international law.

However I am not denying the right of Palestinians, Druzes, Bedouins or anyone else a right to self-determination....

Now...when you talk about jewish self determination. You are not talking about a nation...a territory or people living in a territory. What you are talking about was a globally devided and dispersed group of people who share a common faith...

This is where the problem lies, but also where I think you are in danger of an argument that could be come inadvertently racist and/or ahistorical.
1) To deny the existene of the Jewish people (people does not mean everyone is a genetic clone!) is unfair. Judaism is the religion, the Jewish people exists. The only reason why the Jewish people was divided and dispersed is because of oppression and persecution. You could thus deny that the Roma and Sinti are a people too on this basis.
2) I don't think you are racist and I am not accusing you, but don't you see the potential problem with this argument? To say that a people only constitute a people despite shared culture, language, religion and tradition as well as genetics in varying combination- if they happen to live in the same region or territory is a bad definition.

This is like saying the Scientologists deserve selfdetermination within Suadi Arabia. Its absurd.

No, this analogy is absurd and it's obvious why.

This is like saying the Scientologists So why then should Jewish selfdetermination be given exceptional status? Why? There is not one reason to do so.

Well there is just the little matter of the Holocaust which I think has shown the need for the Jewish people to have a safe homeland and haven....

because the PA would not exist if it were not for Israel. Its the hard view that teh palestinians deserve criticism for symptomatic behaviour and denying the underlying causes for that behaviour. its like a surgeon saying...lets not treat the lungcancer, I blame you are not feeling well on the fact that you have trouble breathing.

And Israel might not exist had it not been for the centuries of persecution of the Jewish people, the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, the fall of Constantinople etc etc. The problem is that it does exist and there's no point trying to turn back the clock. Indian reservations would not exist if it were not for America... etc etc etc...

No...I do not have to view it that way because it in no way gives them teh right to occupy territory that does not belong to them, that houses an other group that has equal rights to self determination.

But the land does not belong to anyone- it's borrowed.

You cannot claim that one "ethnic" group has more right to land than another one (as hardcore Zionists seem to do at times) can you? That's also a dangerous argument. I'm sorry but an Israeli Jew has just as much right to live where he or she wants as a Palestinian and this is why I personally think both sides can be as bad and ricalcitrant as each other at times.

The majority of the jewish people in Palestine got there with the specific aim in mind to claim the land as their own.They were not born there...their ancestors were not born there, they hadn't for centuries.

That's a racist argument. On that basis the EDL would be right wouldn't they? ;) Once you start this bullshit argument that land belongs to one group more than another you set off the whirlwind. Where your ancestors were or were not born doesn't, or at least shouldn't, count for fuck all. It's where you are now that is important and how you try to live with your neighbours.

at the time of the declaration of independence...1.2 milion jweish citizens lived in Palestine as opposed to 1.5 million arabs. 1.150.000 roughly...jewish citizens MIGRATED there...and were not born there. 1.4 million arabs were born in Palestine.

So what?

That was then and this is now. Were Jewish people fleeing from persecution not supposed to try and go somewhere to be safe? In some cased when they were turned away from other countries who knew full well what was happening to them? (1930s example). You also now seem to forget about the Old Yishuv- Jewish people in small numbers had always lived in the region.

What would you have done had you been a Jewish person in the 1930s?

now...for not being welcomed with open arms...that is true. They were not welcomed by their Jewish counterparts who had always lived in Palestine. As for the Arabs...well...that came later somewhere in the late 20's beginning of the 30's. But the main reason they were not welcomed by the arabs was because they came armed. They actively advocated the establishment of a jewish state.

Of course I should also have mentioned the anti-semitism and violence that Jewish people faced in the Arab world in the 19th century too.... and where did they go?

I am fully aware of the tensions between the aliyah settlers and the Old Yishuv, yet you also have to look at this in the light of the Jews being chased, burned out of home and killed in surrounding Islamic areas.

What would you have done if you had been a Jewish person in Libya, Yemen or Iraq at the time?

I'm sorry- but your analysis is full of half-truths or conveniently ommitted parts.

I am not saying that all the Zionists were particularly nice guys, I am not saying that some Jewish people haven't done some bad stuff- no one would say that but at the same time this constant attempt to apportion 100% of the blame for everything on the Jewish people/Israelis all the damn time is unfair, ahistorical and suspectly anti-semitic in that it conveniently ignores all of the other aggravating circumstances.

To say there is no good reason for the Jewish people to have a safe haven on Holocaust Remebrance Day... well.... it's astonishing.

Dean

28th January 2011, 16:36

What about the Arab-Israelis, the Bedouin and the Druze?
I agree, their oppression should end as well. There are a lot of poor and oppressed working-class Jews all over the Middle East, as well. They deserve justice.

I'm not sure what makes you think

So now you are trying to twist around my position as being anti-semitic whilst calling for the annihilation of Israel? :laugh: Nice try...
Yes, attempting to minimize the outrage at Israeli state racism indeed encourages that racism to expand, and makes Jews a target since Israel has used global Jews as a political human shield. Its disgusting and its not surprising that most Jews in the US don't respond to Israeli public affairs hysteria - like the calls to vote Republican due to potential pressure on Israel re:settlements.

As the Israeli diplomat pointed out, Israelis may want peace more than the Palestinians. But the government will not allow it, since it would undermine its entire ethno-colonial program.

The fact of the matter is the OP was distorted and that however pretty it may not be, and I'll be the first to agree that it definitely isn't pretty- it's not an apartheid state and beyond your rhetoric you haven't actually been able to discuss facts as such. Your and some others' here positions also hint at their being no validity for a Jewish homeland whatsoever and thus deny the Jewish people a right to self-determination that is granted or promoted for every other people on the face of the planet.
This is absurd ant patently false. Palestinians don't have self-determination.

But they both should have self-determination. This has been made clear numerous times to you.

You say you would also like to "liquidate" the PA- and yet when I and some other criticise the PA and the so-called Palestinian movements were are instantly portrayed as hardcore Zionists.
No, I've long been vocal in my opposition to the PA. But a lot of criticism of the PA ignores that it is largely a puppet (along with Fatah) of the Israeli police state in the territories.

The problem is that there are 7 million Israeli Jews who for the most part, whatever their position on Israeli politics, would probably want to remain being Israelis. I am fully aware of the problems of Israel within the Middle-Eastern context but you have to view these things in the light of the centuries of persecution and hounding of the Jewish people culminating in the Holocaust. When these refugees first arrived in their holy land, "safe" from pogroms and so on- it's hardly like they were always welcomed with open arms either.
When a group comes with massive military and political backing and expropriates the local population of land, resources and jobs worked for hundreds of years, I'm sure they're always shocked to experience resistance.

But all this historical eye-for-an-eye will end up in a land of the blind. That's why I support a one-state/bi-national solution with equal rights for all- and the first step in this direction would for some sides in the issue to recognise the state of Israel. Until that happens it will get worse and worse and at the end of the day- I am more interested in the welfare of the people on the ground, regardless of background, than pandering to political whims and ideologies- the one as hypocritical and dishonest as the other.
Nowhere have I promoted "eye-for-eye."

I don't disagree with what you outlined above as what you support, except that I don't understand your segregationist "homeland" rhetoric. You're not very clear. The major disagreement is that you don't think that Israel can be criticized. That's the bottom line. You attack those who criticize the state without responding to any substance of the criticism.

Its absurd and childish.

ComradeMan

28th January 2011, 19:59

Yes, attempting to minimize the outrage at Israeli state racism indeed encourages that racism to expand, and makes Jews a target since Israel has used global Jews as a political human shield. Its disgusting and its not surprising that most Jews in the US don't respond to Israeli public affairs hysteria - like the calls to vote Republican due to potential pressure on Israel re:settlements..

It's not an attempt to minimise anything- calling Israel an apartheid state and thus equating Israel to the South of Africa of apartheid is ahistorical and can be called out for a host of reasons. This is not defending the Israeli state- it's not called not being hysterical as I find most anti-zionists these days to be.

This is absurd ant patently false. Palestinians don't have self-determination.

Well Arab-Israelis are represented in the Knesset and can vote, and then of course there is the PA. It calls into question who you define as a Palestinian I suppose.

But they both should have self-determination. This has been made clear numerous times to you..

Numerous times I have also stated to you that all peoples of Israel-Palestine should have their own right to self-determination- but how are you going to justify your position when you call for the annihilation/liquidation of Israel- i.e. the Jewish state (as is) knowing full well what the consequence could be.

No, I've long been vocal in my opposition to the PA. But a lot of criticism of the PA ignores that it is largely a puppet (along with Fatah) of the Israeli police state in the territories...

Yeah the corruption, the pilfering, the provocation, the discrimination within etc etc is all the fault of Israel.... :rolleyes:

When a group comes with massive military and political backing and expropriates the local population of land, resources and jobs worked for hundreds of years, I'm sure they're always shocked to experience resistance....

Would you call killing civilians or massacring unarmed athletes resistance?

I don't disagree with what you outlined above as what you support, except that I don't understand your segregationist "homeland" rhetoric. You're not very clear. The major disagreement is that you don't think that Israel can be criticized. That's the bottom line. You attack those who criticize the state without responding to any substance of the criticism. Its absurd and childish.

The OP "brownshirts of Zionism" and weasel words "calls in Israel" making out that this was somehow a general sentiment in Israel was absurd and childish to be honest. But hey, when the "brownshirts" or fascistic leanings of certain Irish republicans was called out it was played down and considered anti-Irish and stupid, but if it's Israelis then it's fair game? ;)

The fact that the OP-poster has been known to make anti-semitic remarks just adds to the general context.