Open Letter to Revleft on Israel.

[ComradeMan]

Open Letter:

Seeing as (again) the Israel-Palestine debate has turned into a flame war of attrition, I am posting this to clarify once and for all my, and perhaps another member's, position on the subject.

All I have ever supported is a one-state solution. I believe this to be the only solution that is defensible from a leftist position too. I am not saying I have all the answers either to this mess either. I have not "supported" the "Israeli" government(s) nor have I supported things like settler colonies or discrimination. On the other hand this does not mean I am blind to the historical circumstances that led, as a logical consequence, to the creation of the state of Israel, such as the respective nakbas and the Holocaust, nor does it mean I consider every last single "non-Palestinian" an evil settler zionist racist etc etc etc, nor do I support organisations like Hamas, nor do I support the creation of two states based on ethnic lines.

If I also may speak for Rabbi Krimskrams here as I am sure he would agree, this constant "baiting" (Jew baiting?) by (a) certain member(s) is tiresome and irritating as well as offensive. It seems no debate is allowed on Palestinian issues outside of Israel nor any critique of Palestinian organisations themselves without being accused of being a zionist all the time. Apart from the fact that this is unfair it is completely stupid on a discussion forum.

I draw attention to the thread in which Rabbi K posted an article about people coming together and peace movements in which it was derailed by a certain other user with instant emotive language of "hatred for zionism". When Rabbi K posted about Bahais being persecuted in Iran, the subject was brought to zionism instantly. This seems to be a pattern, added to which the not too infrequent insulting "neg reps" (anonymous in my case) making reference to zionism all the time. Why should Rabbi K's support of Bahais in Iran be automatically linked to zionism if not for the fact he is (obviously) Jewish? Neither myself, nor I believe Rabbi K, have ever blamed Palestinians for their predicament- to the contrary, but at the same time I am not going to airbrush away critique nor seek to justify the terror by Hamas, Hizbollah or some people here's favourite "freedom fighters" in their weird fetish for violence.

Furthermore, reading things like how many Palestinian skulls you keep, being called a militant zionist and racist scum and compared to IDF border guards or even rapists for daring to present a "Jewish" point of view is downright offensive and combined with the anti-semitic racial "abuse" posted on my profile page it all leads to me think that for certain members, although they will deny it no doubt, being "Jewish" is equal to being a zionist. I can deal with criticism of the Israeli regime and my position on the matter. However the idiotic ranting of some people here when their ignorant and hysterical rhetoric, positions and sources are challenged, is, in my opinion, highly dubious from a solid leftist position

Perhaps certain members here who are Jewish, have Jewish family, partners or friends and/or connections with Israel may appreciate that these issues are not some far away or academic subject but matters of life and death and not just inside Israel either- explain the Israel-Palestine conflict perhaps to the poor little girl who was killed when the synagogue in Rome was bombed during the 1980s. These issues are not just academic debate.

So it seems here that if someone offers the merest critique of an organisation such as Hamas they are automatically branded as supporting "Israel"- I support Israel as much as Chomsky does in the fact that I support the Israeli people, all of them, not the regimes that means I support Arab-Israelis, Bedouin, Christians, Druze and Jews together!

So, once again I repeat my position, a one-state solution Israel-Palestine with equal rights for all and self-determination/autonomy for all groups, Jews, Palestinians, Muslims and Christians, Druze and Bedouin and anyone else for that matter based on a federal system of some kind. I am not going to deny the Jewish people a right to self-determination, "guaranteed" for all other peoples in the world, nor am I going to ignore how the Holocaust has shown that the Jewish people need a safe "haven" and in my opinion anyone who does is either blind to historical realities or downright anti-semitic.


Comradely,
CM

[synthesis]

I am not going to deny the Jewish people a right to self-determination, guaranteed for all other peoples in the world

No, it's not.

[ComradeMan]

No, it's not.

Guaranteed does not mean put into practice, however it is a principle of International Law.

Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[12] (http://www.revleft.org/vb/#cite_note-11) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[13] (http://www.revleft.org/vb/#cite_note-12) Both read: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
See: United Nations Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)
12 Text of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm)
13 Text of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#cite_note-12

[synthesis]

Guaranteed does not mean put into practice, however it is a principle of International Law.


I support the Israeli people, all of them, not the regimes that means I support Arab-Israelis, Bedouin, Christians, Druze and Jews together!


I am not going to deny the Jewish people a right to self-determination, guaranteed for all other peoples in the world

Of course we can now see that this usage of "people" isn't exactly concrete in its meaning. The main problem here is that you're depending on (bourgeois) international law to justify the fundamentally irredentist agenda that will continue to dominate their politics even under a "one-state solution."

I mean, shit. European immigrants and American Indians had a "one-state solution" and look how well that worked out for the latter.

[ComradeMan]

Of course we can now see that this usage of "people" isn't exactly concrete in its meaning. The fundamental problem here is that you're depending on (bourgeois) international law to justify the fundamentally irredentist agenda that will continue to dominate their politics even under a "one-state solution."

I mean, shit. European immigrants and American Indians had a "one-state solution" and look how well that worked out for the latter.

So are the Palestinians wrong when they speak of the Palestinian people?

It might be "bourgeois" international law, but it's the only international law we have at present. The fact that many, if not most, "bourgeois" and so-called "communist" states don't actually wish to respect it, says a lot.
;)

[synthesis]

So are the Palestinians wrong when they speak of the Palestinian people?

It shows that the way you used it in your post makes it basically meaningless.


It might be "bourgeois" international law, but it's the only international law we have at present. The fact that many, if not most, "bourgeois" and so-called "communist" states don't actually wish to respect it, says a lot.
;)

Laws are made to be broken, especially by powerful people who know they can get away with it. Again:


...fundamentally irredentist agenda that will continue to dominate their politics even under a "one-state solution"... European immigrants and American Indians had a "one-state solution" and look how well that worked out for the latter.

"Self-determination," as well, is a meaningless phrase when it is divorced from historical materialism. (Hopefully the point comes across here.)

[RGacky3]

The main problem here is that you're depending on (bourgeois) international law to justify the fundamentally irredentist agenda that will continue to dominate their politics even under a "one-state solution."

I mean, shit. European immigrants and American Indians had a "one-state solution" and look how well that worked out for the latter.

He supports a one state solution with absolute equal rights, even Noam Chomsky supported this, its definately a position that a leftist can have.

How you go about it is a different issue.

[synthesis]

He supports a one state solution with absolute equal rights, even Noam Chomsky supported this, its definately a position that a leftist can have.

How you go about it is a different issue.

"Absolute equal rights" is another phrase that is meaningless when divorced from historical materialism. Chomsky, for his part, describes his politics as having "origins in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism" - if you've been paying attention, you'll know that's not just a cheap shot.

[Sasha]

@ OP, thanx for clarificating your position

[Bud Struggle]

He supports a one state solution with absolute equal rights, even Noam Chomsky supported this, its definately a position that a leftist can have.

How you go about it is a different issue.

Gack and CM are right on this one. First there should be one state and everyone treated equal. And after that there should be no state. Thinking that one can go back and "right the wrongs of history" is a not the occupation of a Revolutionary.

No people have any claim to any land. All people own all land. Thinking the Palestinian people have rights to Palestine is no different than thinking that the Jewish people have rights to Palestine--each one has a claim and each one going through a futile effort to prove that their claim is better or older.

This is one area where people around here seem more like Real Estate investors arguing over propeerty rights than Communists.

[RGacky3]

"Absolute equal rights" is another phrase that is meaningless when divorced from historical materialism. Chomsky, for his part, describes his politics as having "origins in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism" - if you've been paying attention, you'll know that's not just a cheap shot.

Its not divorced from historical materialism, your comparing apples and oranges, asolute legal rights is a political position for application o fthe law, historical materialism is a form of analysis, stop missusing marxist terms.

As for Chomsky, yeah, you know who else got their origins there? Marx, stop being a dogmatic.

The point is Comrademans position, whether you agree with it or not (I do not, the end result is ok, but the way to get there in my opinion is a disaster for palestinians) is a viable leftist position.

Just because you disagree with someone does'nt mean they arn't socialist.


Gack and CM are right on this one. First there should be one state and everyone treated equal. And after that there should be no state. Thinking that one can go back and "right the wrongs of history" is a not the occupation of a Revolutionary.


. . . . That IS righting the wrong of history, by stopping it from happening.


No people have any claim to any land. All people own all land. Thinking the Palestinian people have rights to Palestine is no different than thinking that the Jewish people have rights to Palestine--each one has a claim and each one going through a futile effort to prove that their claim is better or older.


The end result, fine, I agree, but the tactics is where my problem is, the palestinians HAVE to fight back.

[Milk Sheikh]

Rabbi Krimskram? This member is a rabbi?:confused:

Are you sure?

[Bud Struggle]

Rabbi Krimskram? This member is a rabbi?:confused:

Are you sure?

It's a joke. He's Jewish, but not a rabbi. :)

[ComradeMan]

Rabbi Krimskram? This member is a rabbi?:confused:

Are you sure?

It's a nickname- based also on an avatar he used/used and his knowledge of Torah etc.

[Che a chara]

ComradeMan, if i may, imo, I think the reason that you receive some criticism on this subject is probably due to your lack of support, or understanding even, for the need for resistance to Zionist occupation and oppression and maybe also to some your lack of condemnation of Zionist policies regarding the occupation.

In the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination) you posted it quotes the UN:

"the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation." (http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf); which Israel totally denies and disregards.

You mention the UN legislation for rights to national liberation/self determination, well I also believe that UN act also supports the right for the occupied i.e. the Palestinians, to use force if necessary onto the occupier i.e. the Israeli state, and that the occupier is not allowed to use force onto the occupied. I remember reading the law in full a year back or so, i'll try and dig out the correct passage ......

[RGacky3]

ComradeMan, if i may, imo, I think the reason that you receive some criticism on this subject is probably due to your lack of support, or understanding even, for the need for resistance to Zionist occupation and oppression and maybe also to some your lack of condemnation of Zionist policies regarding the occupation.


Thats the real problem, its not the end result, its this.

really I'm definately suporting of what you are, but you go about it by attacking palestinian resistance and ignoring Isreali oppression, everytime its brought up you say "Yeah but Hamas ..." which give the wrong impression.

[ComradeMan]

ComradeMan, if i may, imo, I think the reason that you receive some criticism on this subject is probably due to your lack of support, or understanding even, for the need for resistance to Zionist occupation and oppression and maybe also to some your lack of condemnation of Zionist policies regarding the occupation.

So supporting (critically) organisations such as Hadash doesn't count? Or peace movements? The real anti-zionists are not the ones that are very often supported by misguided members here.

The other problem here is that some people seem so blinded by rhetoric they don't see that some of the movements they support were actually created and funded by..... who exactly? ;)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SZA20060127&articleId=1817

Nor do people here who are such strong anti-zionists, their right, ever seem able to propose anything that is workable in real terms.

In terms of International Law, you are right- I repeat, where have I ever blamed the Palestinian people for their predicament? But then again, I don't think resistance in order to help your people should include things like murdering innocent civilians and athletes... Munich? Especially when one claims to hold some kind of moral highground.

[Bud Struggle]

That's a good point. You have to separate the "leadership" from the average citizen. Just from the US Tea Party you see how "leadership" groups while feigning to spring from and represent the people often have different motives altogether--though pleasently covered up by pretty rhetoric.

It wouldn't hurt to question all leadership groups--continually.

[Tommy4ever]

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with your idea of a one state solutions (there's just too much bad blood to make it work) I am thoroughly supportive of your message.

It's a shame that many 'leftists' use anti-Zionism as an excuse for their anti-Semitism as much as anything else.

[ComradeMan]

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with your idea of a one state solutions (there's just too much bad blood to make it work) I am thoroughly supportive of your message.

It's a shame that many 'leftists' use anti-Zionism as an excuse for their anti-Semitism as much as anything else.

Thanks. As far as the one state solution is concerned, I agree, there is a lot of bad blood and I am not so optimistic about the hopes it will ever come to realisation. Yet the alternatives seem even worse, the two state soution- apart from creating two even more narrowly defined and polarised "ethno-religious" states- would be territorially speaking a disaster for any Palestinian hopes of self-determination- like I have said before, you may as well give Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan and be done with it. The "wipe" Israel off the map or "cancel it from history" solution, well- it doesn't bear thinking about what that would mean in human terms, does it?

[RGacky3]

It's a shame that many 'leftists' use anti-Zionism as an excuse for their anti-Semitism as much as anything else.

Thats not at all whats happening.

[ComradeMan]

Thats not at all whats happening.

Gacky, here are some articles with different viewpoints.

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6705

http://libcom.org/blog/anti-semitism-left-05012009

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/5520

[Palingenisis]

Thats not at all whats happening.

I have never seen it happening on here, but I have seen it happen in real life.Its a danger certainly that should be exposed and opposed.

To be honest though I would be more concerned about people hiding their anti-middle eastern predjucies and white supremcist attitudes under "philo-semitism" and "mild mannered" zionism. The ignorance and hatred of traditionally Islamic, or middle eastern full stop, people that I have encountered from many "westerners" is frightening.

[#FF0000]

It's a shame that many 'leftists' use anti-Zionism as an excuse for their anti-Semitism as much as anything else.

No.

[#FF0000]

That's "No" as in "many 'leftists' don't do that so stop being dumb"

[RGacky3]

To be honest though I would be more concerned about people hiding their anti-middle eastern predjucies and white supremcist attitudes under "philo-semitism" and "mild mannered" zionism. The ignorance and hatred of traditionally Islamic, or middle eastern full stop, people that I have encountered from many "westerners" is frightening.

Thats exactly true, people are livid at anything that might be interperated as anti-semetic (as they should be), but they ignore and even defend anti-muslim bigotry, which nower days is much more dangerous.

[Bud Struggle]

No.

I don't think it's an issue with the people here in the Radical Left--but it's an issue with the Liberal Leftists.

[Palingenisis]

I don't think it's an issue with the people here in the Radical Left--but it's an issue with the Liberal Leftists.

How so? Its to a certain extent an issue among the radical left in Eastern Europe certainly, though not here.

[sologdin]

zionism is probably the worst term that can be used to characterize the policy preferences debated herein.

for supporters of the policy of the state of israel, the term merely refers to jewish self-determination in national terms and the objective of a national state approximating eretz israel.

i suspect that opponents of israeli state policy use the term as it is found in UN general ssembly resolution 3379:



The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous" and its expression of alarm at "the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures",

Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,

Taking note of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace, proclaimed by the World Con-ference of the International Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that "international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination",

Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, hold at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being",

Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racism and imperialist ideology,

Determines that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.


(NB: UNGA resolution 3151G, referenced above--regarding the "unholy alliance" of israeli arms dealing, portuguese colonialism, and south african apartheid--uses the term zionism also, and need not. the real problem was the provision of arms to south africa, as detailed in polakow-suransky's recent book on the subject. certainly some israeli politicians at the time of south african apartheid saw parallels between the two state's situations, but does that explain why the state of israel became the US clearing house for arms dealing to unsavory rightists? not at all.)

resolution 3379 was repealed, and is probably the only general assembly resolution to be repealed. the resolution had been sponsored in the GA by most most states, and the eastern bloc generally voted in favor of it, to its shame. (SFRJ was absent for the vote--smart, tito.) the repeal came in 1991, which the state of israel demanded as a condition of participation in further peace negotiations (that worked out well, aye?); the only states opposing the repeal were moslem states, + DPRK, cuba, vietnam.

it is likely somewhat jarring to the supporters of israeli policy in general to see the term zionism (which they might understand in the first sense, above, i.e., in humanitarian terms, or in nationalist ones) declared summarily a form of racial discrimination or imperialism.

quite frankly, even if the allegations are true, i don't see why the left wastes so much time on this issue; it is a minor issue, and the simplistic denunciations of israeli policy are more akin to far right positions than nuanced leftwing analysis.

it is also difficult to blame those israelis who regard the focus on the state of israel's policies to be just a continuation of anti-jewish policy by different means--especially when it is so perverse as to deny the right of national self-determination to the israelis but to no one else. or, if it is denied to everyone else, then why the rigorous argument against the state of israel only?


a provisional remedy, then, to the problem wasting everyone's time with a confusing lexicon regarding zionism and anti-zionism is to eschew simplicity, to avoid hyperbole, to liquidate quasi-theological moral condemnation from the analysis. save the first for the fascists, the second for the bourgeois media, and the third for the moslems.

the remedy must begin with thick description of those policies employed by the state of israel subject to objection; if the policies are not those of the state of israel, but are the majoritarian practices of a particular class, then that objection must be made. otherwise, the objection comes across as "because you're jewish."

the basis of the objection, i.e., why the policy or practice offends sense and decency, must also be precisely explained. otherwise, the basis of the objection appears to be "because you're jewish."

if the objection, therefore, is that settlers in the disputed/occupied territories are barbarians, and that they are encouraged by the state of israel in their barbarism, and that they furthermore represent the ideology and practice of a particular class in the state aforesaid, then this must be rigorously stated and rigorously explained every time.

the objection can be based on bourgrois property law, so as to be more persuasive among the bourgeois; it can be based on religious princple; it can be based on international human rights law. whatever the objection, however, it must be an immanent objection--not a transcedent one. it cannot simply be the transcendent imposition of marxist principles on the policy or practice under objection (if such things as marxist principles exist relevant to this question; certainly those principles must not be soviet foreign policy, which was barbaric regarding the state of israel).

the objection must come from a set of principles that are always already within the policy or practice under dispute for them to be effective; once those set of principles are identified, they can be pushed to the point of crisis and the marxian position can be struck. even better if the immanent critique comes from a position simultaneously internal to the policy under objection--from the israeli left, for instance: much better to handle the counterclaim that one is a "self-hating jew" than the accusation of unmitigated anti-semitism.

[Bud Struggle]

How so? Its to a certain extent an issue among the radical left in Eastern Europe certainly, though not here.

There's that attitude among New York Liberals that I've seen on occasion--largely among Jews.

[Dean]

Yeah, right, a "federal" system based on ethnic segregation. You're full of it.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, right, a "federal" system based on ethnic segregation. You're full of it.

So exactly what would you like?

[Nolan]

Waaah I'm ComradeMan and anytime people call me out on my zionism I respond by insinuating they're anti-semites!

Gee, hatred of zionism has to be because zionism likes Jews. Ergo anti-zionists have to hate Jews. It couldn't be because zionism is based on ultra-nationalism, ethnic cleansing, and because this is a leftist forum.

Fuck off.

[Blackscare]

Alright CM, since you're going about clarifying your positions, and you didn't bother to answer this last time, I'm going to ask this again.

I know the idea of returning all stolen land is absurd to you because it's "over with" and the people originally involved are "long dead", or at least that's the way that you like to spin it. This is of course wrong, the theft continues today.

So, hypothetically (even though I think such a "compromise" is still terribly unjust), would you support the eviction of settlers building on bulldozed Palestinian villages in just the last 20 years? Is that recent enough for you? It still goes on every day, so would you support halting settlements now and evicting those illegally living on the land? Or are you of the mind that as soon as someone plants their ass on a plot of land they have an inalienable right to remain?

[PhoenixAsh]

It is important to make a real distinction between the state of Israel, the Jewish religion and the population of Israel.

I am anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. I do not think it came into existence in a lawful way and I see Hamas and Fatah as symptoms of the Isaeli racist and fascist regime. As such I seek the destruction of the Israeli state (system). I do not accept the Holocaust as legitimate argument for the existence of the state of Israel nor as a legitimate defence for zionism. And I see violence as a legitimate way for the Palestinians to oppose the regime.

Certain things are a fait a complis. There are millions of Jews living in the region. Many of which live there and are born there...no matter how that came about....these people are people too with rights and autonomy. This can not be denied.

The ONLY solution without taking this into consideration is genocide either by forcibly removing them or killing them....but realistically it will involve both.

Therefore a one secular state solution within a socialist spectrum is the only viable solution.

As it stands now I do not agree with Comrademan on many, many points in the debate. I do however appreciate his clarification of his position. And I see that we are working towards somewhat of a similar goal from different starting points.

We can rant and rave, with right, against zionism, Israel and its politics and policies, its imperialism and inherrent fascism and racism. But the truth of the matter is that whatever your position is...short of genocide there is still the reality of millions of people we have to deal with to come to a solution.

We can not go back to how it was and the fact of the matter is the current situation is what we have to work with. I think many anti/Israel people are overlooking this. I have done so in the past myself. However that is whistful thinking.

As such we need to consider the reality of the matter, we also need to examine the arguments that started zionism and gave it its popularity. To be fair, CM does this. I have not read a single post in which CM defends zionism as such. CM defends the position of Israel from the perspective of the reality of its existence. And that is a fair starting point in such an incredibly complicate debate in which the why and how things came about matter only in theory and not in realty. As such I do not see CM as a zionist agent. And I think its asinine to argue as such.

[RGacky3]

I don't think it's an issue with the people here in the Radical Left--but it's an issue with the Liberal Leftists.

Who??? Where?


There's that attitude among New York Liberals that I've seen on occasion--largely among Jews.

What attitude???

[Bud Struggle]

What attitude???

Anti-Semitism.

[hatzel]

I am anti-Zionist and anti-Israel.

Oh, somebody who acknowledges that there is a difference (or at least seems to) :)

An issue that abounds is that it's very difficult for me to even know what people are talking about when they're accusing people of 'Zionism'. Whether a pro-Israeli is a Zionist, whilst an anti-Israeli is an anti-Zionist, or whether those who are making the accusations distinguish between opinions of Israel and opinions of Zionism. Of course there is the potential that one could be anti-Zionist, but pro-Israel, or the inverse, depending on how we define 'Zionism'. I mean, it's an understandable confusion of terms, as the very nature of Zionism is that there is only one example to look at. Whilst something like Marxism can have many examples, so one can talk about being a pro-Marxist (that is, identifying with Marxist thought, and the political trend), but an anti-Soviet, and this isn't in itself a contradiction. These are clearly separate, and I feel it would be much easier for people to discuss things if they even knew what other people were talking about half the time! Though of course if anybody wants a discussion of Zionism, and its various streams, then we can all grab a (Wikisource :rolleyes:) copy of Rome and Jerusalem, or the Jewish State, and critically analyse what we do or do not appreciate about what's written there :) With close textual references, of course!

The issue, really, though, is that this entire thing is cast into impenetrably dogmatic black-and-white. I often notice that there is an assumption that if one isn't militantly anti-Israel, calling for the immediate deconstruction of the Israeli state (only for another one to be constructed in its stead), then one must be in awe of Israel, blindly supporting every action it undertakes in any field for any reason. Of course this ignores the great many people, inside and outside of Israel, who happily condemn this or that action, and argue and protest for reform, and for changes to be made. People, believe it or not, sometimes judge actions in isolation, perhaps approving of action A, whilst disapproving of action B, without having to subscribe to some rigid label of universal approver or universal disapprover.

To be honest, I think that such viewpoints aren't particularly conductive to peace, especially when advocated in the public sphere. Both sides are guilty, one could argue, of creating this type of...well, the idea that one's loyalty to the cause, on either side, must be all-encompassing and unshakable. That is to say...if one supports the establishment of a Palestinian state without a two-state solution (this being the widespread suggestion at the moment), then one has to support every action undertaken in the 'interests' (according to the perpetrators) of Palestinian national liberation. Even if one actually thinks that a given action actually hinders the peace process, furthers war and destruction on both sides, and makes the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian state in the not-so-distant future less likely. Because, of course, if one dares critcise some Palestinian natlib action, then this will result in accusations flying around, "you want the Israelis to storm through the West Bank and push all the Palestinians across the river and kill them all!!! *foaming at the mouth*"

Fact of the matter is that there are plenty of Israelis (one need only grab a copy of Ha'aretz to find out) who aren't running around screaming about destroying Israel, yet express grave disapproval of the settlers, of this or that action, of these or those comments by this or that guy, and hope for the end of the occupation, and the 'repatriation' of the settlers and all that stuff. The issue is that certain people will start telling them that it's apparently oxymoronic to oppose Israeli settlements without opposing the continued existence of Israel. I don't feel that's a legitimate tactic, and works on the (false?) assumption that Israel is unique amongst states in that it can't be changed. That there can be no reform in Israel, that the only way to end the settlements is to fight for Israel to be totally replaced by a Palestinian state, nigh-on any Palestinian state, with nigh-on any socio-political policy, as fundamentally superior to any Israeli state following an identical socio-political policy. I debate this. I particularly debate it given how productive these reforms could be for the immediate situation of the people on the ground. We're not talking about socialism here, we don't mean reforms to achieve socialism. We're just talking about reforms to improve the situation right now, on the ground, for the people. I personally feel that such reforms, when compared to achieving the same things by trying to dismantle and replace Israel, are both easy, quicker and far less destructive to human life (my primary concern).

So sure...I'd like to know what people even mean when they accuse people of Zionism, and what comes with this. As mentioned, a paper like Ha'aretz is full of articles written by self-confessed Zionists who are there saying how terrible Netanyahu and Likud is, expressing vehement anti-settler sentiment, all this stuff. Yet for some reason there appears to be some kind of chain here, in that anybody who doesn't call for Israel to immediately be replaced must be a Zionist, and anybody who is a Zionist them suddenly supports the settlers and all this stuff. Both of these aren't particularly solid progressions of thought, as far as I'm concerned :thumbdown:

[#FF0000]

This is hilarious because actual anti-semites love Israel because anti-semites like ethnic speratism.

[RGacky3]

Anti-Semitism.

New York Liberal Jews are anti-semetic?


The issue, really, though, is that this entire thing is cast into impenetrably dogmatic black-and-white. I often notice that there is an assumption that if one isn't militantly anti-Israel, calling for the immediate deconstruction of the Israeli state (only for another one to be constructed in its stead), then one must be in awe of Israel, blindly supporting every action it undertakes in any field for any reason. Of course this ignores the great many people, inside and outside of Israel, who happily condemn this or that action, and argue and protest for reform, and for changes to be made. People, believe it or not, sometimes judge actions in isolation, perhaps approving of action A, whilst disapproving of action B, without having to subscribe to some rigid label of universal approver or universal disapprover.


I don't know anyone here that advocates the immediate destruction of the Israeli state, what people want is liberation for the palestinians.


That there can be no reform in Israel, that the only way to end the settlements is to fight for Israel to be totally replaced by a Palestinian state, nigh-on any Palestinian state

Thats not what people are arguing for.


So sure...I'd like to know what people even mean when they accuse people of Zionism

Most people use the term to describe people that believe that palestine belongs exclusively to the Jews (Comrademan is not a Zionist), sometimes more broadly people use it to describe people that support Isreali repression of palestinians.

Either way I agree, people throw the term out to easily.

Zionist does'nt have the same meaning it had way back when, when people use it today they are mostly refering to people who support the modern Isreali state, being a homeland for jews and their actions against the palestinians.

[ComradeMan]

Nolan and Blackscare seem to have proven Krimskrams' point. The strawman arguments are also ridiculous as they represent nothing that I or perhaps Krimskrams have ever stated.


This is hilarious because actual anti-semites love Israel because anti-semites like ethnic speratism.

Which ones? The ones that deny the Holocaust too.... :rolleyes: Actual anti-semites don't even consider Jewish people to be part of the human race, or not the "superior" race at least and although they might approve of ethnic separatism it does not mean they support Israel either.

This situation is complex, problematic and varied at all levels and from all sides- there's too much crude binary analysis on the subject, coupled with an often convenient memory of what led to the creation of the state of Israel in the first place. ;)


Yeah, right, a "federal" system based on ethnic segregation. You're full of it.

What do you propose? How would you safeguard all groups' rights in a single state solution? I thought you supported the idea of "communities" in some form with a degree of autonomy?

A federation/network of autonomous ethno-religious communities under a singe state of Israel-Palestine. I don't see what's so unreasonable about that.

Whether I think it will happen is another matter.

[#FF0000]

Which ones? The ones that deny the Holocaust too.... http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif Actual anti-semites don't even consider Jewish people to be part of the human race, or not the "superior" race at least and although they might approve of ethnic separatism it does not mean they support Israel either.Dude real talk you should just take a quick looksie around one of these days because there are a ton of white nationalists who support Israel because they support the idea of ethnic homelands.

Then again maybe it's a new-school thing 'cause folks like Nick Griffin think Muslims are the biggest threat ever nowadays.


What do you propose? How would you safeguard all groups' rights in a single state solution? I thought you supported the idea of "communities" in some form with a degree of autonomy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessionalism_%28politics%29

[Palingenisis]

Dude real talk you should just take a quick looksie around one of these days because there are a ton of white nationalists who support Israel because they support the idea of ethnic homelands.
[/URL]

Not all "white nationalists" are raving Nazies...Most white nationalists are actually "respectable" conservatives and even liberals and social-Imperialists. White nationalism is what it says on the tin...putting the interests of the "white nation" before all else.

This is an example of an out and out white nationalist fascist who supports Israel as a bulwark against the Muslim brown hordes... [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Faye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessionalism_%28politics%29) .

Anti-Semitism is an utterly vile disease, and many people do hide their diseased hatred of jews and judaism in general behind the mask of anti-Zionism. I will agree with CM there...And just cant see objectively much of a difference between him and those people, but maybe Im wrong.

[ComradeMan]

Not all "white nationalists" are raving Nazies...Most white nationalists are actually "respectable" conservatives and even liberals and social-Imperialists. White nationalism is what it says on the tin...putting the interests of the "white nation" before all else.

This is an example of an out and out white nationalist fascist who supports Israel as a bulwark against the Muslim brown hordes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Faye .

Anti-Semitism is an utterly vile disease, and many people do hide their diseased hatred of jews and judaism in general behind the mask of anti-Zionism. I will agree with CM there...And just cant see objectively much of a difference between him and those people, but maybe Im wrong.

But according to you it's not anti-semitism in most cases because most Jews (according to you) are actually Turkic Khazars- strangely enough arguments that you'll easily find on wacko sites like JewWatch.

[#FF0000]

But according to you it's not anti-semitism in most cases because most Jews (according to you) are actually Turkic Khazars- strangely enough arguments that you'll easily find on wacko sites like JewWatch.

I am p. sure Palingenesis is saying that there's no such thing as a "Jewish people"

Is that accurate?

[ComradeMan]

I am p. sure Palingenesis is saying that there's no such thing as a "Jewish people"

Is that accurate?

Well this was her position as she stated it to me:-


For your information most of the Israelies are turkic and not semitic racially and they are pretty racist to actually semitic jews...you should really vist Israel to understand what scumbags Israelies are.


I was just pointing out that Israeli settler pigs generally arent semitic so you should accuse me of anti-semitism for being anti-zionist. And if you support Israel you are the racist...You support a state based on racism...so LOL!.

Not that I want to get into genetic arguments, but I don't know how exactly she arrives at that conclusion anyway, until the collapse of the USSR approximately 70% of Israeli Jewish people were Sephardic/Mizrahi and now I believe it's around 50%- there has been so much intermarriage too that it's not so easy to define anyway.

[Palingenisis]

I am p. sure Palingenesis is saying that there's no such thing as a "Jewish people"

Is that accurate?

Well yes and no. The idea actually comes from a book written by someone of jewish extraction and the fact is that most Israelies arent overly religious and so they base their claim to Palestine on racial grounds. There are black and chinese jews for example. Jews are not a racial group (but I find the whole idea of racial groups suspect), are they a culture or an actual nation as such? I dont know.

[Revolution starts with U]

The best solution would be "no one can claim overship over the land."
As the Nez Perce (native to the Montana/Idaho/Oregon region of the US) said "one can no more claim ownerhsip over their earth mother than they could their biological mother."

[synthesis]

historical materialism is a form of analysis

Yes. Yes it is.


As for Chomsky, yeah, you know who else got their origins there? Marx, stop being a dogmatic.

I suppose the point didn't come across as well as I'd hoped. What was that thing Marx said about "the ruling ideas of any epoch"?


The point is Comrademans position, whether you agree with it or not (I do not, the end result is ok, but the way to get there in my opinion is a disaster for palestinians) is a viable leftist position.

It shouldn't be. A "one-state solution" isn't a solution to anything; all it can ever do is produce a one-sided state.

[ComradeMan]

Well yes and no. The idea actually comes from a book written by someone of jewish extraction and the fact is that most Israelies arent overly religious and so they base their claim to Palestine on racial grounds. There are black and chinese jews for example. Jews are not a racial group (but I find the whole idea of racial groups suspect), are they a culture or an actual nation as such? I dont know.

Your probably referring to Schlomo Sand, leaving aside the emotive debate his research and the value of his conclusions were challenged by academia on the basis of the evidence of hard science.

Jews are not a racial group? Who is really a racial group? To deny the existence of a people is a different matter- especially in the case of a people that were never damn allowed to integrate anyway in historical terms and let's not also forget that not practising Judaism as a religion having only some Jewish ancestry was still not enough for the Nazis....

There are black Irish people- does that make them less Irish or does there therefore not exist and Irish people?

[#FF0000]

I kind of wish 9 posted something about this because she had a lot of interesting things to say about this awhile back.

[Palingenisis]

Your probably referring to Schlomo Sand, leaving aside the emotive debate his research and the value of his conclusions were challenged by academia on the basis of the evidence of hard science.


No I was refering to Arthur Koestler...But whatever.

Zionism is based around a racial belief in a right to certain lands. Infact I find your attitude that jewish people can never do wrong bordering on anti-semitism, just reversed. Jews are human like everyone else and capable of the same good and horror that everyone else is.

If people want to seriously believe that Im a raging anti-semite than fine. Im not going to "tone down" what I believe is just....But Im leaving this debate.

You are very good at winding me up ComradeMan...I will give you that.

[ComradeMan]

No I was refering to Arthur Koestler...But whatever.

Zionism is based around a racial belief in a right to certain lands.

Zionism is founded on the basis of the Jews returning to a safe homeland, but not all Zionists were in favour of Israel nor were all Jews in favour of Zionism nor are all Zionists Jewish- it was primarily a national liberation movement- the rest is history and what has become of it is a different matter.

Koestler?

The Thirteenth Tribe.... I see. You seem to like 1976 as a publishing year...
:laugh:

A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews (http://www.revleft.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews) are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to R-M17 (http://www.revleft.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)), the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow. Referencing The Thirteenth Tribe, the study's authors note that "Some authors argue that after the fall of their kingdom in the second half of the 10th century CE, the Khazar converts were absorbed by the emerging Ashkenazi Jewish community in Eastern Europe." They conclude "However, if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~ 12% of the present-day Ashkenazim.[17] (http://www.revleft.org/vb/#cite_note-16)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe
17 (http://www.revleft.org/vb/#cite_ref-16) Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Marina Faerman, Himla Soodyall and Ariella Oppenheim. "Y chromosome evidence for a founder effect in Ashkenazi Jews" (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201319a.html), European Journal of Human Genetics (http://www.revleft.org/wiki/European_Journal_of_Human_Genetics), (2005) 13, 388–391. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201319 Published online 3 November 2004).


Infact I find your attitude that jewish people can never do wrong bordering on anti-semitism, just reversed. Jews are human like everyone else and capable of the same good and horror that everyone else is. .

Where did I ever say that? Strawman argument. But, hang on- weren't we talking about Israel and Israelis and now you are talking about Jews.... hmmm....


If people want to seriously believe that Im a raging anti-semite than fine. Im not going to "tone down" what I believe is just....But Im leaving this debate. You are very good at winding me up ComradeMan...I will give you that.

Well, if you don't want people to think you are anti-semitic stop posting anti-semitic statements and quoting dubious and/or outdated and perhaps discredited sources to back up your arguments.

[Crimson Commissar]

What the hell has anyone here said that is anti-semitic? If any of us on this forum were actual racists we would have been permabanned a long time ago.

[ComradeMan]

What the hell has anyone here said that is anti-semitic? If any of us on this forum were actual racists we would have been permabanned a long time ago.

The Khazar argument is an old "trump" card used by anti-semites.

[9]

There's that attitude among New York Liberals that I've seen on occasion--largely among Jews.


What attitude???


Anti-Semitism.

oh do go on.


I kind of wish 9 posted something about this because she had a lot of interesting things to say about this awhile back.

I don't really have the patience atm, tbh. I could take issue with every single post ComradeMan has made in this thread, but meh, think I'll go have a drink instead - seems like a more productive way to spend my evening :P

[Dean]

What do you propose? How would you safeguard all groups' rights in a single state solution? I thought you supported the idea of "communities" in some form with a degree of autonomy?

A federation/network of autonomous ethno-religious communities under a singe state of Israel-Palestine. I don't see what's so unreasonable about that.

Whether I think it will happen is another matter.

I'm pretty sure that integration is the only way to ultimately diffuse ethnic tensions, especially when economic disparity is a major issue of separation. The difference between well-integrated US cities and the "self" (economic) segregation which exists heavily in the south is a great example as to why this is the case.

[synthesis]

I'm pretty sure that integration is the only way to ultimately diffuse ethnic tensions, especially when economic disparity is a major issue of separation. The difference between well-integrated US cities and the "self" (economic) segregation which exists heavily in the south is a great example as to why this is the case.

That's a little oversimplified, I'd say.


The "wipe" Israel off the map or "cancel it from history" solution, well- it doesn't bear thinking about what that would mean in human terms, does it?

The difference is that Israelis don't need to talk about "wiping Palestine off the map" - they're actively in the process of doing it.

Some of them, I mean.

[RGacky3]

It shouldn't be. A "one-state solution" isn't a solution to anything; all it can ever do is produce a one-sided state.

His solution is a one state, with full equal rights for both palestinians and Isrealis, meaning, one man one vote, citizenship and right of return for palestinians.

Whether you agree with it or not, it IS a leftist position.



Originally Posted by Bud Struggle http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2010405#post2010405)
Anti-Semitism.
oh do go on.


Don't hold your breath, Bullshit statements with no backups is what Bud does, hes a troll.

[Blackscare]

Can you answer my question CM? Why are you dodging this?

[RGacky3]

Can you answer my question CM? Why are you dodging this?


I want to second that ...

[RGacky3]

That's a little oversimplified, I'd say.


Overtime though, its generally true (take away economic tensions), of coarse there are other factors, but integration definately helps.

[ComradeMan]

Alright CM, since you're going about clarifying your positions, and you didn't bother to answer this last time, I'm going to ask this again.

I know the idea of returning all stolen land is absurd to you because it's "over with" and the people originally involved are "long dead", or at least that's the way that you like to spin it. This is of course wrong, the theft continues today.

What do you know? If you throw in strawman versions of what you believe my opinion to be it does not incline me to answer. However....


So, hypothetically (even though I think such a "compromise" is still terribly unjust), would you support the eviction of settlers building on bulldozed Palestinian villages in just the last 20 years? Is that recent enough for you? It still goes on every day, so would you support halting settlements now and evicting those illegally living on the land? Or are you of the mind that as soon as someone plants their ass on a plot of land they have an inalienable right to remain?

The whole issue of land ownership is a minefield of legal and moral issues. Certainly I'd like to see the settlements stop as in my opinion it just throws petrol on the fire.

As for the settlements that have been built- I am not sure what the answer is. Seeing as an abandonment of those settlements would inevitably incur rehousing people elsewhere I think the best policy would be to integrate old and new in new settlements. What was taken away wrongfully ought to be given back but if it cannot be given back then it should be replaced. Of course the bad blood on both sides would make this problematic and when the settlements in the Gaza strip were evacuated we saw the reaction from the certain elements on the Israeli right. The whole issue, in my opinion, would be less of an issue under a one state solution to be honest.

[Wanted Man]

All this stuff seems to intentionally confuse the issue. Why can't people just come out and unreservedly support the Palestinian right of return? But we don't ever seem to hear this, just endless rants about supporting "all the people against their leaders" (probably the best leftist cliché because it can be used to mean anything, everything and nothing) and insinuations that other people are anti-semites.

If this rather basic position has actually been stated, then you can disregard this post, but if not: why is it so hard?

[Dimentio]

The problem is not your position on a one-state solution, but your implicit apologism for Israel and the moral equivalisation.

If we say that we have a wealthy person who have established his mansion through forgery on land belonging to a impoverished person, who have nothing but that land and have lived in generation on it (while the wealthy person is the descendant of a noble family who once 300 years ago lived on that land), and the impoverished family resists that mansion by violent means when the courts refuse to listen, then there is a clear line.

Liberals and conservatives implicitly supports the wealthy man, through their idea that everyone are morally equivalent. Radicals should support the poor man (even if he theoretically was a "bad person" who was beating his wife and drinking away social security).

That does not mean support for any Palestinian party, but support for the people of Palestine.

Liberal media usually paints the Palestinians as some kind of "bad people", implicitly supporting Israel for their western appearance and more wealth.

[RGacky3]

The problem is not your position on a one-state solution, but your implicit apologism for Israel and the moral equivalisation.

If we say that we have a wealthy person who have established his mansion through forgery on land belonging to a impoverished person, who have nothing but that land and have lived in generation on it (while the wealthy person is the descendant of a noble family who once 300 years ago lived on that land), and the impoverished family resists that mansion by violent means when the courts refuse to listen, then there is a clear line.

Thats the problem right here, the false equivilency.

It is not a matter of "they did this and they did that, so they are both equally at fault," its a matter of one party having power oppressing the powerless, thats the power dynamic that you kind of don't take into account.

[ComradeMan]

The problem is not your position on a one-state solution, but your implicit apologism for Israel and the moral equivalisation.

Oh shut up will you already?

Show me the "implicit" apologism? Show me the moral equivalisation? For hinting that not all Israelis are the "brownshirts of Zionism" or rabbis calling for some kind of "genetic" purity campaign, or not supporting reactionary, so-called "freedom movements" (set up by whom?) and trying to look at the situation from 360 degrees?

Your long weird analogy is completely useless in analysing this situation.


Liberal media usually paints the Palestinians as some kind of "bad people", implicitly supporting Israel for their western appearance and more wealth.

That may be so however you might find in Italy that's not so much the case and there is a lot of support for the Palestinian people and a lot of initiatives to help them, there is also a large Palestinian "exile" population here too. ;)

The most irritating thing- is you don't actually propose anything all you do is slip into the "easy" position of being anti- . ;)

[RGacky3]

Oh shut up will you already?

Show me the "implicit" apologism? Show me the moral equivalisation? For hinting that not all Israelis are the "brownshirts of Zionism" or rabbis calling for some kind of "genetic" purity campaign, or not supporting reactionary, so-called "freedom movements" (set up by whom?) and trying to look at the situation from 360 degrees?


If everytime a crime of isreal is brought up, you respond with a crime by Hamas, thats a false equivilency, if everytime Ireali oppression of the palestinians is brought up you start with some corruption in the palestinain leadership, your making a false equivilency.


The most irritating thing- is you don't actually propose anything all you do is slip into the "easy" position of being anti- .

I propose things all the time, #1: Stop US funding of Israel.

[Fabrizio]

"Self-determination," as well, is a meaningless phrase when it is divorced from historical materialism.

So to the stateless peoples of the world you say: "you can have your state if you accept DiaMat, otherwise your wishes are meanignless".

Spoken like a true believer, I'm sure you'll win them over.

[Dimentio]

I don't support anything because the Middle East situation is unsolvable as long as the US are giving unconditional support to Israel. It will probably end in a regional nuclear holocaust, sadly.

[ComradeMan]

If everytime a crime of isreal is brought up, you respond with a crime by Hamas, thats a false equivilency, if everytime Ireali oppression of the palestinians is brought up you start with some corruption in the palestinain leadership, your making a false equivilency..

Hold on a second, firstly you have to judge the context of how things are brought up and how they are worded. Secondly, the posts and threads here at RevLeft do not exist in isolation....;)

On the other hand, when I brought up the issue of the suffering of Palestinians in Lebanon, and was supported by a person with a Lebanese background this was conveniently airbrushed away and brought back to Israel. ;)

You should also ask yourself what the links are between the corruption and ideologies of some sections of the Palestinian leadership are and whether they exist in isolation too. ;)

[Lt. Ferret]

I don't support anything because the Middle East situation is unsolvable as long as the US are giving unconditional support to Israel. It will probably end in a regional nuclear holocaust, sadly.


that's a bit much.

[RGacky3]

Hold on a second, firstly you have to judge the context of how things are brought up and how they are worded. Secondly, the posts and threads here at RevLeft do not exist in isolation....;)


I'm just saying how it appears, you seam to do the false equivilency thing alot.


On the other hand, when I brought up the issue of the suffering of Palestinians in Lebanon, and was supported by a person with a Lebanese background this was conveniently airbrushed away and brought back to Israel. ;)

You should also ask yourself what the links are between the corruption and ideologies of some sections of the Palestinian leadership are and whether they exist in isolation too. ;)

First of all, about Palestinians in Lebanon, no one disagrees, that it happens, but the Lebaneese are not occupying, blocaiding and settling palestinian land, lots of countries are not so kind to refugees, but the Isreali oppressoin is overwhelming and unique.

Second of all, the links between corruptoin and ideologies? why? Thats like saying a store owner is not so nice to his employees so we should focus on that rather than the mafia thats shaking down and oppressing the whole community.

THIS is the false equivilancy we're talking about, and it comes off really bad.

[Che a chara]

the bottom line is that israel are not under any oppression. they are a major power carrying out aggression, repression and an occupation on a third world like territory. israel have in their possession 100's of nukes and have one of the largest militaries in the world backed up by the largest super-power in the history of this planet, all with the same goal of denying the right of an impoverished and brutally oppressed nation to live, develop and have it's own self determination.

in context, would any other nation be allowed to carry out such acts of subjugation on a caged region without intervention ? the cause for palestine has been largely silenced on the world political stage except for the courageous attempts worldwide from human rights and aid activists.

that is why i unreservedly support palestine's justified and righteous campaign for liberation and the use of legitimate resistance (or any other occupied territory ).

[ComradeMan]

First of all, about Palestinians in Lebanon, no one disagrees, that it happens, but the Lebaneese are not occupying, blocaiding and settling palestinian land, lots of countries are not so kind to refugees, but the Isreali oppressoin is overwhelming and unique..

Well done, you've just done what you accuse me of doing.

The issue of the atrocious treatment of the Palestinians outside of Israel-Palestine is an issue within itself, but instead of looking at that issue you have brought it back to Israel.

[RGacky3]

The issue of the atrocious treatment of the Palestinians outside of Israel-Palestine is an issue within itself, but instead of looking at that issue you have brought it back to Israel.

This thread is called "Open Letter to Revleft on Israel." ...... You started it.

[ComradeMan]

This thread is called "Open Letter to Revleft on Israel." ...... You started it.

Yeah, and the comment was in response to the discussion.

Shifting the goals again...

[Che a chara]

So supporting (critically) organisations such as Hadash doesn't count? Or peace movements? The real anti-zionists are not the ones that are very often supported by misguided members here.

dude, you talk about real workable terms, what is it that supporting Hadash would do that no other alternative option isn't doing or wouldn't do ? what makes their position any more credible, it's like trotskyism ... it may sound good, but it is not really in reality a solution.


The other problem here is that some people seem so blinded by rhetoric they don't see that some of the movements they support were actually created and funded by..... who exactly? ;)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SZA20060127&articleId=1817

well if hamas are an israeli creation, surely you should criticise the israeli government itself for being allowed to create a movement that has grown into a legitimate resistance army and understand the actions carried out by said group, whether you agree with them or not, as israel only has itself to blame for creating such a 'monster' and allowing them to develop.

but if hamas are not the offshoot of an israel conspiracy, surely you should understand the reaction that brutal occupation breeds, and that is hate,anger and resiatance; a la hamas.


Nor do people here who are such strong anti-zionists, their right, ever seem able to propose anything that is workable in real terms.

israel to draw up their interpretation of the borders. give back the occupied territories. use dialogue with the surrounding nations in order to advance peace, reconciliation, and the understanding that any attack on israel will be met with fierce condemnation and of course the likelihood of a US-led bombing campaign.

the USA needs stop using the middle east for it's own selfish interests and stop using israel as a pawn in their game.

with all that i'm sure the hostility to israel will eventually halt (including from iran), as we are seeing in the middle east now the hostility to the USA are in large reactions for their support for dictators/fascists in the area.


In terms of International Law, you are right- I repeat, where have I ever blamed the Palestinian people for their predicament? But then again, I don't think resistance in order to help your people should include things like murdering innocent civilians and athletes... Munich? Especially when one claims to hold some kind of moral highground.

munich was wrong. a distaster, but it happened in 1972 and i'd be really, really surprised if any such acts of terrorism would occur again. but once more you're ignoring the root cause for the conflict. i'm not trying to be an apologist for the likes of the munich attacks, but like most attacks in the conflict, it was a retaliation.

the palestinain people are in a grave situation. any sane person should be able to see the reason civilians might be attracted to join groups that fight for liberation, especially under the dire conditions they are in, what really have they got to lose ?

what is a workable and realistic alternative, considering the conditions palestinians find themselves under ? **edit** surely the onus is on the more developed and advanced to make a solution and not use might and force on the working class/peasants and not blame the working class/peasants for their reactions to oppression.

[ComradeMan]

dude, you talk about real workable terms, what is it that supporting Hadash would do that no other alternative option isn't doing or wouldn't do ? what makes their position any more credible, it's like trotskyism ... it may sound good, but it is not really in reality a solution.

I wasn't saying that Hadash were the only option, nor have I ever claimed to have all the answers- but the last time I recall they weren't recruiting children nor indoctrinating them to be suicide bombers, nor were they islamists or religious fanatics either.


well if hamas are an israeli creation, surely you should criticise the israeli government itself for being allowed to create a movement that has grown into a legitimate resistance army and understand the actions carried out by said group, whether you agree with them or not, as israel only has itself to blame for creating such a 'monster' and allowing them to develop.

I would be the first to admit that, in my opinion, the Israeli state has often been its own worst enemy. However, if Hamas are a creation of the Israeli state as has been alleged- why would anyone here, from a leftist position, support such a reactionary tool of "zionism"?


but if hamas are not the offshoot of an israel conspiracy, surely you should understand the reaction that brutal occupation breeds, and that is hate,anger and resiatance; a la hamas..

Since when do Hamas have the right to claim the monopoly on justice for the people of Palestine? Especially given their own track record?


israel to draw up their interpretation of the borders. give back the occupied territories. use dialogue with the surrounding nations in order to advance peace, reconciliation, and the understanding that any attack on israel will be met with fierce condemnation and of course the likelihood of a US-led bombing campaign. ..

This is the problem- although I agree in part, we also have to acknowledge the recalcitrance of the Islamic world that in the greater part refuses to acknowledge the very existence of Israel in any way, shape or form.



the USA needs stop using the middle east for it's own selfish interests and stop using israel as a pawn in their game...

Sure.


with all that i'm sure the hostility to israel will eventually halt (including from iran), as we are seeing in the middle east now the hostility to the USA are in large reactions for their support for dictators/fascists in the area....

I hope so too.


munich was wrong. a distaster, but it happened in 1972 and i'd be really, really surprised if any such acts of terrorism would occur again. but once more you're ignoring the root cause for the conflict. i'm not trying to be an apologist for the likes of the munich attacks, but like most attacks in the conflict, it was a retaliation.....

This is where I disagree, retaliation is when you retaliate against your aggressor- not the innocent. The Israelis would also argue that their acts are acts of self-defense, retaliation if you like.


the palestinain people are in a grave situation. any sane person should be able to see the reason civilians might be attracted to join groups that fight for liberation, especially under the dire conditions they are in, what really have they got to lose ? what is a workable and realistic alternative ?

I agree. In my opinion, all sides in the issue should stop their bullshit to start with- there has to be some give and take, the Arab/Islamic world must also take some responsibility too instead of indirectly perpetuating the situation and then paying hypocritical lip service to the issue of justice for the Palestinians.

Summed up, this why I think that the only morally defensible (from a leftist point of view) position is the one-state solution/binational solution.

[Dean]

Oh shut up will you already?

Show me the "implicit" apologism? Show me the moral equivalisation? For hinting that not all Israelis are the "brownshirts of Zionism" or rabbis calling for some kind of "genetic" purity campaign, or not supporting reactionary, so-called "freedom movements" (set up by whom?) and trying to look at the situation from 360 degrees?

Your long weird analogy is completely useless in analysing this situation.



That may be so however you might find in Italy that's not so much the case and there is a lot of support for the Palestinian people and a lot of initiatives to help them, there is also a large Palestinian "exile" population here too. ;)

The most irritating thing- is you don't actually propose anything all you do is slip into the "easy" position of being anti- . ;)

Israel is engorged with capital and it deprives Palestinians of basic rights, economic and regional sovereignty of all sorts. The simple fact is that the latter have been deprived first and foremost in the primary dichotomy of the conflict there.

It's more complicated than that, but of all the oppression, the overwhelming number of actors committing the oppression reside in Israel and the US, the overwhelming victims in Palestine and the Palestinian diaspora.

[Bud Struggle]

Israel is engorged with capital and it deprives Palestinians of basic rights, economic and regional sovereignty of all sorts. The simple fact is that the latter have been deprived first and foremost in the primary dichotomy of the conflict there.

It's more complicated than that, but of all the oppression, the overwhelming number of actors committing the oppression reside in Israel and the US, the overwhelming victims in Palestine and the Palestinian diaspora.

Well true. Certainly the Americans and the Israelis are the main actors here. But certainly the Egyptians and the Jordanians and the Lebenonese are also part of the oppression, too.

[RGacky3]

Well true. Certainly the Americans and the Israelis are the main actors here. But certainly the Egyptians and the Jordanians and the Lebenonese are also part of the oppression, too.

No more than any other country that does'nt treat its refugees as they should .... Which is most countries.

[Obzervi]

Guaranteed does not mean put into practice, however it is a principle of International Law.

Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[12] (http://www.revleft.org/vb/#cite_note-11) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[13] (http://www.revleft.org/vb/#cite_note-12) Both read: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
What the hell do you mean be "peoples"? Are you aware that there is only one race, the human race? All other distinctions are superficial. Your same argument of "self-determination" is used by white supremacists to justify racism and separatism. All artificial borders MUST COME DOWN.

[Nolan]

Self determination my ass.

Trying to conflate the self determination of the Jewish people with zionism, racial purity, and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is antisemitism at it's worst.

I'll just go ahead and say it: ComradeMan is an antisemite.

[Dean]

Well true. Certainly the Americans and the Israelis are the main actors here. But certainly the Egyptians and the Jordanians and the Lebenonese are also part of the oppression, too.

Yes, and none of those countries are ruled by autocratic western-backed regimes rife with internal meddling.

Oh, wait. They all are.

[Dimentio]

He supports a one state solution with absolute equal rights, even Noam Chomsky supported this, its definately a position that a leftist can have.

How you go about it is a different issue.

I do it too.

The problem is that as soon as anyone writes anything bad about Israel, CM is jumping in and tries to "balance" the situation. Then the thread is going down as a troll fest.

[ComradeMan]

Self determination my ass.

Trying to conflate the self determination of the Jewish people with zionism, racial purity, and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is antisemitism at it's worst.

I'll just go ahead and say it: ComradeMan is an antisemite.

How dare you.... you make me sick, and you insult me and the memory of those who perished.

With your strawmen and things I have never said nor ever supported you have the nerve to accuse someone whose family perished in the gas chambers of being an anti-semite. Fuck you. I am speechless. If there is anyone who would be the last in the world to be an anti-semite it would be me. Perhaps you just said this without thinking, so perhaps I can forgive you- but really you should think about the words you use. Just to give you a hint, all my family from Poland and Belgium, well, I'll never know who they were and won't even have the photos... guess why? Yeah, I'm an anti-semite.



I do it too.

The problem is that as soon as anyone writes anything bad about Israel, CM is jumping in and tries to "balance" the situation. Then the thread is going down as a troll fest.

It's called being objective.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, and none of those countries are ruled by autocratic western-backed regimes rife with internal meddling.

Oh, wait. They all are.

You know Dean: sometimes it's not always a Communism plot or a Fascist plot or an American Imperialist plot. Some people are just dicks on their own. And if people and countries can be bought so easily--forget Communism right now and get a job as a shill in an ad agency, because that's the future of the world.

[gorillafuck]

It might be "bourgeois" international law, but it's the only international law we have at present. The fact that many, if not most, "bourgeois" and so-called "communist" states don't actually wish to respect it, says a lot.
;)It shows that international law is worth shit.

Big news.

[Lenin Cat]

Why do the jews get a safe haven and not the Roma? The Sami? The Druze? The jews do not deserve a safe haven, no nation, race, or whatever deserves a safe haven. We are all one, we are all people. I support the creation of a "free state of Palestine" were anyone can seek amnesty based on concern of genocide against them in the possible future. There shall be no referencing to Jews or Arabs in state documents.

Semite can also mean Arabs.

[Mr.Awesome]

Semite can also mean Arabs.

It can, but generally semite is used to speak of jews.

[ComradeMan]

Why do the jews get a safe haven and not the Roma? The Sami? The Druze? The jews do not deserve a safe haven, no nation, race, or whatever deserves a safe haven. We are all one, we are all people. I support the creation of a "free state of Palestine" were anyone can seek amnesty based on concern of genocide against them in the possible future. There shall be no referencing to Jews or Arabs in state documents.

Semite can also mean Arabs.

Easy to say when your nation has perhaps not been victim of the Shoah/Holocaust. But if you look at the one state solution you might see that Druze etc are also included- at least in my own definition of people having a right to self-determination.

The Jews do not "deserve" a aqsafe haven- in light of things like the Holocaust can't you see what may be wrong/insensitive about that statement?

As for the Roma- well, the Roma do not claim a homeland as far as I know, nor- being historically and culturally nomadic do they seem to wish one, buit I, along with the other "evil zionist" of Revleft, Krimskrams, do supportn rights for the Roma people and I believe the latter actually started a Rekvleft user group to focus on the issue.

[Dimentio]

It's called being objective.

No. It's called being "fair and balanced". Like FOX News.


In the same manner as 999 scientists claiming there are on-going human-originated climate change and 1 scientist on Exxon's paylist claiming the Earth is getting cooler.


In the same manner as claiming that both the Theory of Relativity and the Great Cubic Theory of the Wisest Human are both viable hypotheses.


In the same manner as saying that both Evolution and Creationism should be upheld.


Israel already has one of the strongest and most well-entrenched defenses in the world, and is ruthlessly brutalising and exploiting a nearly defenseless population who has been subjected to a Bantustan-like lifestyle to try to make them emigrate in large numbers, to establish control in the Water-rich West Bank.


The PLO are one of the most corrupt parties in the region, and Hamas are extremist reactionaries.


At the same time, is a household which is under pressure really served by an unwillingness to help due to the fact that one of the parents is also abusing his family?


Israel defenders are often talking about "The Palestinians", that they don't "take responsibility" and that it is their turn to make concessions. Some of them, for example Daniel Pipes, have sado-masochistically called for a "humiliating, total defeat" of the Palestinians, as if it is the question of Palestinian aggression against Israel.


Those who oppose Israel's policies, rarely ever claim that all Israelis are supportive of the Israeli government, and are often cooperating with Israeli peace organisations. Those who support Israel's policies always talk about the Palestinians as if they were a homogenous entity.

To talk about moral equivalence is revealing either a deep-seated ignorance of the conditions on the ground, or a cynicism and hypocrisy of a quite grave magnitude.

http://www.danielpipes.org/3496/how-israel-can-win

[Dimentio]

Easy to say when your nation has perhaps not been victim of the Shoah/Holocaust. But if you look at the one state solution you might see that Druze etc are also included- at least in my own definition of people having a right to self-determination.

The Jews do not "deserve" a aqsafe haven- in light of things like the Holocaust can't you see what may be wrong/insensitive about that statement?

As for the Roma- well, the Roma do not claim a homeland as far as I know, nor- being historically and culturally nomadic do they seem to wish one, buit I, along with the other "evil zionist" of Revleft, Krimskrams, do supportn rights for the Roma people and I believe the latter actually started a Rekvleft user group to focus on the issue.

Of course the Jews deserve a safe world for themselves and their children, but not at the expense of anyone else. Not even evicting Papuan cannibals is alright.

And the West Bank occupation is not so much having to do with a safe haven and is having more to do with exploiting fresh water.

[ComradeMan]

No. It's called being "fair and balanced".http://www.danielpipes.org/3496/how-israel-can-win

Interesting how you use Daniel Pipes as a source...,:laugh:

Basically you've wasted your time typing all that out. Because my position is clear, as stated in the OP- now, attack that from a leftist position or shut up.

[Lenin Cat]

Easy to say when your nation has perhaps not been victim of the Shoah/Holocaust. But if you look at the one state solution you might see that Druze etc are also included- at least in my own definition of people having a right to self-determination.

The Jews do not "deserve" a aqsafe haven- in light of things like the Holocaust can't you see what may be wrong/insensitive about that statement?

As for the Roma- well, the Roma do not claim a homeland as far as I know, nor- being historically and culturally nomadic do they seem to wish one, buit I, along with the other "evil zionist" of Revleft, Krimskrams, do supportn rights for the Roma people and I believe the latter actually started a Rekvleft user group to focus on the issue.

I am a Jew, and part of my family ran away from Poland to escape the holocaust. Stop playing the holocaust card.

No, Jews dont deserve a safe haven, they deserve a right to live anywhere in the world, as does everyone else.

Yes, they dont have any real homeland, but country's often kick them out as illegal immigrants.

[Blackscare]

How dare you.... you make me sick, and you insult me and the memory of those who perished.

Oh, look at the crocodile tears of a person who, on this site, is the single biggest abuser of the term "anti-semitism" and uses it as a cynical ploy to win arguments.



Cry me a fucking river.

[Dimentio]

Interesting how you use Daniel Pipes as a source...,:laugh:

Basically you've wasted your time typing all that out. Because my position is clear, as stated in the OP- now, attack that from a leftist position or shut up.

I am not attacking your position.

I am attacking your actual behaviour.

And it is certainly hard to find any reasonable progressive with your viewpoints and antisemite-baiting.

[Bud Struggle]

AN OPEN LETTER TO CONRADEMAN:


FUCK OFF!!!!

You need an anger management session with Dr. Sigmund Gacky.

[Ele'ill]

Just yet another general warning to stop the flaming- now.

[Dimentio]

Well true. Certainly the Americans and the Israelis are the main actors here. But certainly the Egyptians and the Jordanians and the Lebenonese are also part of the oppression, too.

Yes. Arab countries have sadly a history of not being solidaric with one another (and hardly any other country for that matter too). In general, Arab people are very generous, but their governments often treat refugees more or less like cattle (the exception being - crazily - Saddam Hussein).

[ComradeMan]

Yes. Arab countries have sadly a history of not being solidaric with one another (and hardly any other country for that matter too). In general, Arab people are very generous, but their governments often treat refugees more or less like cattle (the exception being - crazily - Saddam Hussein).

Ya'am araby.;)

[Lenin Cat]

I see your ignoring my response...

[ComradeMan]

I am a Jew, and part of my family ran away from Poland to escape the holocaust. Stop playing the holocaust card.

No, Jews dont deserve a safe haven, they deserve a right to live anywhere in the world, as does everyone else.

Yes, they dont have any real homeland, but country's often kick them out as illegal immigrants.

Respect to you chaver.

But a safe-haven and a right to live safely anywhere in the world.... it would be nice, but that's not the way things work is it? Nor has it proven to be so in history.

Your last statemnet seems to prove the need for some sort of homeland.

[Lenin Cat]

Respect to you chaver.

But a safe-haven and a right to live safely anywhere in the world.... it would be nice, but that's not the way things work is it? Nor has it proven to be so in history.

Your last statemnet seems to prove the need for some sort of homeland.
Not in the current world, no. Communism isnt how the world works yet ether. I support a state of Palestine that allows anyone to live there and makes no official references to Jews or Arabs, maybe for your "realism" argument, it can be limited to "oppressed nations".

No, it proves that we must allow the free movement of people around the world.

[ComradeMan]

Not in the current world, no. Communism isnt how the world works yet ether. I support a state of Palestine that allows anyone to live there and makes no official references to Jews or Arabs, maybe for your "realism" argument, it can be limited to "oppressed nations".

No, it proves that we must allow the free movement of people around the world.


Hate it to point it out- but that would be the one state solution, which I have always supported. Israel-Palestine with equal rights for all.
;)

[Lenin Cat]

Hate it to point it out- but that would be the one state solution, which I have always supported. Israel-Palestine with equal rights for all.
;)
But you always say that you want the so called one state to be recognized as a safe haven for Jews. Palestine(and the world) should be a haven for all people, Arab, Jew, French, Native American, or Chinese.

[Dimentio]

It is not the solution, it is the attitude.

"I think the ANC is a terrible terrorist organisation which is necklacing Boers and Inkatha members, and that the Blacks in South Africa should take a little responsibility too, but I am all for the abolishment of Apartheid"

[ComradeMan]

But you always say that you want the so called one state to be recognized as a safe haven for Jews. Palestine(and the world) should be a haven for all people, Arab, Jew, French, Native American, or Chinese.

No, that is not what I have said. I said that Jewish people have the right to self-determination inasmuch as any other people, and given the logical consequences of things like the Holocaust it is understandable and fair. If that safe homeland is within in a one-state solution Israel-Palestine, then so be it. The Jewish people have a right to self-determination, but not at the cost of others- that is fair.

[ComradeMan]

It is not the solution, it is the attitude.

"I think the ANC is a terrible terrorist organisation which is necklacing Boers and Inkatha members, and that the Blacks in South Africa should take a little responsibility too, but I am all for the abolishment of Apartheid"


Did I say that...? In fact when I mentioned Nelson Mandela before I was completely attacked by some here, including the person who was subsequently banned for anti-semitism---- wanted to have me burned alive in an Israeli flag apparently.

Is the best you can come up with strawmen?

[freepalestine]

All this support. All these people working for you and you still are a bunch of loosers?

Maybe the problem is in the Palestinians themselves.

Don't you think?


i wish the isreal supporters would say that on the forum rather than in a p.m.

[Bud Struggle]

i wish the isreal supporters would say that on the forum rather than in a p.m.

I never PM. :)

[Edkit] unles I'm drunke! :D)

[ComradeMan]

i wish the isreal supporters would say that on the forum rather than in a p.m.


The people who you accuse of being Israel supporters, whatever that is supposed to mean, are speaking out here- unlike you with your neg reps and nasty pm's.

[Dimentio]

Did I say that...? In fact when I mentioned Nelson Mandela before I was completely attacked by some here, including the person who was subsequently banned for anti-semitism---- wanted to have me burned alive in an Israeli flag apparently.

Is the best you can come up with strawmen?

What you have consistently done is to try to create a "fair'n'balanced" view by pointing out things which are legitimately problematic about the behaviour of Arab states and the Palestinian leadership, in threads about Israeli repression, claiming to be "objective" in the process.

I have not called you a Zionist, and I agree with the one-state solution. You are, however, engaging in terribly trollish and disrupting manners.

Moreover, you make other, serious posters contaminated, by thanking them in various subjects where they point out legitimate issues in a sincere manner, in order to give the impression that you have some kind of circle of people who are agreeing with you.

[ComradeMan]

What you have consistently done is to try to create a "fair'n'balanced" view by pointing out things which are legitimately problematic about the behaviour of Arab states and the Palestinian leadership, in threads about Israeli repression, claiming to be "objective" in the process.

I have not called you a Zionist, and I agree with the one-state solution. You are, however, engaging in terribly trollish and disrupting manners.

Moreover, you make other, serious posters contaminated, by thanking them in various subjects where they point out legitimate issues in a sincere manner, in order to give the impression that you have some kind of circle of people who are agreeing with you.


When in doubt, accuse people of trolling.

Like when I posted about the oppression of Palestinians in Lebanon and some users brought it back to Israel.... save it.

I have stated my position, and to my best answered all the questions posed to me. Furthermore I have had to put up with abuse and strawmen, misrepresentation and hostility.

As for the thanking thing.... grow up.

[Lenin Cat]

No, that is not what I have said. I said that Jewish people have the right to self-determination inasmuch as any other people, and given the logical consequences of things like the Holocaust it is understandable and fair. If that safe homeland is within in a one-state solution Israel-Palestine, then so be it. The Jewish people have a right to self-determination, but not at the cost of others- that is fair.
There should be no unifed Jewish and Arab homeland! It should simply be Palestine! A land were ANYONE can freely live. The government should not have ANY reference to Jews or Arabs or whatever!

No nation deserves a right to self-determination. Should we give brown eyed people the right to self-determination?

[Bud Struggle]

It should simply be Palestine!

Or Israel. Who cares what it's called?

[Le Libérer]

Comrademan, I do respect you wanting to make your position clear on Israel. Now that you have, would you consider other subjects of debates for a time?

The reason I am asking this, every single thread on Israel spirals downward, infractions are always handed out and threads are closed.

If it were up to me, there would be more discussions on things that are important to me, like the politics that surround HIV/AIDS because I work in that field, its my life. But revleft is bigger than just one subject, whether it be Israel or oppressive US laws that effect me on a personal level.

I would also suggest the contents of the OP be moved to a blog from your profile, and locked so there wont be any comments, that way it doesnt get lost, when this thread is closed or trashed. I think it moving it there would work better for what you are trying to accomplish by writing this open letter.

[Le Libérer]

Oh that note, and with my suggestions, I am closing this thread.