Zionism: The Modern Nazism?

[The Man]

No, I'm not trolling.. I just want an opinion on this. I have nothing against the Jewish Faith, and I have nothing against Jews themselves. I do have something against Zionism.

It may seem like a contradiction in terms, that I am calling Zionists the modern day National Socialists.

But it shows extreme Nationalism in a country, in which the Jewish people that live there have much more privileges than the others (Such as the Palestinians, who are basically considered 'Second-Class Citizens'). Doesn't that sound familiar? Like the so-called 'Aryan Race' in Nazi Germany? Not to mention, they treat these 'Second-Class Citizens' like shit.

This group in the United States called the LNSGP (Libertarian National Socialist Green Party) are a group of Nazis that believe in Zionism, because they want Nationalism for all races.

Do you think Zionism is the modern-day National Socialism?

[gorillafuck]

no it's not. Zionism isn't nazism, nazism was a specific ideology, and it had clear different characteristics from zionism.

[Commissar Rykov]

Only on Fridays before Sabbat.

[Dumb]

You don't have to worry about charges of antisemitism, The Man. I'm Jewish - and not a self-hating Jew either - and I still agree with every word you said. (Might also want to throw in something about theocracy as well - not even Reform Jews have full religious freedom either, and that doesn't compare with the discrimination Arabs face in Israel).

EDIT: And what RedBrother said is right as well - even if Zionism isn't fascist, we should still oppose them as if they were.

[Ocean Seal]

By label they are not fascists. But then again, labels don't matter, they are ethnic nationalists with the blood of 800,000 innocents on their hands.
Zionists
The Tea Party/ Minutemen
Nazbols
These groups might not be fascists but they promote ethnic nationalism and are complicit with genocide. Although we shouldn't link them to the NS (because that would make the NS look more normal) we should oppose them in the same way that we oppose the Nazi's.

[Nolan]

The idea that there's such a thing as a "self hating Jew" is ridiculous and a meme shared with white supremacist whining.

All nationalists are the same.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't think having second class citizens is tantamount to being a NAZI, or else all of history would be NAZI'ism. They may or may not be NAZI-esque... but you're going to have to have a lot more comparisons to even begin calling them NAZI's.

[jake williams]

No.

Zionism has relatively little in common with Nazism. Nazism has a fairly specific political and economic ideology that includes, centrally, a particular sort of anti-semitism related to the conflation of international finance capital, and communist conspiracy.

That's not to say that Zionism and Nazism have nothing in common, but almost every ideology has something in common with almost any other. Modern Zionism is a nationalist, materialistic, and to a degree even intrinsically racist ideology. This is true of the official or unofficial ideologies of almost all imperialist countries, in some cases to an even greater extent than in Israel. Israel's political culture in some sense has a lot more in common with that of other nascent settler states, like the United States around the time of confederation, than it does with an old imperialist country during a time of deep crisis, such as Nazi Germany.

I think it's really dangerous to evacuate Nazism of its economic and historical character. Doing so, among other things, makes superficial comparisons with Marxist movements which have had anti-colonial, militaristic, or nationalist elements all too easy - comparisons which are facile and politically reactionary. Nazism advocates and implements a whole series of policies that the Israeli state does not. Nazism actually did cause some considerable trouble for global financial capital and the dominant imperialist power, Britain (not to say it opposed capitalism or imperialism per se). Israel does the opposite.


All nationalists are the same.
No. A Nazi is not the same as a British imperialist is not the same as a Palestinian nationalist is not the same as a Basque nationalist, etc. Working class nationalists are not the same as bourgeois or petty bourgeois nationalists. Fascists are not the same as left nationalists. Anti-imperialist nationalists (racist or not) are not the same as imperialist nationalists. Politics isn't simple.

[bailey_187]

As badley as Palestinians are treated, Israel isnt trying to completly exterminate every last one of them (atleast, physicaly, some try and claim they are just Arabs and not Palestinians). As bad as the conditions in Gaza are, they do not compare to the Jewish Ghetto's of Poland. (Thats not me saying the worse conditions of the latter in anyway justify the former btw)

[synthesis]

A better comparison, in my opinion, is to South Africa before the fall of apartheid. The entire country and its economy are founded on the basis of "apartness" between the settlers and the local population.

[Viet Minh]

No, I'm not trolling.. I just want an opinion on this. I have nothing against the Jewish Faith, and I have nothing against Jews themselves. I do have something against Zionism.

It may seem like a contradiction in terms, that I am calling Zionists the modern day National Socialists.

But it shows extreme Nationalism in a country, in which the Jewish people that live there have much more privileges than the others (Such as the Palestinians, who are basically considered 'Second-Class Citizens'). Doesn't that sound familiar? Like the so-called 'Aryan Race' in Nazi Germany? Not to mention, they treat these 'Second-Class Citizens' like shit.

This group in the United States called the LNSGP (Libertarian National Socialist Green Party) are a group of Nazis that believe in Zionism, because they want Nationalism for all races.

Do you think Zionism is the modern-day National Socialism?

If you start looking for connections you'll find them, we are conditioned to categorise and label things for convenience. Here's a famous example - http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208733/pg1

You could draw more parallels but the bottom line is Israel are not National Socialist and they don't wear stupid looking helmets, so calling them nazis is not only pointless, it actually detracts from the real issues in favour of some sort of propaganda excercise.

[Viet Minh]

A better comparison, in my opinion, is to South Africa before the fall of apartheid. The entire country and its economy are founded on the basis of "apartness" between the settlers and the local population.

Again there are similarities but its not the same situation. There are Arab Israelis, who have the same legal rights and even vote for Israeli political parties and join the Israeli military, and there are a few jews and christians who live in Palestine as well. So its not as clear cut as segregation or Apartheid. Also the Israelis are now the majority, compared to the Boers who were the minority (assuming you're comparing the Israelis to Boers and Palestinians to black south Africans or 'coloureds').

[stuckinarut]

There are Israelis that are not Zionists, just as there are Zionists that are not Israelis (although they support Israel). Doctrinal Zionists, or those that believe Israel should exist and extend from the Tigris to the Euphrates, are Nationalistic only so far as it fulfills the "prophecy" of the old testament.

Their esprit de corps if you will comes from a god, and you can't reason with a person who believes they are fulfilling that god's prophecy when they, time and again, show that they are willing to slaughter innocent civilians to further their goals.

One thing is for sure, Zionists are FASCISTS! :thumbdown:

[RedSunRising]

Again there are similarities but its not the same situation. There are Arab Israelis, who have the same legal rights and even vote for Israeli political parties and join the Israeli military, and there are a few jews and christians who live in Palestine as well. So its not as clear cut as segregation or Apartheid. Also the Israelis are now the majority, compared to the Boers who were the minority (assuming you're comparing the Israelis to Boers and Palestinians to black south Africans or 'coloureds').

And there were a few Papists in the UDA (drug dealing psychopaths though they were) and didnt a lot of Papists vote for Ian Paisley? (According to the likes of yourself).

The conflict is pretty simple.

[RedSunRising]

One thing is for sure, Zionists are FASCISTS! :thumbdown:

To speak the obvious.

[Desperado]

All nationalists are the same.

Ridiculous. Define nationalism for a start. Even if we could agree on it, most nationalists you ask would give a different answer. This is because it is an inherently vague term. As leftists, we should ignore such vague terms and symbolism and take a class analysis of each "nationalist" ideology. It can be anti-colonial self determinism or pro-colonial imperialism, interventionist or isolationist, it can be the justification or the opposition of a strong state, it can be for class "collaboration" - i.e, pro ruling class (Fascist Corporatism) or rooted in working class struggle (early ANC), it can be inclusive and tolerant (Plaid Cymru's Welsh nationalism has a softer policy on immigration than nearly any party) or exclusive (British National party). "Nationalism" can even be "internationalist".

[Sasha]

No.

Zionism has relatively little in common with Nazism. Nazism has a fairly specific political and economic ideology that includes, centrally, a particular sort of anti-semitism related to the conflation of international finance capital, and communist conspiracy.

That's not to say that Zionism and Nazism have nothing in common, but almost every ideology has something in common with almost any other. Modern Zionism is a nationalist, materialistic, and to a degree even intrinsically racist ideology. This is true of the official or unofficial ideologies of almost all imperialist countries, in some cases to an even greater extent than in Israel. Israel's political culture in some sense has a lot more in common with that of other nascent settler states, like the United States around the time of confederation, than it does with an old imperialist country during a time of deep crisis, such as Nazi Germany.

I think it's really dangerous to evacuate Nazism of its economic and historical character. Doing so, among other things, makes superficial comparisons with Marxist movements which have had anti-colonial, militaristic, or nationalist elements all too easy - comparisons which are facile and politically reactionary. Nazism advocates and implements a whole series of policies that the Israeli state does not. Nazism actually did cause some considerable trouble for global financial capital and the dominant imperialist power, Britain (not to say it opposed capitalism or imperialism per se). Israel does the opposite.


No. A Nazi is not the same as a British imperialist is not the same as a Palestinian nationalist is not the same as a Basque nationalist, etc. Working class nationalists are not the same as bourgeois or petty bourgeois nationalists. Fascists are not the same as left nationalists. Anti-imperialist nationalists (racist or not) are not the same as imperialist nationalists. Politics isn't simple.

QFT, its worthwile replys like this that prevent me to trash the steaming pile of male cow excrement that is the OP.

[agnixie]

Zionism is far from a singular unified ideology, and a lot of early zionists were basically anarchists and communists and opposed to the idea of a state - Einstein and Chomsky were of that sort.

Is Israel becoming increasingly fascist-like? Probably.
Is the "revisionist zionism" of the likudniks and their allies further on the right increasingly fascist-like? Sure
Is the OP crap? Absolutely, too

[Nolan]

Alright, I sorta misspoke. As a supporter of national liberation, I know that is not the case.

What I meant was majority supremacist ethno-nationalists.

[Tim Finnegan]

One thing is for sure, Zionists are FASCISTS! :thumbdown:

To speak the obvious.
I'm not sure that either of you know what the word "fascist" means, but there's rather more to it- even given the long-running debate over its precise meaning- than "right-wing and unlikeable".

[Pretty Flaco]

The state of israel has practiced horrible things such as segregation, discrimination, and forced relocation, but that is far from being fascist.

[stuckinarut]

Originally Posted by Tim Finnegan
I'm not sure that either of you know what the word "fascist" means, but there's rather more to it- even given the long-running debate over its precise meaning- than "right-wing and unlikeable".

No, Im using the actual definition, thanks. Zionists are radical, authoritarian, nationalists who strive for a one-state solution, and employ murder against those that oppose them. They also use the guise of "peace talks" to further expand their geo-political reach in the area. They are Fascists.

[Thirsty Crow]

Alright, I sorta misspoke. As a supporter of national liberation, I know that is not the case.

Just as I came to think you were on to something (something that needed refinement and elaboration, btw.), then you go on to your old set of predetermined political positions. What a shame.


No, Im using the actual definition, thanks. Zionists are radical, authoritarian, nationalists who strive for a one-state solution, and employ murder against those that oppose them. They also use the guise of "peace talks" to further expand their geo-political reach in the area. They are Fascists.
No, you're not using the "actual definition". But given the vague character of the expression ("actual definition"), it could be said that you're not taking up a Marxist viewpoint, and rather spout vague, meaningless phrases (Fascists are "radical"? Well, here's a decent modicum of liberalism as a litmus test for the character of other ideologies!).

[hatzel]

No, Im using the actual definition, thanks. Zionists are radical, authoritarian, nationalists who strive for a one-state solution, and employ murder against those that oppose them. They also use the guise of "peace talks" to further expand their geo-political reach in the area. They are Fascists.

Then you're not using the correct definition of 'Zionist'. Some Zionists are radical, authoritarian, nationalists who strive for a one-state solution. Others are pretty moderate, aren't authoritarian at all, most if not all are admittedly nationalists (though it depends on the definition of nationalism whether many so-called cultural Zionists would be included under the umbrella term), and many strive for a two-state solution (though, once again, many cultural Zionists and others have historically supported, and continue to support, a single binational state, or any other arrangement which allows Jewish cultural autonomy)...those walking the corridors of power in the Knesset could increasingly be described as you have described Zionists as a whole, and they do in fact employ murder against those who oppose them, they do loads of shit that any decent person would be utterly repulsed by. A Zionist paper like Haaretz, though, should make it abundantly clear that there are plenty of Zionists who oppose such actions, who are more than a bit critical of the actions of the Israeli state, whilst still referring to themselves as Zionists.

Some Zionists are fascists, for all intents and purposes, and the number of Zionists adopting fascistic or quasi-fascistic ideas appears to be increasing. This is true. The Israeli state and certain elements of society are also lurching towards the right, this much is also true, though, as I've said, it's not like that's something universally supported by every single Israeli citizen or the various Zionists outside Israel. As Zionism itself isn't an ideology, it doesn't include any inherent economic policy, nor social, nor anything else. Fascism does include such things, fascism doesn't allow the variation of policy that Zionism does. Fascist Zionism is a possibility, yes, as is liberal Zionism, social democratic Zionism, theocratic Zionism, all depending on the nature of the state, and the economic and social policies it adopts. Zionists do not agree on these issues, as they hold a variety of ideologies. Some fascist, some not.

Oh, and before anybody runs around complaining, 'you fucking bastard racist scumbag murdering Zionist Israel-defending arsehole buttface terrorist' or whatever, let me assure you that you're one of these:

http://larvalsubjects.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/450x450std-cobalt-blue-mug.jpg

Danke sehr :)

[Kamos]

I voted yes, although not to the exact same question as in the poll. Zionists as a collective group aren't 100% national socialists. However, in my opinion, the ideology itself has so many elements national socialism that it is justified to equate the two for the purposes of this poll. Even where it isn't fascist it often does the same evils the nazis did, which can be just as bad.

[stuckinarut]

It is my belief that any foreign policy objectives that are derived from fairy tales are to be viewed as illegitimate. When these goals are pursued by means of violence, and de-legitimization/re categorization of the enemy as "terrorists", the aims of said system become inherently anti-(d)emocratic.

[Die Rote Fahne]

They aren't national socialists. Just nationalists. Nationalists are just idiots to begin with. The whole idea is backwards and anti-worker/counter-revolutionary.

Fascists are necessarily nationalists, but nationalists are not necessarily fascists. Close enough though.

[RGacky3]

you take basque seperatists, or the IRA, or whatever, you could label them as sort of nationalists (since they are national liberation groups), but then you can take groups like the BNP who are also nationalists, but those groups are MILES apart in ideology.

[t.shonku]

Zionism = Modern Day Fascism


Zionism = Cause of all troubles in Middle East


Zionism = Imperialism


Zionism = Genocide of Arab Race

[Tim Finnegan]

Zionism = Modern Day Fascism
No, Fascism = Modern Day Fascism. Zionism = Modern Day Zionism. That's really quite basic.


Nationalists are just idiots to begin with. The whole idea is backwards and anti-worker/counter-revolutionary.

Fascists are necessarily nationalists, but nationalists are not necessarily fascists. Close enough though.
Utter guff. Nationalism is far too heterogeneous an ideological phenomenon to be dismissed in such broad terms, and you make a complete ass of yourself by trying to do so.

[Sasha]

Zionism = Genocide of Arab Race

You know there are only 7.5 million Israeli right? And that of them only 75% is jewish? You know that the extremists of the kach variety only have the support of an minuscule part of those people? And that the only reason they have some power, an very disproportionate power, is because Israel is an extremely splintered coalition-democracy?
now do you know how many Arabs there are? 300 million. Not to mention that the Israelis are most afraid of Iran who aren't even Arabs but Persians... (who number an further 80 million people)

Now based on this facts I ask you to reevaluate the likelihood of your statement being factual and then STFU in the future as your an toe cringing embarrassment.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Utter guff. Nationalism is far too heterogeneous an ideological phenomenon to be dismissed in such broad terms, and you make a complete ass of yourself by trying to do so.
Do elaborate oh wise one.

[Tim Finnegan]

Do elaborate oh wise one.
Nationalism is not a singular ideology, but a far broader phenomenon, the exact characteristics of which depend on a great variety of material and ideological conditions, not least the distinction between those nationalisms developed in economically-politically dependent regions and hegemonic regions, and between those nationalism developed in pre-capitalist societies, developing capitalist societies, and advanced capitalist societies. Nationalism in one time and place is not the same as nationalism in another, so to declare a universal essence to such movements, let alone one as lacking in substance as "they are all idiots", is foolish.

[bailey_187]

you take basque seperatists, or the IRA, or whatever, you could label them as sort of nationalists (since they are national liberation groups), but then you can take groups like the BNP who are also nationalists, but those groups are MILES apart in ideology.

As miles apart as they are on some things, and as different as their vision for a better world is, they do all beleive that the nation is the correct way of catagorising and organising society.

[synthesis]

Again there are similarities but its not the same situation. There are Arab Israelis, who have the same legal rights and even vote for Israeli political parties and join the Israeli military, and there are a few jews and christians who live in Palestine as well. So its not as clear cut as segregation or Apartheid. Also the Israelis are now the majority, compared to the Boers who were the minority (assuming you're comparing the Israelis to Boers and Palestinians to black south Africans or 'coloureds').

Oh, I definitely agree that there are differences. I just wanted to get in on the ground floor of a magnificently promising new troll thread.

[RGacky3]

they do all beleive that the nation is the correct way of catagorising and organising society.

Absolutely, and I don't agree with that.

But using nationalism is the common thread in saying Zionism is the new Nazism is as rediculous as saying the IRA are the new Nazis.

[masty]

the israel = nazis thing is a great litmus test of someone's basic mental capacity. if they can't see that israel is just a low-rent third reich, with identical apparatus of colonization, cleansing, resettlement, the founding myth, false/worthless democracy/populism, the whole nine yards, then its safe to assume that they are too easily distracted by mere appearances to be worth listening to.

[Tim Finnegan]

the israel = nazis thing is a great litmus test of someone's basic mental capacity. if they can't see that israel is just a low-rent third reich, with identical apparatus of colonization, cleansing, resettlement, the founding myth, false/worthless democracy/populism, the whole nine yards, then its safe to assume that they are too easily distracted by mere appearances to be worth listening to.
See, now, I found myself nodding at the first sentence, but for what turned out to be reasons precisely opposite to what you intended. Awkward, to say the least...

[ComradeMan]

the israel = nazis thing is a great litmus test of someone's basic mental capacity. if they can't see that israel is just a low-rent third reich, with identical apparatus of colonization, cleansing, resettlement, the founding myth, false/worthless democracy/populism, the whole nine yards, then its safe to assume that they are too easily distracted by mere appearances to be worth listening to.

USA? China (viz. Tibet)?

...and many other modern nations too.

[graffic]

Zionism is a form of bourgeoise nationalism. But Israel is completely unique because no other people have been persecuted as much as the Jews and returned to a homeland 2,000 years old. Israel is not an expansionist country with a racist agenda like Nazi Germany. It doesn't want to conquer other countries like Nazism. The land grabbed in 1967 was a defensive manoeuvre and a lot of the land has been given back. There are some pretty nasty Zionists like Avigdor Lieberman of Israel beitanyahu but there are social democrats in Israel that are just like social democrats in any other developed country however because of the conflict there is more of a nationalist culture in Israel than in other developed countries.

[freepalestine]

the mention of apartheid rsa was more similar.although worse in many ways.




Zionism is a form of bourgeoise nationalism. But Israel is completely unique because no other people have been persecuted as much as the Jews and returned to a homeland 2,000 years old. Israel is not an expansionist country with a racist agenda like Nazi Germany. It doesn't want to conquer other countries like Nazism. The land grabbed in 1967 was a defensive manoeuvre and a lot of the land has been given back. There are some pretty nasty Zionists like Avigdor Lieberman of Israel beitanyahu but there are social democrats in Israel that are just like social democrats in any other developed country however because of the conflict there is more of a nationalist culture in Israel than in other developed countries.you said "It[isreal] doesn't want to conquer other countries.." why doyou think they didnt leave lebanon south of the litani for so long-are in golan,and "judea and samaria" still?
the isreal state was built on another country.the idea of erez isreal hasnt gone away ,more so as isreal is becoming more far rightwing and extremist in their policys.to claim isreal isnt expansionist/colonialist is far off the mark.

ethnic cleansing of palestine hasnt gone away either

[masty]

USA? China (viz. Tibet)?

...and many other modern nations too.
yes! what is your point? we were talking about israel and the third reich, but if you want to introduce other countries whose histories are similar then go ahead. it doesn't really weaken the argument, in fact it strengthens it because we can compare things that everyone acknowledges are horrible (the reservation system etc) to things that some people still have a problem with (the open-air prison of gaza).

this is such a weird response to what I said.

[RGacky3]

yes! what is your point?

The Nazis put 6 million Jews and millions of others in death camps and gassed them .... Thats what they are known for, and conquering most of europe.

Now because Israel has some similiarities, such as a racist citizenship policy and oppression of a group, calling them the new Nazis is kind of stupid.

[Blackoutx86]

No, I'm not trolling.. I just want an opinion on this. I have nothing against the Jewish Faith, and I have nothing against Jews themselves. I do have something against Zionism.

It may seem like a contradiction in terms, that I am calling Zionists the modern day National Socialists.

But it shows extreme Nationalism in a country, in which the Jewish people that live there have much more privileges than the others (Such as the Palestinians, who are basically considered 'Second-Class Citizens'). Doesn't that sound familiar? Like the so-called 'Aryan Race' in Nazi Germany? Not to mention, they treat these 'Second-Class Citizens' like shit.

This group in the United States called the LNSGP (Libertarian National Socialist Green Party) are a group of Nazis that believe in Zionism, because they want Nationalism for all races.

Do you think Zionism is the modern-day National Socialism?


I think what most people are comparing is not the political nature of either of these countries, but the actions.
Just like Jewish and "Minorities" will often label their enemies as "fascists" or "Nazis" in lieu of a logical argument it seems many do the same to Zionists.
They wish to portray the idea that Zionist actions are often so amoral that they resemble the very same things that the Jews are supposed to have suffered through in WWII.
This, of course, also points out a very bold and undeniable hypocritical nature associated with holocaust sympathy for those Zionists who attempt to use the holocaust as a shield from criticism.

But are Zionism and the NSDAP the same party in deed or ideology? No.

[masty]

The Nazis put 6 million Jews and millions of others in death camps and gassed them .... Thats what they are known for, and conquering most of europe.

Now because Israel has some similiarities, such as a racist citizenship policy and oppression of a group, calling them the new Nazis is kind of stupid.
that's why I called israel 'low-rent.' the nazis wanted to cleanse eastern europe of surplus population so they could establish their master race as hegemonic in a newly (and artificially) de-populated lebensraum. israel's objective is clearly the same, except on a smaller scale. israel isn't just a normal capitalist state with some racist citizenship policies and 'oppression of a group.' the racist policies and the oppression has a purpose and that purpose, like the nazis, is genocidal.

[graffic]

you said "It[isreal] doesn't want to conquer other countries.." why doyou think they didnt leave lebanon south of the litani for so long-are in golan,and "judea and samaria" still?


Yeah because Israel wants to conquer Lebanon and Syria :rolleyes:


the idea of erez isreal hasnt gone away

Yeah in the heads of a people like Israel Beitanyahu who are extreme right wing assholes. Which is nothing compared to the level of hypocrisy and fundamentalism in the Arab world calling for a revival of "palestine" cleansed of Jews and Zionists.

The original point was whether any of this equates with Nazism which is so ridiculous its astounding people are actually taking this seriously

[727Goon]

The idea that there's such a thing as a "self hating Jew" is ridiculous and a meme shared with white supremacist whining.

All nationalists are the same.


I thought it was the jewish equivalent of being an uncle tom or something. Anyways I think the comparison of zionism to fascism is dumb, it's much more similar to South African apartheid.

[agnixie]

Yeah because Israel wants to conquer Lebanon and Syria :rolleyes:



Yeah in the heads of a people like Israel Beitanyahu who are extreme right wing assholes. Which is nothing compared to the level of hypocrisy and fundamentalism in the Arab world calling for a revival of "palestine" cleansed of Jews and Zionists.

The original point was whether any of this equates with Nazism which is so ridiculous its astounding people are actually taking this seriously

Could you kindly source your bullshit. And if you say anything about Iran, I'm going to have to invent a way to kick people's ass over IP, because it's not an arab country and Ahmadinejad is mainly blustering to please the mullah.
Also there is a rather solid likudnik wing of "revisionist zionists" (i.e. idiots who would rather sell us in the diaspora out to euro-american nazis than make peace).

[ComradeMan]

In Israel, Arab Israelis have Israeli passports, Israeli citizenship, there are Arab Israeli politicians in the Knesset and Arab Israeli political parties, Arab Israelis serve in the IDF too. I don't think the same can be said about NAZI Germany.

Look, the Israeli situation isn't pretty- but it's not NAZISM and it's not apartheid.

The use of "Nazi" towards things connected to Israel stinks of anti-semitism.

[agnixie]

you should mention the collaboration of certain influential zionists/groups with the nazis of germany,in relation to colonialising Palestine.

Avraham Stern vs Haj Amin al-Husseini, I guess. Both were certainly equally politically irrelevant in the end (the former dead, the latter hated by everyone and rendered powerless by a stroke of an egyptian pen).

There were collaborationists everywhere, even in the ghettos (see the JuPo, group 13). This is meaningless in terms of zionism as nazism given that it's a ridiculously wide phenomenon. It's also inching dangerously close to worse bullshit. Collaboration cost Stern his support even within Lehi (which I'll note also had a left wing that pushed for a socialist "semitic federation").


in the usa(and rsa),,blacks had us,rsa citizenship,and passports .so youre saying the palestinians within isreal have the same equal and legal rights as their fellow citizens ? not forgetting the palestinians in the OPT

Apartheid was a regime in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

[agnixie]

you mentioned one palestinian(yawn.whowas installed by the british.)
So was the Muslim Brethren aka Hamas.



yet zionists including begin
Source for Begin. Metaxas was a fascist too and he was still not a collaborator, so having fascist tendencies is not enough (and yes I already said that some branches of zionism are probably legit fascism); a faction of Irgun did contact Italy, not Germany. And they still don't represent all of zionism as a phenomenon.



and his group and other zionists
This is tedious and I hate to do that but: weasel words


and this i mention in relation to Palestine colonialism.and isreal is also,although much worse.
Funny, I thought you were going for conspirational dog whistling. My mistake for thinking it was actually an attempt at linking two things totally not snidely at all.


.and isreal is also,although much worse.

Apartheid easily killed over a million people.

[Apoi_Viitor]

The Tea Party


These groups might not be fascists but they promote ethnic nationalism and are complicit with genocide.

What genocide did the Tea Party commit or comply with?

[agnixie]

What genocide did the Tea Party commit or comply with?

Fascism doesn't start with the death camps. That said the tea party is too young and ideologically diffuse to be described as much besides extreme right wing populism

[Viet Minh]

You could compare almost any regimes from any period of history and find correlations, the excercise is usually pointless unless you're discussing military strategy, and in this instance I doubt the USA, UK and Russia (amongst others) will declare war on Israel as they did on Germany in WW2.

One of the better comparisons I've heard in terms of Israel is the early colonial USA. However the most similar regime to Israel is Israel. Seriously why do we need comparisons to the Nazis? Israel are bad enough in their own right, we don't need Ad Hitlerum/ Godwins law to criticise the actions of Israel. In fact such comparisons just detract from the real actions of Israel in favour of some cheap propaganda. Someone screaming 'Israel are Nazis' does not appear to the neutral observer to be absolutely objective, or arguably to even understand the ideology and history of National Socialism. The murder of Palestinians (and Israelis for that matter) is a horrendous crime, comparing it to the Holocaust firstly makes it seem less important somehow purely in terms of numbers of human lives, and secondly implies a need to exaggerate the crimes perpetrated by Israel.

[RGacky3]

The use of "Nazi" towards things connected to Israel stinks of anti-semitism.

No it does'nt.

[GallowsBird]

Zionism is a form of bourgeoise nationalism. But Israel is completely unique because no other people have been persecuted as much as the Jews and returned to a homeland 2,000 years old.

That is insulting to various other groups such as the Roma, Romanisael and Sinti peoples, or Gypsies as they have been collectively (and insultingly) known, that lost a larger percentage of their total population in the Holocaust (albeit less people as their population is smaller) than even the Jews. That is not to take away from the Jews but many people died in the Holocaust and that shouldn't be taken away from them as seems to have happened with many groups (considered undesirables including also Slavs, Homosexuals and Communists of various ethnicities et cetera) in Europe.



Israel is not an expansionist country with a racist agenda like Nazi Germany.Although Israel may not be a Nazi country I disagree that there is no Racist agenda as the "Jewish race" seems to be proclaimed by many in Israel and has become a major issue with the right-wingers.

That said the Israeli government may be right-wing (though not all Israeli people are of course) their ideology doesn't descend from National Socialist theories. That being said they do seem to be increasingly becoming similar in some regards. Just as many label certain regimes Fascist while they do not descend from the ideology of Mussolini many also use Nazi for regimes not descended from the political ideology of the Nazi party.

[RGacky3]

That is insulting to various other groups such as the Roma, Romany and Sinti peoples, or Gypsies as they have been collectively (and insultingly) known, that lost a larger percentage of their total population in the Holocaust (albeit less people as their population is smaller) than even the Jews. That is not to take away from the Jews but many people died in the Holocaust and that shouldn't be taken away from them as seems to have happened with many groups (considered undesireables including also Slavs, Homosexuals and Communists of various ethnicities et cetera) in Europe.


And people in europe are still racist against the Roma, they just never stop getting kicked in the dirt.

[ComradeMan]

No it does'nt.

I think we've been through this before.

When, factually, there is very much difference between Nazi Germany (and apartheid in South Africa) then why use the Nazi "scare word" to talk about Israel? It's cheap political rhetoric at best. It's designed to shock and it's also designed to tap into the Western sense of guilt over things like Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. If you are compared to a Nazi then that's as bad as it gets- Nazis can never be good and never be redeemed. By comparing Israel to the Nazis one is de facto saying Israel is all evil and cannot be redeemed either. In addition to this, it doesn't require a degree in history to know that for the Jewish people(s) the Holocaust probably represents the greatest "national" trauma ever and it is still, just about, in living memory. Why not compare the actions of Israel to Maoist China and Tibet? Perhaps there would be more similarities? Why not say Zionism = Maoism? I'm sure that would go down well at RevLeft? No, let's use the word Nazism to "scare the Jews" and remind them of how they were nearly wiped out.

Perhaps we could also compare Islamist movements to Nazism? Certainly those who refer to the Jews/Israelis- the "Sons of Zion" as descendants of pigs and apes and call for a "Holocaust" against them, could be seen as Nazis- at least in their rhetoric.

Now, I've said it before, and I'll say it again here- the situation in Israel-Palestine is not good, the treatment of the Palestinians has not bee good- but there are many factors at play and the history and politics of the damn mess is very intricate. Reducing things to cheap political rhetoric and "namecalling", i.e. the whole Nazi thing, is at best completely unhelpful and unproductive in finding any solution to the problem- which is what I presume most normal and peaceful people, be they Arabs, Jews, Christians or anyone else, would actually want?

[RGacky3]

I totally agree that its cheap political rhetoric, but its not anti-semitism, not at all.

[GallowsBird]

And people in europe are still racist against the Roma, they just never stop getting kicked in the dirt.

Yes, my point exactly. They are still treated as untouchables and no one seems to care that the "Gypsies" suffered greatly throughout the eras culminating in what happened to them during the Holocaust. I am disgusted at how racist the media is against them in the UK at the moment (think of all the racism in THE SUN aimed at them).

[Queercommie Girl]

Nationalism is not a singular ideology, but a far broader phenomenon, the exact characteristics of which depend on a great variety of material and ideological conditions, not least the distinction between those nationalisms developed in economically-politically dependent regions and hegemonic regions, and between those nationalism developed in pre-capitalist societies, developing capitalist societies, and advanced capitalist societies. Nationalism in one time and place is not the same as nationalism in another, so to declare a universal essence to such movements, let alone one as lacking in substance as "they are all idiots", is foolish.

I wouldn't be so harsh to him.

The only relatively progressive form of "nationalism" is the national liberation struggles of oppressed peoples, and even then it's not completely unconditional. Most forms of "nationalism" are indeed explicitly reactionary, despite their various specific natures.

[Queercommie Girl]

But using nationalism is the common thread in saying Zionism is the new Nazism is as rediculous as saying the IRA are the new Nazis.


Not to say that Zionism is explicitly the same as Nazism, which is technically not true, the comparison with the IRA doesn't work either. Ireland is an oppressed nation in Europe, while Israel is an oppressor nation in the Middle East. The "nationalism" of an oppressed nation and an oppressor nation is not the same.

Perhaps Zionism was more like Irish nationalism back in the days of WWII, when Jews were sent to gas chambers, but not Zionism today.

[RGacky3]

Absolutely, but much of the origional Zionism was a response to Jews being oppressed everywhere.

But I agree that nowerdays the comparason does'nt work, I was just point out that nationalism does not neccessarily mean fascism or even close to fascism, you have to take the context.

I totally agree with you though, however, Zionism nowerdays is NOTHING like Nazism, and although there are coparisons to apartied, its not really that either. A lot of Zionism has to do with the idea that Israel, all of it, including the west back and the gaza strip, belongs to Jews, saying Arabs are Isreali citizens does'nt get rid of the fact that Israel is explicitly a Jewish state and Jewish heratige is how you get citizenship, meaning citizenship is based on religion/ethnicity.

Whatever comparason you make or do not make, its a fact that Israel is occupying, dispossessing, settling and blockaiding palestinian territory, and oppressing them.

[Queercommie Girl]

Absolutely, but much of the origional Zionism was a response to Jews being oppressed everywhere.

But I agree that nowerdays the comparason does'nt work, I was just point out that nationalism does not neccessarily mean fascism or even close to fascism, you have to take the context.

I totally agree with you though, however, Zionism nowerdays is NOTHING like Nazism, and although there are coparisons to apartied, its not really that either. A lot of Zionism has to do with the idea that Israel, all of it, including the west back and the gaza strip, belongs to Jews, saying Arabs are Isreali citizens does'nt get rid of the fact that Israel is explicitly a Jewish state and Jewish heratige is how you get citizenship, meaning citizenship is based on religion/ethnicity.

Whatever comparason you make or do not make, its a fact that Israel is occupying, dispossessing, settling and blockaiding palestinian territory, and oppressing them.

Zionism isn't Nazism or even aparteid (Jews and Arabs are of the same race physically after all), but I'd say it's still generally worse and more reactionary than the average kind of bourgeois nationalism today. It's also ridiculous to accuse people for being "anti-Semitic" just because they made the technical mistake of equating Zionism with Nazism, like ComradeMan has done in this thread.

[Queercommie Girl]

That is insulting to various other groups such as the Roma, Romanichal and Sinti peoples, or Gypsies as they have been collectively (and insultingly) known, that lost a larger percentage of their total population in the Holocaust (albeit less people as their population is smaller) than even the Jews. That is not to take away from the Jews but many people died in the Holocaust and that shouldn't be taken away from them as seems to have happened with many groups (considered undesirables including also Slavs, Homosexuals and Communists of various ethnicities et cetera) in Europe.


Also, one must consider the sufferings of non-European peoples during WWII, such as the Chinese at the hands of Japanese imperialists. WWII didn't just happen in Europe.

[RGacky3]

(Jews and Arabs are of the same race physically after all),

I agree with your whole post, except Jews and Arabs are not totally the same race physically, some Jews are European, some are Arab, and so on. Arabic is'nt really a race perse, its a liquistic groups, but who cares, overall your right.

[ComradeMan]

I totally agree that its cheap political rhetoric, but its not anti-semitism, not at all.

Of course it is- it's aimed at "Zionists" specifically because they are Jews, and everyone knows that the Jews suffered (amongst others) at the hands of the Nazis, so are they being targetted because of Zionism or because of Jewishness? Especially in the light of the fact that Zionism is not really comparable to Nazism. The presence of racist bigots in Israel does not make Israelis de facto Nazis- or else everywhere is Nazi on that basis.

Why not compare them to Maoist China? I think there are indeed many parallels with Tibet.

[Queercommie Girl]

it's aimed at "Zionists" specifically because they are Jews,


No-one is doing that.



so are they being targetted because of Zionism or because of Jewishness?
Zionism of course, why do you even ask?



The presence of racist bigots in Israel does not make Israelis de facto Nazis- or else everywhere is Nazi on that basis.
No-one said that either. In fact, even in Nazi Germany itself, not all ethnic Germans were de facto Nazis either. There were still some progressive ethnic Germans at the time. The fact that a state becomes Nazi doesn't imply all of its ethnic citizens are Nazis too.



Why not compare them to Maoist China? I think there are indeed many parallels with Tibet.
Except Zionism was never a Marxist ideology and Israel was never a worker's state, deformed or not.

There was no mass migration of Han people into Tibet during Mao's era. That's something that's only beginning to happen in the post-Mao era.

The Maoist state, being Leninist, technically isn't even "Chinese", but a multi-ethnic Soviet state similar to the USSR created by Lenin.

Chinese nationalism today is more similar to Zionism (difference being that China is generally a much poorer country than Israel - China is a BRIC country while Israel is an advanced capitalist country, and China is an enemy of Western imperialism led by the US, while Israel is an ally of the West), but not Maoism.

Chinese nationalism today is largely bourgeois in character, but it's closer to Russian nationalism and Indian nationalism than it is to Western-style nationalisms, due to China's political and socio-economic status in the world. Israeli nationalism is closer to Western-style nationalisms such as British nationalism.

But I would agree that Zionism isn't really worse than many forms of Western-style nationalisms today, such as British nationalism or US nationalism.

[Queercommie Girl]

One of the better comparisons I've heard in terms of Israel is the early colonial USA.


Yes I agree that is a much better comparison than comparing Zionism to the Nazis. Israeli nationalism is much closer to US nationalism than it is to the nationalism of any other country.

[RGacky3]

Of course it is- it's aimed at "Zionists" specifically because they are Jews, and everyone knows that the Jews suffered (amongst others) at the hands of the Nazis, so are they being targetted because of Zionism or because of Jewishness? Especially in the light of the fact that Zionism is not really comparable to Nazism. The presence of racist bigots in Israel does not make Israelis de facto Nazis- or else everywhere is Nazi on that basis.

Why not compare them to Maoist China? I think there are indeed many parallels with Tibet.

Because Maoist China has much less of a shock value than Nazis do, and also because the Isreali state was founded as a response to the horrors of Nazism, but thats not anti-semitism, its not BECAUSE they are jews its BECAUSE they are oppressing the palestinians.

Its not anti-semitism, and its cheap political rhetoric to call it such.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Fascism doesn't start with the death camps.

No, but I specifically remember the early National Socialist party very vocal in their opposition to Jews. The tea party simply seems vocal in their opposition to government.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, but I specifically remember the early National Socialist party very vocal in their opposition to Jews. The tea party simply seems vocal in their opposition to government.

The Tea Party is actually also very Islamophobic, even though not on the same level as the anti-Semitism of the Nazis in the past.

[ComradeMan]

Except Zionism was never a Marxist ideology and Israel was never a worker's state, deformed or not..

I think you missed the point- calling Zionism "Nazism" makes as much sense as calling it Maoism... that was the point.

@Gacky- Does anyone call black African dictators who exploit their own people the new "Slavers"?

The point is this- given the history of the Jewish people and Israel, deliberately using the Nazi rhetoric against Israel when it is obvious there are few if any parallels with Nazi Germany is anti-semitic.

If there are no parallels with Nazi Germany, then why use the Nazi rhetoric?

[RedSunRising]

If there are no parallels with Nazi Germany, then why use the Nazi rhetoric?

Because zionism is extreme racial nationalism?

[ComradeMan]

Because zionism is extreme racial nationalism?

Except it's hard to define it as that- and also take a look at the "Zionist State" that err--- even has non-Zionists in its parliament. :rolleyes: But the problem with throwing ethnic nationalism around is that some of the so-called Palestinian groups haven't exactly got lily white credentials.:confused:

[agnixie]

No, but I specifically remember the early National Socialist party very vocal in their opposition to Jews. The tea party simply seems vocal in their opposition to government.

The Tea Party is anything and everything the right wants it to sound like. People like Beck and Buchanan are not "very vocal" about jews for the basic reason that they can't pull it off today (and yet they still manage to land a few hints), they're really really massively vocal about other minority groups, and they're certainly hugely vocal about muslims, or rather arabs, and often reusing the same barely disguised propaganda their grandfathers and fathers would have used against jews in the 30s.

[727Goon]

(Jews and Arabs are of the same race physically after all)

you think race is a significant physical reality and not just a social construct?

[Queercommie Girl]

I think you missed the point- calling Zionism "Nazism" makes as much sense as calling it Maoism... that was the point.


You were saying there are a lot of parallels between Zionism and Maoism.



deliberately using the Nazi rhetoric against Israel when it is obvious there are few if any parallels with Nazi Germany is anti-semitic.


I really don't think any regular member here on RevLeft is anti-Semitic, even if they associated Zionism with Nazism technically. It certainly isn't a deliberately anti-Semitic remark.

[Queercommie Girl]

you think race is a significant physical reality and not just a social construct?

No but then it's clear that the racism against Arabs by Jews is mainly based on religion and culture, rather than physical race as it is the case with white racism against Black Africans.

This makes sense since in many cases, it's difficult to tell Jews and Arabs apart from one another by appearance alone.

[Reznov]

No.

Zionism has relatively little in common with Nazism. Nazism has a fairly specific political and economic ideology that includes, centrally, a particular sort of anti-semitism related to the conflation of international finance capital, and communist conspiracy.

That's not to say that Zionism and Nazism have nothing in common, but almost every ideology has something in common with almost any other. Modern Zionism is a nationalist, materialistic, and to a degree even intrinsically racist ideology. This is true of the official or unofficial ideologies of almost all imperialist countries, in some cases to an even greater extent than in Israel. Israel's political culture in some sense has a lot more in common with that of other nascent settler states, like the United States around the time of confederation, than it does with an old imperialist country during a time of deep crisis, such as Nazi Germany.

I think it's really dangerous to evacuate Nazism of its economic and historical character. Doing so, among other things, makes superficial comparisons with Marxist movements which have had anti-colonial, militaristic, or nationalist elements all too easy - comparisons which are facile and politically reactionary. Nazism advocates and implements a whole series of policies that the Israeli state does not. Nazism actually did cause some considerable trouble for global financial capital and the dominant imperialist power, Britain (not to say it opposed capitalism or imperialism per se). Israel does the opposite.


No. A Nazi is not the same as a British imperialist is not the same as a Palestinian nationalist is not the same as a Basque nationalist, etc. Working class nationalists are not the same as bourgeois or petty bourgeois nationalists. Fascists are not the same as left nationalists. Anti-imperialist nationalists (racist or not) are not the same as imperialist nationalists. Politics isn't simple.

Woah, I think they just meant the same way the Nazis expressed their nationalism seems a lot similar to the Zionist Movement occuring today.

[Reznov]

And, why would you put a poll asking a question and then leaving the only answer as "No"?

It defeats the whole purpose imo.

[727Goon]

No but then it's clear that the racism against Arabs by Jews is mainly based on religion and culture, rather than physical race as it is the case with white racism against Black Africans.

This makes sense since in many cases, it's difficult to tell Jews and Arabs apart from one another by appearance alone.

Racism against black people is mainly based on culture too, as is every form of racism. The idea that that white supremacy in America is based on physical race and not culture is why some people think it's acceptable when racist ass white people say "I don't mind black people, I just hate ghetto culture" or "rap culture" or any other subtle version of the classic "I dont have a problem with black people, I just hate niggers".

[agnixie]

you think race is a significant physical reality and not just a social construct?

There is such a thing as lineage though, and some lineage groups do share some high-frequency physical characteristics (case in point: ashkenazim and higher risks of TSD). It's the social characteristics attributed to those by "race realists" which are false, along with the ethnocentric bullshit. And it's true that a lot of wasps have trouble differentiating jews (even ashkenazi) from arabs. Or any type of mediterranean from arabs, admittedly. Or really anyone who is slightly brown from arabs, so admittedly they're just idiots who think brown = terrorist. Ethnocultural bullshit on top is usually the more "modern" way to hide racism, instead of pretending to be scientific.

[RGacky3]

EVERY category, even animal classifications, aven the definition of life can be called a "social construct."

[Queercommie Girl]

Racism against black people is mainly based on culture too, as is every form of racism. The idea that that white supremacy in America is based on physical race and not culture is why some people think it's acceptable when racist ass white people say "I don't mind black people, I just hate ghetto culture" or "rap culture" or any other subtle version of the classic "I dont have a problem with black people, I just hate niggers".

Contemporary racism against blacks in the US is largely based on culture, but not racism against black people historically speaking, which was much more explicitly based on physical race.

[Queercommie Girl]

And, why would you put a poll asking a question and then leaving the only answer as "No"?

It defeats the whole purpose imo.

I think it was just a typo.

[Sasha]

I think it was just a typo.

Or someone messed with his poll and wonderd how long it would take people to notice.... :D

[ComradeMan]

You were saying there are a lot of parallels between Zionism and Maoism.

Well, I do think there are parallels between the situation of Palestine and Tibet to be honest, however, in spite of that- I was pointing out that saying Zionism is Nazism is as absurd as saying it is Maoism- similarities notwithstanding.

[727Goon]

Contemporary racism against blacks in the US is largely based on culture, but not racism against black people historically speaking, which was much more explicitly based on physical race.

historically speaking the idea of race as we think of it today has been around for like 200 years.

[tradeunionsupporter]

No I would not compare Zionism to Nazism.

[comradecommie]

Hmmm... Interesting thread. Although I agree with most of what you have said, I do not believe that is National Socialist. It is still oppressive but I would not go to the extent of saying that it is similar to Nazism.

[Queercommie Girl]

historically speaking the idea of race as we think of it today has been around for like 200 years.

I'd say more than 200 years, since it's present ever since the beginning of modern capitalism in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.

I'm making an objective point. I'm not saying "racism based on physical differences" is intrinsically worse than "racism based on culture", or indeed objectively more valid in any way at all, but this doesn't mean there aren't significant differences between them in the technical sense.

For instance, apartheid would be much more difficult to enforce in Israel hypothetically since many Jews and Palestinians look the same as each other, while whites and blacks in South Africa can always be distinguished based solely on physical features.

[ComradeMan]

I'd say more than 200 years, since it's present ever since the beginning of modern capitalism in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.

I'm making an objective point. I'm not saying "racism based on physical differences" is intrinsically worse than "racism based on culture", or indeed objectively more valid in any way at all, but this doesn't mean there aren't significant differences between them in the technical sense.

For instance, apartheid would be much more difficult to enforce in Israel hypothetically since many Jews and Palestinians look the same as each other, while whites and blacks in South Africa can always be distinguished based solely on physical features.


Apartheid in South Africa was not only based on physical features. I believe non-South African black people did not have restrictions on them and I read somewhere that whereas Chinese people were classed as non-white, Japanese people were "honourary" white people. :rolleyes:

[Queercommie Girl]

Apartheid in South Africa was not only based on physical features.


No, but it was significantly so.



I believe non-South African black people did not have restrictions on them


There were 3 categories, "white", "black" and "mixed". People like Chinese, Indians and Hispanics were considered to be "mixed" rather than "black". Obviously "mixed" people didn't get the kind of discrimination "black" people received in South Africa, but they were still treated worse than the "white" people.



and I read somewhere that whereas Chinese people were classed as non-white, Japanese people were "honourary" white people. :rolleyes:


Chinese people were classed as "mixed", like Indians and most other Asians.

It's not surprising that Japanese people were considered as "honourary Aryans" if one considers the fact that Imperial Japan was a very close ally of "Aryan" Nazi Germany during WWII.

[Tim Finnegan]

It's not surprising that Japanese people were considered as "honourary Aryans" if one considers the fact that Imperial Japan was a very close ally of "Aryan" Nazi Germany during WWII.
I think it probably has more to do with the fact that most Japanese people in South Africa would have been business people in the employ of Japanese corporations, and so whom the South African establishment would wish not to offend, rather than any sort of third-hand Nazi race theorising.

[progressive_lefty]

This is not one of revleft's greatest threads. My belief-> Israel occupies and controls Gaza and the West Bank and has done so since 1968, terrible human rights abuses are a daily occurence, Israel receives somewhat unquestionable support from many developed countries -> therefore I support Palestinian rights. I don't have enough time to discuss Zionism and whether it's this or whether it's that, Israel is occupying Gaza and West Bank and therefore I am outraged.

[ComradeMan]

I think it probably has more to do with the fact that most Japanese people in South Africa would have been business people in the employ of Japanese corporations, and so whom the South African establishment would wish not to offend, rather than any sort of third-hand Nazi race theorising.

LOL- that's why I put the rolling eyes emoticon! Let's think about 1970s China and Japan- who was the old South Africa more likely to want to keep on good terms with? ;) So all those theories of "race" go out the window when money comes into play- like I've always said in another example- racism towards Arabs exists in Europe, but not when they are oil-rich sheikhs booking into the top hotels and going to the races with royalty! ;) I'd say that most racism is not based on physical characteristics per se, even though those characteristics are often used vulgarly to target certain "races".

[RedRaptor]

Most of this targeting of Israel is lies made up by racists and antisemitics. Israel may have a few problems but I promise you, half the garbage is lies.

[ComradeMan]

SC-nYroSgAc



mc9DN2Oi0-w

[graffic]

Actually a more accurate comparison with Nazism would be the anti-zionism developed by the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab Moslem world. Hatred of Jews is at the core of Nazism. The Anti-Zionism developed by the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab Moslem world has exploited all of the features in the anti-semitic discourse. By an ironic twist of history, those who in the name of Islam claim to wage war on the West have appropriated its most loathsome product: hatred of Jews. Islamic fundamentalism currently represents one of the staunchest bastions of negationism, despite its having originated in Europe.

[hatzel]

I'm going to ignore graffic and return to CM's post before it...

I think it's interesting how the subtitle on the 'default' frame of the second video says "to my dismay the Israeli public at large supports the war"...very often people looking at conflicts involving states and imagine it's a matter of some monolithic entity coming up against another. They seem to forget about the millions of individuals who make up this leviathan, if we'll use Hobbesian terminology. Despite what some people might want to say, a state needs a certain amount of support from its people to go to war, not least to give themselves as soldiers, to cooperate in the war machine. Without cooperation, war would prove impossible.

So why do people cooperate? Plenty of reasons, I feel. During a conflict, however, particularly one of this nature, the 'justification' is obvious: siege mentality. Both sides are effectively drawn into a situation whereby they seem to believe that military action directed towards the other can be excused due to its retaliatory and defensive nature. From the Israeli side, for instance, many people will think of missiles hitting villages, and suicide bombs going off, and they may have even lost friends or relatives. The same is true on the other side of the divide, of course, but here the video is about Israel popular support for the military actions undertaken by the state, so I'll focus on that.

With this is mind, many people do fall into this idea, "they want to kill us, therefore it is just and necessary for us to kill them"; it's very difficult for people to suffer such injustice without being taken by the urge to avenge, even if just for defensive purposes. "If we kill them, they can't kill us," partly explaining Israeli popular support for the wars. This is a weak-willed conclusion to draw, though, for those on both sides. For somebody like me, who supports non-violent resistance etc., I notice the issue in everybody. For many, the statement "they attack us, we must defend ourselves and prevent further attack!" implies "they attack us, we must attack them!" Of course that is a narrow-minded viewpoint, and it succumbs to what I'll call 'guns or chains'. They are the options, apparently: either you take up arms or you remain in oppression. In this, people ignore the third option: neither guns nor chains!

To be honest, plenty of people are particularly hostile to this viewpoint, it seems. One need only look at the recent thread on pacifism in the theory section to see that very few people understand the first thing about non-violent resistance, yet still attack it as idiocy. Where does that perspective come from? Where does the accusation that non-violence is a centrist ideology come from? From adherence to the principle, 'guns or chains'. From the belief that there is literally no other option.

Me, I'll happily say: I oppose Palestinian military attacks, not least because I consider them to have contributed to the siege mentality prevalent in Israeli society, the idea "we must attack them, as they attack us", rather than "we must defend ourselves, as they attack us." The former is the easiest option to take, the latter requires a much stronger will, even if the latter is often supposed to imply the former. Despite this, admitting to opposing these attacks, thanks to that 'guns or chains' mentality, seems to result in the accusation that one supports the continuation of the occupation, without any thought of the existence of another possible way in which to end it. For example, the ideas outlined by Souad R. Dajani (http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1066_reg.html), something I could really throw my weight behind! Simultaneously, I oppose Israeli military attacks, not least for having the exact same effect on Palestinian society. All this is even without the very real problem of the deaths caused by military attacks on both sides, an issue which is deplorable.

I can't imagine how the situation would develop had there been no violence against Israel, most particularly against Israeli civilians. I can assume that the anti-war protests, along with the anti-war sentiment, would be much larger and more powerful, without the supposed 'need' to go to war to avert the risk of future attack. I'm sure it would be much easier to organise internal opposition to the war, popular strikes and so on to prevent the Israeli state from even being able to wage war in Palestine or elsewhere, if the opposition wasn't so significantly weakened by the widespread siege mentality resulting from the continuation and strengthening of the binary opposition between the two sides.

I feel I'm ranting. I'm doing it on purpose, to be honest. I'm sick and tired of "we must defend ourselves from them" being construed as "we must attack them", and I don't like perfectly legitimate statements, like "such attacks inevitably (or almost inevitably) result in retaliation with popular backing" being understood to confer support for that retaliation, despite it standing in direct opposition to the statement. I don't care whether people consider non-violent resistance to be stupid and naïve and destined to failure, but to use that opinion to recast my opinions into presupposed dichotomies, 'you're either for us or against us'...well, that's just dishonest.

[danyboy27]

Actually a more accurate comparison with Nazism would be the anti-zionism developed by the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab Moslem world. Hatred of Jews is at the core of Nazism. The Anti-Zionism developed by the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab Moslem world has exploited all of the features in the anti-semitic discourse. By an ironic twist of history, those who in the name of Islam claim to wage war on the West have appropriated its most loathsome product: hatred of Jews. Islamic fundamentalism currently represents one of the staunchest bastions of negationism, despite its having originated in Europe.


Its is grotesque to believe that nazism was only fuelled by the hatred of jews, beccause their core motivation of doing what they where doing was nationalism and romanticism.

Indeed the jews where killed by the millions and persecuted, but that was not exclusive, every non-german from a different cultural group was a potential target for their goal of purify and occupy their vital space.

[graffic]

Yes but it was very central to Nazi ideology. That the worlds problems were caused by Jews (Jewish bolshevism etc)

[danyboy27]

Yes but it was very central to Nazi ideology. That the worlds problems were caused by Jews (Jewish bolshevism etc)

the central point of the nazi ideology was that the world problem where caused by communist and capitalists.

[agnixie]

Yes but it was very central to Nazi ideology. That the worlds problems were caused by Jews (Jewish bolshevism etc)

Jews were scapegoated as a symbol of what they blamed, not what they blamed exclusively. It was also not just jews, every outsider group was aimed at. Finally your point is stupid anyway since it's based on taking Hamas or other religious anti-zionist groups and acting as if they're the only Pro-Palestinian groups, an easy enough mistake, but still.

Also I would say that the staunchest core of negationnism is the people who actually write that bullshit, which is mostly a core of white fash in the west, even if, yes, a lot of groups use it or political gain (and that's why I roll my eyes every time Hamas is pushed as the "one true resistance" of the palestinians).

[ComradeMan]

the central point of the nazi ideology was that the world problem where caused by communist and capitalists.

And the communists were part of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the west- according to the Nazis!

Let's not forget that the Nazis robbed a lot of property and money from Jewish people too, to help fund their "economic miracle". Although I wouldn't say that anti-semitism was the only tenet of Nazism, it would be foolish to deny it wasn't one of the main ones.