Any defense to Israel? [Archive]

Jimmie Higgins

10th July 2014, 03:23

Frankly I don't really care about Israelis or Palestinians.
Neither side really wants a resolution. Too much money involved.i'm fairly sure that Palestinian refugees and people who've lived in camps and precariously for a generation would love a resolution to their oppression. I'm pretty sure a good chuck of Israelis would love to live in peace (but unfortunately most have sided with the Zionist project as the only way to gain peace).

There are elite Palestinians who owe their position to being the brokers for the larger oppressed population, but they are just taking advantage of a situation they can not really change (like black elites in Jim-crow u.s. Who owed their positions to being the best able to curry favor from white elites). The ruling class of Israel could, in the abstract, potentially change the situation, but they have a class interest not too.

So I don't think it's a problem of "will" among people involved, but a problem of imperialism and more specifically colonization and settlement. Oppressing forces may be angry and hateful, oppressed forces may be angry and hateful, but in a power dynamic like that, saying "a pox on both houses" is giving a de facto pass to the status quo of the oppressors.

cyu

10th July 2014, 03:35

Grouping all Israelis or Palestinians together and calling them all equally good or evil is as much of an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy as any run-of-the-mill kind of racism. Even taking a single person and judging all actions in his life as equally good or evil is just as foolish.

Sasha

10th July 2014, 13:15

No defense, but an understanding yes, and a tragic reality too, So whats the point of this thread?

John Lennin

10th July 2014, 13:46

Defense against whom?
Against Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc.? - Yes.

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 13:50

Defense against whom?
Against Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc.? - Yes.

I support your stance, but don't do it, really. For your sanity's sake.

flaming bolshevik

10th July 2014, 14:13

To 68er (can't quote for some reason)
I mean like is there any sort of legitimate ideological defense to Israel 's existence and is there any for Zionism which to me, seems racist and almost fascistic ( can't think of other word for it).

Invader Zim

10th July 2014, 14:18

Defense against whom?
Against Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc.? - Yes.

While not wanting to minimise the individual tragedies and losses suffered by Israelis at the hands of Palestinian fighters, it is worth noting that Palestinian civillians are rather in greater need of protection than their Israeli counterparts:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e3w0CENldbA/UKkqSaCKYlI/AAAAAAAAPuU/vRlW5RMMeXo/s1600/graph+of+children+killed.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/uSE05.png

For a detailed breakdown of statistics see:

http://www.btselem.org/statistics

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 14:24

(A)

10th July 2014, 14:38

Wait defense for the state of Israel or the people?

I mean the state is as fucked up as any other capitalist, exploitative and nationalist nation.

Generally people just want to be safe. They ask this of there state who then turns around and causes more war.

Invader Zim

10th July 2014, 14:38

Israel has the better defense equipment and they don't use their own children as human shields. The same goes with women. I'm not saying in any way that there aren't sadistic assholes in the IDF, as in any army, but there is no official command to kill civilians.

Wait, so it has nothing to do with the IDF's well documented policy of collective punishment, and allowing the trigger happy IDF to act with impunity (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/002/2014/en/349188ef-e14a-418f-ac20-6c9e5c8d9f88/mde150022014en.pdf)? Rather it is the Palestinians putting their loved ones in the line of fire?

I see.

Victim blaming much?

Per Levy

10th July 2014, 14:42

John Lennin

10th July 2014, 14:43

I mean like is there any sort of legitimate ideological defense to Israel 's existence
Yes. And its pretty simple: Israel is needed as state of the jewish people where they can live in peace without any antisemitism.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th July 2014, 14:49

Invader Zim

10th July 2014, 14:54

Arguing about the ideological rights and wrongs of the creation of Israel is a waste of time. You might as well argue about the rights and wrongs of the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 for all the good it will do you or the situation. Israel exists and nothing is going to change that short of a mutual war of destruction which Israel loses or a revolutionary shift in the global body politic.

The issue is about the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians now.

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 15:02

Wait, so it has nothing to do with the IDF's well documented policy of collective punishment, and allowing the trigger happy IDF to act with impunity (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/002/2014/en/349188ef-e14a-418f-ac20-6c9e5c8d9f88/mde150022014en.pdf)? Rather it is the Palestinians putting their loved ones in the line of fire?

I see.

Victim blaming much?

yeah, victim blaming, apart from the fact that the Hamas charta seeks for the killing of Jews for the sake of an Islamic state, that alone in this year, 4 times more rockets have been fired on Israel than in 2013 as a whole, that the death of 3 Israeli boys was cheered by the Hamas and their fans in Gaza while Israel is seeking to find the people that killed the Palestinian boy and the whole German media went nuts like "this was a logical consequence of Israel's politics". THIS is REAL victim blaming.

Connolly1916

10th July 2014, 15:03

Yes. And its pretty simple: Israel is needed as state of the jewish people where they can live in peace without any antisemitism.

Shame they have to displace, torture and murder an indigenous people to do so. And since when do revolutionaries not support complete seperation of church and state?

flaming bolshevik

10th July 2014, 15:03

To invader zim: that's true. What can the left do about any of it though?

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 15:08

well, she is an anti-german, so yeah, isreal pretty much cant do wrong in that respect.

that's why I mentioned several times that settlement activity needs a drastic change and that Netanyahu is a dickhead in several respects. And that no state is impeccale and morally flawless, Israel is nothing different in that matter. Israel is just different in the matter that is a state that grants protection in an extremly hostile environment.

consuming negativity

10th July 2014, 15:15

The fact that the military doesn't have a standing order to murder civilians doesn't mean anything if civilians get murdered anyhow. That's some empty bourgeois legalistic handwaving.

People who try to defend Hamas' targeting of civilians are just as bad as IDF apologists in my opinion, the whole situation is disgusting and makes me want to stick my head in the sand to be honest.

I thought the first paragraph of this was much more thoughtful than the second one. It is that sort of logic that makes people into democratic socialists because they oppose killing, as if their opposition changes reality or makes it less necessary. Hamas kills civilians out of perceived necessity, while the IDF does it out of spite and anger. For Hamas it is a tactic to be used because they have little recourse against an enemy which is superior to them, militarily speaking, in every respect. These tactics on behalf of the IDF are used unnecessarily out of spite and hatred to support an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. And when it isn't tactical, it is soldiers on thw ground being cruel for their own sake which is not necessarily policy. They are fundamentally different types of violence to different ends. This cannot be ignored, as much as attempts at oversimplification of this conflict are constantly being pushed. I am sympathetic towards groups like this not to support it when they murder but out of recognition that the logic being used carries a lot more weight in their situation. The demonization of guerrilla tactics does not serve the revolutionary left well, nor does it serve well the interests of those for whom non-conventional warfare is a necessity.

John Lennin

10th July 2014, 15:17

Btw. Israel is not a state like every other. It's a f*cking warzone.
War with islamic terrorists. Plus cold war with Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc.

And since when do revolutionaries not support complete seperation of church and state?
"Jewish people" not "jews".

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 15:24

oh the first Hamas apologists arrived in this thread. This reminded me why I didn't want to read threads with "Israel" in the headline anymore. Now I know.

Hermes

10th July 2014, 15:28

Invader Zim

10th July 2014, 15:29

yeah, victim blaming, apart from the fact that the Hamas charta seeks for the killing of Jews for the sake of an Islamic state, that alone in this year, 4 times more rockets have been fired on Israel than in 2013 as a whole, that the death of 3 Israeli boys was cheered by the Hamas and their fans in Gaza while Israel is seeking to find the people that killed the Palestinian boy and the whole German media went nuts like "this was a logical consequence of Israel's politics". THIS is REAL victim blaming.

You know that in the last five years, until May 2014, that the IDF have killed 84 Palestinian minors? In the same period, given that we are discussing children, the Palestinian's killed five Israeli minors.

Yes, it was a terrible, cruel and mallicious act of murder that was the killing of those teens, but what about the Palestinian minor killed every few weeks for the last five years? What about the 345 Palestinian minors killed in just 22 days during Operation Cast Lead? What about the 952 Palestinian minors killed by the IDF between January 2000 and December 2008? And you wonder why Palestinian's fire rockets?

If you want to talk about those three dead boys, then I'll just hve to post this again:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e3w0CENldbA/UKkqSaCKYlI/AAAAAAAAPuU/vRlW5RMMeXo/s1600/graph+of+children+killed.jpg

Why do the lives of Israeli minors count more, in your eyes, than Palestinian life?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th July 2014, 15:34

I thought the first paragraph of this was much more thoughtful than the second one. It is that sort of logic that makes people into democratic socialists because they oppose killing, as if their opposition changes reality or makes it less necessary. Hamas kills civilians out of perceived necessity, while the IDF does it out of spite and anger. For Hamas it is a tactic to be used because they have little recourse against an enemy which is superior to them, militarily speaking, in every respect. These tactics on behalf of the IDF are used unnecessarily out of spite and hatred to support an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. And when it isn't tactical, it is soldiers on thw ground being cruel for their own sake which is not necessarily policy. They are fundamentally different types of violence to different ends. This cannot be ignored, as much as attempts at oversimplification of this conflict are constantly being pushed. I am sympathetic towards groups like this not to support it when they murder but out of recognition that the logic being used carries a lot more weight in their situation. The demonization of guerrilla tactics does not serve the revolutionary left well, nor does it serve well the interests of those for whom non-conventional warfare is a necessity.

Hamas has said that all Israelis are legitimate targets, I hate using this phrase, but that is an objectively reactionary position. Murdering civilians will never be a legitimate tactic, not for a state and not for a moment with aspirations of becoming a state. You can handwave just like the IDF apologists all day long and it won't change anything, you're all in the same boat as far as I can tell.

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 15:35

doesn't the current state of israel function to kill palestinians for the sake of a jewish state?

what's the difference in casualties in re: to israeli bombing and palestinian?

isn't it a little disingenuous to bemoan 'the death of 3 israeli boys [being] cheered by the hamas and their fans in gaza' while not even mentioning the casualties that have been meted out by israel and their supporters?

I guess you know that if Israel wanted an entirely Jewish state with no Arabs left, they could commit a genocide in less than 3 days. However, birth statistics in Gaza provide a somehow different picture. The IDF has several tactics how to warn people in civilian areas when these live nearby to Hamas activits that ought to be attacked, be if leaflets, phone calls, whatever, you can google this, while Hamas is deliberately seeking to kill Israeli civilians.

Comrade Jacob

10th July 2014, 15:37

Rosa, just a question: Do you support Israel more than you would just because you think it strengthens your hatred of Germany?
Or was that a cheeky question?

consuming negativity

10th July 2014, 15:40

Hamas has said that all Israelis are legitimate targets, I hate using this phrase, but that is an objectively reactionary position. Murdering civilians will never be a legitimate tactic, not for a state and not for a moment with aspirations of becoming a state. You can handwave just like the IDF apologists all day long and it won't change anything, you're all in the same boat as far as I can tell.

Don't take this as an acceptance of your argument since I am not refuting it, but why? What is the difference between killing someone who signed up for service and their friends or family at home? If I could kill ten civilians and save an entire army, why wouldn't I? I don't mean to declare open game on everyone to just shoot em up, but I think it is intellectually irresponsible to declare something entirely, always off limits regardless of the circumstances. Of course Hamas are reactionaries. As is the state of Israel. But if our analysis stops there, then it isn't a serious analysis.

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 15:42

You know that in the last five years, until May 2014, that the IDF have killed 84 Palestinian minors? In the same period, given that we are discussing children, the Palestinian's killed five Israeli minors.

Yes, it was a terrible, cruel and mallicious act of murder that was the killing of those teens, but what about the Palestinian minor killed every few weeks for the last five years? What about the 345 Palestinian minors killed in just 22 days during Operation Cast Lead? What about the 952 Palestinian minors killed by the IDF between January 2000 and December 2008? And you wonder why Palestinian's fire rockets?

If you want to talk about those three dead boys, then I'll just hve to post this again:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e3w0CENldbA/UKkqSaCKYlI/AAAAAAAAPuU/vRlW5RMMeXo/s1600/graph+of+children+killed.jpg

Why do the lives of Israeli minors count more, in your eyes, than Palestinian life?

this is exactly what I said, right? I hate Arabs and think that Jews are some supremacist race. Exactly that. Just show me that line please.

As I've already told you, and this is my last post in this thread, Hamas instrumentalizes their own children in a highly unfair way. They used to surround themselves with children while firing at IDF soldiers. Some years ago, Israel wanted some Hamas Terrorist to leave his house, but plenty of women and children went out instead, and guess what, they cancelled the airstrike, which Hamas saw as confirmation for their human shield tactics, one of their leaders was like "now we know how to stop them".

Hermes

10th July 2014, 15:45

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 15:45

Rosa, just a question: Do you support Israel more than you would just because you think it strengthens your hatred of Germany?
Or was that a cheeky question?

it's perfectly fine to ask. I don't support Israel in a sense that I go like "they are flawless", I see the state of Israel as necessary in the given context of history, geopolitics and stuff, recognizing that they have the same weaknesses and fallacies every state has. The Holocaust is only one of several reasons I hate Germany, the whole WC reminds me perfectly of why I think that this state and a majority of their inhabitants suck.

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 15:51

I didn't say they wanted an entirely jewish state, just a jewish one. I'm just not sure how your position isn't supporting the killing of palestinians for a jewish state, which would be what you're railing against in that post.

again, though, how effective do those tactics appear to be? on both sides?

If Israel wanted an entirely jewish state, I don't think that arab Israelis could lead such a great life there. I know one, he told me Israel is the only state in Middle East where he could live the way he does now. He couldn't even live that way in an arab state where he would belong to a majority in terms of religion. He went to the IDF, although he wasn't obliged and he was allowed to open his own business and become self-employed. He lives in Haifa, he lived in Tel Aviv before that and it's never been a problem that he's Arab. Unfortunately, I don't understand your last question. Pls elaborate on it.

Five Year Plan

10th July 2014, 15:58

Israel has the better defense equipment and they don't use their own children as human shields.

Did I just read a post on revleft, or a press release from the Israeli government?

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 16:01

Did I just read a post on revleft, or a press release from the Israeli government?

I get paid by the IDF to share pro-zionist propaganda on leftist boards. C'mon join us, they pay you way more than those poor anti-imp hippies could ever afford.

Hermes

10th July 2014, 16:04

If Israel wanted an entirely jewish state, I don't think that arab Israelis could lead such a great life there. I know one, he told me Israel is the only state in Middle East where he could live the way he does now. He couldn't even live that way in an arab state where he would belong to a majority in terms of religion. He went to the IDF, although he wasn't obliged and he was allowed to open his own business and become self-employed. He lives in Haifa, he lived in Tel Aviv before that and it's never been a problem that he's Arab. Unfortunately, I don't understand your last question. Pls elaborate on it.

I don't know why you brought up 'entirely jewish state' again.

how effective are hamas' tactics, and how effective are israels? both in terms of their military and the actions of its accepted citizens? I don't know how one can (or why one would) support the state of israel without supporting its actions against civilians, whether that be through casualty/death, or demolition/bombardment of homes, etc

to support israel, even in the sense of 'recognizing that they have the same weaknesses and fallacies ever state has', seems to be an almost deliberate attempt to minimize or excuse the atrocities committed against palestinians

consuming negativity

10th July 2014, 16:06

I get paid by the IDF to share pro-zionist propaganda on leftist boards. C'mon join us, they pay you way more than those poor anti-imp hippies could ever afford.

I could be ten times the Israeli shill than FYP could ever be. Are there benefits, too? Hit me up!

Five Year Plan

10th July 2014, 16:12

I get paid by the IDF to share pro-zionist propaganda on leftist boards. C'mon join us, they pay you way more than those poor anti-imp hippies could ever afford.

Something like that must be going, or you're the sorriest excuse for a leftist this site has ever seen (including the trolls).

Anybody has done even a minimal amount of research into the history of the way the Israeli Occupation is run, incursions into refugee camps are carried out, is aware of the fact that the IDF gives tacit approval and blanket immunity, under the guise of the very language you have used in this thread, to the targeting of anybody. When the IDF goes in, the understanding (never officially stated or recorded) is that there are no Palestinian civilians.

There are documented examples of old men in wheelchairs, with white flag ties to their wheelchairs, being mowed down. The only people who disagree with this are lackeys for the Israeli government and its imperialist accomplices. The rest of the world knows better, and that includes even the most milquetoast of liberals.

The "Palestinians use children as human shields argument" is not only demonstrably a false rationale for explaining the fact that thousands of more Palestinian minors are killed than Israeli (I can cite case after case where such minors were unaccompanied and unarmed, but were killed nevertheless). It also raises questions about your PR skills. Don't you know that talking point only works with people who already accept your premise that Palestinians are animals who lack even basic human emotions and concern for children? You know: places where people are subtly conditioned from an early age to accept that Palestinians aren't worth as much as Israelis, or are somehow less than human altogether.

These places are generally evangelical churches and right-wing Israeli schools, not Revleft.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

10th July 2014, 16:24

Something like that must be going, or you're the sorriest excuse for a leftist this site has ever seen (including the trolls).

I think Rosa has admitted to not being a communist at all. I do not know why it sticks around. Just to be a nuisance, I suppose.

And now, look - we've got a further nutty fucking german prick here with this 68er arsehole. Fucking ban die linkes & anti-german dregs.

Rosa Partizan

10th July 2014, 16:33

Sasha

10th July 2014, 16:48

OI! no calling each other names, keep it civil, verbal warning!

Thirsty Crow

10th July 2014, 17:11

I guess you know that if Israel wanted an entirely Jewish state with no Arabs left, they could commit a genocide in less than 3 days. However, birth statistics in Gaza provide a somehow different picture. The IDF has several tactics how to warn people in civilian areas when these live nearby to Hamas activits that ought to be attacked, be if leaflets, phone calls, whatever, you can google this, while Hamas is deliberately seeking to kill Israeli civilians.
Do you really believe in this? That a modern nation-state is actually capable of a swift genocide?
The mere fact of the state system, with its concomitant international law and political/ideological standards actually makes this argument a bad, bad joke. Fortunately, no it is entirely impossible to carry out any such plan even if some factions of the Israeli ruling class indeed did come up with it.

And also this:

If Israel wanted an entirely jewish state, I don't think that arab Israelis could lead such a great life there. I know one, he told me Israel is the only state in Middle East where he could live the way he does now.

I'm unsure if you're aware of the underlying logic behind such an argument and how damn close it is to "I'm not a racist, I have a black friend who moreover says he has it great in their life".

The make up of the states vowed to oppose Israel is irrelevant to the broader argument concerning the settler dynamics and effects upon the Arab Palestinian population; and that argument, I think, definitely holds. I don't believe there can even be a chance for a reasonable assessment if one skirts this issue in all sorts of ways.

DOOM

10th July 2014, 17:23

Yes, absolutely. In fact, there are 6 million reasons to defend Israel's right to exist.
But I guess Israel's taking advantage of the Holocaust, amiriteguise?

Five Year Plan

10th July 2014, 17:27

Yes, absolutely. In fact, there are 6 million reasons to defend Israel's right to exist.
But I guess Israel's taking advantage of the Holocaust, amiriteguise?

There's so much substance to this post that it's hard to disagree with it!

DOOM

10th July 2014, 17:33

There's so much substance to this post that it's hard to disagree with it!

I don't want to sound rude but this whole thread is substanceless. Bashing, namecalling, lack of proper analysis, ignoring historical context and obvious antipathy towards Israel (probably caused by antisemitism). This is not the way one approaches such a subject.
But this isn't the first time, this happens every now and then. The left is just incapable of discussing Israel without getting emotional and sentimental.

DOOM

10th July 2014, 17:42

I think Rosa has admitted to not being a communist at all. I do not know why it sticks around. Just to be a nuisance, I suppose.

And now, look - we've got a further nutty fucking german prick here with this 68er arsehole. Fucking ban die linkes & anti-german dregs.

Besides your pathetic approach to discredit Rosa, I just might want to remind you that there is no reason to ban "Die Linkes" (cuz all Linkes are teh same guise, amirite?) and anti-germans, as "zionism" and anti-germanism aren't even mentioned in your rules. In fact, anti-semitism is, which would mean that a fairly great part of the users should get banned. But the left's pathetic approach to analyse antisemitism is a story for another time.

Duh, I've sworn to never participate in discussions about Israel again. And yet I'm doing it again. FML

Trap Queen Voxxy

10th July 2014, 17:42

If the Israelis would just accept Islam and make Israel Palestine, I think there would be peace in the middle earth. Idunoo.

Thirsty Crow

10th July 2014, 17:44

Besides your pathetic approach to discredit Rosa, I just might want to remind you that there is no reason to ban "Die Linkes" (cuz all Linkes are teh same guise, amirite?) and anti-germans, as "zionism" and anti-germanism aren't even mentioned in your rules. In fact, anti-semitism is, which would mean that a fairly great part of the users should get banned. But the left's pathetic approach to analyse antisemitism is a story for another time.
You really shouldn't complain about "pathetic" attempts at personal discrediting and then proceed to conclude that a "fairly great part of the users" should be banned on grounds of anti-semitism. It's completely hypocritical.

So, yeah. If you want to go ahead, let's see some evidence and names.

Five Year Plan

10th July 2014, 17:48

I don't want to sound rude but this whole thread is substanceless. Bashing, namecalling, lack of proper analysis, ignoring historical context and obvious antipathy towards Israel (probably caused by antisemitism). This is not the way one approaches such a subject.
But this isn't the first time, this happens every now and then. The left is just incapable of discussing Israel without getting emotional and sentimental.

There are a number of substantive points people have made: that Israel is a settler-colonialist state backed by imperialist powers; that the deaths of Palestinian minors at the hands of the Israeli military far outnumbers the deaths of Israeli minors at the hands of Palestinians; that there is a deliberate strategy on the part of the Israeli PR machine to pretend that these deaths are the result of unethical, almost subhuman practices on the part of Palestinians, when in fact they are the result of the culture of the Israeli military, which tacitly approves of the notion that there are no Palestinian civilians; that the fear of an anti-Israeli "genocide" is impossible in light of the configuration of power in the world state system.

There are many, many other substantive points that have been made. That you choose to pretend that these points don't exist is, I can only guess, the result of the fact that you have no serious response to make, and instead just trollishly mention the Holocaust.

DOOM

10th July 2014, 18:01

You really shouldn't complain about "pathetic" attempts at personal discrediting and then proceed to conclude that a "fairly great part of the users" should be banned on grounds of anti-semitism. It's completely hypocritical.

So, yeah. If you want to go ahead, let's see some evidence and names.

There's a difference between saying that "User x is an antisemite" and saying "many users are antisemites". I haven't discredited anyone directly and I'm not going to do this, I just stated that anti-semitism is fairly common on this board.
For example, the myth that Israel's taking advantage of the Holocaust. This is called secondary antisemitism. Then there's the statement that "Israel is just as bad as Nazi Germany", which is completely degrading the holocaust, relativising german guilt and putting the Israelis in the position of Nazi-like monsters, without ANY empiric argument to uphold this. The very fact that anti-zionism - the sole rejection of a jewish state - is considered "revolutionary" here, is really frightening.

Thirsty Crow

10th July 2014, 18:29

There's a difference between saying that "User x is an antisemite" and saying "many users are antisemites". I haven't discredited anyone directly and I'm not going to do this, I just stated that anti-semitism is fairly common on this board.There is a difference.
The former might be seen as consistently voicing your opinions up to the point where you legitimately name names since, after all, anti-semitism is what it is and is grounds for a ban.

The latter, what you seem to be doing, seems like a dishonest rhetorical tactic and nothing more.

For example, the myth that Israel's taking advantage of the Holocaust. This is called secondary antisemitism.This is called bullshit.

The argument about the exploitation of the historical memory of the Holocaust is something that can be substantiated and shown to work in one way or another.

But this notion of secondary antisemitism a priori rejects the possibility that the contemporary ideological apparatus of the Israeli state might engage in such ideological moves. Which is absurd.

So, yeah. No wonder you'd be able to conclude that since your idea of what constitutes antisemitism is so broad as to verge on the utterly absurd.

Then there's the statement that "Israel is just as bad as Nazi Germany", which is completely degrading the holocaust, relativising german guilt and putting the Israelis in the position of Nazi-like monsters, without ANY empiric argument to uphold this. Of course that such absurd value statements don't actually have any empirical foundation. And you're right that such arguments are severly flawed. I for one don't think they have any place in a critical engagement with the situation.

The very fact that anti-zionism - the sole rejection of a jewish state - is considered "revolutionary" here, is really frightening.You got it wrong.
Anti-Zionism isn't considered revolutionary on its own, but is seen as an integral part of the politics of the revolutionary left. This actually means that it isn't the case that it represents "the sole rejection of a Jewish state" - as it is far besides the point that it is Hebrews that live there, the point being the settler practices and ethnic cleansing. Thus the opposition to Israel is not at all uncommon as the basic position of the revolutionary left is the opposition to all nation-states (with obvious implications that in the current state of affairs some are specific insofar as they act in such a manner - like Israel does - that involves the need for particular scrutiny) and as such, the implications are decidedly not antisemitic but that of the need for working class fraternization across borders and religious/national divides.

Something that goes against both the Israeli ruling class and their interests and the likes of Hamas (though I do not deny that, very far from it, that so called anti-imperialists do indeed engage in apologia for political Islam and such formations; the difference being I don't consider it useful to claim it is because of antisemitism necessarily, but it may well be so)

I view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with its problem of "state solutions" completely in this light of conditions favorable for working class fraternization and elimination of said divisions.
That's to say that I do not know and do not wish to claim I know what actual course of action is preferable; I simply don't know enough for that, connected to the simple fact I don't experience such existential situation. I don't live there.
This is a kind of "methodological" statement.

But according to this ridiculous idea of "secondary antisemitism", I'm actually antisemitic since I do claim there are clear instances of exploiting said historical memory as an ideological tool used in justifying and normalizing all sorts of horrid stuff.

So you actually did manage to move beyond the "there's a ton of antisemites here" to identifying one. Congrats.

EDIT: I googled this thing about secondary antisemitism. Here's wikipedia:

Adorno, in a 1959 lecture titled "Was bedeutet: Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit" (published in his 1963 book Eingriffe. Neun kritische Modelle.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_antisemitism#cite_note-Adorno-6)) addressed the fallacy of the broad German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) post-war tendency to associate and simultaneously causally link Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew) with the Holocaust. According to Adorno's critique, an opinion had been readily accepted in Germany according to which the Jewish people were culpable in the crimes against them. Jewish guilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_guilt) was assumed to varying extents, depending on the varying incarnations of that antisemitic notion, one of which is the idea that Jews were (and are) exploiting German guilt over the Holocaust.If the notion of Jewish "culpability" in the case of the Holocaust is an integral part of the concept, then you're horribly dishonest in your application of it as you patently failed to take Jewish culpability for the Holocaust into account, and that idea is nowhere to be found in claims of ideological exploitation.

And to be really clear, I do see value in this concept but not in your use of it. It was primarily used, from what I can gather, to refer to views that implicated the Jewish populations of Europe in responsibility for the atrocities committed; as such it is an obvious case of victim blaming and hugely, deeply problematic. But another thing that is deeply problematic are these dishonest insinuations that members of this board do exactly this.

#FF0000

10th July 2014, 18:49

I'm still struggling to understand how the Holocaust justifies Israel's atrocities. I understand not supporting Hamas and that, but support for Israel is support for ethnic nationalism and racist violence on a mass scale. Also the hand-wringing over Hamas and Jihadists is patently absurd considering Israel outright supported Hamas in Palestine to weaken secular nationalists.

obvious antipathy towards Israel (probably caused by antisemitism).

No, it's caused by the same things as my antipathy for America, and yours for Germany.

Thirsty Crow

10th July 2014, 18:54

I'm still struggling to understand how the Holocaust justifies Israel's atrocities. I understand not supporting Hamas and that, but support for Israel is support for ethnic nationalism and racist violence on a mass scale.That's besides the supposed point.
The supposed point being that when one points out the ideological moves of the Israeli state apparatus one necessarily engages in claims about the scheming Jews playing on the guilt card, with the complementary argument that this also involves blaming Jews, to some extent, for the Holocaust.

Which is patent nonsense.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th July 2014, 18:59

Don't take this as an acceptance of your argument since I am not refuting it, but why? What is the difference between killing someone who signed up for service and their friends or family at home? If I could kill ten civilians and save an entire army, why wouldn't I? I don't mean to declare open game on everyone to just shoot em up, but I think it is intellectually irresponsible to declare something entirely, always off limits regardless of the circumstances. Of course Hamas are reactionaries. As is the state of Israel. But if our analysis stops there, then it isn't a serious analysis.

I don't know, basic self interest? If we follow your logic, then what exactly is the basis of your opposition to the IDF pulping an entire block in Gaza just to kill one Hamas operative? What the IDF and Hamas do makes perfect sense from a military standpoint, the thing is, military priorities are at odds with human priorities. What's good for the US army for instance is generally pretty fucking bad for any humans in the area, and is generally bad for the people at home too, regardless of whether they care to notice or not. Opposition to militarism is a pretty standed part of radical politics, its strange to have to explain it here.

Invader Zim

10th July 2014, 19:03

(probably caused by antisemitism)

Is pointing out that virtually every independent human rights organisation which has examined the conflict has ruled that the Israeli state commits human rights abuses, and subjects Palestinian's to collective punishment (both illegal under international law), antisemitic? Is noting that the death tally and destruction wrought at the hands of the IDF, both qualitatively and quantitatively, more damaging than that of the Palestinian militants, antisemitic? Is noting that the number of Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF exceeds the number of Israeli's killed by Palestinian militants by an entire order of magnitude, and then some, antisemitic? Is noting that the Israeli press and officialdom's public outrage at the capture and murder of three Israeli teenagers difficult to accept at face value, given that since the year 2000 that for every Israeli child killed by Palestinian militants the IDF kills 33 Palestinian children, because these same bodies support Israel's violent policies which slaughter children, antisemitic?

Or is it simply that if a poster recognises that Israeli policy is: murderous; in contravention of human rights laws; but also in contravention of basic human dignity; what makes members of this board antisemitic?

consuming negativity

10th July 2014, 19:23

I don't know, basic self interest? If we follow your logic, then what exactly is the basis of your opposition to the IDF pulping an entire block in Gaza just to kill one Hamas operative? What the IDF and Hamas do makes perfect sense from a military standpoint, the thing is, military priorities are at odds with human priorities. What's good for the US army for instance is generally pretty fucking bad for any humans in the area, and is generally bad for the people at home too, regardless of whether they care to notice or not. Opposition to militarism is a pretty standed part of radical politics, its strange to have to explain it here.

This destroyed an argument that I did not make. My support or lack thereof for an action is based on the specifics of the situation. Your position is based on a duality between civilians and military personnel that does not exist. I would not condemn an Israeli nor Hamas fighter killing the armed combatants against them because it is reasonable for someone to kill someone trying to kill them, not because their lives are somehow worth less because they joined the military. Likewise, I condemn the targeting of civilian locations in Lebanon by the IDF because they posed no threat and accomplished little for their goals, amounting to wanton murder writ large.

While means cannot be separated from the ends, that certain means bring about wholly different ends precludes me from making uncritical blanket statements about actions out of context. Yes, I can say that killing is often bad, but sometimes it isn't. What if an IDF soldier saw a Hamas man raping a woman and shot him, would we hold that action as the moral equal to that of another IDF soldier who shot a man just to watch him die? Of course not. But both could be considered "killing civilians". Your terminology here is vague and useless in a practical sense. It is essentially the parroting of bourgeois moral heuristics which preclude you from observing nuance through an elaborate doublethink which lets you claim to support life by taking it, and lets you claim to value life by devaluing it. It is this nonsensical morality that states such as Israel use to justify their criminal acts, and I reject it wholly.

PhoenixAsh

10th July 2014, 19:32

proper analysis:

Hamas would not exist if it weren't for the violent expansion of Zionist terrorist settlers intent on creating a nation state based on exclusive socio-economic ethnical and religious identity, ideology and character imposed on people who can and will never fit this character.

proper analysis:

Legitimizing the expulsion and subjugation of other people based on the fact of prosecution in another region is problematic. It for example...completely legitimizes the ethnic cleansing of native Americans by the protestant colonial settlers.

proper analysis:

There is only 1 legitmate argument in favor of the state of Israel and taht is the question of the emerged "fait a complis" in absense of a viable solution.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th July 2014, 20:02

This destroyed an argument that I did not make. My support or lack thereof for an action is based on the specifics of the situation. Your position is based on a duality between civilians and military personnel that does not exist. I would not condemn an Israeli nor Hamas fighter killing the armed combatants against them because it is reasonable for someone to kill someone trying to kill them, not because their lives are somehow worth less because they joined the military. Likewise, I condemn the targeting of civilian locations in Lebanon by the IDF because they posed no threat and accomplished little for their goals, amounting to wanton murder writ large.

While means cannot be separated from the ends, that certain means bring about wholly different ends precludes me from making uncritical blanket statements about actions out of context. Yes, I can say that killing is often bad, but sometimes it isn't. What if an IDF soldier saw a Hamas man raping a woman and shot him, would we hold that action as the moral equal to that of another IDF soldier who shot a man just to watch him die? Of course not. But both could be considered "killing civilians". Your terminology here is vague and useless in a practical sense. It is essentially the parroting of bourgeois moral heuristics which preclude you from observing nuance through an elaborate doublethink which lets you claim to support life by taking it, and lets you claim to value life by devaluing it. It is this nonsensical morality that states such as Israel use to justify their criminal acts, and I reject it wholly.

I don't think that your example is applicable to what I'm saying. Hamas is firing unguided rockets into civilian areas and then making statements that all Israelis are targets, how is this in any way different from the IDF's tactics of collective punishment? Its exactly the same, Hamas just has a shittier arsenal. You're trying to pretend that morality isn't part of your support for Palestinians but thats total bullshit, how could opposition to the occupatation be anything other than moral? If we take morality out of it, then why does it even matter what group of people inhabit that tiny sliver of land on our shitty little backwater planet that the universe won't miss when it's absorbed by the sun in the few billion years? Why shouldn't Israel just wipe out the Palestinians? There's no way to remove morality from this topic and the attempt to do so looks like a ridiculous caricature of Marxist politics.

Five Year Plan

10th July 2014, 20:04

PhoenixAsh

10th July 2014, 20:14

Lets all conveniently gloss over the origins of modern Zionism in eugenic and racial purity theory and how this has been used in official Israeli government politics in order to create a superiority narrative of Jews of European decent vs those of Arabic (you know...those Jews living there before 1930 :rolleyes:) and African decent so much so that the last two groups were seen by the Health Ministry as a threat to the health and vitality of Israel and the Jewish race because of genetic inferiority and impurity.

Little known fact.

But always fun to counter pose to the Holocaust and anti-semitism arguments.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th July 2014, 20:23

Well, for starters, you have analyze tactics in the context in which they are deployed. So you can't just say that the Israeli government and Hamas do the same thing, you have to weigh and analyze the situations against which those same tactics are actually being deployed.

The context doesn't mean shit to the person getting a rocket or say phosphorous dropped on them, and thats my point. The politics of the situation are bullshit and I reject them from the get go, I don't support the Israeli state and I don't support the would-be Hamas state. I support communism and am generally hostile towards murder as I would hope most revolutionaries would be.

Sasha

10th July 2014, 21:13

Hamas was funded by the Mossad for the Israeli state for a reason, its a symbiotic relationship.
Pretty funny that those who would be the first to piss on the Muslimbrotherhood and the Zionists would cheer their lovechild. Let's play anti-imp cognitive-dissonance bingo...

Sasha

10th July 2014, 21:15

Good piece from Gideon Levi: http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.604082?v=A3E45A05832688CD99ADA8EC4FB638F4

consuming negativity

10th July 2014, 21:30

I don't think that your example is applicable to what I'm saying. Hamas is firing unguided rockets into civilian areas and then making statements that all Israelis are targets, how is this in any way different from the IDF's tactics of collective punishment? Its exactly the same, Hamas just has a shittier arsenal. You're trying to pretend that morality isn't part of your support for Palestinians but thats total bullshit, how could opposition to the occupatation be anything other than moral? If we take morality out of it, then why does it even matter what group of people inhabit that tiny sliver of land on our shitty little backwater planet that the universe won't miss when it's absorbed by the sun in the few billion years? Why shouldn't Israel just wipe out the Palestinians? There's no way to remove morality from this topic and the attempt to do so looks like a ridiculous caricature of Marxist politics.

I never claimed that morality was bad or that I am amoral/arguuing from an amoral perspective. Rather, my points are that your morality is not internally logically consistent and that it serves the bourgeoisie. My evidence being the blanket statement you made against targeting civilians and also your insistence that there is no difference between the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. The actions are somewhat similar but you're oversimplifying the situation by attempting to apply your "killing is always bad no matter what" moral heuristic to the Palestinian conflict.

The differences are numerous but primarily involve the nature of the organizations as based in their history and shaped by various factors, conflicts, and outside parties. And by ignoring them, you legitimize the Israeli government's actions by claiming that they are morally the same as Hamas. Which is, as PA noted, an organization fostered by Israel as a right-wing against the PLO to divide and conquer the Palestinian land and continue the cleansing of it. Now, Hamas, the organization funded by Israel, is held up and shown to the world as a justification for their actions. But it never could have existed with such strength without Israel using it as a foil, nor would it have ever sprung up spontaneously had the Palestinian people not come under attack from the Israeli state.

And even if it had sprung up spontaneously, it is taking these measures against a government that commits ethnic cleansing and mows down their families and friends, controls all traffic around them, and holds numerous prisoners in indefinite detention. The Palestinian people are desperate and the tactics of Hamas are representative of that desperation, as well as severely limited capacity for conventional warfare, being outnumbered significantly, having much less funding and technology, as well as almost no economic base to speak of. Israel using the same tactics as Hamas when their situation is not desperate and they are an occupying force makes them morally vastly inferior to Hamas even independent of all other factors because there is no reason for it other than callousness.

PhoenixAsh

10th July 2014, 21:35

Hamas, well...actually at that time the Islamist movements led by Yassin, was Israel's answer against the PLO and Fatah during Meir. And it has been used by Rabin and Nethanyahu to sabotage the DPISG (Oslo accords).

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th July 2014, 21:59

I never claimed that morality was bad or that I am amoral/arguuing from an amoral perspective. Rather, my points are that your morality is not internally logically consistent and that it serves the bourgeoisie. My evidence being the blanket statement you made against targeting civilians and also your insistence that there is no difference between the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. The actions are somewhat similar but you're oversimplifying the situation by attempting to apply your "killing is always bad no matter what" moral heuristic to the Palestinian conflict.

The differences are numerous but primarily involve the nature of the organizations as based in their history and shaped by various factors, conflicts, and outside parties. And by ignoring them, you legitimize the Israeli government's actions by claiming that they are morally the same as Hamas. Which is, as PA noted, an organization fostered by Israel as a right-wing against the PLO to divide and conquer the Palestinian land and continue the cleansing of it. Now, Hamas, the organization funded by Israel, is held up and shown to the world as a justification for their actions. But it never could have existed with such strength without Israel using it as a foil, nor would it have ever sprung up spontaneously had the Palestinian people not come under attack from the Israeli state.

And even if it had sprung up spontaneously, it is taking these measures against a government that commits ethnic cleansing and mows down their families and friends, controls all traffic around them, and holds numerous prisoners in indefinite detention. The Palestinian people are desperate and the tactics of Hamas are representative of that desperation, as well as severely limited capacity for conventional warfare, being outnumbered significantly, having much less funding and technology, as well as almost no economic base to speak of. Israel using the same tactics as Hamas when their situation is not desperate and they are an occupying force makes them morally vastly inferior to Hamas even independent of all other factors because there is no reason for it other than callousness.

I do not believe that all killing is wrong, I'm not a pacifist. What I don't support is murder committed by a state or would-be state. I don't believe Hamas or Fatah for that matter, truly represent the interests of the Palestinians just as the IDF and Israeli state do not truly represent the interests of the Israelis. I'm not going to be bullied into supporting one group of thugs over another. If there is ever a truly revolutionary movement amongst the Palestinians, the leaders of Hamas and Fatah will find themselves on the scaffold next the Israeli bourgeoisie, I have no doubt.

One hundred unguided rockets, or a million for that matter will not improve the situation for those in Gaza. The only result of this will be more dead Palestinians and more power for the blood suckers of the Palestinian elites. I don't support action for the sake of action, I want the occupation to end as badly as you do, but these events might as well be happening on the moon for all the effect it will have on the occupation. It's a suckers game and I've played it for far too long already.

consuming negativity

10th July 2014, 22:16

I do not believe that all killing is wrong, I'm not a pacifist. What I don't support is murder committed by a state or would-be state. I don't believe Hamas or Fatah for that matter, truly represent the interests of the Palestinians just as the IDF and Israeli state do not truly represent the interests of the Israelis. I'm not going to be bullied into supporting one group of thugs over another. If there is ever a truly revolutionary movement amongst the Palestinians, the leaders of Hamas and Fatah will find themselves on the scaffold next the Israeli bourgeoisie, I have no doubt.

One hundred unguided rockets, or a million for that matter will not improve the situation for those in Gaza. The only result of this will be more dead Palestinians and more power for the blood suckers of the Palestinian elites. I don't support action for the sake of action, I want the occupation to end as badly as you do, but these events might as well be happening on the moon for all the effect it will have on the occupation. It's a suckers game and I've played it for far too long already.

I didn't say that you thought all killing was wrong, you said that you were flatly against the killing of civilians. Yes, Hamas are about as non-representative of the Palestinians as Israel is of its citizens but what does that matter in terms of this conversation? We cannot wish them away or change history, and pretending that their disappearance or even stopping the Qassam rockets from shooting would end the occupation is wishful thinking at best. Hamas did not exist pre-conflict and they play no role in continuing it other than being convenient ammo for Israel that it essentially planted for that purpose. But Hamas being a tool or immoral does not excuse your indifference or false equivocations which suit the goals of Israel. By refusing to recognize the truth of the matter you are in effect supporting a continuation of the status quo in action, which means continued Israeli dominance and a continuation of their grave immoralities. There is no neutrality available unless it is created, and that won't happen through indifference to the plight of the Palestinians. Condemning them because of the inability of their pseudo-rulers is a pathetic abandonment of morality for a person who values life or communism.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th July 2014, 22:26

I didn't say that you thought all killing was wrong, you said that you were flatly against the killing of civilians. Yes, Hamas are about as non-representative of the Palestinians as Israel is of its citizens but what does that matter in terms of this conversation? We cannot wish them away or change history, and pretending that their disappearance or even stopping the Qassam rockets from shooting would end the occupation is wishful thinking at best. Hamas did not exist pre-conflict and they play no role in continuing it other than being convenient ammo for Israel that it essentially planted for that purpose. But Hamas being a tool or immoral does not excuse your indifference or false equivocations which suit the goals of Israel. By refusing to recognize the truth of the matter you are in effect supporting a continuation of the status quo in action, which means continued Israeli dominance and a continuation of their grave immoralities. There is no neutrality available unless it is created, and that won't happen through indifference to the plight of the Palestinians. Condemning them because of the inability of their pseudo-rulers is a pathetic abandonment of morality for a person who values life or communism.

Please :rolleyes: as if my support for the random killings of Israelis by rocket fire would somehow have an effect on the occupation. You give me, and I'm assuming yourself, far too much credit. I'm not neutral, I'm just hostile to both camps is all.

Five Year Plan

10th July 2014, 22:44

The context doesn't mean shit to the person getting a rocket or say phosphorous dropped on them, and thats my point. The politics of the situation are bullshit and I reject them from the get go, I don't support the Israeli state and I don't support the would-be Hamas state. I support communism and am generally hostile towards murder as I would hope most revolutionaries would be.

If our purpose is a materialist analysis of the present political situation, with an eye toward advancing international class struggle for communism, the context is important. Not just important--essential. If you want to understand killing in order to prevent it, rather than just moralize about it, then understanding the context is essential. Even if the context isn't exactly on the minds of this Israeli civilian being killed over here, or the much more likely scenario of that Palestinian teenager (also a civilian, in case you forgot) getting blown to bits over there.

But please, feel free to obscure the context in order not only to moralize, but to moralize in a politically reactionary way that implies a moral and political equivalence between killing to expand and protect colonialism, and killing to resist it.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th July 2014, 22:58

What planet are you living on? Why hasn't this lead to increased class struggle by now then? Its closing in on a decade. There's been an increase of violent nationalism and religious extremism if that tickles your fancy and apparently it does, but I don't see any sign of the revolution in Palestine dear friends. Keep dreaming, I'd love to stick around and thrown the word objective around with you two a little more but work is over so I'm checking out.

Invader Zim

10th July 2014, 23:08

Jimmie Higgins

11th July 2014, 03:19

Of course there's some defense of Zionism... Israeli rulers, u.s. Rulers and the lapd:

www.youtube.com/embed/hoKiFqo4ksY

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/i-filmed-lapd-assaulting-me-pro-israel-demo

And as for the argument that Zionism is a necessary defense because of anti semitism, this is simply not true. Zionism is an adaptation to European anti semitism from early zionists cutting deals with prominent rulers of European powers that had antisemetic policies to Israeli prime ministers joking about how Eastern European anti semitism today is good because it brings in migrants to Israel.

Atsumari

11th July 2014, 03:41

Why haven't I heard the anti-German people advocate for a Jewish state in Germany yet?

cyu

11th July 2014, 05:16

Just recently I read a news report about border disputes between India and China. Meanwhile in Elseworld:

"So those paranoid Jews are working extra hard now to prevent another of those exterminations. I gotta admit they've been pretty successful in gathering some amount of power. If we don't do something about them soon, I fear they may start to challenge our own power."

"Yes, something must indeed be done to cancel them out. We need to present to them a countervailing force, without expending our own resources. But where can we go looking for such a foil?"

"The Arabs are sitting on a lot of potential economic power. Think we can get them involved? We don't want their growing resource wealth to challenge us either."

"Excellent point! Get them to waste their power fighting eachother and the rest of the world will be ours! I'll start making sure our media starts playing up every disagreement between the Jews and the Arabs."

Sea

11th July 2014, 08:48

Yes. And its pretty simple: Israel is needed as state of the jewish people where they can live in peace without any antisemitism.Tell me exactly what exactly the State of Israel has done towards that end. Tell me. I dare you.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

11th July 2014, 12:01

This has nothing to do with anything that was posted. Sunshine, lay off the weed.

Well I did say work had ended didn't I? Regardless, I feel that my drug addled response is a sufficient reply to empty claims about the super scientific material analysis taking place.

but just to respond to this because I didn't notice it the first time

But please, feel free to obscure the context in order not only to moralize, but to moralize in a politically reactionary way that implies a moral and political equivalence between killing to expand and protect colonialism, and killing to resist it.

I've done no such thing, the Palestinians have an undeniable right to defend themselves and to use violence to end the occupation. What I'm taking issue with is 1: useless violence that serves no end, other than to increase the power of the militant groups within Palestinian society and over Palestinian society. and 2: a rejection of what I experience as a kind of entertainment on the part of the Western left when it comes to Palestine. For a left with no movement of it's own, Palestine represents something akin to Survivor or American Idol for white people in the Midwest. I've gone along with it for over a decade now, but really, fuck you vultures. Find something better to do with your time.

If random rocket attacks were going to have a positive effect on the occupation, it would have done so by now. At this point it presents itself as little more than an expression of nihilism on the part of the Palestinian elite, and of course an occasion for Israel to test it's newest weapon systems on the people of Gaza. It has as much of a chance of leading to a solution for Palestinians as random school/workplace shootings do for leading the US into an anarcho-primitivist utopia.

What a joke.

DasFapital

11th July 2014, 19:25

Here is what Fidel has to say (http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/castro-no-one-has-been-slandered-more-than-the-jews/62566/)

Not that I 100% agree with his opinion

euskadi

12th July 2014, 11:47

Is there any defense to Israel and Zionism?

Any leftist who supports wiping Israel from the map and replacing it with a Palestinian state is an extreme anti-semite

euskadi

12th July 2014, 11:52

Tell me exactly what exactly the State of Israel has done towards that end. Tell me. I dare you.

Stop victim blaming you pathetic anti-semite

PhoenixAsh

12th July 2014, 19:12

Here is what Fidel has to say (http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/castro-no-one-has-been-slandered-more-than-the-jews/62566/)

Not that I 100% agree with his opinion

And a mere 6 months later Castro said this about Israel:

“The Swastika of the Führer seems today to have been replaced by the flag of Israel”

And went on to say that:

“The hatred of the state of Israel against Palestinians is so great that this country would not hesitate to send one and a half million Palestinian men, women and children to the crematoria. The same crematoria in which millions of Jews of all ages were exterminated."

o well this is ok I guess

12th July 2014, 19:52

Hamas was funded by the Mossad for the Israeli state for a reason, its a symbiotic relationship. Do you have anything I could read on this?

adipocere

12th July 2014, 23:01

The IDF has several tactics how to warn people in civilian areas when these live nearby to Hamas activits that ought to be attacked, be if leaflets, phone calls, whatever, you can google this, while Hamas is deliberately seeking to kill Israeli civilians.

like Roof Knocking (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.604511).

See, I even googled (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22roof+knocking%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb) it for you.

(Sorry I'm a bit late to the party but I saw that and it made my nose itch)

Jimmie Higgins

12th July 2014, 23:20

Any leftist who supports wiping Israel from the map and replacing it with a Palestinian state is an extreme anti-semiteany leftist who supports this is also a staw-figure created by right wingers.

PhoenixAsh

12th July 2014, 23:23

Isn't it awesome how the Israeli military justifies its specific and intentional targetting of civilian houses by claiming they are used as military units and used as covers by militants (without any proof whatsoever by the way...making this action incredibly illegal to international law)...but then proceeds to first call the people in the building in order to safe civilian lives.

Because we all know that the supposed militants they are targetting in the first place will of course be honour bound to not flee and sit tight.

Also...the timing between the bombs doesn't allow any time to vacate such a large building at all.

flaming bolshevik

12th July 2014, 23:29

To euskadi
I don't think any leftist wants to replace a state with a state.

Hagalaz

12th July 2014, 23:32

i'm fairly sure that Palestinian refugees and people who've lived in camps and precariously for a generation would love a resolution to their oppression. I'm pretty sure a good chuck of Israelis would love to live in peace (but unfortunately most have sided with the Zionist project as the only way to gain peace).

There are elite Palestinians who owe their position to being the brokers for the larger oppressed population, but they are just taking advantage of a situation they can not really change (like black elites in Jim-crow u.s. Who owed their positions to being the best able to curry favor from white elites). The ruling class of Israel could, in the abstract, potentially change the situation, but they have a class interest not too.

So I don't think it's a problem of "will" among people involved, but a problem of imperialism and more specifically colonization and settlement. Oppressing forces may be angry and hateful, oppressed forces may be angry and hateful, but in a power dynamic like that, saying "a pox on both houses" is giving a de facto pass to the status quo of the oppressors.

With respect I must disagree. You may be correct about many of the people would like peace. But the powers that be in both camps have no real interest in it. too much of the power/money structure would change.
For as long as I can remember (50+ years)i've seen video of palestinians throwing rocks. Israelis firing rubber bullets back. Toy rockets fired off and attack jets responding. Nothing changes because those in power don't want it to change.

PhoenixAsh

13th July 2014, 01:35

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/this_land_is_mine/#.U8AlvQbL9aF.facebook

Jimmie Higgins

13th July 2014, 02:10

With respect I must disagree. You may be correct about many of the people would like peace. But the powers that be in both camps have no real interest in it. too much of the power/money structure would change.
For as long as I can remember (50+ years)i've seen video of palestinians throwing rocks. Israelis firing rubber bullets back. Toy rockets fired off and attack jets responding. Nothing changes because those in power don't want it to change.

Did the near genocide of the native Americans of North America happen just coz nobody really wanted peace? Sure lots of wealth and money was involved and I'm sure that some Native American leaders played power-games, were corrupt or accommodating, or that some were angry and bloodthirsty. But no rational non-racist person would say that Spanish/Mexican, u.s. And British/French colonial leaders on the one hand and Native American leaders on the other were equally at fault and just equally wanted money.

And frankly things HAVE changed... Borders keep growing, walls put up, increased settlements. Additionally, it doesn't matter at all what Palestinian leaders want or don't want - the have no real position to negotiate from, they just make deals in exchange for managing the Palestinian population for Israel; crudely their position is similar to the head of a group of hostages.

Hagalaz

13th July 2014, 02:33

Did the near genocide of the native Americans of North America happen just coz nobody really wanted peace? Sure lots of wealth and money was involved and I'm sure that some Native American leaders played power-games, were corrupt or accommodating, or that some were angry and bloodthirsty. But no rational non-racist person would say that Spanish/Mexican, u.s. And British/French colonial leaders on the one hand and Native American leaders on the other were equally at fault and just equally wanted money.

And frankly things HAVE changed... Borders keep growing, walls put up, increased settlements. Additionally, it doesn't matter at all what Palestinian leaders want or don't want - the have no real position to negotiate from, they just make deals in exchange for managing the Palestinian population for Israel; crudely their position is similar to the head of a group of hostages.

So are you saying that the decades of rock throwing and rocket firing is at the direction of Israel?:ohmy:

Jimmie Higgins

13th July 2014, 17:50

So are you saying that the decades of rock throwing and rocket firing is at the direction of Israel?:ohmy:no, please re-read what I wrote. I'm saying that the occupation and situation which results in this is created by Israel.:ohmy:

When Palestinian leaders the ability to make sanctions, decades of money and backing from the u.s., a giant armed wall, the ability to control electricity and supplies going into Israel, the ability to encourage armed settlements, the ability to bulldoze homes or carpetbomb, etc... Then we can say, "oh well you know, both sides are equally at fault.

I mean seriously, who controls and is therefore in control of the situation here?

"If only the Irish would stop rebelling against English rule, then we'd have peace and no longer need to control them with military actions" say every oppressive power ever.

"If only the natives would go away and stop bothering us, then we wouldn't have to burn their villages" say every settler power ever.

Geiseric

13th July 2014, 18:45

Palestinians killed > 0 > number of israelis killed. I dont see how this occupations politics are controversial.

Invader Zim

14th July 2014, 00:45

I mean seriously, who controls and is therefore in control of the situation here?

"If only the Irish would stop rebelling against English rule, then we'd have peace and no longer need to control them with military actions" say every oppressive power ever.

Of course, the difference being that, particularly if Scotland votes 'yes', the Republicans in Northern Ireland may well get what they want, where as even ten years ago that would have been virtually unthinkable. The modern British state and Israel are not comparable in the fashion that would have been true, say, fifteen years ago. And that is, in no small part, because the politics of Irish republicanism have caught up with reality. Planting bombs that slaughter 29 innocent people is not the way to engender bilateral internal, as well as international, political support. It is an interesting time in Britain at the moment, the vestiges of colonialism are being stripped away and their is nothing that the reactionaries can do about it, the ball is in the opposite side of the court. The only major reservation I have (beyond the economic question) is that, should Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales eventually depart from the Union, where does that leave the inhabitants of England? The answer being: under indefinate Tory rule for the forseeable future, a truly agonising prospect.

If my total lack of faith in Labour were not entirely complete, I would almost begrudge them the decision to leave.

Jimmie Higgins

14th July 2014, 01:48

Of course, the difference being that, particularly if Scotland votes 'yes', the Republicans in Northern Ireland may well get what they want, where as even ten years ago that would have been virtually unthinkable. The modern British state and Israel are not comparable in the fashion that would have been true, say, fifteen years ago. And that is, in no small part, because the politics of Irish republicanism have caught up with reality. Planting bombs that slaughter 29 innocent people is not the way to engender bilateral internal, as well as international, political support. It is an interesting time in Britain at the moment, the vestiges of colonialism are being stripped away and their is nothing that the reactionaries can do about it, the ball is in the opposite side of the court. The only major reservation I have (beyond the economic question) is that, should Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales eventually depart from the Union, where does that leave the inhabitants of England? The answer being: under indefinate Tory rule for the forseeable future, a truly agonising prospect.

If my total lack of faith in Labour were not entirely complete, I would almost begrudge them the decision to leave.
No I was not talking about Ireland today or Northern Ireland specifically. I don't think it's because tactics changed that the situation is different, it think different priorities and situations in the uk and Ireland made a different deal possible at least at the moment.

But for a proper comparison, if the Irish had not rebelled at the end of the 1700s, then would the British military not sought to keep order? Would the English landowners have not made it impossible for Irish to continue farming their own plots? Would irish not have been displaced and turned into proletarian migrants seeking jobs in England and North America? No because the is needed to enclose the land and rule Ireland as a colony. Now it's easier just to rule through economic relationships generally.

I have problems with tactics like that... Mostly because it's ineffective and doesn't actually mobilize workers or the oppressed automatically. But it's also besides the point. The uk was not repressing Ireland because of bombings or riots, they were doing it to control and rule. Bombings and demonstrations and songs about oppression and whatever result from that rule, they do not cause it or prevent peace.

Rocket attacks by Palestinian groups are just slightly more of a step up from throwing rocks at police tanks in northern Irish ghettos, so it's not going to do much one way or another. In fact Israel began attacking due to a murder, not because of any political attack or act! So colonizers just need an excuse. Hell, Palestinians get blamed for being killed in their own house when it gets bombed or bulldozed. Even in this thread people were saying that Palestinians used children as human shields when Israel openly uses collective punishment. Clever, those Palestinians... Having children so that we almost have sympathy and believe they are humans!

TheSocialistMetalhead

14th July 2014, 02:29

People pretending Hamas shooting rockets at Israel is at all similar to a carefully conducted miltary operation by the IDF, lol.

I support neither Israel nor Palestine. I support the working class, the oppressed, and they live in both.

That being said, there are real elements of apartheid policies in Israel's dealing with the Palistinian/Arab situation, don't tell us this is some sort of hoax.
Israel's reactions are also completely disproportionate and unacceptable, it makes it look like they're just looking for excuses.

consuming negativity

14th July 2014, 20:41

Please :rolleyes: as if my support for the random killings of Israelis by rocket fire would somehow have an effect on the occupation. You give me, and I'm assuming yourself, far too much credit. I'm not neutral, I'm just hostile to both camps is all.

The morality of tactics is not determined solely by their effectiveness. There is an important distinction between calling something immoral and calling it a tactical error. Being in error doesn't make you malevolent, it makes you wrong.

Црвена

14th July 2014, 20:52

sosolo

14th July 2014, 21:10

If only they hadn't disregarded the UN regarding the original borders of Israel/Palestine. Too late for that I suppose. Fuck the colonial settlements. I thought that Lebensraum went the way of the dodo, but I guess I was wrong.

Diogenese

14th July 2014, 21:49

Anyone who tries to defend Zionism in any way is no comrade of mine. To me it's the same as defending fascism.

Alexios

15th July 2014, 01:29

Jimmie Higgins

15th July 2014, 05:48

The Jewish community has historically been one of the most oppressed groups, and anti-Semitism is still a problem. They just wanted a place where Jews weren't the minority, because there were so many states of other religions and Judaism, despite being a huge religion, didn't have one. But that in no way excuses the crimes against humanity committed by Israel, and the way the USA support their murder of Palestinians and conceal all the evil things they do while making a big deal of Palestinian counter-attacks is disgusting.sure and this was the original purpose of Zionism before it became a state-ideology connected to a colonial-settler situation backed by anti-Semitic politicians in the uk and then us (not that their anti semitism is the motivation, imperial interests are...I just find it ironic that bigots like nixion made the case for it).

But even before that, I think Zionism is an inherently bourgeois answer to antisemetic oppression... Part of the whole nationalism of the late 1800s. It allows elites in an oppressed group to save themselves from oppression by the dominant elites (actually collaborating with the big oppressive European powers) while preserving their ability to exploit the rest of the oppressed group.

MarxSchmarx

15th July 2014, 06:07

The Jewish community has historically been one of the most oppressed groups, and anti-Semitism is still a problem. They just wanted a place where Jews weren't the minority, because there were so many states of other religions and Judaism, despite being a huge religion, didn't have one. But that in no way excuses the crimes against humanity committed by Israel, and the way the USA support their murder of Palestinians and conceal all the evil things they do while making a big deal of Palestinian counter-attacks is disgusting.
Just to put things in perspective, I'd say of the hundreds of religions practiced globally, only 3-5 other religions have states/governments meaningfully associated with them - Islam, Buddhism (Thailand and Bhutan), and Christianity. Just how much India is a "Hindu" state or Japan is in any meaningful sense a Shinto state is quite debatable.

Apart from these pretty limited examples, even religions with sizeable adherents - Probably more than Judaism (Jainism, animisms) have no state.

Its also worth noting that Israeli s until fairly recently were overwhelmingly secular. I think religion is a part of the appeal of Zionism to people, but I suspect on balance it has more to do with "jewish ethnicity" through perceived bloodlines than religion.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

15th July 2014, 21:29

Yes. And its pretty simple: Israel is needed as state of the jewish people where they can live in peace without any antisemitism.

Ah you mean European jews need a state where they can oppress orthodox and other jewish minorities along with Palestinian jews? Because you do realize that the majority of the world's jewish population is colored, including Arab jews which are indeed a real thing and are being oppressed by Israel. Israel is one of the most antisemitic states on earth. This is even more obviously apparent as Zionists are adopting the rhetoric of european white supremacy. From an Israeli journal:

Some of the right-wing protesters who beat leftist demonstrators (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.604697) in Tel Aviv on Saturday night wore T-shirts bearing a neo-Nazi symbol, photos and videos show.
As shown on journalist Tal Schneider’s Hebrew-language blog (http://www.talschneider.com/), some of the right-wingers wore T-shirts bearing the slogan “Good night left side.”
Neo-Nazis in Europe wear shirts with this phrase, which accompanies an image of a man attacking a left-wing activist, denoted by a star or anarchy symbol. The online store Final Resistance offers clothing bearing neo-Nazi slogans – popular attire at rock concerts by far-right bands.
The emblem and slogan are a response to the original left-wing counterpart: “Good night white pride.”
The counterdemonstrations in Tel Aviv Saturday night took place at Habima Square in the center of town. Rightists got a chance to beat leftists when a rocket alert sounded and people ran for shelter. One man was rushed to the hospital, but no arrests were made.

Likewise there is always a healthy need to remember this:

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/s526x395/1512304_10152032722251179_7377688819184216450_n.jp g

Thirsty Crow

15th July 2014, 21:36

Ah you mean European jews need a state where they can oppress orthodox and other jewish minorities along with Palestinian jews? Because you do realize that the majority of the world's jewish population is colored, including Arab jews which are indeed a real thing and are being oppressed by IsraelThat's not as relevant to the unbelievable argument you're responding to.
The issue is that the person actually justifies ethnic cleansing on grounds of the historical atrocities of antisemitism. This is the underlying logic of the "Jewish state" which is based on the absolute necessity of Jewish demographic majority (and let's just remember that in 1948 Jews comprised some 30% of the population) which on its own simply guarantees not a happy and democratic state, but real measures of at least discrimination (some alternative history right here - how would that majority be established). Today discrimination in the form of legal sanctions for Jewish immigration and curtailing the stability of the non-Jewish demographic (human reproduction policies) seems like not such a nightmare scenario.

Diogenese

15th July 2014, 21:41

If 6 million jews are your reasoning for a jewish state then i've got about 27 more million reasons for a gay gypsy communist state.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

15th July 2014, 21:41

That's not as relevant to the unbelievable argument you're responding to.
The issue is that the person actually justifies ethnic cleansing on grounds of the historical atrocities of antisemitism. This is the underlying logic of the "Jewish state" which is based on the absolute necessity of Jewish demographic majority (and let's just remember that in 1948 Jews comprised some 30% of the population) which on its own simply guarantees not a happy and democratic state, but real measures of at least discrimination (some alternative history right here - how would that majority be established). Today discrimination in the form of legal sanctions for Jewish immigration and curtailing the stability of the non-Jewish demographic (human reproduction policies) seems like not such a nightmare scenario.
Although I do agree that your concern takes higher priority I just find it incredibly ironic that Israel is by no means safe for the majority of Jews. Just the opposite, it is a place where they'll find more antisemitism than a good portion of the world.

Invader Zim

16th July 2014, 11:28

Any leftist who supports wiping Israel from the map and replacing it with a Palestinian state is an extreme anti-semite

Obvious troll is obvious. Of course, the reality is, that for radical leftists the favoured outcome is the abolition of all states. Failing that, it strikes me as a total strawman to suggest that expecting Israel to abide by the basic tenets of international human-rights laws in its dealings with Palestine is hardly the same as suggesting that one supports 'wiping Israel from the map'.

Oh, and no, even if a person did support that, it wouldn't necessarily make them anti-semitic.

Invader Zim

16th July 2014, 11:33

Stop victim blaming you pathetic anti-semite

Someone ban the troll.

consuming negativity

17th July 2014, 22:21

"X group needs a state to protect them" said no communist ever. The fuck? Is this OI?

guy123

17th July 2014, 22:42

Victory to the Palestinians over Imperialist Israel!

For those wondering where the trolls are coming from:
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23695896

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 01:49

You can have an understanding of the why and how without defending anything. I think people look at situations like this with tunnel vision and it sometimes comes across as either anti semitic or pro Israel depending on which side giving their political rhetoric.

For example alot of Marxists seem to drop their materialist analysis when it comes to Israel, Jews had just been victims of genocide, the latest in a history full of pogroms and forced migration and open state sanctioned murders.

Material conditions of the jewish population that survived the genocide would drive anyone to do things that the Israeli's did, from the initial bombings on hotels and public to the continued occupation of foreign land after they defeated the Arab forces in the later wars that resulted in the geographic control Israel holds today in the occupied territories.

The same conditions that create gangs in slums and create fascist movements in economic crisis created the Israeli state and to deny it or to judge it out of that context seems like when right wingers call out Islamic terrorism without calling out the inequalities that produce them.

Another problem is the wholesome condemnation of Israel in a way leftists do not use for any other people. Violence by palestinian militants against Israeli civillians is silently or begrudgingly condoned in a way that Irish paramilitaries killing British civillians or Islamic militants killing ordinary American citizens would never happen, apart from by the absolute crazy insane fringe of the communist movement.

Also criticizing Israel and its existence despite pretty much all nations being founded on conquering and war is somewhat hypocrytical and again can seem anti semetic

A final point is the completely sickening and frankly hacky comparison of Israel to the Nazi state. It is ridiculous and it is clearly a loaded and quite obnoxious bordering on racist slogan.

Now the opposite side is the complete white washing of Israeli crimes. The downplaying of palestinian casualties and unnesccesary conditions they are forced to endure. Collective punishment and culture of dehumanization and blurring of lines between fighter and civillian Israel is guilty of (not that Hamas fairs any better in this regard)

Saying this having spoken to Palestinian Israeli's they sure do paint a much brighter view of life under the Israeli state than that of the Palestinian Authorities. However that is true of living in the west compared to othe rplaces, that obiously does not excuse or legitimise their abhorent actions and violence to foreign people overseas.

CheekyCabbage

18th July 2014, 05:34

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 16:54

I've been doing my own research on the topic because it looks like both sides are saying crap about the other. One thing that bothers me, is that there is a lot of Anti-Semitic sentiment backing the destruction of Israel, which I find appalling. As well, the Hasidic population, like any fundamentalist group, is committing horrendous acts against their own people, and the Palestinians. Putting that aside, there is more talk about a two state option coming from Israelis than the Palestinians. For if we all really wanted equality, shouldn't we all try to co-exist and put our differences aside? We are all people after all, we want to be happy and protect our families and provide the best for ourselves and others around us.

Going back to the original question, I believe that the idea of keeping Israel alive is fine. We should respect people's decision to have their respective country, even if we disagree. Change will come over time to improve all conditions, as seen in history. But the fighting must stop first before change can occur; fighting leads to an ideological martyr and then more conflicts arise. I praise the work of Ghandi and MLK Jr. for their peaceful approach. Things improved without as much of a backlash than other changes in history.

Hey Cheeky, while I am somewhat sympathetic to pascifism and non violent movments, I really stop viewing them as a positive force for change awhile ago. While they can force meaningful but non revolutionary reforms like civil rights and so forth, they lack any teeth or class analysis when it comes to forcing systemic change.

Not that any non pascifist workers movement has done any better in my eyes, but I still think the right of workers to use violence to defend and protect any gains they make , especially if they take control of the means of production, is completely valid and nescessary.

Plus when we look at someone like MLK, he was forced into doing some reactionary shit because of his tactic of reforming the state instead of being in direct opposition to it, He called for police to be sent into urban areas in the cities where massive organised black riots and rebellions were taking place, he also somewhat smothered the momentum that black groups had built up in things like resistance patrols calling rather to sing as you got your ass beat.

Something I simply do not morally agree with.

Same whith Ghandi, no calling for forcefull resistance to a violent caste system, after independence India was still owned by britain economically in all but name, no improvements in living conditions for most of the people etc etc.

Again any reformer, Ceasar Chavez for example, he was forced to hand over certain immigrants to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the owners, he might of had great and well meaning intentions, but he ended up supporting oppresison in order to implement what is very small reform.

Look at black housing conditions, fund allocation etc, it is just as terrible now as it was in MLK's time, same for the workers Chavez was championing, their conditions are the same if not worse.

While I agree with you somewhat on your point on Israel as my above post indicated, I think a simple pascifist stance has not lead to much progress.

CheekyCabbage

18th July 2014, 17:13

I understand what you are saying, and maybe my examples aren't so perfect. But one thing that I do see better about pacifism, is gaining the sympathy of others to follow you. For one thing wrong with violence in revolution, is that you can be displayed by the opposition as evil. Now with pacifism, they have no legitimate stance on calling the pacifists bad because what are they doing wrong? By no means am I discrediting revolution, but possibly a peaceful revolution. I have yet to think about the possibility of such an action, but it would be cool to think that such things can be achieved without violence. The definition of revolution does not only contain that of overthrowing governments, social ideas can be overthrown as well.

Again, going back on topic, Israel is by no means perfect. Their policies are horrendous, yet I do admire their airport security. What I am referring to, is that they have a chamber that you step into that detonates any explosives on your person. Quite interesting, if you ask me. If you were planning on blowing up, might as well be shown your bad intentions? Geeze I can't talk without going on tangents. My main point here is that Israel is kept, but improved its policies and such to acceptable levels, then we would have no problem. Again this goes back to what I was saying in my first post.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

18th July 2014, 17:14

For example alot of Marxists seem to drop their materialist analysis when it comes to Israel, Jews had just been victims of genocide, the latest in a history full of pogroms and forced migration and open state sanctioned murders.

Material conditions of the jewish population that survived the genocide would drive anyone to do things that the Israeli's did, from the initial bombings on hotels and public to the continued occupation of foreign land after they defeated the Arab forces in the later wars that resulted in the geographic control Israel holds today in the occupied territories.

...except they didn't drive the Roma to do the same - because there was no Roma colonialist movement sponsored by the imperialist powers. And in fact, Zionism predates the Nazi genocide, and has always been intertwined with precisely the same forces - European imperialist anti-Semitism - that led to the same genocide.

(Well, "the Jews", "the Roma" - these are all massive generalisations, and in fact most Jews had nothing to do with the colonial-settler state in Palestine.)

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 17:34

...except they didn't drive the Roma to do the same - because there was no Roma colonialist movement sponsored by the imperialist powers. And in fact, Zionism predates the Nazi genocide, and has always been intertwined with precisely the same forces - European imperialist anti-Semitism - that led to the same genocide.

(Well, "the Jews", "the Roma" - these are all massive generalisations, and in fact most Jews had nothing to do with the colonial-settler state in Palestine.)

The Roma did not have the possibility, the specific situation at the time, the mandate and so forth, presented a unique opportunity, aswell as the antisemitism of world leaders who supported an Israeli state for biggoted reasons.

Secondly that line of reasoning of if X was the cause why didn't Y group do the same in response to X, is just silly.

Most people in compton do not become gang members, does that mean conditons in compton and the structural racism of the U.S is not a driving factor for why gangs exist?

Also again I am not saying i support zionism or the fact Israel was formed, I am saying that it is very understandable and I would imagine most jews would be incredibly supportive of it no matter what after such a horrible and disgusting chapter in their collective history. I remember reading a book on the roots of the israel Palestien conflict and a jewish woman was talking about after the genocide most of her family were wiped out and she always remembered the little collection tin on top of the cupboard to send to Israel and the hope her surviving relatives had for the possibility of Israel where such things couldn't happen to them again. In the climate of post 1945 to merely dismiss the want for such a state on communist grounds seems somewhat vulgar, no one is saying we support a jewish state or the displacement of palestinians, it is about understanding why as a Jewish person post 1945 you might be compelled to support and move to one.

To me calling Israel comparable to the Nazi's like leftist rhetoric often does or even being critical of Israel without the same level of criticism for all other states is kind of like when white people compare the KKK to the nation of Islam. What came first white supremacy or silly black nationalism in response to it? What came first Zionism or deep long historic subjagation of the jewish people? You counter with zionism predated the second world war, well of course it did, but it did not have mass support until after that time and jewish oppression did not start in 1939, so really that is a terrible rebuttal.

Again when leftists analyse Islamic extremism, US imperialism, islamophobia and poverty come up as driving factors, does that mean that 9/11 was justified? Of course not.

Why have a completely logical and rational stance on the rise of Islamic extremism without islamophobia or racism yet when it comes to Israel and Israeli crimes non of the important factors are discussed, instead the only talk is of zionism, as if jews are not subject to the same conditions and pressures other people are?

Five Year Plan

18th July 2014, 17:57

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 18:01

It's pretty amazing that this thread has suddenly been swarmed with a handful of new users with less than 25 posts, none of whom has a posting history evincing any serious interest in revolutionary politics, and all seeming to read from the exact same page of talking points, including the world-famous Holocaust talking point, the Islamic Extremism talking point, and the subtler but equally laughable Reasonable Moderate talking point ("Hey, I don't support Zionism. I really don't, but you just have to realize...").

Gee, I wonder if there is some loose coordination going on from an outside source here.

If that was aimed at me go check my IP, otherwise stop using your inane conspircies to try and shut down any dissenting opinions to your terrible positions.

How many users with less than 25 posts have an overtly pro palestinian authority stance, is that some conspiracy where a bunch of people have so little going on they create fake users to try and win arguements of a forum? Are you well?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

18th July 2014, 18:01

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 18:08

Patrice, I dont think anyone is confused as to why Jewish people flocked to Israel following world war 2. However their material needs cannot supercede the those of the Palestinians'. Israel's intention to remain a majority Jewish state leaves the Palestinians they've displaced no recourse other than to struggle against it. I feel that you are on a similar course as the pro-Hamas posters earlier in this thread, you cannot remove morality from this conflict, once you do then it really doesn't matter who wins, or how they accomplish it and any stance taken becomes entirely arbitrary.

In the course of fleeing to safety, the settlers displaced an entire population. In order to protect their gains they then had to commit acts of terror against that same population ranging from pogroms to the collective punishment we see today. Nothing that happened in Europe can rationally be used to justify Israel's actions against the Palestinians.

Oh no you are exactly right, which is my point. I both argue against palestinian support and Hamas support. I just see historical conditions equally responsible for why Israel would displace palestinians in the wake of the genocide and a history of persecution by grabbing a tthe chance to form an Israeli state after the British mandate and their use of bombs and violence to do so and why Palestine would continually fire rockets into Israel and use suicide bombers and arget all Israeli people, my point is among leftists only one is recognised. I condone none of it. I understand pretty much all of it.

Daimon

18th July 2014, 18:16

so no borders for the other countries ,different people live in all countries but Israel only for Israelis with the huge borders around....That's just fascists why to support the Israel?No borders for Israel and for any country

sosolo

18th July 2014, 18:23

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 18:43

Just a few points I thought of:

Why do zionists use the same racialist definition of who is a Jew as the Nazis did? Hasn't racialism been proven to be bs pseudo-science? It is rather ironic.

How does a terrible genocide in Europe justify a colonial settlement in the near east? Should all oppressed groups just grab someone else's land because they experienced nightmarish treatment elsewhere? And don't even bring up that the Jewish people lived in Palestine a thousand treats ago, it smacks of some ancient revanchism.

Oh, and "Well, it's a moot point, they already live there" is not a valid argument, it is political laziness. I would think revolutionaries would avoid acceptance of the status quo as a fait accompli.

Hey thats an interesting list of points. But i think some of your positions are not very well set out.

No one is saying anything was justified, they merely give a material analysis of the reasons these thigns happened. And your example of political lainess is just a political reality, should all white European descendants in North America be forced out of where they live? Where is the political reality in something like that hapening. If we had that approach most British people would have to leave here because the population is not native Briton, we are a mixture of different invading peoples.

Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, U.S, Britain etc etc, most modern nation states and pretty much every historical nation has been founded on invasion or a large portion of its citizens were settlers and colonial descendants, the displacement of native inhabitants, to single out Israel which is one of the only states formed out of a genocide and hundreds upon hundreds of years of ethnic cleansing and state sanctioned murder is quite bizarre.

Again you seem to think that means i support the state of israel and its actions. I support Israel as much as I support Palestine, England, Brazil and Mexico.

Five Year Plan

18th July 2014, 18:51

If that was aimed at me go check my IP, otherwise stop using your inane conspircies to try and shut down any dissenting opinions to your terrible positions.

How many users with less than 25 posts have an overtly pro palestinian authority stance, is that some conspiracy where a bunch of people have so little going on they create fake users to try and win arguements of a forum? Are you well?

What would your IP have to do with anything? And, yes, I am well enough to realize how truly bizarre it is that three or four users who all signed up simultaneously have posted almost exclusively in a single thread that basically had to be bumped, saying virtually the exact same thing.

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 19:01

What would your IP have to do with anything? And, yes, I am well enough to realize how truly bizarre it is that three or four users who all signed up simultaneously have posted almost exclusively in a single thread that basically had to be bumped, saying virtually the exact same thing.

There are like 100 posters saying the same thing lots and lots of them new psoters, but you agree with them, so obviously thats not a conspiracy of forum users, but those four people, must be a conspiracy, because 100 people agreeing is normal, but four, seems dodgy.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

18th July 2014, 19:24

Five Year Plan

18th July 2014, 19:29

There are like 100 posters saying the same thing lots and lots of them new psoters, but you agree with them, so obviously thats not a conspiracy of forum users, but those four people, must be a conspiracy, because 100 people agreeing is normal, but four, seems dodgy.

Like 100 posters? No, not really. Zionists and their lackeys are a tiny minority on this forum, and are really only permitted here because a couple of the admins have a soft spot in their heart for Zionism and Israel (though they'll never admit it). You're just not aware of how tiny of minority you find yourself in, because most posters don't bother getting involved in this debate, realizing that it's the same tired, bogus arguments being trotted out by the pro-Zionist crowd every single time.

If the forum were run according to the letter of the law, "support for Israel" would be treated the same way as support for any other imperialist or settler-colonialist state, and the users would be restricted at the very least. The reason why is that the forum is intended for revolutionaries, people who at the very least are attempting to share the same starting methodology. Otherwise, users will be speaking completely different languages, using entirely different methodologies, and debates will never find a resolution. The forum would be bogged down in topics like, "Capitalism can still be a force for good" and "Isn't capitalism raising people's standard of living?"

Your talking points are good examples. Most people here don't want to take time out of their lives to point out the distinction between ethnic cleansing that is no longer occurring in the United States, and one that is occurring in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as we speak. I don't blame them.

And, yes, I reiterate how strange it is that a slew of new posters gravitate to this thread, with no other history of an interest in other aspects of "revolutionary" politics.

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 19:53

Like 100 posters? No, not really. Zionists and their lackeys are a tiny minority on this forum, and are really only permitted here because a couple of the admins have a soft spot in their heart for Zionism and Israel (though they'll never admit it). You're just not aware of how tiny of minority you find yourself in, because most posters don't bother getting involved in this debate, realizing that it's the same tired, bogus arguments being trotted out by the pro-Zionist crowd every single time.

If the forum were run according to the letter of the law, "support for Israel" would be treated the same way as support for any other imperialist or settler-colonialist state, and the users would be restricted at the very least. The reason why is that the forum is intended for revolutionaries, people who at the very least are attempting to share the same starting methodology. Otherwise, users will be speaking completely different languages, using entirely different methodologies, and debates will never find a resolution. The forum would be bogged down in topics like, "Capitalism can still be a force for good" and "Isn't capitalism raising people's standard of living?"

Your talking points are good examples. Most people here don't want to take time out of their lives to point out the distinction between ethnic cleansing that is no longer occurring in the United States, and one that is occurring in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as we speak. I don't blame them.

And, yes, I reiterate how strange it is that a slew of new posters gravitate to this thread, with no other history of an interest in other aspects of "revolutionary" politics.

I said 100 posters who agreed with you about the Israel palestine conflict. Not me. Of course now you ahve just stopped actually reading people who disagree with you so this is hardly an actual discussion.

Five Year Plan

18th July 2014, 19:57

I said 100 posters who agreed with you about the Israel palestine conflict. Not me. Of course now you ahve just stopped actually reading people who disagree with you so this is hardly an actual discussion.

It's called misreading what you intended to convey. And, yes, if a handful of posters who just signed up suddenly leapt into this thread to say virtually the same things in opposition to Zionism, that would be highly suspicious, though not as suspicious, since opposition to Zionism is to be expected among revolutionaries. But the content of those posts would not be reactionary or grounds for restriction in the way that support for Zionism would be.

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 20:02

I don't think support for the elimination of Israel necessarily correlates to supporting the deporting of all Jews from the region. As to whether I would support native americans or African americans trying to overthrow the US government, yeah I would actually.

So you would support a minority population trying to violently kill civillians in the U.S to overthrow a government but Israel invading Gaza to kill people who try and kill Israeli civillians is not ok?

Great communist position to have. I guess i should support the tiny amount of native britons who are not descended from the Normans or Saxons or Romani Britons, I mean clearly I in 2014 have no right to this land, my family only being here for a small ammount of time they have. Clearly my ethnic background means I should have to forefit my ability to live here and have representation in any government because where i live was inhabited by native Britons and I have stolen their brith right.

If i want native britons to stop randomly firing rickets into my street I need to leave, otherwise their resistance is justified.

Do you realise how silly your position on Palestine Israel is?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

18th July 2014, 20:06

So you would support a minority population trying to violently kill civillians in the U.S to overthrow a government but Israel invading Gaza to kill people who try and kill Israeli civillians is not ok?

Great communist position to have. I guess i should support the tiny amount of native britons who are not descended from the Normans or Saxons or Romani Britons, I mean clearly I in 2014 have no right to this land, my family only being here for a small ammount of time they have. Clearly my ethnic background means I should have to forefit my ability to live here and have representation in any government because where i live was inhabited by native Britons and I have stolen their brith right.

If i want native britons to stop randomly firing rickets into my street I need to leave, otherwise their resistance is justified.

Do you realise how silly your position on Palestine Israel is?

Where did I say I support the killing of civilians? Why are you incapable of having this conversation without grasping at ridiculous strawmen? You actually do sound like a troll at this point.

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 20:13

Where did I say I support the killing of civilians? Why are you incapable of having this conversation without grasping at ridiculous strawmen? You actually do sound like a troll at this point.

I said will you support Natives firing mortars into U.S civillian centres, you responded that you would support natives ovethrowing the government.

Even if you meant without killing civillians, why would you support ntives overthrowing the U.S government, how does one have any more legitimacy that the other? The Natives practiced war and enslaved other tribe members, the European settlers also practised it, just on a much larger genocidal scale and also were aided in their destruction by disease.

Why would one be inherently less reactionary than another? These stances you have are in no way revolutionary or looking to smash this current economic model and have workers takr control of the means of production, it just seems.. well, like vulgar tokenism and supporting small nations against bigger ones and jusitfying the smaller ones by comparison of the actions of bigger ones.

How about the working people amongst all these groups need to stop killing people, especially other non combattant workers, over bullshit land claims and flags and, which ties in despite some people claiming otherwise, a fiar number of jews and muslims hating each other over religeous bigotry, which always accompanies nationalist struggles.

Also the cry of troll is basically tapping out of an arguement online, either debate the poitns or don't reply, but just to cry troll because people don't just bend to your positions are so weak.

euskadi

18th July 2014, 20:15

Why do zionists use the same racialist definition of who is a Jew as the Nazis did? Hasn't racialism been proven to be bs pseudo-science? It is rather ironic.

Are you for real or are you intentionally talking nonsense just to create some non-existent link between Zionism and Nazism?

Most Jews view anyone with a significant amount of Jewish heritage as Jewish, and most also accept someone who is a religious convert, and it has been that way since long before Hitler, so use a little common sense buddy. Assuming what you're saying is true, Hitler must have copied the Jewish definition of Jewishness, not the other way round. Lmfao. Dipshit.

To say that the Jewish identity is comparable to Nazi racial science is beyond belief, and the product of the imagination of someone who is not mentally stable.

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 20:18

Are you for real or are you intentionally talking nonsense just to create some non-existent link between Zionism and Nazism?

Most Jews view anyone with a significant amount of Jewish heritage as Jewish, and most also accept someone who is a religious convert.

Use a little common sense buddy. Hitler used the Jewish definition of who was Jewish or not, not the other way round. Lmfao. Dipshit.

To say that the Jewish identity is comparable to Nazi racial science is beyond belief, and the product of the imagination of someone who is not mentally stable.

Yeah the comparisons to Nazi Germany are pretty sick.

I think the calling of anyone with semtic features or anyone with any jewish heritage even if not religeous is seen as a jew by people who hate jews, so just like someone who is mostly white with one or two black ancestors, the BPP considered them as black as anyone, because to a racist that 75% white means nothing.

Same with antisemitism.

sosolo

18th July 2014, 20:20

Are you for real or are you intentionally talking nonsense just to create some non-existent link between Zionism and Nazism?

Most Jews view anyone with a significant amount of Jewish heritage as Jewish, and most also accept someone who is a religious convert.

Use a little common sense buddy. Hitler used the Jewish definition of who was Jewish or not, not the other way round. Lmfao. Dipshit.

To say that the Jewish identity is comparable to Nazi racial science is beyond belief, and the product of the imagination of someone who is not mentally stable.

I'm just saying that the whole idea of a "Jewish race" is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as a "British race". We are all mixes of all sorts of people. Once again, racialism is a frankly ridiculous way to categorize people. Also, take a look at how the zionists treated the native Palestinian Jews.

euskadi

18th July 2014, 20:22

I think that is because anyone with any jewish heritage is seen as a jew by people who hate jews, so just like someone who is mostly white with one or two black ancestors, the BPP considered them as black as anyone, because to a racist that 75% white means nothing.

Same with antisemitism.

They're also seen as a Jew by Jews themselves, just a tiny amount of common sense would tell you that the comparison is invalid, a 10 year old kid could figure it out better than some people on this forum

euskadi

18th July 2014, 20:24

How does a terrible genocide in Europe justify a colonial settlement in the near east? Should all oppressed groups just grab someone else's land because they experienced nightmarish treatment elsewhere? And don't even bring up that the Jewish people lived in Palestine a thousand treats ago, it smacks of some ancient revanchism.

The Jews have direct lineage back to Israel, they were forced out of their land by the Romans and other successive empires. The long timespan does not invalidate the fact that 1.) Jews have a right to self-determination, and 2.) Israel is by far the most suitable place for it.

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 20:24

I'm just saying that the whole idea of a "Jewish race" is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as a "British race". We are all mixes of all sorts of people. Once again, racialism is a frankly ridiculous way to categorize people. Also, take a look at how the zionists treated the native Palestinian Jews.

I understand what you are saying but again the reason those social constructs of jewish race are upheld by the jewish community for people who are not religeously or even raised in a jewish enviorement are based on the fact antisemitism is applied a certain way.

Just like as i mentioned about racism is applied the same way. So to Huey Newton for example "you were black even if you were 75% white, because to white supremacy, you just another n***a" Or something to that affect.

euskadi

18th July 2014, 20:25

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 20:25

I'm just saying that the whole idea of a "Jewish race" is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as a "British race". We are all mixes of all sorts of people. Once again, racialism is a frankly ridiculous way to categorize people. Also, take a look at how the zionists treated the native Palestinian Jews.

I understand what you are saying but again the reason those socail constructs of jewish race are upheld by the jewish community for people who are not religeously or even raised in a jewish enviorement are based on the fact antisemitism is applied a certain way. Just like as i mentioned about racism is applied the same way.

So to Huey Newton for example "you were black even if you were 75% white, because to white supremacy, you just another n***a" Or something to that affect.

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 20:28

They're also seen as a Jew by Jews themselves, just a tiny amount of common sense would tell you that the comparison is invalid, a 10 year old kid could figure it out better than some people on this forum

Not nescissarily, some people who you could class as a jew do not class themselves as such, while other athiest jews accept the term despite not being jewish apart from as you say the ethno cultural grouping with people they have grown up with etc.

For exmple I knew someone who is always classed as Muslim on the same standards, all of his family accept that label despite being secular, he however does not. It comes down to personal stances sometimes while most of the time as you say, people normally find themselves and want themselves defined in a particular ethno cultural bracket.

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 20:30

euskadi

18th July 2014, 20:35

See my above reply for rebuttal.

Well there are exceptions to everything but when talking about collective groups of people you have to make reasonable generalisations

What you're saying isn't really relevant to this discussion either as we were arguing about how Zionists identify who is Jewish

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

18th July 2014, 20:39

The Roma did not have the possibility, the specific situation at the time, the mandate and so forth, presented a unique opportunity, aswell as the antisemitism of world leaders who supported an Israeli state for biggoted reasons.

Secondly that line of reasoning of if X was the cause why didn't Y group do the same in response to X, is just silly.

Most people in compton do not become gang members, does that mean conditons in compton and the structural racism of the U.S is not a driving factor for why gangs exist?

Also again I am not saying i support zionism or the fact Israel was formed, I am saying that it is very understandable and I would imagine most jews would be incredibly supportive of it no matter what after such a horrible and disgusting chapter in their collective history. I remember reading a book on the roots of the israel Palestien conflict and a jewish woman was talking about after the genocide most of her family were wiped out and she always remembered the little collection tin on top of the cupboard to send to Israel and the hope her surviving relatives had for the possibility of Israel where such things couldn't happen to them again. In the climate of post 1945 to merely dismiss the want for such a state on communist grounds seems somewhat vulgar, no one is saying we support a jewish state or the displacement of palestinians, it is about understanding why as a Jewish person post 1945 you might be compelled to support and move to one.

To me calling Israel comparable to the Nazi's like leftist rhetoric often does or even being critical of Israel without the same level of criticism for all other states is kind of like when white people compare the KKK to the nation of Islam. What came first white supremacy or silly black nationalism in response to it? What came first Zionism or deep long historic subjagation of the jewish people? You counter with zionism predated the second world war, well of course it did, but it did not have mass support until after that time and jewish oppression did not start in 1939, so really that is a terrible rebuttal.

Again when leftists analyse Islamic extremism, US imperialism, islamophobia and poverty come up as driving factors, does that mean that 9/11 was justified? Of course not.

Why have a completely logical and rational stance on the rise of Islamic extremism without islamophobia or racism yet when it comes to Israel and Israeli crimes non of the important factors are discussed, instead the only talk is of zionism, as if jews are not subject to the same conditions and pressures other people are?

Yes, the oppression of Jews predates the Second World War. As do groups that have struggled, and continue to struggle, against the oppression of Jews, including the socialist movement in its entirety. And notably not including Zionists, who did not want the Jews to live in Europe as equal citizens but in Palestine as a colonial oppressor group. Hence the enthusiastic support for Zionism shown by people like lord Balfour,the bloody pogromist Plehve, Mussolini etc.

The Zionists would like to have everyone believe that Israel was founded by Holocaust survivors, but in fact only a minority of them had anything to do with the formation of that settler-colonial statelet. Somewhat understandably, someone who has been in a death camp will generally speaking not be eager to go get shot in some desert in order to fulfill someone else's dream of a Jewish Rhodesia.

Israel exists, not because "Jews" are so afraid of anti-semitism they all want to move to a colonial garrison state and seriously endanger themselves (as most Jews, in fact, live outside of Israel), but because imperialism found use for a settler-colonial outpost in the region.

This is one of the persistent myths of the Zionists. You might as well bring out that old one about the "socialist" kibbutzim.

sosolo

18th July 2014, 23:03

yes, the oppression of jews predates the second world war. As do groups that have struggled, and continue to struggle, against the oppression of jews, including the socialist movement in its entirety. And notably not including zionists, who did not want the jews to live in europe as equal citizens but in palestine as a colonial oppressor group. Hence the enthusiastic support for zionism shown by people like lord balfour,the bloody pogromist plehve, mussolini etc.

The zionists would like to have everyone believe that israel was founded by holocaust survivors, but in fact only a minority of them had anything to do with the formation of that settler-colonial statelet. Somewhat understandably, someone who has been in a death camp will generally speaking not be eager to go get shot in some desert in order to fulfill someone else's dream of a jewish rhodesia.

Israel exists, not because "jews" are so afraid of anti-semitism they all want to move to a colonial garrison state and seriously endanger themselves (as most jews, in fact, live outside of israel), but because imperialism found use for a settler-colonial outpost in the region.

This is one of the persistent myths of the zionists. You might as well bring out that old one about the "socialist" kibbutzim.

this, this, this!

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 23:37

Yes, the oppression of Jews predates the Second World War. As do groups that have struggled, and continue to struggle, against the oppression of Jews, including the socialist movement in its entirety. And notably not including Zionists, who did not want the Jews to live in Europe as equal citizens but in Palestine as a colonial oppressor group. Hence the enthusiastic support for Zionism shown by people like lord Balfour,the bloody pogromist Plehve, Mussolini etc.

The Zionists would like to have everyone believe that Israel was founded by Holocaust survivors, but in fact only a minority of them had anything to do with the formation of that settler-colonial statelet. Somewhat understandably, someone who has been in a death camp will generally speaking not be eager to go get shot in some desert in order to fulfill someone else's dream of a Jewish Rhodesia.

Israel exists, not because "Jews" are so afraid of anti-semitism they all want to move to a colonial garrison state and seriously endanger themselves (as most Jews, in fact, live outside of Israel), but because imperialism found use for a settler-colonial outpost in the region.

This is one of the persistent myths of the Zionists. You might as well bring out that old one about the "socialist" kibbutzim.

They talk about figting anti semitism, their actions and stances objectively support groups that are actively anti semetic.