Our Statement About The Slaughter In Gaza:

[il Commie]

http://www.maki.org.il/english/english.html

October, 3 2004

Statement by the Political Bureau of the Israeli Communist Party (CPI)

STOP WAR CRIMES

THE WAY TO ACHIEVE SECURITY IS BY TERMINATION OF THE OCCUPATION!!

The CPI.denunciates Sharon's government, which has aggravated the bloody war against the Palestinian People, especially against the Palestinian inhabitants in the Gaza Strip.

During the month of September, the Israeli Army killed some 100 Palestinian inhabitants and is now continuing in its killing pursuit, demolishing of houses and performing arrests.

The CPI objects killing of Israel and Palestinian civilians alike. But regards as sheer hypocrisy on behalf of Sharon's government and Israeli Army the exploitation of the death of civilians, among them two babies, in the town of Sderot to justify the renewal of occupation of parts of Gaza Strip and the killing of tens of Palestinians, among them pupils in their school classes.

The shooting without distinction of Israeli tanks and helicopters of whatever Sharon calls "The Disengagement Plan". It is impossible to disconnect The killing and the destruction in Gaza Strip were already defined by Israeli Army spokesmen as an "advanced payment of the evacuation".

The intimidation attack, waged by the Israeli Army in preparation for the "Disengagement" teaches us ones more' hat when Sharon speaks of "Evacuation", he is preparing more war crimes' aiming at elimination the aspiration of the Palestinian People to stop living under occupation and achieve their national independence alongside Israel.

CPI calls upon all peace lovers, Jews and Arabs, to denounce the crimes of occupation and to demand the immediate pullout of the Israeli Army from all parts of the Gaza Strip, being under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

CPI emphasizes once more, that security and peace can be achieved only by putting an end to Israeli occupation, evacuation of all Israeli settlements' establishing an Palestinian independent state alongside Israel, establishing two Capitals in Jerusalem, and solving the Refugees' question according to UN resolutions.


STOP WAR CRIMES!
TWO STATES, ISRAEL AND PALESTINE! - THE WAY TO PEACE AND SECURITY

[il Commie]

Agree?... Disagree?...

[PRC-UTE]

CPI emphasizes once more, that security and peace can be achieved only by putting an end to Israeli occupation, evacuation of all Israeli settlements' establishing an Palestinian independent state alongside Israel, establishing two Capitals in Jerusalem, and solving the Refugees' question according to UN resolutions.

I just want to see the Israeli state smashed, just like I'd want to see the third reich destroyed.

[Intifada]

Death of the two-state solution? (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7063001D-3114-49E0-BF5E-69532925D728.htm)

Ghada Karmi, a Palestinian writer and academic, says the two state solution is doomed because of the nature of Zionism itself.

[dso79]

The statement from the CPI is a nice gesture, but it won't change anything. The Israeli left needs to be more united to be effective.

Is there currently any cooperation between the left-wing parties and the peace movements, etc?

[LSD]

I just want to see the Israeli state smashed, just like I'd want to see the third reich destroyed.

That is a disgusting and sickening parallel.

Not to mention, absolutely counterproductive to finding an effective solution.

If all you have to contribute is "Hitler" references, you're pretty much useless.

[PRC-UTE]

That is a disgusting and sickening parallel.

How so? I'd like you to tell me why.

Both the nazis and the zionists are land-hungry, blood-and-soil nationalists who deny basic rights to 'non-humans'. The largest number of people in concentration camps since WW2 are the Palestinian Arabs who are imprisoned by the Zionists.


Not to mention, absolutely counterproductive to finding an effective solution.

Really? Please give me a better answer to deal with a racist colonial military state armed with nukes.


If all you have to contribute is "Hitler" references, you're pretty much useless.

The only other folks I've compared to the Nazis would be the Bush regime, other than that I don't invoke the comparison.

[il Commie]

Originally posted by "OglachMcGlinchey"+--> ("OglachMcGlinchey")I just want to see the Israeli state smashed, just like I'd want to see the third reich destroyed.[/b]


Originally posted by "Intifada"+--> ("Intifada")Ghada Karmi, a Palestinian writer and academic, says the two state solution is doomed because of the nature of Zionism itself. [/b]

Though there is a big difference between Zionism and Nazism, let's ignore it for this moment because for this disscussion it doesn't matter.

Do you think that because the 3rd Reich ruled it for a certain period Germany does not have the right for self-determination? Do you think that because of the crimes of the german regime on a certain period of time the german citizens do not have the right for a free state? I think they do. I think that Israel has a right for self-determination too.

Under Capitalism I think we can not and should not talk about one state. Both jews and arabs are citizens of Israel inside the green line, and although there is a discrimination against the arab citizens they are not occupies like in the WB and Gaza. One palestinian state from the river to the sea would mean the occupation of the current citizens of Israel. Besides the fact that it only revers the role of the oppressing-opressor situation, and we socialists oppose any oppression, it is just not possible. As you said, Israel is -


"OglachMcGlinchey"@
a racist colonial military state armed with nukes.

Only with cooporation of the people inside Israel this state will be crushed, and that will happen only when a socialist alternative will be on the table. Untill then, we communists should support all the democratic freedoms - including a state for the citizens of Israel and a state for the occupied people of Palestine.

And no, we can not prosponed the national question untill the revolution. Even if the palestinian national liberation movment will change it's course and become socialist like in Cuba - a revolution inside Israel will break only when the social movment will become massive and strong - in an occupying country the "bread" issue sets the fire more than the "peace" issue.

We can not wait for the revolution to fight on democratic rights. The right of the palestinians outside the green line for a state and the right of the israeli citizens for a non-zionist state are true before and after the revolution.


"dso79"
The statement from the CPI is a nice gesture, but it won't change anything. The Israeli left needs to be more united to be effective.

Is there currently any cooperation between the left-wing parties and the peace movements, etc?

You're right. We are not organized well, so on emergencies like that we rush to make small demonstrations so that something will be done. The "Labor" party didn't even condemed this. The "Social-Democratic" party condemed this but do nothing about it. Our party and organizations like "Peace Bloc", "Courage to Refuse" and "Sons of the Country" hold as many demonstration as we can, and you can read "Peace Bloc" report on the biggest in Tel-Aviv:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/actions/action5-10-2004.html

[PRC-UTE]

Do you think that because the 3rd Reich ruled it for a certain period Germany does not have the right for self-determination? Do you think that because of the crimes of the german regime on a certain period of time the german citizens do not have the right for a free state? I think they do. I think that Israel has a right for self-determination too.

As a marxist, I approach the question of national self-determination not as an abstract or fixed principle, but on what effect it will have, whether or not it is historically progressive.

For example, Marx supported Irish National Liberation because he believed that a rebellion in Ireland could likely trigger revolution throughout the British Isles.

I don't care about the right of the Germans to self-determination to be honest, considering how they've used it since ancient times. That doesn't mean I want them colonised, I just don't lose any sleep over the issue.

"Israel" has even less ground to stand on. "Israel" was formed by the Brits in their Balfour Declaration, to be their "Northern Ireland in Palestine" as they so aptly put it.

No, I don't think that "Israel" has a right for self-determination, anymore than "Northern" Ireland.


Only with cooporation of the people inside Israel this state will be crushed, and that will happen only when a socialist alternative will be on the table. Untill then, we communists should support all the democratic freedoms - including a state for the citizens of Israel and a state for the occupied people of Palestine

No, I support Pan-Arabism, I see this as the only way to counter American influence in Arabia that would be historically progressive.

The Zionists can go back to New York and London.

[fuerzasocialista]

The idea of Zionism itself suffocates any possibilty for the existence of a Palestinian state. It is very realistic to think that there is really no way in which both sides could co-exist until Israel not only offers a genuine truce but begins a pullback of the Israeli settlers from the West Bank. The state of Israel itself will not cease to exist. That would only be wishful thinking.

[il Commie]

Pan-Arabism is a nationalist ideology, just like Zionism is though Pan-Arabism is not backed by U$ imperialism at the moment.

Marxists oppose any privilige of one nation over the other, and that includes ethnical cleansing. Whether it's a jew who says "Jordania is the palestinian state" or an arab who says -


Originally posted by "OglachMcGlinchey"
The Zionists can go back to New York and London.

Jews inside the green line do not have citizenship in any other state, do not have a different motherland. Whether immigrants or born-here, this is our homeland just as much as it the palestinian homeland.

I believe that Zionism, whether we oppose it or not, has created an israeli-jewish ("hebrew" if you like) nation. Not a world-jewish nation, that is just a racist idea. A jewish nation on the territory of Palestine-Israel. It has the Hebrew language, the common territory of Israel, a common culture and an one economy. Even if in the 20's communists wanted the jews in Palestine to be part of the palestinian nation like the druzes, today we are a seperated nation.

I believe that if Israel will get out of the WB and Gaza and will give the arab citizens full equallity - than the two nations (hebrew and palestinian) can live in co-existance. That is true both if it will happen under Capitalism (like happend in South Africa), and after the capitalist state will be crushed and Socialism will be built (like in Cuba).

Not only that, but the true self determination of the hebrew nation will occur after it will be de-zionised, after the "Jewish Agencie" will be dismantled, after connection with the U$ will be disconnected and after will join the palestinians in co-existance.

[LSD]

Both the nazis and the zionists are land-hungry, blood-and-soil nationalists who deny basic rights to 'non-humans'.

Naxi Germany killed approximately 11 million civilians irrespective of World War 2 in the twelve years between 1933 and 1945.

Remind me again about how many million Israel has killed in the forty five years it's been around.


The largest number of people in concentration camps since WW2 are the Palestinian Arabs who are imprisoned by the Zionists.

*cough* China *cough*

The good ol' people's republic of China has killed somewhere around 60 million civilians.....but Israel is hitler.

Syria is a fascists murderous authoritarian regime.....but Israel is hitler.

North Korea is an oppressive violent totalitarianism.....but Israel is hitler.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have blatantly theocratic and religiously discriminatory laws far in excess of those of Israel.....but Israel is hitler.

All accross Africa and Asia are states and regimes with massively higher body counts and repressive policies than Israel. In terms of the world, Israel is actually not that comparitively bad. It's democratic, functionaly constitutional, and in terms of serious human rights breaches is really quite low on the scale.

In face, Israel's biggest crime seems to be its continual violation of UN resolutions.


* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.

Wow....65...

I guess Israel must be the gravest threat to world peace. I mean, so much attention is focused on it, there must be a reason...

this "last great cause" bullshit it getting old.


Really? Please give me a better answer to deal with a racist colonial military state armed with nukes.

Oh, because insult is such a brilliant foreign policy.

YOU'RE LIKE THE NAZIS!!!!!

I'm sure it will make them come around to you'r point of view in no time...



No, I support Pan-Arabism, I see this as the only way to counter American influence in Arabia that would be historically progressive.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Pan-Arabism???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, I get it, usually racist expansionist ideologies are bad, but this one's "cool".

hmm..can you spell hypocrite?

[praxis1966]

Actually, it is impossible for Arabs and Jews to have racist attitudes towards one another being that they are all in origin Semetic. This would be like saying that a Norwegian hating Swedes is a racist, even though the are both Scandanavian in descent. The only difference is national origin. The real issue here is theocratic fanaticism on both sides, which is the irrefutable root of the problem. Incidently, you should check out why the Bush administration has a hear no evil see no evil attitude towards Israeli military incursion into the West Bank. There is an excellent article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1195568,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html) on that topic as well as how Christian fundamentalism is wrapped up in all of this as well.

Nevertheless, there will never be a solution until both Sharon (and by extension the Likud party) and Arafat are out of power. The two have been time and time again the largest stumbling blocks to the peace process, or lack thereof. Ancillarily, the Bush administration's absenteeism on the Israel/Palestine dispute settlement process is not really helping matters either.


And no, we can not prosponed the national question untill the revolution. Even if the palestinian national liberation movment will change it's course and become socialist like in Cuba - a revolution inside Israel will break only when the social movment will become massive and strong - in an occupying country the "bread" issue sets the fire more than the "peace" issue.

If I am understanding you correctly, you believe that once the Palestinians secure autonomous statehood it will first be capitalist and later a socialist movement will take hold, and a socialist revolution will ensue as was the case with Cuba. If this is in fact your argument, you are making a false analogy and being latently naive. The Cuban anti-colonial war against Spain had nothing to do with religion, but this conflict does. The reality of the situation is that as soon as the Palestinians are given their independance an oligarchical theocracy will take hold, in all likelihood one similar to what is now in place in Iran, making any sort of reformist movement a veritable impossibility.

This is not to say that I do not favor a Palestinian state, quite the contrary. I just do not believe that your thinking is realistic.


No, I support Pan-Arabism, I see this as the only way to counter American influence in Arabia that would be historically progressive.

It seems as if you don't really understand Pan-Arabism as an ideology. This is something cooked up by people like Hamas and al-Qaeda which seeks one unified state encompassing the entire Arab world to be governed by fundementalist Islamic law. If you think for one second that people like the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families and the heads of governments in places like Qatar, Oman, and the UAE are going to give up all those trillions in oil revenue and willingly relinquish their respective hegemonies to some cleric you've definately gone 'round the bend. In the mainstream Arab political world Pan-Arabism is an ideology that none take seriously.

[il Commie]

praxiss1966, you misunderstood my argument.

First of all - this conflict carries a national charachter. If you want to be precise, a colonial versus anti-colonial charachter. But religions has nothing to do with it, except the islamic and jewish clerics are trying to find religiouse excuses for their acts. The mainstream of Zionism and the PLO is secular.

Second, I didn't give a plan for the foundation of the palestinian state. Why? Because I am not a prophet! During arguments with people I noticed two agendas of communists: One says that "we must have peace, end the occupation and built democracy under Capitalism, and only on the base of these start a socialist revolution". The second says: "there will be no democracy or liberation under Capitalism, first a revolution then democracy".

In reality, the two scenarios are possible. Some countries had extreme democratic changes under Capitalism, and on some countries democratic freedoms were given only after the socialist revolution.

I gave examples for both: South Africa on the early 90's had an extreme democratic change, it cancelled Apartheid. They did it without a socialist revolution. Cuba also had racist restrictions on blacks and hespanics under Batista, and they gone threw an extreme democratic change only while building Socialism.

So I believe we should not try to predict the future, but stand on these principles for the end of the conflict no matter if under Capitalism or Socialism:
- A free palestinian state in Gaza and the WB. Dismantling of all settlements.
- True equality for the palestinian citizens of Israel, defining Israel as an "all of it citizens state". Right for the refugees to choose between israeli citizenship and compansations.
- The dismantling of the "Jewish Agencie" and the disconnection from USA or any other imperialism - a true self-determinations for jews and arabs in Israel and Palestine.

[praxis1966]

In that case I agree with what you are advocating, I'm just not certain that there won't be a civil war after the creation of a free Palestinian state if the authority there is in fact secular. I'm also not sure that your characterization of the conflict as primarily nationalistic is accurate. There are still a good many officials serving in the Palestinian Authority that would like to drive all the Jews into the sea. Converseley, there are a good many people in Israel, many of them Likud serving as elected members of in the Israeli parliament, who would love nothing better than to see the total annihilation of all the Arabs in Gaza and the WB. I see these fanatics' motivation as being purely religious.

In any event, check out the link in my post above. I'd like to hear your assessment of that facet of this situation.

[PRC-UTE]

il commie,

I look forward to reading your posts when I have time to devote to them.


It seems as if you don't really understand Pan-Arabism as an ideology. This is something cooked up by people like Hamas and al-Qaeda which seeks one unified state encompassing the entire Arab world to be governed by fundementalist Islamic law. If you think for one second that people like the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families and the heads of governments in places like Qatar, Oman, and the UAE are going to give up all those trillions in oil revenue and willingly relinquish their respective hegemonies to some cleric you've definately gone 'round the bend. In the mainstream Arab political world Pan-Arabism is an ideology that none take seriously.

PA wasn't originally nor is it still exclusively advocated by hamas or al-quada. In fact hamas started off as something of a charity group. :lol:

secular marxists, including the PFLP have advocated pan-arabism.


The good ol' people's republic of China has killed somewhere around 60 million civilians.....but Israel is hitler.

Syria is a fascists murderous authoritarian regime.....but Israel is hitler.

North Korea is an oppressive violent totalitarianism.....but Israel is hitler.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have blatantly theocratic and religiously discriminatory laws far in excess of those of Israel.....but Israel is hitler.

All accross Africa and Asia are states and regimes with massively higher body counts and repressive policies than Israel. In terms of the world, Israel is actually not that comparitively bad. It's democratic, functionaly constitutional, and in terms of serious human rights breaches is really quite low on the scale.

I didn't say "israel is hitler", a mhac. I compared the ideology of zionism to nazism. There are a lot of similarities. many zionists even supported hitler because they felt he would advance their goals by expelling the jews from europe and driving them to palestine.

israel is a huge threat to the world because it's a country armed with nuclear weapons who abides by almost no treaties (along with the US, it recently brought down the nuclear non-proliferation treaty). israel doesn't even allow weapons inspectors. . . though what good they would do I don't know.


Pan-Arabism???

Oh, I get it, usually racist expansionist ideologies are bad, but this one's "cool".

hmm..can you spell hypocrite?

it's not expansionist. that should be obvious.


In face, Israel's biggest crime seems to be its continual violation of UN resolutions.

you're not worth responding to anymore.

[LSD]

it's not expansionist. that should be obvious.

Well, "pan-arab" governments sure tried to expand into Israel.


I didn't say "israel is hitler", a mhac. I compared the ideology of zionism to nazism. There are a lot of similarities.


I just want to see the Israeli state smashed, just like I'd want to see the third reich destroyed.

You didn't compare ideologies, you compared states. Furthermore, even if you had merely compared ideologies you would have been wrong as these "similarities" are superficial qualities that can be found in many ideologies world round. The theocratic and expansionist elements that you point are just as, if not more, present in radical islamic ideologies and fundamentalist christian idelogies.

Basically every fundamentalist system contains these principles of self-importance and "manifest destiny". In other words, it isn't even close to unique to "zionism".


many zionists even supported hitler because they felt he would advance their goals by expelling the jews from europe and driving them to palestine.

Not that many.

And even if they did that has no relevence to whether or not comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is justified.


srael is a huge threat to the world because it's a country armed with nuclear weapons who abides by almost no treaties (along with the US, it recently brought down the nuclear non-proliferation treaty). israel doesn't even allow weapons inspectors. . . though what good they would do I don't know.

Personally, I trust Israel with nukes more than North Korea or Iran, at leat Israel is democratic.

Russia isn't even guarding their nukes and China doesn't exactly have a pristine human rights record.

And do I really have to mention the US???

So... pretty much every country with nukes is a threat to world peace.


You still haven't shown a parallel between Israel and Hitler's Germany.


you're not worth responding to anymore.

Brilliant rebuttal.

[praxis1966]

And he still hasn't addressed the real meat and potatoes of my argument in regards to Pan-Arabism. I may have been wrong about the origins of it as a philosophy/doctrine, but Hamas starting off as a charity has absolutely nothing to do with anything and neither does who originally thought of Pan-Arabism. There are two critical elements of my argument. You have either not understood them or chosen to, instead of disputing them, correct me about some factual information tantamount to my point in an attempt to insult my intelligence. Consequently, and just so there is no confusion here, I will reiterate them in the plainest possible manner.

1) You called Pan-Arabism progressive. It is anything but due to its desire to create a unified Arab state. This state, under PA, would be governed by radical fundamentalist Muslim dogmatic law. You know, the same version of Islam that makes its women wear the beekeeper suits.

2) It will never happen since there isn't a single government in the Arab world that would submit to the rulership by some outside authority. If there were, Osama bin Laden would be president of Egypt or some such nonsense. The fact is that bin Laden and every other Pan-Arabist are as much at odds with all of the secular leaders of the Arab nations as they are with the United $tates.

EDIT: By the way, Oglach, while we're in the business of correcting one another, it's al-Qaeda, not "al quada".

[Intifada]

at leat Israel is democratic.



It's democratic, functionaly constitutional, and in terms of serious human rights breaches is really quite low on the scale.


I have seen that you have described the state of Israel as "democratic". The fact is, that it is not.

Why Israel is not a democracy. (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/494/494p11.htm)

Israel has no constitution. Israel is defined as the state of the Jewish people, providing special rights and privileges to anyone in the world who is Jewish and seeks to live there, over and above longtime Arab residents. Israel bars any candidate from holding office who thinks the country should be a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all. Non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all, thanks to laws granting preferential treatment to Jewish residents. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged the use of torture against suspected "terrorists" and other "enemies" of the Jewish state.

Israel is far from being a democratic nation.

Zionism is a disgusting, racist and fascist ideology which should be opposed by any sane person.

[LSD]

Zionism is a disgusting,

Well, clearly disgusting is in the eye of the beholder.


racist

How? (I'd remind you that Judaism isn't a race)


and fascist ideology

Wrong.

Tell me I don't have to explain the meaning of "fascist" to you. I understand that it is a "fun" word to use, but using it out of context and with no regard to its actual denotation just makes you appear ignorant.


Israel is far from being a democratic nation.

Democracy is a comparative term.

Israel has a long way to go before I would call it a perfect democracy, but then so does every other country on earth. The United States is not democratic in many ways, neither is Canada, neither is Sweden, neither is Japan. No nation has managed to create a propper democratic state, in my opinion no capitalist country can.

But, to judge Israel, how about we compare its form of government and citizen representation with that of other nations in the region? I'm sure that you would agree that this is a fair way to gauge exactly how democratic Israel truly is in reference to its environment.

So....here's the game, I name two countries and you pick the more democratic one.

Ready? Here we go:

Round 1.
Israel vs. Syria

Round 2
Israel vs. Iran

Round 3.
Israel vs. Jordan

Round 3.
Israel vs. Kuwait

Round 4.
Israel vs. Saudi Arabia

Round 5.
Israel vs. Qatar

OK, who won?

What, want to keep going?

Allright then, here comes round 6!!

Round 6.
Israel vs. Lebanon

Round 7.
Israel vs. Egypt

Round 8.
Israel vs. The Sudan

Round 9.
Israel vs. Yemen

Round 10.
Israel vs. UAE

Wow!

But wait! There's more!

A special bonus round:

Round 11.
Israel vs. Pakistan


So....get my point?

[Intifada]

The way you described Israel, "it's democratic", implied that Israel was a democracy. All I did was show that Israel is nowhere near democracy. It is a fascist apartheid state.

I agree that Israel is more "democratic" than most, if not all, the nations which are in the region. That however does not justify it's actions.

Saying "at least Israel is democratic", or even that it is at least more democratic that other nations in the region, does not prove anything.

[LSD]

The way you described Israel, "it's democratic", implied that Israel was a democracy. All I did was show that Israel is nowhere near democracy.

Again, no nation is trully "democratic" in its true meaning, but when I say Israel is "a democracy" I mean relative to the world median, Israel is quite high on the scale of democracy.

Ever see those old "tryanny or democracy" films from the fifties? The big black and white scale with the US at one end and the USSR at the other?

Well if we stuck Israel on that kind of a measurement, it would rank closer to the top than to the bottom. It isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than any other country for a thousand miles around.


Saying "at least Israel is democratic", or even that it is at least more democratic that other nations in the region, does not prove anything.

My statement on Israel's democracy was to in response to OM's contention that Israel is comparable to Nazi Germany. Since Hitler's Germany was definitely not democratic, my point was indicate an imporant difference between the two.


It is a fascist apartheid state.

...sigh....

Fascist?

I know, using words is fun, but actually using words correctly is even more fun.

Israel does not fit any definition of "fascist".

Syria? yes.
Israel? no.

[il Commie]

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, you're portraying Israel much better than it is in reality. Yes, it is much more democratic than countries where the IMF supports the reactionary regim like in Saudia and Kuwait, but if we compare it to nations you've mentioned like Japan, Sweden or any other democracy the picture is gloomy for Israel.

First off, there's the crimes Intifada mentioned. But he forgot a few: in Israel a person can be sent to jail by authorities without a trial, which is completely legal. In Israel a party can not run for election if it doesn't support the "Jewish State" idea. Israel do not allow it's citizens to marry palestinians from the occupied territories. And above it all - Israel controll 3.5 million palestinians who have no rights, who live under the constant pressure of the IDF and who are killed and abused daily. This is not just a war, these are war crimes comitted by Israel.


Originally posted by "Lysergic Acid Diethylamide"
How? (I'd remind you that Judaism isn't a race)


Zionism is racism. Why?

1. Whoever wants to create a jewish states in jewish-arab country, with no reffering to the arab citizens and residents, is a racist person.

2. Zionism does not only see the jews in Israel (the "Hebrew" nation) as it's target, but every jew in the world.

What is Judaism according to Zionism?

It is not an ethnical nation - jews do not have a common territory, do not share a common language and has only religiouse acts as "common culture", which is like saying Chrismas is a national holiday.

It is certainly not a political nation - if it was than every person receiving an israeli citizenship would become a jew. But t doesn't happen like this, whoever wants to become a jew has to go threw a religiouse process called "Giyur".

But it is no a religion according to Zionism - it is a secular movment by it's historical charachter. Even the extreme anti-clerical zionist party "Shinui" consider themselves jews, though they don't believe in god and don't follow the bible.

So what is Judaism according to the Zionist ideology? A race. It is both the definition of the zionists and the antisemits. Not only that, but instead of the religiouse definition for a jew (a person born to a jewish mother or gone threw the process of Giyur) the state of Israel adopted the hitlerist definition - a person who's been threw Giyur or has a parent or grandparent who is or was a jew. In other, very not pretty, words - "a person with jewish blood in him".

I object this definition. I see world Judaism as a religion, which I don't belong to because I am atheist. I see every jew as a son of the nation which he lives in, including the Israeli/Hebrew nation in Israel.

3. The practical moves of Zionism in history were racist: the ethnical cleansing of 700,000 palestinians on '48, the army rule on the arab citizens untill '66, the discrimination of oriental jews, the occupation of Gaza and the WB in '67, the killing of 13 arab citizens who protested in 2000, the continuing discrimination of the arab public politically and economically.

[LSD]

1. Whoever wants to create a jewish states in jewish-arab country, with no reffering to the arab citizens and residents, is a racist person.

Judaism is not a race.


2. Zionism does not only see the jews in Israel (the "Hebrew" nation) as it's target, but every jew in the world.

Judaism is not a race.


But it is no a religion according to Zionism - it is a secular movment by it's historical charachter. Even the extreme anti-clerical zionist party "Shinui" consider themselves jews, though they don't believe in god and don't follow the bible.

"according to zionism"

What, did you read the "handbook"?

Sorry, but there is no unified position on just what exactly "Zionism" "means". It's a very nebulous ideology.

Sure many self-proclaimed "Zionists" are not particularly religious, but if you asked them to define "Jew", you would get a primarily religious response.

There are cultural elements to Judaism, but then there are cultural elemtns to every religion. None of which means that Israel is embarked on a "racist" campaign. There is no doubt that many of her policies are fiercely theocratic, but in comparison to those of Iran, Saudi arabia, or the former Republic of Afghanistan, they're downright secular.


So what is Judaism according to the Zionist ideology? A race. It is both the definition of the zionists and the antisemits. Not only that, but instead of the religiouse definition for a jew (a person born to a jewish mother or gone threw the process of Giyur) the state of Israel adopted the hitlerist definition - a person who's been threw Giyur or has a parent or grandparent who is or was a jew. In other, very not pretty, words - "a person with jewish blood in him".

Untrue.

Israeli law on who is a "jew", notably under the Law of Return and the Law on Citizenship, stipulates that a Jew is the child of a Jewish grandparent or the spouse of a Jew or someone who converts to Judaism. In other words, anyone who follows the Jewish religion and their relatives.

hmm...sounds like a religious definition to me.


Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, you're portraying Israel much better than it is in reality. Yes, it is much more democratic than countries where the IMF supports the reactionary regim like in Saudia and Kuwait

Much more democratic.

And yet when was the last UN resolution on Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?

When was the last time China was condemned for its many illegal occupations. Israel has definitely fucked up a lot, but the focus on the Israeli issue is entirely out of hand.

[PRC-UTE]

1) You called Pan-Arabism progressive. It is anything but due to its desire to create a unified Arab state. This state, under PA, would be governed by radical fundamentalist Muslim dogmatic law. You know, the same version of Islam that makes its women wear the beekeeper suits.

I already said that some marxists have advocated pan-Arabism, that is secular, socialist and anti-imperialist. It would be progressive if it defeated US imperialism, which is the source of most conflict right now and the raison d'etre of the wahabbist terrorist scum.


2) It will never happen since there isn't a single government in the Arab world that would submit to the rulership by some outside authority. If there were, Osama bin Laden would be president of Egypt or some such nonsense. The fact is that bin Laden and every other Pan-Arabist are as much at odds with all of the secular leaders of the Arab nations as they are with the United $tates.

I know. The idea is to overthrow those governments and create a secular anti-imperialist body. The various pieces of Arabia were at one time more united. The Brits went in and divided regions into various states, like Iraq into Kuwait and Iraq.


EDIT: By the way, Oglach, while we're in the business of correcting one another, it's al-Qaeda, not "al quada".

Actually, Shinner, there's no correct way to spell "the base", that's what an Arab speaker told me. There are many spellings.



Lysergic Acid Diethylamide,

Your entire argument is that Israel is "more demorcratic" or this or that UN resolution. As a leftist, I don't believe that capitalist democracy is valid or that the opinion of the UN actually matters. I want to see the end of both ffs.

Israel is a racist settler colonial state. As I already stated (which you denied), the highest number of people in concentration camps since WWII. There have not been a few mistakes or the like but a systematic campaign of massacres and expansion to Arab soil.

If you see a need to defend that arrangement, (as well as "free speech" for right wingers :lol: ) I wonder if you're on the right message board.

[praxis1966]

I already said that some marxists have advocated pan-Arabism, that is secular, socialist and anti-imperialist. It would be progressive if it defeated US imperialism, which is the source of most conflict right now and the raison d'etre of the wahabbist terrorist scum.

I understand what you are advocating, but that is not what Pan-Arabism is. Perhaps there are some European leftists floating around who use the term the way you are, but there is an actual philosophy of the same name which happens to be the same one that most of the theocratic "terrorist" organizations subscribe to. The latter is to which I am referring and was in previous posts explaining. Pan-Arabism is, in the sense in which I am using it (and also the more accurate one), by definition reactionary. In other words, it has a dichotomal relationship to what you're talking about.


Actually, Shinner, there's no correct way to spell "the base", that's what an Arab speaker told me. There are many spellings.

This may be true, but I was using the most commonly accepted one; the one used by every major world news outlet I've been privvy to. By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by Shinner, but I'm assuming it's some sort of insult. In that case, fuck you.

[LSD]

As a leftist, I don't believe that capitalist democracy is valid

Valid?

What's "valid"?

Is "capitalist democracy" good? No.
But is it better? Of course.

Just as capitalism is better than feudalism, so democracy (yes even capitalist democracy) is better than authoritarianism.

Israel being democratic is very relevent to our discussion, as it is an imporant difference between itself and Hitler's Germany. The fact of Israel's comparatively democratic government highlights just how inaccurate it is to claim that it is comparable to the "Third Reich".


or that the opinion of the UN actually matters.

Neither do I!

That was my point! The most often lobbied critisism of Israel is that they have violated "UN resoltions", I was pointing out how meaningless such resolutions are by showing just how damn many of them there are, and just how pointless most of them are.

The claim that Israel is as bad as Nazi Germany because "they both broke international law" is a common one.

Sorry if you misunderstood.


Israel is a racist settler colonial state. As I already stated (which you denied), the highest number of people in concentration camps since WWII.

Yes, I noticed you have not provided any evidence for your claim.

I, therefore, continue to "deny" it.


There have not been a few mistakes or the like but a systematic campaign of massacres and expansion to Arab soil.

If you see a need to defend that arrangement

I am not "defending" Israel, I am merely demonstrating that equating Israel with Nazi Germany is bad history and manipulative rhetoric.


(as well as "free speech" for right wingers :lol:)

Read the arguments before you blindly condemn them.

But, it's good to know you oppose "free speech".

Maybe you have more in common with "fascist states" than you like to admit.

[PRC-UTE]

By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by Shinner, but I'm assuming it's some sort of insult. In that case, fuck you.

:lol:

look at yer avatar a mhac! :P

As I already said about pan-Arabism, it's advocated by more than group, representing more than one ideology, including the left. I happen to think that pan-arabism could defeat US/UK imperialism but maybe you're correct that the project could be hijacked by wahabbists, which would be a danger indeed.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2004, 09:45 PM

Judaism is not a race.

Ok... then can you tell me what the name of the race that evolved north of Palestine is called? Because I thought that was Jewish.

There are atheist Jews, and Jews who believe in Judaism. Jewish can refer to race or religion.

[LSD]

Ok... then can you tell me what the name of the race that evolved north of Palestine is called?

No race "evolved" there, but perhaps you are refering to the semetic peoples which migrated and settled there 4 or 5 thousand years ago


Because I thought that was Jewish.

There are atheist Jews

and Jews who believe in Judaism

Jewish can refer to race or religion.

So...what about Christians?

There are "atheist Christians"

There are "Christians who believe in Christianity".

Can Christian "refer to a race"


How about Moslem?


There is no such thing as a "jewish" race. That was an invention of middle-age european anti-semitism later resurrected by a certain German leader of the 1930's.

It hs no grounding in history or anthropology.

[praxis1966]

look at yer avatar a mhac!

Well slap my arse and call me Suzie. I suppose I should have guessed that, but you spelled it with an 'h' so that's probably what threw me off. Sometimes I need things to be made blatantly obvious. In any event, no hard feelings about the disagreement. The Republic needs you Starry Plough buggers, and I have a feeling we'll be agreeing on a good many other things. Oh, and it might help you to know that I signed your segregation petition.

[PRC-UTE]

Well slap my arse and call me Suzie. I suppose I should have guessed that, but you spelled it with an 'h' so that's probably what threw me off. Sometimes I need things to be made blatantly obvious. In any event, no hard feelings about the disagreement. The Republic needs you Starry Plough buggers, and I have a feeling we'll be agreeing on a good many other things. Oh, and it might help you to know that I signed your segregation petition.

Sláinte a chara! Cheers, friend!

It is pretty redundant to add the english pheotnic 'h' to 'sinn' as it sort of contradicts the "ourselves alone" thing, I agree. ;) but the shinners do so. :blink:

thanks for signing the petition! :hammer: