zionism=imperialism

[hizballah]

the information is from:
bill, james a. and robert springborg. politics in the middle east. new york, longman: 2000.

1) Herzl (the father of zionism) was an established member of the bourgeoisie who sought to enlist the support of europe's wealthiest jews for his plan to colonize palestine.

2) zionist ideology incorporated the prevailing european approach to asia and africa and applied it to palestine... nonexistence civilizations other than those of europe and european origins... it mattered little that in reality most of palestine, other than the Negev, was no desert but an intensely and successfully cultivated fertile area.

3) the zionist enterprise was part of the broader pattern of european colonization.

4) zionists couched their appeal to european leaders in terms that stressed the potential utility of a jewish state in palestine to their imperial ambitions.

5) Ben Gurion advocated the principle of "transfer" of mush if not all of the palestinians to surrounding arab states as well as leaving open the question of borders.

6) in the Golan Heights and the Jordan Valley(occupied territories), settlement began almost as soon as the guns fell silent.

7) in a concerted effort to break up this concentration and reduce the arab population (in the occupied territories) to minority status, the israelis confiscated as much land as possible, destroyed villages and implanted jewish settlements.

[Reuben]

I agree with alot of what you say and feel that zionism is imperialism, not only in terms of political subjugation but also in terms of ethnic oppression.

However I would not necessarily equate the zionist movement with that of european colonialism. The european colonialist countries were already powerful nations simply looking to expand their power and trade. The zionist movement (which I do not support) was formed out of desparation, and although it was supported by some rich jews 9there were vfery few wealthy jews at the time) its main support base was amongst easterneuropean jews who were generally very poor and looking for a way out of persecution.

[Reuben]

I am not legitimizing zionism ofcourse. I just feel that there is a difference between countries such as Britain who were already comforrtable and powerfle trying to expand their empire, and the zionist movement which grewup amongst a stateless ethnic minority and only became dominant in the post-war displaced persons camps.

[deimos]

i agree with both of you.

[Zion]

Zionsim is the Jewish national movement. It cannot be summed up by any catch phrase or political term because zionists themselves could never agree on purpose, philosophy, or motives. Zionism also did not start with Herzl it started with Titus in 70 AD. Zionists used European countries, enticing them with imperialist economic goals in order to secure their aid in regaining their nationhood for themselves. They had no expressed colonial self interest nor could they because they were not a foreign power on foreign soil they were and are a native people returning to the land from which they were cast out. The only imperialist/colonial zionists were gentiles not Jews who had economic reasons for supporting a Jewish state which they knew inevitably would become (and did become) more economically, technologically, morally and politically viable than any of its arab neighbors

[hizballah]

Reuben,
i think that we CANNOT differentiate between zionism and european imperialism. i just want to remind u of the conditions that followed the end of the 2nd world war: there was an increasing fear among the europeans of the growing influence of the socialist and communist ideas that were mixed with the notions of arab nationalism and liberation from the occupation of the western powers made the world powers worry about their interests in the middle east especially oil. at that time, the zionists used the western fears to convince the western leaders that israel would serve their interests in the region(notice the role israel played in discrediting the socialist regimes in both Syria and Egypt in the following years). also, don't forget that the british supported the establishment of the jewish state because they believed that it would serve to counter the french interests in the Levant (greater Syria). the zionist movement has nothing to do with war. the zionists planned to occupy palestine since a very long time (since their first international zionist conference in switzerland in 1897). i think that the wealthy jews were not few at all as u said!! the wealthy jews who established the zionist movement (notice that all of them were seculars) convinced the other poor and simple jews by the idea of return to the land God gave them. the zionists, who claim religious rights to the land of palestine, were ready to accept a homeland in Uganda or Argentina(some of the places suggested by the early zionists), but the internationl conditions made palestine more suitable during that days.

concerning the advancement of israel, i think that if a group of donkeys were given the same amount of support from the US, they would have been as developed as (if not more than) israel. i think that the idea that israel is politically superior to its neighbors is a big lie. i mentioned in another topic many facts about racial discrimination in israel against Sephardim (eastern jews) by Ashkenazim (western jews), which confirms the relation between israel and western imperialism. also, the arabs of 1948 who have lived in israel since its creation and who hold the israeli naionality are treated as second-class citizens.

[Zion]

The 'racial discrimination' in Israel whether it be Ashkenazim vs. Sepharadim and/or Jew vs. Arab, is first of all de facto not de jure. This means that by law there is no discrimination, however it does exist in the society's psyche. This is no different then the de facto discrimination that exists in western countries of blacks for example. So in this respect the discrimination endured by minoriities in Israel is a justifiable criticism but it is not different than the discrimination that exists in other democratic western countries. And the situation gets better as the years go by. (I have spoken with Israeli arabs who acknowledge the progress that they have made and are proud Israeli citizens and who would never go to live in a palestinian state because they know that they could thrive better in Israeli society)

Secondly if you look at Arab countries their racial intolerance/discrimination is on the books by law. This is typified by the dhimmi status afforded to Jews in particular and other minority groups in general. For those who are unfamiliar with this term, dhimmi is an Islamic social status given to non-muslims in a muslim state whereby they are discriminated against by law not just a social stigma.

The bottom line is that there are no Jewish schools in Israel teaching children to kill arabs but palestinian children are being educated in a culture of death glorifying blood and the prolonging of a struggle that will leave both peoples with nothing but death.

[Edelweiss]

hizballah, do you really support those religous fundamentalists? As far as I know they are blatant anti-semites and radical islamists, so noone who any leftist can support...

[Reuben]

Quote: from hizballah on 7:02 pm on July 1, 2002
Reuben,
i think that we CANNOT differentiate between zionism and european imperialism. i just want to remind u of the conditions that followed the end of the 2nd world war: there was an increasing fear among the europeans of the growing influence of the socialist and communist ideas that were mixed with the notions of arab nationalism and liberation from the occupation of the western powers made the world powers worry about their interests in the middle east especially oil. at that time, the zionists used the western fears to convince the western leaders that israel would serve their interests in the region(notice the role israel played in discrediting the socialist regimes in both Syria and Egypt in the following years). also, don't forget that the british supported the establishment of the jewish state because they believed that it would serve to counter the french interests in the Levant (greater Syria). the zionist movement has nothing to do with war. the zionists planned to occupy palestine since a very long time (since their first international zionist conference in switzerland in 1897). i think that the wealthy jews were not few at all as u said!! the wealthy jews who established the zionist movement (notice that all of them were seculars) convinced the other poor and simple jews by the idea of return to the land God gave them. the zionists, who claim religious rights to the land of palestine, were ready to accept a homeland in Uganda or Argentina(some of the places suggested by the early zionists), but the internationl conditions made palestine more suitable during that days.

concerning the advancement of israel, i think that if a group of donkeys were given the same amount of support from the US, they would have been as developed as (if not more than) israel. i think that the idea that israel is politically superior to its neighbors is a big lie. i mentioned in another topic many facts about racial discrimination in israel against Sephardim (eastern jews) by Ashkenazim (western jews), which confirms the relation between israel and western imperialism. also, the arabs of 1948 who have lived in israel since its creation and who hold the israeli naionality are treated as second-class citizens.



I agree with alot of what you said, about the true nature of Israel. It is a racist and colonial state founded on the ethnic expulsion of 7000,000 palestinians!

However regarding the zionist movement, it did not as u say gain support because of religious ideas about gods chosen land. It was essentially a secular movemnet which attracted many secular (non religious/atheist jews)., Although some aspects of zionism stress the importance of Religion the main impetus behind zionism was the behaviour of anti-0semitic european governments,. Regarding wealthy, the jewish communittty historicall (contarty to popular belief) was very poor and in the nineteenth and ealry twentieth century, the east european jews who made up principaly the zionist movement were poor.

The reason why I do not see zionism as completely similar to European coloniialism is the differing situations of the zionist movement and the colonialist nations. Colonialism was something carried out by people who already had strong and powerful nations, the colonists were ot homeless but were simply looking to exploit more land. Zionism on the other hand was a struggle for a homeland. I do not deny thatthe institution of this was based on colonial and racist tactics, yet the the actions of stateless many in the POST WAR DISPLACED PERSONS camps cannot simply be equated with the actions of the comfortable and powerful european ruling classes.

[Zion]

Returning to your homeland to set up a state in a largely uninhabited land is not colonialist or racist. Although there were 700,000 (im using your number although its disputed) Arab refugees created when the arab world attacked the fledgling Jewish state with the expressed purpose of racial genocide in Israel, it was certainly not a result of an 'ethnic expulsion'. Yes it is true that a certain number were chased out, but a significant number left either by their own volition, as many civilians do during wartime, and/or at their (arab) leaders' urging.

Finally it is important to note that a significant number of the arabs living in Israel in 48 were not part of an indigenous presence but part of an influx of arabs to the area as a result of economic progress due to the Jewish homecoming.

[I Will Deny You]

Discrimination against Sephardim is definitely wrong, but the Sephardim don't have it the worst. Unlike the Sephardim, the Mountain Jews have very few options besides living in Israel (assuming they have any at all), and most people who I've talked to agree that the Mountain Jews aren't better off than the Sephardim. Also, disagreement between Ashkenazim and Sephardim is a two-way street. The Sephardim say that they are "purer" Jews (because they have no Khazar blood), etc.

Lindsay

[hizballah]

zion,
note: the wrong info u use won't make ur argument stronger!!!
first,i don't really know from where u got ur info about the dhimmi social status!!! who told u that the dhimmis were discriminated against??? the word dhimmi itself means in arabic: THE ONE WHO WAS GIVEN A PROMISE BY WHICH HIS MONEY, RELIGION, AND FAMILY IS PROTECTED.
second, there was no discrimination under the islamic state at all. and here are u some TRUE info:

1) "the prophet Muhammad(PBUH) viewed many biblical figures as prophets or as men to whom God had spoken. He respected Jews and Christians as "People of the Book," since they worshiped God as revealed by sacred scriptures."

2) Christians and Jews "were protected communities living within the realm of Islam... The treatment of religious minorities in Muslim countries that upheld the Shari'ah(islamic law) was better than in those that watered it down or abandoned it totally, and much, much better than the treatment of Jews in mediaval Christendom, czarist Russia, or Nazi Germany."

3) "The disgruntled Syrian and Egyptian Christians viewed the Muslim Arabs as liberators...Likewise, the jews, numerous in Palestine and Syria, chose Muslim indefference over Byzantine persecution."

4) "For 1,300 years Middle Eastern Jews have lived under Muslim rule. Until modern times, there were remarkably few incidents of religious conflict. Most clashes occurred after Zionism made its presence felt in the Middle East in the twentieth century."

the information is from:
Goldschmidt, Arthur. A Concise History of The Middle East. Westview Press: 1996.

concerning racial discrimination,u claim that the situation in israel gets better as years go by, so can u explain to me the recent successive expulsions of arab members from Kenesset?? also can u explain to me the brutal suppression of the demonstrations of the arabs inside israel against the israeli aggression (we all saw it on the tv)?
i don't think that the students in israel need to be teached to kill arabs because they have already studied and learned this lesson practically from their ancestors!! and i think that the butchers (or the soldiers) in the israeli army are the best proof that the israeli children understood the lesson very well!

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!




(Edited by hizballah at 11:32 am on July 3, 2002)

[MarxIsGod]

Hizballah,

The Palestinians have only themselves to blame for the situation they are in. They have continuously engaged in unprovoked aggression against Israel and Israel has finally decided to stop putting up with it. It 1947, the U.N. passed a resolution which would partition Palestine between the Arabs and Jews. While the Jews accepted the terms of the resolution, the Arabs were not content with partial control. In '48, Israel declared itself an independent nation and unilaterally fought off the Arabs and Muslims, both those living in Palestine and those from other countries, who sought to destroy Israel in its days of infancy. Then, in 1967, Israel was SIMULTANEOUSLY attacked by Jorden, Syria, and Egypt. Despite this unprovoked aggression, Israel repelled all foreign armed forces within 6 days (thus the name "Six Day War") and gained the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and West Bank territories which Israel then had the right to settle as they had gained those territories. In 1973 (I think), Israel was attacked (without provocation) on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jews. Again, Israel's army repelled the hostile Arabs against overwhelming odds. Continuously, it has been the Arabs who have refused to make peace, beginning in 1947 and going right on up to Yasser Arafat supposed desire for peace while secretly supporting terrorism against Israel. Also, all Israeli military operations have been against military or terrorist targets and none of the civilian casualities were intentional except in cases where civilians fired on Israeli soldiers or prevented them from doing their job of protecting Israel. Now the Arabs are looking for sympathy because they finally realise that they cannot win and they are claiming that they want peace. They have had there chances over the past 56 years to make peace and they have blown them all. The Arabs have had second, third, fourth, fifth, and more chances to bring a peaceful end to this conflict. The terrorism has not ended, so why should Israel make peace? If the Arabs have the capacity or the desire to make and maintain peace, they have not shown it.

[immortal211]

israel is a dirty state which uses the power and money of dirty political and entertainers to push for wars and set up settlements illegally in the palestinian areas.

[immortal211]

anyone who believes jewish history in america is being tought by jews themselves who control america and britain
they want their way in the mid east not the arab way just their semi imperialistic way, they hide behind the big strong nations and use terrorism as an excuse to kill palestinian kids everyday

[MarxIsGod]

Quote: from immortal211 on 11:59 pm on May 2, 2003
israel is a dirty state which uses the power and money of dirty political and entertainers to push for wars and set up settlements illegally in the palestinian areas.


None of the settlements are "illegal" as the Palestinians areas belong to Israel

[Reuben]

MIG, it depends how you use the word belong. Israel may have one those lands militarily however they have no moral claim to those lands. Furthermore there occupation of the West Bank and Gaza goes completely against democratic principle;. The people in those areas have to accept a whole set of somewhat oppressive laws ienforced by the Israeli occupation (in addition to the laws of the Palestinian Authority) but have no democratic means of affecting those laws. The reason why many palestinians resort to violence, it is a combination of the oppression and material deprivation suffered by Palestinians, and there inability to use electoral meansto affectthei dire situation.

You aregue that the palestinians have been given the opportunity for peac but i would ask 's that a just peace. Barak's Generous offer was not generous and was misreported. There was talk of him offerring '95 per cent', but thquestion is 95 per cent of what. It iwas in fact a proportion of the 22% of British Palestine that Arafat had not surrendered is claim to. Furthermore the plan involved10% of the west Bank being made into settlements and a further ten per cent, including the whole border of the proposed state going into 'Indefinite Israeli Military Control'.

Arafat on the other hand has made huge concessions which, if matched by Israel, could ring about peace. He has given up his claim to 78 percent pre 48 palestine asking only for the %2 which comprises the west bank and gaza and for the palestinian Right to Return. Both claims in my eyes and the eyes of all socialists are completely legitimate.

Insolidarity with the palestinians,

Reuben

[Reuben]

'anyone who believes jewish history in america is being tought by jews themselves who control america and britain
they want their way in the mid east not the arab way just their semi imperialistic way, they hide behind the big strong nations and use terrorism as an excuse to kill palestinian kids everyday ' - Immortal

As you can tell from the my pot above i am an antizionist whose sympaties are with Palestine. I am also a jew, and REALLY DO NOT APPRECIATE the jewish conspiracy theory being espoused on che lives. You seem to equate jews with zionists and Jews with the enemy. Jews are not one homogeneous group. I do not appreciate your generalisations. I would also like to know if you have an evidence of Jews controlling Britain, or is it just Jewish conspiracy theory crap.

[Blasphemy]

Zionism in theory is not different then any other movement for national liberation. In its core, the Zionist movement is just like the Palestinian movement for national liberation, or the Kurdish one, etc.

Historically, Zionism could have brought for the liberation of both the Jewish and the Arab workers in Palestine. The Jews who immigrated to Israel were filled with socialist beliefs and motivation. Most of them believed in cooperating with the Arabs, but this didn't happen. The situation that was created was absurd - Zionism created two different proletariat in Palestine, the Jewish one and the Arab one. Both were fighting for the same cause against the same oppressive bourgeois, but they didn't cooperate. Both the Jews and the Arabs fought for social rights, rights, and economic security, and the same people who deprived the Jews of their rights, also deprived the Arabs of them. But for some reason, the Arabs and the Jews didn't cooperate. Absurd.

The Arab proletariate and the beginning of the century was weak. The Arab bourgeois, with the help of the Turks, wielded great power over the people. Linking with the working Jews who came from Europe would have greatly consolidated the workers in Palestine. But the Jews and the Arabs were blinded by the Bourgeois who controlled them - the rich Arabs in Jerusalem, and the rich Jews in Europe.

If such a Jewish-Arab cooperation would have taken place due to Zionism, we would now probably have a joint Jewish-Palestinian state. But the workers were too short-sighted. Now we are paying the price with an aggressive occupation and a brutal intifada.

[MarxIsGod]

Quote: from Reuben on 7:27 am on May 3, 2003
As you can tell from the my pot above i am an antizionist whose sympaties are with Palestine. I am also a jew, and REALLY DO NOT APPRECIATE the jewish conspiracy theory being espoused on che lives. You seem to equate jews with zionists and Jews with the enemy. Jews are not one homogeneous group. I do not appreciate your generalisations. I would also like to know if you have an evidence of Jews controlling Britain, or is it just Jewish conspiracy theory crap.



Well said! Although I would not call myself an anti-Zionist, I do feel that people often group all Jews together and here in America we often feel the repurcussions of some things said by one of the extreme Zionists in Israel. As far as Arafat's "concessions", I feel that until it has been shown that Arafat can control his own people and prevent the terrorist attacks from continuing, then Israel has no reason to negotiate with the leader of the Palestinian Authority if he has "authority" over the "Palestinians". The Palestinians are not united under a single person or leadership that can represent and control them. The Palestinian Authority has done little or nothing to help Israel arrest leaders of Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, etc. who are living in the West Bank and continue to organize terrorist attacks against Israeli CIVILIANS. I put the emphasis on civilians because while Israel's attacks have been mostly or completely against military targets or civilians that organize terrorism, Palestinian terrorist attacks exclusively target civilians. Until Arafat or someone else is able to lead and control the Palestinians than any negotiations of peace with the Palestinian Authority are empty.

[Zombie]

You like to attack Arafat. What about Sharon eh? He's the holy one in all of this isn't he. :-
I say remove both of them, for they are both warmongerers.

"Palestinian terrorist attacks exclusively target civilians"

what about israeli soldiers constantly destroying CIVILIAN infrastructures and killing Palestinian CIVILIAN?

[immortal211]

they only reason why arabs attacked israel in its first stage was to help the palestinians who had no one may i repeat no one ! when jews where expelled from Arab lands it was because israel expelled 2 million arabs !

palestinain children are learning to defend their land because they have no other way , "diplomacy" aka capitolism did not help in any was to the palestinians or the other arabs israel is the only nation that benefited at the expense of palestinian casualties!

[MarxIsGod]

Quote: from immortal211 on 3:31 am on May 4, 2003
palestinain children are learning to defend their land because they have no other way , "diplomacy" aka capitolism did not help in any was to the palestinians or the other arabs israel is the only nation that benefited at the expense of palestinian casualties!



Diplomacy does not have to be capitalist! It is simply that diplomacy is impractical and worthless if you're negotiating with a government which has no control over the people it is supposedly governing. :angry:

[redstar2000]

"In 1947 the U.N. passed a resolution that would partition Palestine between the Arabs and the Jews." -- "MarxIsGod"

Would you like to explain, MIG, where it is set down that the United Nations has a right to partition a territory that is not even represented in the UN and without a referendum of the population, 2/3rds of whom were Arabs?

Frankly, if I were Palestinian, I'd tell you to take your fucking United Nations and shove it up your ass! :angry:

In fact, thinking over the role of the UN over the last 50 years as nearly always acting as a fig-leaf for U.S. imperialism, I will tell you that.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:50 am on May 4, 2003)

[oki]

the UN is the world ,so blame the world for kissing the ass of the US.in itself tehre is a shitload of resolutions against Israel.problem:noone is prepared to take action.this is not the foult of an institution,but of all the countrys that have seats in this institution.

and yes,zionism was a nice idea once.they even talked about starting this country in Argentina first.but then,they worked with the nazis to make it happen in israel.the religous presence in zionist groups is what is the problem.messian zionists try to make the coming of the messias happen.in order to get there,they need to move to israel,occupie the westbank and trow the arabs out,destroy the rocktemple(because that's the exact spot where the messias is to appear)and fight the final battle between good and bad(jews and arabs)bush is helping because he's a newborn christian,and they have the exact same goal.(only difference:NB CHR. wait for the second coming of jesus)remember that next time bush speaks of axis of EVIL(religous language)

the arabs that were enthnicly clinzed during israel's wars aren't allowed to return,zionist.they eighter fled for violence or were driven away by the IDF.when you look at the bosnian war,and the peace agreement,then you'll see that all refugees have a right to return.instead,what israel did was tear down villages and citys,and build jewish settlements on top of it.these tactics bring back memories of the spanish invation of south america,where they whiped away an intire civilisation.on top of temples are now churches build.there will be no justice for palestinians as long as extreme zionists have a say in Israel.(sharon's gouv. is full of them,the worst is effi Eitan)