Zionism! [Archive]

LSD

2nd April 2006, 20:43

It was founded by Jewish capitalists.

Untrue.

For one thing, the number of Jewish capitalists was severly limited in the nineteenth century. Despite the enlightenment, antisemitism was very much alive and ascendant European nationalism made it very hard for Jews to gain significant positions of authority.

That is not to say that there were not rich Jews, just that they were the distinct minority. Furthemore, those Jews who were part of the bourgeoisie did not really have an interest in shaking up the status quo.

Especially in the ghettoized Jewish societies of nineteenth century europe, successful Jews were in a unique position. Since most Christian merchants were retiscent to deal with Jews directly, Jews of with means and contacts had a virtual lock on a market.

The creation of a "Jewish state" would require that they either relocate and begin again in a divided market, or stay where they were and lose most of the customers.

Needless to say, profit was the driving interest and most wealthy Jews were perfectly happy to stay where they were.

Jewish intellectuals, however, were different.

They had no financial investement in the status quo and were, rather, chiefly motivated by politics and ideology. Furthermore, their discrimination at the hands of Christian society was not counterbalanced by increased profits.

It was lawyers, teachers, and authors who really "founded" Zionism, and they did so as a secular movement. These were not the religious fanatics, they were all too busy waiting for the "Messiah" to get involved with "temporal" matters.

Rather, Zionism's "fathers" were largely agnostic or down-right atheistic Jews who saw a "Jewish homeland" as a nationalist solution to their dillema of identity.

Like many European "nations" of the time, many Jews were searching to identify themselves following the liberalism of the enlightenment. Religious adherance and belief no longer seemed sufficient, but something had to replace them.

Because of the antisemitism of the time, crystalized for most proto-Zionists in the Dreyfuss affair, non-religious Jews became convinced that for the Jewish "nation" to have parity with the great European ones, a definite territorial homeland would be nescessary.

Zionism was merely a Jewish version of European romantic nationalism, nothing more, nothing less.

The goal of Zionism was to create a "clean" jewish state were the jewish bourgeoisie could invest without any competition.

Again, completely untrue.

And another goal of the zionists was to fight the increasing socialist tendencies among jews.

More nonsense.

Many early Zionists were in fact socialists themselves, in one way or another. "Socialist" Zionism, or "Labour Zionism", was one of the most influencial strains of Zionism before the formation of the State of Israel.

Again, Zionism was not a primarily religious organization; it was mainly a secular nationalist one. Accordingly most early Zionists were not drawn to theocratic models, nor were they particularly impressed with European organizational structures.

The socialism of the utopians and even early Marxists, however, seemed to offer a distinct social model as well as appealing to the idealistic and romanticized notions of "community" that so many of the Zionists felt.

In fact, one of the main reasons why most Jewish religious organizations opposed Zionism was that it was too secular and socialist for their liking. They saw it as a threat to Jewish traditional living and bitterly opposed it.

Even today, fundamentalist Jews reject the State of Israel as they see it as a violation of "sacred prophesy".

Most zionists were intellectuals, not "rabbis" and so their movement tended to reflect the values of their class. People like Borochov, Ginsberg, and Gordon were all prominant Zionists, but also quite vocal in their socialistic leanings.

That the State of Israel, when created, was a bourgeois capitalist society is hardly surprising given the conditions of the time, but to claim that Zionism was "invented" to "fight socialism" is just plain wrong.

Zionists call themself "The Jewish liberation front" but they have never fought anti-semitism.

Well, that really depends on how one defines "fighting anti-semitism" doesn't it?

Certainly zionist organizations have opposed antisemitism throughout history. After all, the the Zionist Orgnazations was one of the first to condemn the Nazi government, and promimant Zionists in Germany were also quite active in condemning Nazi laws.

The thing is, though, that so-called "Zionist leaders" tended to be, like all "leaders", quite corruptable. And many did end up collaborating or colluding for their own personal bennefits.

This does not speak to the nature of Zionism as an ideology, however, it merely reaffirms the simple truth that power is inevitably corrosive.

Zionists, just as anti-semitists, believe that jews can't live with any other people. Hence the requirement of a "clean" jewish state.

Not exactly.

It wasn't so much about "not living with people" as it was about "national identiy".

Again, Zionism emerged out of the romantic nationalism of the nineteenth century. Zionists did not believe that all Jews "must" be kept seperate, rather that a "homeland" was needed to solidify Jewish "identity".

It was, actually, very similar to other nationalist movements of the period, such as that in Germany that ultimately led to Bismark's united German Empire. German Nationalists did not believe that they "could not live" with Frenchmen or Poles. But they did believe that Germans needed a "Germany" if they were going to "survive as a people".

It was much the same for the Zionists.

Theodor Herzl even asked anti-semitists to help him move jews to Palestine. He also made a pact with the russian tsar's minister Plehve, who organised the bloody following of jews in russia.

Absolutely true.

Herzl did indeed believe that he could use European antisemitism to help him in his cause. Whether he was correct or not is debatable, but these actions can hardly be used as signs of "duplicity" on behalf of "Zionist leaders".

For one thing, Herzl was just one man, and for another, his intentions have never been questioned.

Besides, there was a perverse kind of ironic logic in his actions. European nationalist racists did want to get rid of Jews and it was not beyond concieving that some of them might be willing to bankroll an effort at mass rellocation.

What you need to remember here is that these Jews would have, almost universally, been delighted if Herzl's plan had gone through. They were hardly "integrated" where they were and would have easily prefered antisemitic rellocation to continued antisemitic oppression.

The Nazis organised a boot camp for zionist colonizators

Nonsense.

What's a "boot camp for zionists" anyways?

And while the Nazis did briefly plan to set up a Jewish "homeland" in Madagasar of all places, the idea was never realized and ultimately extermination was selected as a cheaper and more effective method of elimination.

It is undeniable that some Zionists collaborated with Nazi authorities, just like some Russians and some Ukrainians and some Frenchmen and even some Americans did.

Whenever someone has cash or power, there's someone willing to follow their oders. That's just the nature of class society.

in 1944 the nazi Eichmann and the zionists leader of Hungary Kastner worked together. Kastner helped to hide the extermination camps existance and in return Eichmann let 1. 687 rich jews to leave the country.

Well, it's actually a bit more complicated than that.

For one thing, far from being the "zionists leader" of anything, Kastner was a relatively unimportant Zionist figure in Budapest who happened to be the one approached by Eichmann.

And insofar as the "deal" that those two reached, the specific details are still controversial even today.

What is known is that the in exchange for 1,000 US dollars a head, Eichmann agreed to allow approximately 1500 Jews leave German territory unharmed. Whether or not there was any consideration beyond this is presently unknown.

It is true that Kastner never released documents he had recieved indicating the existance of German death camps, but that information had already been released by others and while it was not particularly well known in Hungary, it is unlikely that Kastner had sufficient clout for anyone to take him seriously.

Regardless, though, these actions by one, relatively unimportant, Jewish figure does not tell us much beyond the desperation of the SS in the waning years of the war.

The encounter between Rudolf Kastner and Adolf Eichmann serves to teach us alot about about Rudolf Kastner and Adolf Eichmann, but not much else.

I just wanted to add that in 1975 the UN condemned zionism as a racist movement.

Indeed it did, although it revoked that declaration 16 years later.

It's also worth noting that while Resolution 3379 condemned "Zionism" as racist, the resolution in question was supported and sponsored by such "freedom-loving" countries as Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.

And somewhat hillarialously, the Khmer Rouge also felt that this issue was deserving of its vote. While it was in the midst of planing one of the worst genocides in human history, the government of Cambodia thought it worth the effort to make sure and condemn Zionism.

Now, I'm not saying that Zionism is in any way "good", but let's keep the significance of "UN resolutions" clear. The fact that a bunch of, mainly, totalitarian states decided to get together and call something bad does not in any way give that declaration any legitimacy.

I would remind you that the UN resently aproved the US invation of Iraq. That doesn't make the war any more acceptable ...does it?

Atlas Swallowed

2nd April 2006, 20:45

Zionists are a Jewish supremecist group and should be opposed as any racisit organazation.

piet11111

2nd April 2006, 21:22

well i dont bother with the ideas behind zionism but i do bother with the actions of the zionists.

so far israel is at best an apartheid state but thats only by the lack of power and influence to become a fullblown facist country.
israel so far resembles the nazi state way too much for me to be comfortable.
because of this i see israel as the biggest threat for world peace and the arabs need to take measures to protect them from the coming wars of american imperialism with israel as its attack dog.

LSD

2nd April 2006, 21:33

so far israel is at best an apartheid state but thats only by the lack of power and influence to become a fullblown facist country.

Exactly how much more "power" or "influence" could Israel have?

It's pretty much the richest, most powerful, and best protected country in the whole middle east. It is not an exageration that, if she wanted to, Israel could probably defeat the forces of all of her Arab nations combined.

If the Israeli government was merely "waiting" for an "opportune time" to "become fascist", this would be it!

israel so far resembles the nazi state way too much for me to be comfortable.

Then you must be a deeply uncomfortable man because there are literally dozens of countries whose governments more closely ressemble that of National Socialist Germany.

Even within 100 Miles of Tel Aviv there are countries like Syria and Jordan with massively worse records than Israel.

I am in no way saying that the government if Israel is in any way progressive, nor that it is not a bourgeois capitalist lackey of US imperialism. But to claim that it is anything even approaching Nazi Germany is absolutely wrong.

There are real proto-fascist states in the world today. Syria comes to mind, as does Turkmenistan. But Israel?

Sorry, but no.

because of this i see israel as the biggest threat for world peace

:blink:

WHAT???

A tiny country of 9 million is the "biggest threat for world peace"!?! :unsure:

I don't mean to alarm you, but it looks as though someone's been slipping PCP into your water supply.

the arabs need to take measures to protect them from the coming wars of american imperialism

Not to burst your bubble, but the "wars of american imperialism" are well underway.

Have you perhaps forgotten about a small Persian Gulf country called Iraq???

вор в законе

2nd April 2006, 22:51

Take a breath LSD, the Imperialist State of Israel once again has remained intact due to your courageous efforts! :D

piet11111

2nd April 2006, 23:37

yes israel is a very small country but its playing with matches right on top of the worlds biggest powder keg.
but its powerbase is fragile they cant even dream of commiting a holocaust agaisnt the arabs
the most likely place for a major war to start is the middle east and the first real battles will probably heavily involve israel.

and yes iraq was an imperialist war but still minor it did not take much effort to defeat iraq and if they really had all options open the "insurgency" would be massacred along with the entire population.
it seems the peak-oil theory (the one i dont believe in) seems to deeply disturb the americans (the petro-dollar theory is also a major issue)
so the coming decades will probably see many "run for the oil" wars that can involve some if not all world powers.

Mesijs

3rd April 2006, 00:49

Anti-semitism! A threat to all Free people

JC1

3rd April 2006, 01:19

Anti-semitism! A threat to all Free people

Straight up.

Zionism is simply the struggle for a state for the Jewish people. Communist's suppourt all nation's right to self-determination. Why not the right of Jew's to self determination ?

3rd April 2006, 01:21

I think its really sick LSD how much you're investing in defending the state of Israel.

so far israel is at best an apartheid state but thats only by the lack of power and influence to become a fullblown facist country.

exactly what area does Israel fall short of being fascist? They might not be as bad as the German Nazis but they're easily worse than the Italian Fascists and the Spanish Fascists.

It's also worth noting that while Resolution 3379 condemned "Zionism" as racist, the resolution in question was supported and sponsored by such "freedom-loving" countries as Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.

Are you trying to suggest that an ideology that believes that the lives and rights of European Jews are more valuable than those of Arab Muslims and Christians is anything but racist? Israeli law has one set of rights for Jews, and another set of inferior rights for non-Jews. Israeli state policy has always been aimed at forcibly ethnically cleansing Palestine of Arabs so it can be a majority Jewish state. How is this not racist? Zionists in Palestine have denied the political rights of the Arab majority from day one.

Read what Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of "Israel", said about the Palestinians. He was perfectly open in declaring that he wanted to expell the Palestinians to create an ethnically pure 'jewish state.' He further openly stated that he considered the Arabs less intellegent, less hard working, and generally inferior.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Fa...s/Story694.html (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html)

It wasn't so much about "not living with people" as it was about "national identiy".

Right, so racism and ethnic cleansing is okay if you put it in terms of "national identity." I hate to point out that every instance of racism and ethnic cleansing has been based on an ideology of national identity.

""In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs"

In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%."

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' "

""From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arab. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country."

-Ben Gurion,

If this isn't racism, fascism, and ethnic cleansing, what is?

If the Israeli government was merely "waiting" for an "opportune time" to "become fascist", this would be it!

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."

"We must expel Arabs and take their places." -Prime Minister Ben Gurion

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy." -- Prime Minister Golda Meir

""We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!""- Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin

""[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."- Prime Minister Menachem Begin

""(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls.""-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir

""It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."-PM Ariel Sharon

""Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial"-Ariel Sharon

http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm

Israel has been fascist from day one and anyone who says otherwise is a Zionist appologist.

A tiny country of 9 million is the "biggest threat for world peace"!?!

9 million people, 300 nuclear warheads aimed at Arab cities, the most weapons per capita in the world, the largest military budget in the world per capita, second largest number of troops per capita in the world, and a proven willingess to commit massacres against unarmed civilians from a population it considers naturally inferior. Its not the biggest threat to world peace, that would be the United States, its the second biggest threat.

But to claim that it is anything even approaching Nazi Germany is absolutely wrong.

No, Israel hasn't the scale to approach Nazi Germany, its an American puppet rather than indepedent imperialist state in its own right, and its a country with a population closer to 10 million rather than 100 million.

However, their ideology is basically the same. They believe that their people deserve a homeland, that that homeland must be built by eliminating its other inhabitants, that a strong military is important, that people they regard as inferior can be killed for the purposes of pursueing their national asperations to a 'Greater Germany' and a 'Greater Israel', that their people are the most intellegent, the strongest, the master race/chosen people.

The fact that the Nazis chose to kill civilians for their ethnicity by gas chambers and firing squads whereas the Zionists prefer to kill civilians for their ethnicity with bombings and firing squads makes little difference, the product is the same. Should we congraduate the Zionists that they've ethnically cleansed their 'nation' with more expulsions and less exterminations proportionally when compared to Nazis, though both made use of both measures? The Nazis and the Zionists differ not in quality but in quantity. What is going on in Palestine now is every bit as wrong as as what went on in Germany in the 1930s and 40s its simply on a smaller scale and intensity.
------------------------------------------------------

And before some Zionist appologist accuses me of anti-semitism, Zionism has nothing naturally to do with the Jewish people or even the Jewish religion. The largest group of Zionists is not Jewish but rather Evangelical Christian, George Bush is a Zionist in that he believes in a 'Jewish state' to the exclusion of Arabs in Palestine. The native Palestinian Jews who are mostly orthodox never wanted anything to do with Zionism, they lived peacefully with Arab muslims and christians for thousands of years. The Palestinian Jews, Mizrahi Jews, are also (though less aggressively certaintly) descriminated against and marginalized by the Zionist European colonists because they look like Arabs and many of them speak Arabic. To suggest that criticizing a fascist ideology like Zionism in someway implies a criticism of the Jewish people is in of itself an anti-semetic suggestion as it wrongly associates Judiasm with fascism, racism and anti-arabism.

JC1

3rd April 2006, 01:35

exactly what area does Israel fall short of being fascist? They might not be as bad as the German Nazis but they're easily worse than the Italian Fascists and the Spanish Fascists.

EZ.

The Israeli state might not treat the Palistinians great, but they dont orginize massacares or concentration camp's.

The Italian Facist's killed tens of thousands of Serbs and how many Basque's died at the hands of Franco.

Are you trying to suggest that an ideology that believes that the lives and rights of European Jews are more valuable than those of Arab Muslims and Christians is anything but racist? Israeli law has one set of rights for Jews, and another set of inferior rights for non-Jews. Israeli state policy has always been aimed at forcibly ethnically cleansing Palestine of Arabs so it can be a majority Jewish state. How is this not racist? Zionists in Palestine have denied the political rights of the Arab majority from day one.

What are you talking about ? What law's disenfranchise Arab's in Israel ? They even have special right's that are not afforded to Jews (E.g. They dont have to serve in the IDF).

If youre speaking of Arab's in the territory's, then saying "Zionists in Palestine have denied the political rights of the Arab majority from day one" is false, becuase the territory's were originaly occupied by the ARAB states of Eygpt and Jordan. Neithier of witch gave citizenship to the Palistinian subject's.

Read what Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of "Israel", said about the Palestinians. He was perfectly open in declaring that he wanted to expell the Palestinians to create an ethnically pure 'jewish state.' He further openly stated that he considered the Arabs less intellegent, less hard working, and generally inferior.

That speech is deplorable. But it is simply rhetoric. It was completly in his power to ethnicly cleanse Isreal of Arab's, but did he ?

3rd April 2006, 02:52

The Israeli state might not treat the Palistinians great, but they dont orginize massacares or concentration camp's.

The Italian Facist's killed tens of thousands of Serbs and how many Basque's died at the hands of Franco.

Of course they organize massacres, what do you call the mass slaughter of Palestinian women and children in Sabra and Shatila conducted by Phalangist (Fascist) paramilitaries organized under Ariel Aharon's 'Operation GaPeace for Galilee.' When the PLO left Beirut under a cease fire in 1982, the Israeli Army and Phalangist militia forced 3500 Palestinian refugees into sealed camps where they were systematically murdered over the course of less than two days.

Did you just have your television off and internet disconnected when Israel was organizing a massacre in the Jenin camp in 2002?

Israel has killed tens of thousands of Arabs. Not millions, but tens of thousands. Thats why the comparison to Italian and Spanish fascism is more apt than to German fascism.

Baruch Kimmerling, a famous anti-Zionist jewish sociology professor at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem called Gaza “the largest concentration camp ever to exist,” Once the wall is complete, Gaza will rank only the second largest concentration camp ever to exist.

They dont' have Nazi death camps but they certaintly have fascistic concentration/detention camps.

What are you talking about ? What law's disenfranchise Arab's in Israel ? They even have special right's that are not afforded to Jews (E.g. They dont have to serve in the IDF).

They don't serve in the IDF because the Israeli government doesn't want to give them guns and they don't think they'd be willing to murder Arabs. Jewish marriage to Palestinians is illigal. Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians lose their citizenship. Anyone with a Jewish mother can claim citizenship in Israel, the Arabs on the other hand who lived there for generations are forced into refugee camps with no rights at all. Jews in Israel have the right to sieze property from Palestinian arabs for no money at all, non-Jews are not given land this way. Non-Jews unlike Jewish residents of Israel can be held and tortured for 50 days without legal counsul under the "Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers - Special Provisions for Investigating Security Offences of Non-Residents". All israeli citizens are registered on their identity cards by their 'nationality', either Jewish or Arab. The state will not lease or sell land to non-jews. Arabs are not allowed to run buisnesses that export products out of the country.

If youre speaking of Arab's in the territory's, then saying "Zionists in Palestine have denied the political rights of the Arab majority from day one" is false, becuase the territory's were originaly occupied by the ARAB states of Eygpt and Jordan. Neithier of witch gave citizenship to the Palistinian subject's.

Palestinians are not Egyptian or Jordanian, the Palestinian refugees origionally lived in "Israel" before they were foricably expelled. It is not the responsibility of the Jordanian and Egyptian governments to absorb survivors of Zionist ethnic cleansing. Palestinians in the occupied territories have no rights, they're kept in what amounts to prison camps unable to leave, kept inside by Israeli soldiers at checkpoints who occassionally go in to massacre them and murder their leaders.

That speech is deplorable. But it is simply rhetoric. It was completly in his power to ethnicly cleanse Isreal of Arab's, but did he ?

He did an excellent job of it. Origionally Israel/Palestine was 93% arab, 7% Jewish. Today "Israel's" population is only 15% arab.

Nicky Scarfo

3rd April 2006, 03:20

They don't serve in the IDF because the Israeli government doesn't want to give them guns and they don't think they'd be willing to murder Arabs. Jewish marriage to Palestinians is illigal. Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians lose their citizenship. Anyone with a Jewish mother can claim citizenship in Israel, the Arabs on the other hand who lived there for generations are forced into refugee camps with no rights at all. Jews in Israel have the right to sieze property from Palestinian arabs for no money at all, non-Jews are not given land this way. Non-Jews unlike Jewish residents of Israel can be held and tortured for 50 days without legal counsul under the "Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers - Special Provisions for Investigating Security Offences of Non-Residents". All israeli citizens are registered on their identity cards by their 'nationality', either Jewish or Arab. The state will not lease or sell land to non-jews. Arabs are not allowed to run buisnesses that export products out of the country.

No shit. JC1 is woefully misinformed. Thanks for breakin it down for him. Some of what you just posted is even news to me too, though hardly suprising. Although I believe there is one error-- I don't think Israelis are prohibited by law from marrying Palestinians, but rather Palestinians who marry Israelis may not be granted Israeli citizenship. I think that law is relatively new (within the last 5 or 10 years), it was challenged before Israel's Supreme Court, but I'm not sure what the decision was. But yeah, Israel is most definitely an apartheid state and they've definitely engaged in violent enthinc cleansing of the Arab population.

3rd April 2006, 03:51

I was aware of that actually, but you have to realize that even if israeli/palestinian marriages are not dejure illigal, they are defacto illigal because they wont grant palestinian spouses of Israelis travel permits into Israel so an Israeli/Palestinian couple in such a situation has the choice of either moving to Palestine or having a long distance relationship and just talking over the phone (when the phone lines aren't down in whatever refugee camp the palestinian spouses is confined to, that is). This restriction applies *exclusively* to Israelis marrying Arabs by the way, if an Israeli marries a European or an American or whatever they're allowed into the country.

piet11111

3rd April 2006, 06:17

The Israeli state might not treat the Palistinians great, but they dont orginize massacares or concentration camp's.

thats only because they are not able to get away with that otherwise they would be doing it already.

Anti-semitism! A threat to all Free people

i am not an anti semite perhaps you yourself have been taking goebbels advice to heart "if you sling enough mud something will stick"

the actions of israel are more then enough reason to desire the dismantling of the israeli state and the return of palestina to the rightful owners namely the palestinians.

Jimmie Higgins

3rd April 2006, 06:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:28 AM

Anti-semitism! A threat to all Free people

Straight up.

Zionism is simply the struggle for a state for the Jewish people. Communist's suppourt all nation's right to self-determination. Why not the right of Jew's to self determination ?
Being against zionism or Israel is not anti-semitism although anti-semites might be against zionism or Israel. Israel might be sold as "national self-setermination", but the role it plays in US and UK imperialism is as "an outpost of civilization against barbarism" in the words of one of the main proponents of a zionist state in that region.

If Israel is the result of a nation's self-determination, why was that site chosen after WWII by the Alies (i.e. the new top imperialist powers) when they were drawing borders and slicing up the colonial cake?

Is Saudi Arabia, the result of Saudi family self-determination? Did the British create Iraq because a grab-bag of different nationalities desired to have portions of each of their nationalities desire self-determination as Iraqis?

If jewish people had formed nationalist blocks in defense of Nazi anti-semitism, that would be one thing, but the state of Israel is not the result of an opressed group defending itself against opression by forming a national idenitiy. It is no more self-determination than Liberia is the result of black-american self-determination.

Intifada

3rd April 2006, 13:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:44 AM
That speech is deplorable. But it is simply rhetoric.
So I take it that what Ahmadinejad said about the Holocaust and Israel is completely fine...

(Mesijs)

Anti-semitism! A threat to all Free people

It is interesting to hear somebody bring up "anti-semitism" when discussing anti-Zionism.

Such a statement is completely ridiculous, in the context of such a debate.

LSD

3rd April 2006, 13:40

I think its really sick LSD how much you're investing in defending the state of Israel.

I am not "defending" the state of Israel, I was merely attempting to correct some misconceptions with regards to the history and nature of political Zionism. I am also attempting to illustrate how the attention given to this issue is antirely disproportionate.

exactly what area does Israel fall short of being fascist?

Government, politics, legislation, judiciary, and economics.

"Fascist" isn't just some insult that you can throw around at any bourgeois government you don't like. It has a specific meaning and that meaning does not include Israel.

It probably includes Syria though. And, yet, for some reason, we don't see endless threads here condemning the Syrian government.

A lot of people would blame that on "antisemitism", but I don't actually think they're right. I think that this really comes from post-colonialism and a retiscence in the west to critisize anything seen as "southern" for fear of being labeled "chauvinistic".

The Israeli government is horrible. It is racist, militaristic, and occasionaly even vaguely theocratic, but it is not "fascist" and it is not nearly as important as people like to pretend.

Despite the page-space that newspapers love to give this issue and the airtime that CNN devotes to it, the "Israeli-Palestinian situation" is a minor issue.

Now, obviously, if you live in Israel or know someone who does, it's important to you. Just like how if you know someone who was rellocated for the Three Gorges Dam project, the actions of the CCP are important to you.

But in terms of world politics, Israel and Palestine are not the "big issue" that far too much of the left treats them as. And this "last great cause" mentality is simply counterproductive.

We are playing right into the capitalists hands by focusing our attention on an unimportant engineered struggle half a world away, instead of dealing with real class issues in our backyards.

Are you trying to suggest that an ideology that believes that the lives and rights of European Jews are more valuable than those of Arab Muslims and Christians is anything but racist?

No. Although it is worth pointing out that "Zionism" does not per se hold those racist beliefs. Certainly, prior to the formation of the state of Israel, there were several strains of Zionist throught which opposed anti-arabism.

Still, though, it cannot be denied that state Zionism as enacted by the governement of the state of Israel is incredibly racist.

My point was not to dispute this fact, but merely to remind people that the "UN" is not a credible source for anything. The fact that the "UN" condemns something is completely irrelevent to any revolutionary leftist discussion.

Right, so racism and ethnic cleansing is okay if you put it in terms of "national identity."

Absolutely not, nor did I claim otherwise.

Again, I was attempting to correct the misconception that Zionism was predicated on a belief that Jews "could not live with other people". Rather, historical evidence suggests that Zionism actually developed as a Jewish form of European Romantic Nationalism.

Israel has been fascist from day one and anyone who says otherwise is a Zionist appologist.

I'm sorry, but that's not an argument.

Israel simply fails to meet the definition of fascism. Admitting that fact does not make me an "appologist" for anything, it just makes me a realist who's willing to look up words before I use them.

It's particularly vogue in leftist circles to accuse things you don't like of being "fasicst". I can't tell you how many times now I've seen "USA = NAZI" posters or a Hitler mustache added to George Bush's face.

And then there's that retired oil executive's "list" of "fascist traits" that's been circulating on the net. You know, the one that purportes to "prove" that the US is "really fascist"?

But what all this vitriolic hyperbole misses is that facism has a specific meaning ...and this ain't it.

9 million people, 300 nuclear warheads aimed at Arab cities, the most weapons per capita in the world, the largest military budget in the world per capita, second largest number of troops per capita in the world, and a proven willingess to commit massacres against unarmed civilians from a population it considers naturally inferior.

The problem with all your per capita statistics is that, again, Israel has a tiny population. And considering that they've fought something like half a dozen wars in the last 50 years, it isn't surprising that they've built a sizable army.

When you're talking about a population of 9 million, saying that they have "the most weapons per capita" is kind of facecious. The simple truth is that there are dozens of countries with more weapons than Israel. The fact that they also have more people is irrelevent.

The US is clearly a bigger threat to world peace than Israel. As are the other imperialist states like the UK.

In terms of the "south", countries like Pakistan and Turkey are imminently dangerous, as are some middle eastern nations like Iran and Syria.

Again, the Israeli government is not "good", but it is not the "supreme evil" that people like to make it out to be. In terms of government of the world, Israel's is distinctly average. Not particularly good, not spectacularly bad.

What is going on in Palestine now is every bit as wrong as as what went on in Germany in the 1930s and 40s its simply on a smaller scale and intensity.

As I've said before, everything is a matter of "scale" and "intensity".

By your logic, American segregation was "every bit as wrong" as the Holocaust, because the racism was merely on a "smaller scale and intensity".

Well, sorry, but I don't buy it.

"Scale" and "intensity"? They matter.

They're what seperate argument from murder, and discrimination from genocide. If you claim that the actions of the Israeli government are "every bit as wrong" as those of the Nazi German, then you are effectively saying that what the Nazis did wasn't that bad.

There are a lot of critisisms that can be rightfully made of the Israeli goverernment, but moral parity to Naziism is not one of them.

Comrade_Ryan

3rd April 2006, 14:22

YKTMX

3rd April 2006, 14:54

Sorry, I join this a bit late.

To LSD:

"Fascist" isn't just some insult that you can throw around at any bourgeois government you don't like. It has a specific meaning and that meaning does not include Israel.

It probably includes Syria though. And, yet, for some reason, we don't see endless threads here condemning the Syrian government.

Perpetual conflict and endless war with a demonised enemy, external and internal, are the main avatars of fascism.

This applies more directly to the Israeli state than the Syrian one. The Syrian oligarchy is certainly authoritarian, but it's hardly fascist.

Despite the page-space that newspapers love to give this issue and the airtime that CNN devotes to it, the "Israeli-Palestinian situation" is a minor issue.

A bizarre assertion.

In the first place, in my experience, the bourgeois media would like to talk about anything but Palestine. If they do, they parrot some fictitious imperialist cant and swiftly move on.

And the reason the Israel-Palestine issue takes up so much of our attention is because the left is concerned with solidarity with the oppressed, particuarly when they are oppressed by the agents of imperialism. It's not an abstract thing, we've not "chosen" the Palestinians.

Also, of course, the importance of the Middle East in politics today heightens the interest.

We are playing right into the capitalists hands by focusing our attention on an unimportant engineered struggle half a world away, instead of dealing with real class issues in our backyards.

Parochial nonsense. The anti-imperialist struggle is the main front of the movement today, quite rightly. And the Palestinian people are powerful icons of that struggle, they're central to it, which is why they receive so much attention. You can't seperate "real class issues" with anti-imperialism. They're one and the same.

Although it is worth pointing out that "Zionism" does not per se hold those racist beliefs

LSD, if you hold to a materialist analysis then it doesn't matter what Zionism in "theory" claims, or what strands of Zionism there are, the only thing that matters is that Zionism in practice is racist and supremacist.

There's no point debating some theoretical "nice" Zionism out there is the minds of a few excluded Zionists. The Zionist entity is militaristic, racist etc, so, for all intents and purposes, Zionism itself is those things.

In terms of government of the world, Israel's is distinctly average.

What's your criteria? Certainly in terms of sustained violence against a neighbouring people, it's up there. Legalized torture, illegal killings, kidnapping, state terrorism etc.

If you claim that the actions of the Israeli government are "every bit as wrong" as those of the Nazi German, then you are effectively saying that what the Nazis did wasn't that bad.

I worry about the use of the Holocaust as some kind of "absolute" in terms of suffering or evil. It belies a political immaturity. There have been greater death tolls in history than the Six million. I agree, there's something particuarly venal about the industrialized, instrumentalized nature of the Holocaust, but I don't think other historical epochs should be "judged" against it.

If you're a Palestinian orphan living in some god farsaken refugee camp on the Jordanian border because some fucker stole your land, watching your family being butchered by a mixture of Israeli rockets and pestilence caused by the lack of sanitation, then, "well, at least you're not in Bergen-Belsen" is hardly a comfort.

redstar2000

3rd April 2006, 15:41

Topic Title Edited: Zionism is not a "threat" to all "free people" everywhere.

1. There aren't any "free people" anywhere. There are only more unfree and less unfree people on this planet at the present time.

2. Israel is an imperialist threat only to its immediate neighbors...and not much of one at that. It simply lacks the manpower to build a serious empire in the Middle East.

Some of the anti-Israeli rhetoric in the left is really "over-the-top"...and I think some folks here are getting carried away with it.

Israel is an apartheid state very similar to the old white regime in South Africa both in ideology and in practice.

Comparisons with Spanish or Italian fascism are not justified; those regimes were far bloodier and far more repressive than Israel has even been.

The Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians is indeed scandalous by western standards. Israelis complain that they are being held to a "higher standard"...but the Israelis claim that they are a "modern civilized country" like France or Germany.

Well, not exactly. They are really like the settlements built by American pioneers in "Indian country" -- a "fortress state" that's "always under threat of extermination" by the hostile indigenous population.

Israel was a really bad idea that had, as bad ideas usually do, catastrophic consequences. Now it's a permanent irritant to the enormous Arab nation that surrounds it.

A sensible Israeli emigrates to a "western country".

In what fashion this bad idea will finally implode is speculative; perhaps one too many "pre-emptive strikes" at a neighboring Arab state will do it. As is normal in modern wars, it will be mostly civilians who get massacred on both sides.

It's a nasty part of the world...that's what being backward means. It's far from the worst, though. The ethnic civil wars in Africa are brutal on a scale that would (possibly!) even make a Nazi blush.

As "westerners", our task is to oppose our own ruling classes' attempts to meddle in those places...as it has been clearly demonstrated that western imperialism always makes things worse!

The quisling regime imposed on Iraq by the U.S. and British imperialists is already behaving worse than Saddam Hussein! And the quisling regime in Afghanistan has been characterized by Afghani women as "Taleban Lite". It won't be "lite" for long.

I have no problem with "solidarity with the Palestinian struggle" -- they really are being treated horribly. So are the Kurds. So are lots of small and weak ethnic/cultural groups in lots of countries around the world.

This is, we should understand, normal in pre-capitalist and semi-capitalist countries...and hardly unknown in countries that have been conquered by western imperialist countries.

It is only when those countries eventually develop into modern capitalist countries that the violence will cease...to be replaced, of course, by the violence of modern class struggle.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

piet11111

3rd April 2006, 16:24

yeah redstar2000 pretty much says how i feel about it.

also who else thinks rice's statement that iraq needs 1 strong man to keep the country together incredibly hilarious ?

LSD

3rd April 2006, 18:44

Perpetual conflict and endless war with a demonised enemy, external and internal, are the main avatars of fascism.

No, the main "avatars" of fascism are totalitarianism and government repression.

Sure, fascist states tend to be imperialistic and militaristic, but remember, Franco never invaded a single other country. He died at a ripe old age, his "empire" exactly the same size as when he first took it over.

Meanwhile, The Soviet Unino had carved itself out a nice large chunk of Eastern Europe and was happily engaged in imperial micromanagement.

So I guess, by your definition, Stalin was fasicst and Franco wasn't. That really doesn't sound right though, does it?

You see while militarism is an important aspect of fascism, it is not its defining feature. Most states in the world have been militaristic at one time or another and every unpopular government has attempted to bolster support by fighting a "demonized enemy".

The US is currently engaged in a "perpetual conflict" against the nebulous enemy of "terrorism". Does that make the US fascist? How about the UK? They're fighting the same "perpetual conflict", after all?

Your definition is simply wrong. I don't know from what you're referencing, but the aspects you cite are simply not the "defining avatars" you claim them to be. They're common features, yes, but they're not the essential ones.

In the first place, in my experience, the bourgeois media would like to talk about anything but Palestine.

That is utter and complete nonsense!

How much attention was given to Sharon's coma? How much air time was devoted to the Palestinian elections?

Do you really think that if the Liberian or Congolese heads of government were to have a stroke, the story would recieve a tenth of the coverage that Sharon got?

Hell, they had Sharon's doctors interviewed on CNN and had "24 hour bulletins" on the state of his left index finger!

The bourgeois love this story. It's perfect for them. It's an unwinable never-ending struggle that hits all the leftist G-spots.

Colonialism! :o Racism! :o Imperialism! :o

How could the left not bite on such a juicy morsel? And meanwhile, our local rulling classes are carrying on with their work, perfectly delighted to see the endless "anti-Israel" parades and ludicrous "anti-Israel" boycots.

Remember, one of the chief obstacles to a solution in Israel has been the US. Over the past couple of decades, the US government has consistantly actively intervened whenever a viable peace-plan has materialized.

The US doesn't want Israel to "get off the front page", they want things to stay bad. Israel isn't only a strategically useful piece of land, it's also a convienient token problem.

Whenever a president needs a foreign affairs issue to "solve", he proposes an Israeli-Palestinian "peace plan". And whenever he needs a useful enemy, he has the "terrorist" Palestinians.

Plus, keeping the Israelis under siege keeps them loyal to the US.

Altogether, it's a win-win for US imperialism. And the more we keep attention on the "crisis", the better it helps those imperialist designs.

And the reason the Israel-Palestine issue takes up so much of our attention is because the left is concerned with solidarity with the oppressed, particuarly when they are oppressed by the agents of imperialism.

There are a whole lot of "oppressed" in the world today, YKTMX, the Palestinians hardly have a monopoly on subjugation.

And even as far as pure oppression goes, the Palestinains really don't have anything on the victims of the numerous African ethnic wars. Living in the occupied territories may be hellish, but it's luxurious compared with Darfur

The Palestinian people are suffering greatly, but their plight is hardly "unique", nor is it particularly spectacular. Rather it is about what one would expect given the conditions in southwestern Asia and Northern Africa.

The region is simply backwards and imperialist occupation in underdeveloped regions tends to result in settler colonies and Appartheid regimes. Such regimes should certainly be condemned for their truly despicable behaviour. But there are many more important issues that need to be addressed first.

LSD, if you hold to a materialist analysis then it doesn't matter what Zionism in "theory" claims, or what strands of Zionism there are, the only thing that matters is that Zionism in practice is racist and supremacist.

YKTMX, I think you may be "jumping in", as you put it, into the wrong discussion.

I was not claiming that the Israeli government or the manifestation of Zionism is anything but racist and imperialist. I was merely responding to a question regarding historical zionism and the political roots thereof.

In such a discussion, it is very much relevent what "theory" holds because "theory" is the topic at hand!

What's your criteria? Certainly in terms of sustained violence against a neighbouring people, it's up there.

Hardly.

Turkey has been engaged in "sustained violence" against the Kurds for longer than Israel has existed as a nation. Likewise, Syria has been "sustaining violence" in Lebanon for decades; Indonesia has "sustained violence" against East timor; and I'd say about 90% of Africa has been "violent" against someone at one time or another and they've been pretty "sustained" about it too.

Meanwhile, of course, the US is busy "sustaining violence" against everyone in sight, and the PRC is guilty of somewhere in the vicinity of 50 million deaths.

But Israel, the tiny country of 9 million people, is "up there"?

This petty conflict between microscopic nations is "up there" along with monsters like China and the DPRK and Saudi Arabia and Sudan?

The Istraeli-Palestinian problem is of serious concern to the Palestinians. But in terms of world-wide importance, it just doesn't cut it.

I am not saying that we should "abandon" the Palestinians, they are certainly deserving of sympathy and support. But the attention given to this issue is ridiculously disproportionate.

Israel is not "fascist", it's not "evil", and it's not the "great cause" on which to hang leftism. This is a quagmire which is unlikely to change for a very very long time. There is simply no solution here that is acceptable to both the fanatics on the ground and the imperialists pulling the strings.

Accordingly, getting caught up in this "crisis" is a no-win enterprise.

And that's precisely what your local bourgeois are hoping for.

If you're a Palestinian orphan living in some god farsaken refugee camp on the Jordanian border because some fucker stole your land, watching your family being butchered by a mixture of Israeli rockets and pestilence caused by the lack of sanitation, then, "well, at least you're not in Bergen-Belsen" is hardly a comfort.

No it isn't, but it's also completely irrelevent.

The same, after all, could be said for the victims of Jim Crowe laws; they were also "hardly comforted" by how worse things could be. But that, again, does not make segregation and the holocaust morally parallel.

No one is going to gain any comfort from the fact that "things could be worse", no, but what makes the Israeli government so functionaly different from the Nazi German one is that if the Nazis had had 50 years in which to work, there wouldn't be any Jews left alive.

Palestine, however, remains populated.

There are a lot of critisisms that can be farily leveled at the government of Israel, but xenocide isn't one of them. If it were really the fascist Nazi monster tha so much of the immature left likes to accuse it of being, there wouldn't be a single Palestian left alive in Israeli territory.

And before you say that that "couldn't be done" or "no one would support it", I'd remind you of the dozens of attempts at "ethnic cleansing" which have been undertaken during Israel's lifespan alone!

Rwanda managed to keep it's genocide running smoothly as did Serbia. And histoy teaches us that the US is willing to turn a blind eye to all sorts of atrocities in the name of Empire.

If Israel really wanted to get rid of all its arabs, it would have done it. Instead it chose the South African route of institutional racism and discrimination, but like South Africa, genocide wasn't on the menu.

Accusing Israel of engaging in Appartheid is fair, accusing it of being "fascist", however, is not.

YKTMX

3rd April 2006, 19:26

No, the main "avatars" of fascism are totalitarianism and government repression.

"Totalitarianism"? What a useless word that is - created by Western cold warriors with almost no analytical value.

In any case, such a broad definition as yours could apply to many, many more regimes that the ones traditionally described as "fascist".

Sure, fascist states tend to be imperialistic and militaristic, but remember, Franco never invaded a single other country. He died at a ripe old age, his "empire" exactly the same size as when he first took it over.

Sorry, no, the reason the Spanish Civil War started was because Franco, in part, didn't trust the Republicans to defend Spain's "empire". The reason he never tried to "expand" in a direct sense, was because internal opposition was much greater than it was in Germany or Italy, and Spain never had the German's economic or military power.

Meanwhile, The Soviet Unino had carved itself out a nice large chunk of Eastern Europe and was happily engaged in imperial micromanagement.

Yes, but Stalin was "happy" with what he got after the war, as we know. In fact, he often seemed desperate to make sure "soviet influence" never spread beyond parameters he could control, hence his antipathy towards revolution in places like Spain, Italy and France.

I don't know from what you're referencing, but the aspects you cite are simply not the "defining avatars" you claim them to be.

I said "main avatars", not "defining", there are other ones, of course. An autonomous social base, for instance - like a SA. Or the conflation of the state and big capital.

However, as I said, war is the defining feature of fascist states - internal or external. Ask Catalonians if Franco was a "benign" despot.

How much attention was given to Sharon's coma? How much air time was devoted to the Palestinian elections?

The importance of the issue forces them to raise it now and again. The main narrative of the Sharon thing was that it was a "blow to peace", because he was becoming a "centrist". The main narrative of the elections was that it was a "disaster for peace" because HAMAS are all nuts.

Colonialism! Racism! Imperialism!

Hmmm, I must have missed that report on CNN. Link?

nd meanwhile, our local rulling classes are carrying on with their work, perfectly delighted to see the endless "anti-Israel" parades and ludicrous "anti-Israel" boycots.

Just like those "ludicrous" anti-apartheid boycotts?

In such a discussion, it is very much relevent what "theory" holds because "theory" is the topic at hand!

Actually, the original poster said:

"and I hope from these discussions you will learn something new about the conflict in the middle east..."

I hardly see how the history of Zionism is at all relevant in this context - except as background.

As I said, what Zionism was meant to be by this or that theorist is unimportant now. What it actually is, is very important.

Likewise, Syria has been "sustaining violence" in Lebanon for decades

I think the causes of the war in the Lebanon are a bit more complicated than merely "Syrian violence". George Bush might agree with you, I don't know.

and the PRC is guilty of somewhere in the vicinity of 50 million deaths.

I'm not sure about those numbers, comrade.

But Israel, the tiny country of 9 million people, is "up there"?

A tiny country that "just happens" to have" to one of the biggest armies and some of the biggest armed spending in the world?

Tell me, if Israel is such a "minor issue", the why does the US give it so much aid?

The imperialists obviously don't see it as a "minor" issue, so why should we?

But that, again, does not make segregation and the holocaust morally parallel.

Whatever Jim Crow was, there was never a systematic policy to remove blacks from their homes or murder large numbers of them. The Israeli state is founded on this very principle. Principles it shares with the Nazi state.

What two things could be more similar, historically and metaphorically, than the Warsaw Ghetto and a Palestinian refugee camp?

What is the Zionist state, with its inflated borders, other than "lebensraum" for the "Jewish nation"?

Why is it that American Capital is so in love with the state of Israel?

Just because you find the comparisons in some sense uncomfortable, or even distasetful, doesn't make them less accuarate.

piet11111

3rd April 2006, 19:58

The Istraeli-Palestinian problem is of serious concern to the Palestinians. But in terms of world-wide importance, it just doesn't cut it.

i disagree with you on this one israel is the only serious foothold america has that is permanent (iraq seems to be heading to a total pull out) in the middle east.
and the isreali's are nuts enough to use them when they are attacked (they sure as hell provoke the arabs enough to get an attack)
iraq and afghanistan are also temporary footholds and conveniently sandwiching iran in between them.

and seeing how the media is reporting how all those nuclear facility's are only able to be taken out with a nuclear bunker buster (that just happend to be developed long before iran became a designated target) then im atleast suspicious.

yes israel is small but its important because its important to american imperialism.
the genocide in darfur is just material to fill up the evening news because its not important to any imperialist nation.

LSD

3rd April 2006, 20:42

"Totalitarianism"? What a useless word that is - created by Western cold warriors with almost no analytical value.

Perhaps, but it's still a useful short hand for powerful authoritarian government with functional control over most aspects of civilian life.

Israel, again, simply doesn't cut it.

In any case, such a broad definition as yours could apply to many, many more regimes that the ones traditionally described as "fascist".

Well, there are some historians who insist that only Mussilini's Italy can be fairly called "fascist" and there is some logic there. But while there's a danger in being overbroad, there are simply too many similarites between various fascistic states to overlook.

Franco's Spain was fascist. But not because he engaged in "internal war" or any ludicrous nonsense like that. Stalin was busy "warring internally" at the same time and with the same intensity, but still no serious schollar would call the USSR fascist.

Nor would they call Fourth Republic France fascist even though it was actively engaged in oppression and "internal and external war".

Look, this is really a question of fact here. There's really no need for controversy. The definition of fascim is relatively stable and generally accepted so all that needs to be done is to check the government of Israel against the defining chacteristics of fascism and seeing if they match.

They don't.

Yes, but Stalin was "happy" with what he got after the war, as we know.

Actually, he wasn't. Rather, "as we know", he attempted to take west Berlin and supported North Korea.

Not that this matters, however. The fact is that Stalin carved out an empire and Franco didn't. Stalin engaged in war and Franco didn't.

Whatever the reasons or excuses, your definition fails here and you need to be upfront about that. If war is really the "main avatar" of fascism then every fascist state must manifest it. If even one does not, it means that the standard is incorrect.

I said "main avatars", not "defining"

Semantics.

If an "avatar" is "main" then it must also be defining, otherwise why cite it?

If war is merely "one of many" essential features of fascism, then why did you bring it up? Israel may be militaristic and it certainly has a record of getting involved in wars, but as even you admit, war alone does not define fascism.

In other words, what was the point of this entire diversion? Israel is not fascist because it fails to have nescessary defining characteristics of fascism. Whether or not it is "war-like" is, accordingly, irrelevent.

However, as I said, war is the defining feature of fascist states - internal or external.

You did indeed say that, but you were wrong.

Again, every reputable definition of fascism begins with authoritarian. The government of Israel may be racist, but it is not fascistic. Fascist states do not hold multi-party bourgeois elections, nor do they forumlate republican governments.

Israel is, again, racist, discriminatory, and militaristic. Nonetheless, it is not fascist.

The importance of the issue forces them to raise it now and again.

You're begging the question.

The issue is only "important" because they judge it to be so. Far more deaths have occured in Darfur than the occupied territories, but Sharon's coma, the settlement pullout, the Israeli elections, the Palestinain elections, etc... are all much bigger stories.

A few years back, even when hundreds of thousands were being killed across Africa, the fact that Arafat's "compound" was surrounded by tanks was the "big story" across the world.

Like it or not, the media loves this story.

Hmmm, I must have missed that report on CNN. Link?

I didn't claim that the bourgeois media speaks in leftist terms. Obviously it doesn't. But this issue, nonetheless, is a custom made leftist bouffet. It's a perfect distraction to keep recalcitrant westerners in line.

Protesting Israel doesn't actually do anything to hurt the imperialist powers and it certainly keeps attention away from their own atrocities.

That's why, after all, so many arab countries hopped on the "anti-Zionism" bandwagon. It was the perfect excuse by which to evade their own responsibility for their countries' plights.

Just like those "ludicrous" anti-apartheid boycotts?

Where's the anti-Saudi Arabia boycott? Where's the anti-Mynamar one?

There are far worse governments than Israel in the world and paying special attention to this one issue is indeed ludicrous.

Israel's policies may be racist and despicable, but to claim that they are so unique that a boycott is justified against Israel but no other country is so counterfactual as to be laughable.

I have no problem with boycotts, just so long as they're consistant. And concentrating on Israel when there are literaly dozens of worse states is simply hypocritical.

Actually, the original poster said:

"and I hope from these discussions you will learn something new about the conflict in the middle east..."

I hardly see how the history of Zionism is at all relevant in this context - except as background.

I was actually responding to vox_populi who asked: "I don't know how much is correct and I would appreciate is someone could point out possible mistakes." in reference to the history of Zionism.

See this post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48190&view=findpost&p=1292045733).

A tiny country that "just happens" to have" to one of the biggest armies and some of the biggest armed spending in the world?

Actually, Israel doesn't even make the top ten in either category.

Israel spends about 9.1 billion US dollars on its military, a little less than the Netherlands and Spain.

Yes, per capita, Israel has a relatively high defense budget but, again, that's because it's population is only slightly larger than that of the Vatican.

In terms of both army size and actual dollars spent, Saudi Arbia has more than twice as much as Israel.

Not exactly a "world power"! :lol:

Tell me, if Israel is such a "minor issue", the why does the US give it so much aid?

Because it's a useful strategic base in an important geopolitical region.

Obviously, because of it's location, Israel is extremely useful to US interests, but there's an important difference between the imperialist designs and the "Palestinain crisis".

It's the latter that is the minor issue and insofar as the former, far from being an essential issue in its own right, it is rather a small part of the big problem of US imperialism around the world.

Whatever Jim Crow was, there was never a systematic policy to remove blacks from their homes or murder large numbers of them.

Sure there was.

Murdering large numbers of blacks was par for the course in segregated America. In fact, I would even propose that more people have died as a result of American racism than as a result of Israeli Appartheid.

That does not, of course, mean that either was acceptable. But it reinforces the fact that neither was unique.

Racism and violence have gone hand in hand for as long as either has existed. The Armenin genocide at the turn of the last century, for instance, is yet another example of horrific behavour, indescribably worse than anything Israel has ever done.

Regardless, though, calling the perpetrators "Nazis" is disengenuous.

Discrimination against and the forced rellocation of several hundred thousand people does not even compare with the engineered slaughter of eleven million civlians.

It just doesn't compare.

What two things could be more similar, historically and metaphorically, than the Warsaw Ghetto and a Palestinian refugee camp?

The Warsaw Ghetto and a Soviet Gulag perhaps?

Or maybe the Law on German Blood and German Honour and the religious laws of Saudi Arabia.

Or how about Fasicst Italian censorship and Syrian repression?

The fact is, no matter how rhetorically satisfying it may be to equate Gaza with Auschitz, there's simpy no reasonable way to make that comparison. There are just too many worse examples of oppresion and subjugation for Israel to be the "new Nazis".

It's just this "last great cause" mentality that drives people to try and somehow equate the Israeli government with the Nazis. It's a rationalization for the undue focus as well as an attempt at dispeling the lingering ghosts of the holocaust.

Well, it may be a soothing lie, but it's a lie nonetheless.

Again, Israel can be compared to South Africa, it cannot be compared to Nazi Germany!

Just because you find the comparisons in some sense uncomfortable, or even distasetful, doesn't make them less accuarate.

It's not about "distaste", it's about historical inaccuracy.

Again, if Israel wished to engage in genocide, they would have already done it.

I will confess, however, that as analogies go, this is a particularly "distasteful" one. There's something very disturbing about the "ironic" glea that some people have when equating a bunch of Jews with the Nazis.

They're just a little too damn happy about it.

Comparisons with South Africa are also routinely made and, again, they are for the most part fair. But South Africa isn't quite as "evil" in most people's minds and it doesn't quite have the same "punch" as "the Nazis".

Equating Israeli discrimination or the Gaza strip to the Nazis and their extermination camps trivializes and denigrates the actual victims of the Nazis. It makes Hitler's actions more acceptable because, after all, "Israeli's doing the same thing".

Certainly the far right loves the comparison. They routinely talk about the "Zionist occipied government" and how the "Zionists are the real Nazis". Meanwhile, they fervently attempt to minimize the holocaust so that National Socialism can return as viable governmental alternative.

Going along for this ride simply plays into too many "distasteful" hands for it to be worth it. Instead we must be rational and objective and make critisisms of Israel that are materialy valid.

That means identifying racism and discrimination, and losing the Hitler references.

yes israel is small but its important because its important to american imperialism.

The point, though, is that no one is addressing this as an issue of imperialism.

You're right, Israel must be recognized for the role that it plays, but that's different from the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Fighting US imperialism as it exists in or through Israel is the same as fighting US imperialism in Iraq and elsewhere. It's a large problem with numerous battlegrounds.

Focusing attention on walls, refugees, and suicide bombers, however, doesn't take us to that battleground, it avoids it completely.

Now, none of this is to say that the Palestinian people are not suffering, they are. Just not unusally so.

Remember, Saudi Arbia is also an imperialist puppet and is a far more oppressive and repressive state than Israel. Accordingly, if this is an issue of fighting US stooges inthe middle east, Saudi Arabia should be first on the list.

Instead, it's Israel that gets all the attention because, again, the left has bought into the bourgeois lie of Israel as a "critical fight". And, again, there's that irritating leftist retiscence to attack the "south".

People, we need to get over this fear of "chauvinism" and start being rational. The government of Israel may be bad, but it is far and away not the worst.

Severian

3rd April 2006, 21:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:53 AM
Remember, one of the chief obstacles to a solution in Israel has been the US. Over the past couple of decades, the US government has consistantly actively intervened whenever a viable peace-plan has materialized.
That's false. Washington has consistenly intervened to promoted various "peace plans" and pressure Israel to accept them - though without pushing as hard as they could.

Washington's policy there is similar to its policy in Cyprus, Kurdistan, Kashmir, and other places. Washington favors the resolution of conflicts involving national self-determination - on terms favorable to Washington's strategic interests.

Washington's strategic interests in this case include a strong Israeli client state. Which in the long run, even Sharon came to realize, requires Israel to get out of part of the occupied territories - if they can't negotiate a settlement on their terms, then to impose it.

And they'd prefer this without the constant irritant of the Palestinian national struggle - which makes it difficult for Washington to have good relations with both Israel and with its client regimes in the Arab countries. The Palestinian question is also a constant problem for those Arab regimes.

There are a whole lot of "oppressed" in the world today, YKTMX, the Palestinians hardly have a monopoly on subjugation.

And even as far as pure oppression goes, the Palestinains really don't have anything on the victims of the numerous African ethnic wars. Living in the occupied territories may be hellish, but it's luxurious compared with Darfur

Which really has nothing to do with anything. Not for those of us who are revolutionaries.

I'll leave it to charitable liberals and compassionate societies for animal welfare to debate who are the most pitable, helpless victims suffering the worst oppression. There's certainly no shortage of oppression in the world.

For revolutionaries, the question is, who is fighting. The most important places in the world are the places with the biggest upsurges of mass struggle, the places where the oppressed are not only suffering but resisting.

And the Palestinian people have shown truly amazing and astonishing courage and determination, again and again, on a mass scale.

Mesijs

3rd April 2006, 22:15

Originally posted by Comrade_Ryan+Apr 3 2006, 01:31 PM--> (Comrade_Ryan @ Apr 3 2006, 01:31 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 12:28 AM

Anti-semitism! A threat to all Free people

Straight up.

Zionism is simply the struggle for a state for the Jewish people. Communist's suppourt all nation's right to self-determination. Why not the right of Jew's to self determination ?
I can't believe you just said that JC... You can stop calling you're a communist right now. [/b]
What are you talking about? People have the right to self-determination. Jews also have that right.

And I am against any massacre's committed, and against oppression of the Palestinians. But the fact is that there is an Israeli state now, and everyone should make the best out of it now. So that means concessions from both sides.

Zionism means the will for self-determination from the jewish nation.

Severian

3rd April 2006, 22:25

^^^But communists don't support "all nations" right to self-determination.

Communists don't support Ulster Loyalists right to stay within the United Kingdom. Communists didn't support some Afrikaners' call for a homeland for themselves during the collapse of apartheid.

Communist support demands for self-determination by the oppressed directed against the oppressors. Zionism, on the other hand, was a movement of European Jews, not against their persecutors - European capitalist governments - but directed against Palestinian Arabs in alliance with the British government.

And today, it's simply the official ideology of the Israeli apartheid state.

LSD

3rd April 2006, 22:54

That's false. Washington has consistenly intervened to promoted various "peace plans" and pressure Israel to accept them

No it really hasn't.

On the contrary, ever since Kissinger's policy of "stalemate", the US' practical behaviour towards Israel has been one of encouraging rejctionism and maintaining in the status quo.

In 1971, Weizmann only rejected Sadat's offer because of US pressure and in '76, Israel had complete and total US support in blocking S/11940.

Washingont has purported to be "working towards peace", but it's actual practice has been to completely support Israel in maintaining the occupation.

The most telling indication of this, of course, was when the US fully supported Israel in dismissing the 1981 Saudi/Fez plan. If the US had even an ounce of interest in settling the dispute it would have leaned on Israel to accept the plan that even Zionists agreed was fair.

Now, none of this is to say that Israel does not bare the blame for refusing to negotiate. It's just that they would have been unable to persist in that strategy if they didn't have the unconditional support of the US.

Washington's strategic interests in this case include a strong Israeli client state.

They already have that. What they also need, however, is an Israel that remains fully dependent on the US' good graces, and the best way to ensure that is to keep the Palestinian issue alive for as long as possible.

The US has zero interest in solving this problem. All that a cessation of hostilities would do is weaken the ties that bind Israel to the US and make the arab nations start focusing on other things.

You see the US has as much of an interest in the stability of its client states as do the governments of those states. The US knows that Israel is a perfect scapegoat to keep subjugated populations in line and so it keeps the "crisis" from ending.

And in terms of the US' "relations" with the arab world, the only "relations" that the US is interested in are government to government and those relatinships are rolling along just fine.

For all their talk against Israel and the occupation, the Saudi government will never even think of defying the US.

Real power, you see, transcends politics.

For revolutionaries, the question is, who is fighting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you oppose suporting the Iraqi resistance?

Well, then what makes the Palestinians so "special" that they deserve your support but the Iraqis don't?

Both the Iraqi resistance and the Palestinian one have their share of radicals and fundamentalists, but that doesn't mean that either is not deserving of leftist support.

And, again, I never indicated that I supported anyone but the Palestinians on this issue, I was merely pointing out that this issue is overly focused on and that there are more important world events.

Yes, many Palestinians are fighting back against occupation, but that's true in most places where there's an occupation.

The Irish have been fighting for a united Ireland for a very long time, but that never made Ulster the key international issue, nor did that situation ever garner the world headlines that the Palestinian situation does.

What are you talking about? People have the right to self-determination. Jews also have that right.

Indeed they do, but the question is at what cost?

If Palestine had truly been "a land without people", then there would be no problem, but because there were already people there and because of what was done to them, the creation of the state of Israel has done more than create a nation, it's attempted to destroy one.

Now, you're correct in that Israel is here now and is unlikely to dissapear any time soon. Refussals to admit this or even acknowledge that the country exists, like the official platform of Hammas, are thorougly ridiculous.

But if a solution is to ever manifest, it will happen in spite of all governments involved, not because of them.

Accordingly, one good first step would be to get rid of all foreign assistance to either side, especially from the US. Once imperialist powers get involved, it can only end up one way: bad!

Zionism means the will for self-determination from the jewish nation.

Well, actually it's a bit more complicated than that, as I've already explained.

Initially, Zionism was indeed a Jewish response to contemporary European romantic nationalism, but since the formation of the state of Israel, political Zionism has come to practically mean support for the government of the State of Israel, a very different thing!

Phalanx

4th April 2006, 01:08

I honestly think I'm talking to a brick wall. Many people love to complain about Israel, but they always conveniently forget about the situation in Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Turkmenistan, DPRK, and I could go on.

Syria, Israel's neighbor, killed 50,000 of its citizens during an uprising in Hamah. The people live under fear of the Ba'ath Party and its repressive rule.

The bloodshed against the African Darfuris has claimed the lives of an estimated 100,000-400,000 people, and I barely hear this on the news. The Janjaweed militia kills, rapes and burns villages.

The military regime in Myanmar has killed thousands of ethnic Shan, Karen, and Karenni in its campaign against the country's many ethnic minorities. The Karen are the only ones to continue their struggle for independence, but the vast majority of the Karen population are now in refugee camps. I never hear Myanmar as on of the places with the most refugee camps.

The DPRK has many camps and is extremely repressive. Although not too much evidence is backed this up, there isn't really a doubt in my mind that Kim Il Jung is mad.

Israel forced out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes (although many Arab leaders were also spreading propoganda to make Palestinians leave). The Palestinian death toll is around 50,000-70,000 for the 60 year old conflict. Millions of Palestinians live in squalid conditions.

Israel is by far not the worst country in the world. People here are way to obsessed with this situation

LSD

4th April 2006, 01:30

I honestly think I'm talking to a brick wall. Many people love to complain about Israel, but they always conveniently forget about the situation in Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Turkmenistan, DPRK, and I could go on.

Exactly right.

The sitution in Israel is bad for the people living there, but it is by no means exceptional or unique. The focus given to this issue is entirely disproportionate and completely counterproductive.

If the left really wants to have a serious impace on the international scene, it needs to lose this "last great cause" mentality and get over its fear of attacking the "south". You're not "chauvunistic" if you attack Saudi Arabia, you're just fucking human; and it's about damn time that people started realizing that.

There are terrible problems in the world today and Palestine is neither the most grave nor the most revolutionary. It's just a minor struggle that the bourgeoisie has manipulated into a purported "crisis".

Accepting that lie is not "revolutionary" or "progressive", it's political suicide.

Nicky Scarfo

4th April 2006, 02:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:00 AM
I was aware of that actually, but you have to realize that even if israeli/palestinian marriages are not dejure illigal, they are defacto illigal because they wont grant palestinian spouses of Israelis travel permits into Israel so an Israeli/Palestinian couple in such a situation has the choice of either moving to Palestine or having a long distance relationship and just talking over the phone (when the phone lines aren't down in whatever refugee camp the palestinian spouses is confined to, that is). This restriction applies *exclusively* to Israelis marrying Arabs by the way, if an Israeli marries a European or an American or whatever they're allowed into the country.
Gotcha.

Nicky Scarfo

4th April 2006, 02:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:50 PM
Topic Title Edited: Zionism is not a "threat" to all "free people" everywhere.

1. There aren't any "free people" anywhere. There are only more unfree and less unfree people on this planet at the present time.

2. Israel is an imperialist threat only to its immediate neighbors...and not much of one at that. It simply lacks the manpower to build a serious empire in the Middle East.

Some of the anti-Israeli rhetoric in the left is really "over-the-top"...and I think some folks here are getting carried away with it.

Israel is an apartheid state very similar to the old white regime in South Africa both in ideology and in practice.

Comparisons with Spanish or Italian fascism are not justified; those regimes were far bloodier and far more repressive than Israel has even been.

The Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians is indeed scandalous by western standards. Israelis complain that they are being held to a "higher standard"...but the Israelis claim that they are a "modern civilized country" like France or Germany.

Well, not exactly. They are really like the settlements built by American pioneers in "Indian country" -- a "fortress state" that's "always under threat of extermination" by the hostile indigenous population.

Israel was a really bad idea that had, as bad ideas usually do, catastrophic consequences. Now it's a permanent irritant to the enormous Arab nation that surrounds it.

A sensible Israeli emigrates to a "western country".

In what fashion this bad idea will finally implode is speculative; perhaps one too many "pre-emptive strikes" at a neighboring Arab state will do it. As is normal in modern wars, it will be mostly civilians who get massacred on both sides.

It's a nasty part of the world...that's what being backward means. It's far from the worst, though. The ethnic civil wars in Africa are brutal on a scale that would (possibly!) even make a Nazi blush.

As "westerners", our task is to oppose our own ruling classes' attempts to meddle in those places...as it has been clearly demonstrated that western imperialism always makes things worse!

The quisling regime imposed on Iraq by the U.S. and British imperialists is already behaving worse than Saddam Hussein! And the quisling regime in Afghanistan has been characterized by Afghani women as "Taleban Lite". It won't be "lite" for long.

I have no problem with "solidarity with the Palestinian struggle" -- they really are being treated horribly. So are the Kurds. So are lots of small and weak ethnic/cultural groups in lots of countries around the world.

This is, we should understand, normal in pre-capitalist and semi-capitalist countries...and hardly unknown in countries that have been conquered by western imperialist countries.

It is only when those countries eventually develop into modern capitalist countries that the violence will cease...to be replaced, of course, by the violence of modern class struggle.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Okay, you make some very good points here, but I'm curious as a new member-- is it standard practice here for admin to edit posts (or their titles) solely because they disagree with the author's statements?

redstar2000

4th April 2006, 05:24

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
is it standard practice here for admin to edit posts (or their titles) solely because they disagree with the author's statements?

Happens pretty rarely -- not counting thread titles that give the reader no clue as to what the topic being discussed is.

This is only the second time I've edited a thread title for content in years.

Posts will sometimes be edited to remove racist, sexist, or homophobic language...it depends on the admin.

And troll/spam posts and posts from Nazis have been known to be deleted completely...though again it doesn't happen very often.

We want the board to be interesting to read and not "look wacko" to first-time visitors.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Atlas Swallowed

4th April 2006, 14:56

Severian

4th April 2006, 18:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:03 PM
And, again, I never indicated that I supported anyone but the Palestinians on this issue, I was merely pointing out that this issue is overly focused on and that there are more important world events.

Yes, many Palestinians are fighting back against occupation, but that's true in most places where there's an occupation.
Unfortunately, no. There is not a comparable level of mass resistance everywhere else, or in Ireland specifically. It's ridiculous to say so.

And I was talking about priorities, too. Palestine is a priority because of the kind of resistance the Palestinians are putting up. You chose to raise the subject of what does or doesn't deserve support, not me.

YTMX also makes one good point: Washington considers this situation a priority - to the tune of $4 billion a year. I might add: $3 billion a year to Egypt - to reward them for making a separate peace with Israel.

I might add that the political response is always different to things the imperialist countries do directly, as opposed to things that Third World regimes do. The response of the Third World masses is different, for a beginning.

That's just a political reality. And I think it reflects a basically correct instinct for who the main enemies of humanity are: the Third World regimes, including the Arab regimes, are a secondary enemy.

Nobody would be paying so much attention to Iraq, if it wasn't Washington occupying it.

What else? Oh yean, Washington doesn't have to worry about Israel ceasing to be dependent. That can never happen.

And in terms of the US' "relations" with the arab world, the only "relations" that the US is interested in are government to government and those relatinships are rolling along just fine.

Have you read a newspaper in the last 5 years? No, they're not always rolling along just fine. And that's not the only relationships Washington is interested in, post 9/11 (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/59306.htm)

LSD

4th April 2006, 20:08

And I was talking about priorities, too. Palestine is a priority because of the kind of resistance the Palestinians are putting up.

That's a very simplistic analyss of the situation.

Yes, the Palestinians are "fighting back", but that's not because of any inherent superiority on their part, but to the political reality the situation.

The fact is that the perpetuation of this struggle has been in everyone's self-interest (except, of course, the Palestinina people). A good deal of money and political pressure has been dedicated to keeping this "crisis" alive for as long as possible.

It is, again, a manipulated struggle and buying into the myth of the "last great cause" only helps the bourgeois imperialists in obfuscating their designs.

Israel is simply not the "bullwark" of imperialism. It's a rather a subserviant outpost in a very convienient location. It obviously serves US interests to keep it in this position and, accordingly, the US does everything it has to to keep the situation "unstable".

The Palestinain people are just the unfortunate pawns in this imperialist power play.

But, even accepting their miserable conditions and valliant efforts, it is worth noting that the Palestinians are not the most oppressed people in the world and they are not the most progressive. If they were to actually gain an independent state within the next decade, it would almost certainly be functionally indistinguishable from the other arab states of the region.

Now, that is not to say that the Palestinian people do not have the right to self-determination. They have been suffering under an illegal and brutal occupation for far too long and have certainly earned the right to stand on their own.

But when the occupation does finally end, it will not be a particularly revolutionary event. And the fact that the Palestinians, through their struggles, have managed to acquire even the limited degree of automomy that they presently de jure enjoy, speaks to the fact that they should not be our top priorities.

You claim that revolutionaries should only focus their attention on situations in which insurrection has already been formented. That seems counterproductive to me.

Our obligation is not only to those who realize that they are oppressed, but also, perhaps especially, to those who don't.

YTMX also makes one good point: Washington considers this situation a priority - to the tune of $4 billion a year. I might add: $3 billion a year to Egypt - to reward them for making a separate peace with Israel.

What's your point?

The fact that the US sees Israel as a strategic "ally" is completely irrelevent to the question of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and certainly has nothing to do with Zionism.

Even if the Palestinians were to secure their own state, the US would still fund Israel because its position would still be incredibly convienient.

As long as the US remains involved, though, that scenario is quite unlikely. As I outlined before, the US is quite dedicated to perpetuating this struggle and proping up Israeli rejectionism.

"Fighting" on behalf of Palestine; waving flags, supporting boycotts, equating Zionism with National Socialism, none of this makes a dent in US interest or intent. This has been consistant policy, after all, since the late sixties!

As long as the US is involved in anyway, thist situation will never resolve itself. Imperialist intervention always makes it worse.

Accordingly, our primary internationalist agenda must be an blanket opposition to foreign excursion in all forms. This problem is, after all, not restricted to the couple million involved in Israel-Palestine.

Simply focusing on this one national liberation struggle as if it has special importance distracts from larger goals and class interests.

Nobody would be paying so much attention to Iraq, if it wasn't Washington occupying it.

Again, though, weren't you the one who opposed supporting the Iraqi resistance because it wasn't progressive in and of itself?

I really don't understand how you can support the Palestinian struggle against US/Israeli occupation, but not the Iraqis' struggle agaisnt US/British occupation.

Both self-determination movements have their reactionary elements and neither is particularly radical in and of itself. But both, if successful, will deal a solid blow to imperialism and so must be supported.

Although, again, they should never dominate our thinking.

What else? Oh yean, Washington doesn't have to worry about Israel ceasing to be dependent. That can never happen.

It can't happen now. "Never" is a very long time.

As long as Israel remains at odds with most of her neighbours and keeps up the occupation, no, an end to US dependency is impossible. And that's why the US is trying its damndest to keeping that the situation.

Have you read a newspaper in the last 5 years? No, they're not always rolling along just fine.

The so-called rifts between the US and her client states are just like the so-called rifts between the US and the European imperialist powers; theyr're politics.

Many arab countries talk a good game in order to placate their citizenry and declare that they are "independent" and "resistant", but the moment the US actually turns around and tells them to jump ...they jump! :lol:

Severian

4th April 2006, 22:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:17 PM
Yes, the Palestinians are "fighting back", but that's not because of any inherent superiority on their part, but to the political reality the situation.
Duh. Doesn't matter why - the reality is that they are.

If they were to actually gain an independent state within the next decade, it would almost certainly be functionally indistinguishable from the other arab states of the region.

Nonsense. The Israeli rulers certainly are under no such illusion, which is why they refuse to allow any meaningfully independent Palestinian state.

The very existence of the Israeli apartheid state is incompatible with the national rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people. It is founded on their expulsion from 78% of Palestine. Merely recognizing an independent state on the other 22% would not change that.

It would put Palestinians - inside Israel, in the now-occupied territories, in the Diaspora - in a stronger position to fight for the end of apartheid and for a democratic, secular state in the whole of historic Palestine.

Tel Aviv and Washington want a settlement to the conflict, all right - based on a Palestinian Bantustan, not an independent state.

And even if Tel Aviv does achieve such a Bantustan under a relatively stable regime, plus peace treaties with all the Arab states - they will still be dependent on the U.S. - to keep their economy afloat and their internal class contradictions relatively muted, for one thing.

And the fact that the Palestinians, through their struggles, have managed to acquire even the limited degree of automomy that they presently de jure enjoy, speaks to the fact that they should not be our top priorities.

Neat piece of paradoxical verbal jujitsu there. In reality, the extremely limited degree of that autonomy speaks to how threatening imperialism considers any real Palestinian independence.

You claim that revolutionaries should only focus their attention on situations in which insurrection has already been formented. That seems counterproductive to me.

Not exactly how I'd put it, but what are you saying? Try to foment insurrections in other countries, but don't support those who are rising up? Sounds like convincing people to stick their necks out in order to get 'em chopped off.

Our obligation is not only to those who realize that they are oppressed, but also, perhaps especially, to those who don't.

Who are those people? The reason there aren't more rebellions, is because most people lack confidence in themselves, in their ability to win.

If the Palestinian people win in the face of overwhelming military odds....that increases the confidence of every other oppressed people in what they can accomplish.

Your complaint is the same one people used to make about apartheid South Africa: why are so many people focused on it, rather than on dictatorships in Black Africa which probably killed more people?

But nobody paid attention to this complaint: it's a reality that the world class struggle has a tendency to directly target imperialist countries first. And a powerful, compelling working-class movement against apartheid developed and won.

The fact that the US sees Israel as a strategic "ally" is completely irrelevent to the question of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and certainly has nothing to do with Zionism.

How? Without Zionism and the "Israeli-Palestinian situation" there would be no Israel to be a strategic ally for Washington.

You kinda evaded, also, that Washington is rewarding Egypt for making peace with Israel; which kinda argues against your claim that the U.S. wants to perpetuate conflict between Israel and the Arab regimes.

I really don't understand how you can support the Palestinian struggle against US/Israeli occupation, but not the Iraqis' struggle agaisnt US/British occupation.

That's right, you don't and you can't. But for starters, it's not "The Iraqis' struggle" nor is it primarily directed against the occupation.

CubaSocialista

4th April 2006, 22:16

Myself? I'm Jewish in background and spiritual, though I practice Karaism, of which there are maybe 50,000 such people worldwide. It's a schism from Judaism anyway...

I originally felt the need to defeat zionism as a means of exacting revenge upon the people I saw growing up in the religious schools, these postmodern, self-righteous, can-do-no-wrong wastes.

I am a member of the human race, through which red flows in all.
Just like socialism. And I will always stand by my Arab brother before I stand beside one of the Caucasian elitists, and their Christian fanatic benefactors, as well as capitalism in general.

However I make it a point to combat antisemitism with an equal amount of furor.

Cheung Mo

4th April 2006, 23:04

Zionism is the theory that one dead civilisation that engaged in the barbaric practices of Antiquity deserves -- where others do not -- to have its history whitewashed, the right to permanently exist where others have been rotting in the dustbin of history, and the right to form a quasi-democratic theocracy solely because its members held the religious convictions that developped into the belief systems that the global elite have used to oppressed the masses for millennia.

Israel is nothing more than Malaysia with a Hebrew coat of paint.

And I fucking hate Malaysia and its politics.

So the Barisan Nasional is like

"ITZ TEH j00z!!11!11!!1 TEH j00z coz all r pr0blemz!1!!11!!!111!!!"

And then the PAS is like...

"Abu Akhbar!!! GET OUT OF OUR LAND CHINESE AND HINDUSTANI INFIDELS!!!"

And then you have a sensible democratic socialist, egalitarian, pacifist, anti-imperialist, and civil libertarian party that gets its ass kicked by these lunatics every time Malaysia holds an "election" (likely rigged by Islamists).

Replace Barisan Nasional with Labour or Kadima and replace replace the PAS with the conservative-Zionist flavour of the week and you have Israeli politics.

LSD

4th April 2006, 23:09

Nonsense. The Israeli rulers certainly are under no such illusion, which is why they refuse to allow any meaningfully independent Palestinian state.

No, they refuse to allow and independent Palestine because it would mean giving up something like a quarter of their land. Not to mention that they have the US' complete unconditional support in rejecting every offer that is tabled.

It isn't fear of the "power" of an indepdent Palastine that keeps Israel from allowing one, it's simple greed.

Currently, Israel has complete liscence from the most powerful nation on earth to be as obstinate and rejectionist as it wants. It's merely taking advantage of that fact.

It would put Palestinians - inside Israel, in the now-occupied territories, in the Diaspora - in a stronger position to fight for the end of apartheid and for a democratic, secular state in the whole of historic Palestine.

Rubbish.

If anything, an independent state would weaken the Palestinians' position. A good deal of the world would consider the matter "closed" and much of the sympathy currently extended to the Palestinian refugees would dissapear.

Obviously a large portion of the arab world would not be satisfied, but then with all the Jew-baiting rhetoric of the past 50 years, a large segment of the Muslim world would not be happy until there were no Jews period.

And the mere fact of having a government and soverign territory in no way actually helps a people in fighting for further national rights as a people. Unless that state has superior military power (like with Germany and the Sudetenland), the existance of a "homeland" only encourages migration, not expansion.

Simply put, a Bantustan type solution would put us back to basically where we are right now, although probably less stably. The parts that weren't integrated would continue fighting, but now the Israelis would have an "excuse" to resist any solution.

True, a Palestinian state would have access to resources that the PLO currently doesn't have, but then the Palestinian problem has never been one of money. Organizations like Hammas always have ways to garner funding and its actually unlikely that a Palestinian state would be able to significantly improve upon them.

Remember, any Bantustan Palestine would be carved along current political and economic lines and we'd end up with a severly depressed Palestinian state.

And on top of all of that, the hypothetical Palestinian state would be unable to actually successfuly fund any resistance within Israel. Israel would massively reinforce its new border, probably using the current "wall" as a base and would disallow any traffic.

Accordingly, any resistance pockets within East Jerusalem or elsewhere would be entirely cut off and marginalized.

In other words, it wouldn't help.

Tel Aviv and Washington want a settlement to the conflict, all right - based on a Palestinian Bantustan, not an independent state.

A Bantustan solution is certainly prefered by Washington over an actually independent and soverign Palestine, but their optimal solution is to perpetuate the status quo.

The problem with a Bantustan-like state in the current middle easter political scene is that it would undoubtably be much less stable than the current situation. Palestine would be dirt poor without a functioning economy and Israel would be constantly paranoid about attack.

Plus, the new state is almost certain to be a fundamentalist one of some variety (especially if Hammas stays in power) and so the US would have to deal with another radical government that is also hostile to its interests.

Both politically and ideologically, it would be a tricky situation for Washingon.

That's why, again, they prefer the "stalemate", as Kissinger put it, over any real change whatsoever.

Neat piece of paradoxical verbal jujitsu there. In reality, the extremely limited degree of that autonomy speaks to how threatening imperialism considers any real Palestinian independence.

Again, they don't consider it "threatening" in terms of it being a critical issue, they just don't like it because it would mean an added headache.

Look, I again am not saying that the Palestinians should not be supported, nor that the occupation should not unconditionally end. From both an internationalist and humanitarian perspective, the only justiable position is to support Palestinain self-determination.

What I am trying to point out here, however, is that while the Israeli occupation should be opposed, that opposition should not be dominating. That is, this is not the most important world situation, nor is it anything even approaching it.

We should support Palestinian sovereignty in the same way that we support Iraqi sovereignty and Irish sovereignty: acknowledging that there are other issues!

Not exactly how I'd put it, but what are you saying? Try to foment insurrections in other countries, but don't support those who are rising up?

Not at all!

Where did I suggest that the Palestinians should not be supported in their struggle? What I said was that they should not be exclusively supported and that the support given should be more rational and less hyperbolic.

Yes, the Palestinians have it bad and yes, the occupation is despicable, but there are a lot of despicable government on the planet today and it is mindnumbingly counterproductive to spend this much time dealing with only one of them.

Especially one that rules over an area smaller than the province of Newfoundland!

Your complaint is the same one people used to make about apartheid South Africa: why are so many people focused on it, rather than on dictatorships in Black Africa which probably killed more people?

That's a pretty vague reference, and you'll have to be more specific if you want a specific response.

But if, hypothetically, in, say, 1980, a leftist group gave to South Africa the attention that is currently given to Israel and engaged in the kind of vitriolic rhetoric we see in reference to Israel today -- accusing it of being "like the Nazis", the same as the holocaust, "the worst government on earth", a "threat to all free peoples", etc.. -- then it would be entirely valid to point out that such a response is disproportionate to the actual problem.

That is not to say that leftist shouldn't have had a lot to say about South Africa. Likwise, no one is claiming that the Israeli situation should be ignored, but if half of the attention given to the issue were given instead, it would be far more reasonable.

I can't say specifically what a "correct" amount of attention is, I can say however, that's we're nowhere near it.

It's not like anyone's going to "forget" about the plight of the Palestinians, but a good many people have never been told about the plight of millions of others.

How? Without Zionism and the "Israeli-Palestinian situation" there would be no Israel to be a strategic ally for Washington.

How on earth do you figure that???

Israel is a strategic ally because of its geopolitical location, not because of the occupation. The Palestinian issue is just a convienient means by which Washington can maintain its rule.

It wouldn't matter if a Palestinian state were created tomorrow, the US would still need a strong and dependent "partner" in the middle east. In such a scenario, however, Israel would be far more motivated to assert its independence.

And that's never good for imperialist interests!

You kinda evaded, also, that Washington is rewarding Egypt for making peace with Israel; which kinda argues against your claim that the U.S. wants to perpetuate conflict between Israel and the Arab regimes.

Once again, the US doesn't want Israel to be in conflict with "Arab regimes", it just wants to perpetuate the Palestinian occupation.

Too much conflict is bad for business and open war between Israel and anyone would be devastating for the US' relationships with the arab world. As I said before, at present the US has a very good stranglehold on much of the arab world because the local governments have been able to keep their populations in line.

If Israel ever actually engaged in battle with one of these countries, no amount of political rangling could convince the citizenry that the US is not the enemy.

The Palestinian situation, however, is different. That creates a different kind of anger, a more slowly simmering rage that is much more easily controlled. No arab population likes the situtaion in Palestine, but very few of them are willing to risk their necks over it.

And, again, it serves those arab countries quite well as it gives them a convienient scapegoat on which to blam their problems. That's why none of the surrounding countries would provide decent treatment for the Palestinians and its why antisemitism has become so popular in the arab world.

Now, this is not an "easy" situation and there are a lot of layers. Saudi Arabia, for example, has a pretty good material reason to favour a settlement in Israel, as does Lebananon. But for the most part, the Palestinians are being manipulated by all sides so that various geopolitical agendas can be carried out.

That's right, you don't and you can't.

Except you claim to be doing exactly that!

You've stated that you oppose the Iraqi resistance by support the Palestinian one. Again, such a position makes absolutely no sense at all.

But for starters, it's not "The Iraqis' struggle" nor is it primarily directed against the occupation.

Well, it's certainly largely directed aginst the occupation and the client "civilian" regime established by it.

That there is, in addition, infighting between various Iraqi ethnic groups in now ways minimizes that the insurgency is struggling against an imperialist occupation. Nor is it actually any functionaly different from the kind of infighting the Palestinians have seen (except perhaps in scope).

I would remind you of the recent attacks by Fatah loyalists against Hammas following the election.

The fact is all liberation movements tend to factionalized to one degree or another, especially in areas with longstanding political or ethnic differences. That does not mean, however, that imperialism is ever progressive nor that resistance to imperialism should ever be opposed.