Myth of the two-state solution.

[bloodyminded]

Yes even that terminology (highlight mine -m) is familiar, you aren't inventing anything new even here.

He's not seeing it.

[dre]

I get this, I really do, but you are demanding total support for every action of the Israeli state, a state which is first and foremost a country, a geopolitical entity; and surely to Godzilla there exists no State which should be free of criticism, even condemnation.

I commented on this in another thread. This is why its a mistake for a state to officially endorse a single religion and inextricably link the two together. Modern nation states and supernatural belief systems exist on different planes and they have a tendency to poison each other if there isnt healthy separation.

And its and epidemic in this debate... Since isreal is THE "Jewish" state, the very first thing that happens when any person or organization critisizes anything Israel does they are a "racist". The sheer intellectual dihonest and rampant fallacy of this line of thought should be apparent to anyone with even a kindergarten level command of logic, but for whatever reason its not.

Even moderate jews are labeled as "anti semites" under this false paradigm, because they critisize Israel frequently as well.

[dre]

He's not seeing it.

Well of course not. Your attempting to counter a very well entrenched position thats derived from emotion and passion... with common sense and logic. I admire you for trying but I assure you that its completely impossible for you to have any success on that front.

[bloodyminded]

I commented on this in another thread. This is why its a mistake for a state to officially endorse a single religion and inextricably link the two together. Modern nation states and supernatural belief systems exist on different planes and they have a tendency to poison each other if there isnt healthy separation.

And its and epidemic in this debate... Since isreal is THE "Jewish" state, the very first thing that happens when any person or organization critisizes anything Israel does they are a "racist". The sheer intellectual dihonest and rampant fallacy of this line of thought should be apparent to anyone with even a kindergarten level command of logic, but for whatever reason its not.

I think, aside from a few true believers who have been indoctrinated into the "the whole world hates the Jews" theory (which is dead false), that usually the cries of "antisemitism" are intentionally dishonest.

Even moderate jews are labeled as "anti semites" under this false paradigm, because they critisize Israel frequently as well.

Yeah, "self-hating Jews."

No doubt the phenomenon exists, but the label is applied willy-nilly; again, usually with outright deception.

[wyly]

Allow me to clarify, many prevalent components of Arab and Muslim culture are akin to natural disasters like earthquakes and epidemics. More specifically, it is these components of Arab and Muslim culture (primarily anti-semitism) which kill Israelis, like earthquakes kill people in California or famine in Africa.

the natural disater in this situation being Zionism...

[wyly]

I'm just naive enough to be astonished that both Bob and Argus are trying to convince me that this racism is okey dokey.

on this forum nothing surprises me, it's the reason why I have lengthy list of racists on my ignore list including two that approve of genocide for muslims...

[myata]

He's not seeing it.

How ironic.. or ignorant.

[Remiel]

You can the plead ignorance - you don't know what Zionism is. If you DO know what Zionism is, however, and are opposed to it, you might as well go all out and become an anti-semite and go to Holocaust denial forums.

You know, if there was only one able to convince you of one thing, I hope it would be that the dilution of the meaning of the term anti-Semitism by trying to broaden its meaning to from the hatred of Jews for being Jewish to the opposition to or criticism of anything essentially Jewish is intellectually and morally bankrupt and a betrayal of people who have been killed by real, classic anti-Semites.

Everyone knows that Zionism is a nationalist movement, among other things. Not everyone is cool with nationalism, for reasons that should be blindingly obvious to everyone, but especially to everyone who is Jewish. Here is a very simple argument: If being anti-nationalist makes someone an anti-Zionist, and if being an anti-Zionist makes someone an anti-Semite, then being an anti-nationalist makes someone an anti-Semite. Perfectly logical. And utter drivel. Do you think it unlikely that people who call themselves anti-Zionist do so because they object to controversial territorial claims that seem to go along with Zionism, and not because they hate Jews or think they deserve less democratic recognition that anyone else? I am sure there are a lot of anti-Zionists who are anti-Semites. But to equate anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism without regards to what about Zionism is objected to, is foolish at best, and reprehensible at worst.

Since the advent of the now common refrain " right of Israeli to exist as a Jewish state " I have come to conclusion that 1) the idea that states themselves have moral rights is ridiculous; and 2) trying to essentialize a state as belonging to a particular nationality, rather than a particular citizenry, is also ridiculous, and hopeless. States do not have rights, people do. Israel is Jewish because the population of Israel is Jewish (primarily). And the Jews living in Israel have a right to a state.

Let me take other examples: For one, consider Canada. It would be patently ridiculous to say that Canada has a right to exist as a Canadian state, or maybe it would be more appropriate to say as an English/French speaking state. Canada is an English and French speaking state because the people in it are English and French speaking, but if a mysterious disease were to wipe out all the Europeans and leave only the Asians, it would be rather odd to say that the country should continue to be English and French, unless through immigration they one again became the vast majority. What sense would it make to say that the Canada's rights had been violated if afterwards it began speaking Chinese? That is the problem with saying that regardless of what the population of a country is like, it must remain this or that, a priori. Or, a more realistic example. I do not believe that Canada has a right to the territory that comprises Quebec (though, without Quebec, I would not consider this country to be " Canada " ). I would rather like that the country remain united, and I think it would be foolish to break it up, but those do not produce " rights " of the state.

Take another example, of a country that does have a native ethnic population: Britain. What exactly should Britain have a right to? If we make the example more analagous to Israel, I think the comparison would be to say that Britain has a right to be a Celtic state, regardless of all the English and other non-Celts that live there. It is, after all, a matter of record that Celts have lived there since [ before] Biblical times, and that another ethnic population that were complete assholes to the Celts for over a thousand years moved in within the timeframe that seems to be important in Israel. But as warm and fuzzy as the idea of kicking the English out of Britain makes me feel, it is just stupid. Even Scotland and Wales, as territorial entities, have no rights to be Celtic. The people of those countries have rights to a state, and they have a right to call it whatever they want, but that state does not have a right to cover all the lands that currently make up those countries. And even if Scotland as it exists is the rightful home of the Scots, the central premise of immigration is not whether one is a Scot or not.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Remiel

[Bob]

You know, if there was only one able to convince you of one thing, I hope it would be that the dilution of the meaning of the term anti-Semitism by trying to broaden its meaning to from the hatred of Jews for being Jewish to the opposition to or criticism of anything essentially Jewish is intellectually and morally bankrupt and a betrayal of people who have been killed by real, classic anti-Semites.

Everyone knows that Zionism is a nationalist movement, among other things. Not everyone is cool with nationalism, for reasons that should be blindingly obvious to everyone, but especially to everyone who is Jewish. Here is a very simple argument: If being anti-nationalist makes someone an anti-Zionist, and if being an anti-Zionist makes someone an anti-Semite, then being an anti-nationalist makes someone an anti-Semite. Perfectly logical. And utter drivel. Do you think it unlikely that people who call themselves anti-Zionist do so because they object to controversial territorial claims that seem to go along with Zionism, and not because they hate Jews or think they deserve less democratic recognition that anyone else? I am sure there are a lot of anti-Zionists who are anti-Semites. But to equate anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism without regards to what about Zionism is objected to, is foolish at best, and reprehensible at worst.

Since the advent of the now common refrain " right of Israeli to exist as a Jewish state " I have come to conclusion that 1) the idea that states themselves have moral rights is ridiculous; and 2) trying to essentialize a state as belonging to a particular nationality, rather than a particular citizenry, is also ridiculous, and hopeless. States do not have rights, people do. Israel is Jewish because the population of Israel is Jewish (primarily). And the Jews living in Israel have a right to a state.

Let me take other examples: For one, consider Canada. It would be patently ridiculous to say that Canada has a right to exist as a Canadian state, or maybe it would be more appropriate to say as an English/French speaking state. Canada is an English and French speaking state because the people in it are English and French speaking, but if a mysterious disease were to wipe out all the Europeans and leave only the Asians, it would be rather odd to say that the country should continue to be English and French, unless through immigration they one again became the vast majority. What sense would it make to say that the Canada's rights had been violated if afterwards it began speaking Chinese? That is the problem with saying that regardless of what the population of a country is like, it must remain this or that, a priori. Or, a more realistic example. I do not believe that Canada has a right to the territory that comprises Quebec (though, without Quebec, I would not consider this country to be " Canada " ). I would rather like that the country remain united, and I think it would be foolish to break it up, but those do not produce " rights " of the state.

Take another example, of a country that does have a native ethnic population: Britain. What exactly should Britain have a right to? If we make the example more analagous to Israel, I think the comparison would be to say that Britain has a right to be a Celtic state, regardless of all the English and other non-Celts that live there. It is, after all, a matter of record that Celts have lived there since Biblical times, and that another ethnic population that were complete assholes to the Celts for over a thousand years moved in within the timeframe that seems to be important in Israel. But as warm and fuzzy as the idea of kicking the English out of Britain makes me feel, it is just stupid. Even Scotland and Wales, as territorial entities, have no rights to be Celtic. The people of those countries have rights to a state, and they have a right to call it whatever they want, but that state does not have a right to cover all the lands that currently make up those countries. And even if Scotland as it exists is the rightful home of the Scots, the central premise of immigration is not whether one is a Scot or not.

I've heard (and made) all of those arguments before. To be anti-nationalist is absolutely to be anti-semitic, whether or not you realize it. As much as you like to think that only individuals have rights, it doesn't make it true. The world is composed of various groups, united and cohesive in different degrees and in different ways. Humanity doesn't begin and end with the individual. There is such a thing as the collective, whether or not you accept this. The collective has rights as well as responsibilities. When blacks were enslaved in the USA, there was a collective. This experience has shaped a cohesiveness among much of the black community in the USA - there is very real element of group-awareness, there. Sometimes this group-awareness mobilizes, justifiably, towards statehood in a mission to protect itself and advance its desires.

Let's examine the roots of anti-nationalist (anti-identity) perspectives. It's a typical communist/leftist line-of-thinking. Those who are anti-nationalist believe that issues of collective identity are the primary drivers of conflict and strife - if we can all drop our identities (religious, cultural, what-have-you) then all social barriers will be alleviated and we'll all be united as human beings. All social tension will be waived and we'll all be equal, unaffiliated humans. On an elementary and ignorant level, this is appealing. World peace, ho! Unfortunately, this line of thinking is ridiculous. By natural extension, this line of thinking is anti-identity, and naturally anti-semitic. It's anti-difference. It views differences between cultures as an affront to unity. It naturally leads to hatred of different cultures, and of ANY culture - as the goal is a culture-free society where there are no ethnic/cultural/religious lines of difference between people.

National identity can and often is a force for good, though. Anti-nationalists ignore this. A sense of collective identity motivates and mobilizes people to behave altruistically - to believe in a responsibility to something beyond yourself (contrary to your assertion that only individuals have rights, which by natural extension means only individuals have responsibilities, only to themselves and for themselves). If you have no identity, or a weak identity, you won't be able to take on large collective projects. Whether it's the establishment of a country and way of life, defending oneself from threats, public service to make things better, etc.

There's the way you wish things were and then there's the way things are - people with a strong sense of identity (religious, cultural, what have you) are much more likely organize community events, contribute to charities, and do other things to improve the world. The vast majority of the world's charities are cultural/religious. Unicef and Doctors Without Borders are non-affiliated charity programs that I can think of off the top of my head, but the vast majority of charitable work is strongly connected to one's identity and a belief in the well-being of the collective. United Way, as an example, was founded by Christian churches (also early on it received contributions from the Jewish community). I don't need to give many examples, I'm sure it's obvious that the vast majority of charity and outreach is performed by organizations with strong cultural ties. When was the last world atheist congress charitable dinner?

An identity and nationalistic movement can also be largely defined by its political values. In Israel, Zionism is staunchly democratic. This is not a value that can be compromised on. In some ways, this can be a liability - as Arabs are full citizens in Israel (and they're generally not loyal to Israel's Jewish identity, and don't fulfill the national service that others fulfill, Jews and non-Jews alike). In Israel there is a strong free press and strong free market, as well as socialist principles with respect to health care and military service (as examples). There realities are largely motivated by Israel's national pride and sense of identity. Israel's own creation is an amazing story of pioneers who believed in something beyond themselves, and it is literally a beacon of freedom and liberalism in a sea of despotism and tyranny.

Preservation and enrichment of a particular identity is also an objective of a nation-state. Clearly you do not care about the preservation of Jewish identity and culture, this is true for the vast majority of non-Jews. It's understandable. Why would you care? You wouldn't care if Judaism was merely a factoid in your local museum. Many Jews, including myself, do care about preserving our culture (which is admittedly ambiguous and abstract in many ways). This preservation can justify certain limitations on the rights of minorities in the nation-state, which I'm sure you find abhorrent. Take the Law of Return, for example (a beautiful thing!) which allows any Jew (with some exceptions) to come to Israel and become a citizen. Clearly this is a special permission only granted to Jews, even though non-Jews comprise about 25% of Israel's population. Discrimination to you, self-preservation to us. This is a perfectly acceptable law, to any reasonable person. It should be noted that many countries have similar laws allowing repatriation of those abroad who are a part of the nation.

Do I even need to mention that for all your whining about "the individual", much of the world continues

to view us as a collective group of undesirables? Go to any YouTube video regarding Israel or Jews and you'll see venomous anti-semitism (usually from screen-names like 'ahmed1992'). As much as you may want to view the world as all individuals, the world continues to see us as an undesirable minority to be liquidated. Did the Holocaust look at us as individuals? What about our Dhimmi status in the Ottoman Empire? Even when we tried to integrate and assimilate, we were still oppressed. It wasn't long ago that our rights AS A GROUP were denied to us as Jews. They still are denied to us in contemporary criticism of Israel's self-defense and of its Jewish character. Our identity is was holds us together, and is part of the social glue that's helped us survive and persevere through centuries of persecutions. There's the world the way you wish it was (no identities), and then the world the way it is. We want to be Jews, and the world has consistently let us down, to put it lightly: pogroms murdering thousands of us, expelling us from Spain, restricting where we could live, study, and work, genocide murdering half of us, dhimmi status among Muslim majorities, and constant attacks on our country. We can talk about dropping the nation state when the world no longer treats us as an inferior nation, ok?

As much as you want to believe it, we're NOT all alike. Arabs (at least in the Middle East), on the whole, do not share liberal values which are prevalent in Israel. They are therefore incompatible with the social fabric of Israel - one of pluralism, diversity, and broad economic, social, and religious freedoms. If this is the case, how can you be opposed to states with a sense of national identity when this national identity is the one thing that protects us from being overrun by tyranny? Of course there are exceptions among Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, but these do not override the broader trends. The Star Trek world may be nice on TV, but it's far from reality.

[Bob]

One more point - Jews are a multi-ethnic and multi-racial group of people. We've got Jews from Russia, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Belgium, France, Ethiopia, Spain, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, India Canada, the USA, etc, etc... We're a very diverse group of people and we've even had our own share of discrimination between us (prejudice against Ethiopians in Israel, for example). Being Jewish is much more cultural than it is racial or ethnic. It's a cultural tie that unites us, so it's simply dishonest to suggest that Israel is a racially or ethnically uniform country. We're bound by culture.

[Bob]

Ah. Someone else is posting under your name.

But I don't think this; what I do think is that human beings are all innately of equal merit.

No doubt, but equally obvious is that Palestinians would say the same thing.

But I can't stand oppressive Islamists; further, that I can't stand them is based on principle, not on a politicized embrace of perpetual victimhood that allows me to not only ignore the crimes of my favoured state...but to defend and even embrace them.

I get this, I really do, but you are demanding total support for every action of the Israeli state, a state which is first and foremost a country, a geopolitical entity; and surely to Godzilla there exists no State which should be free of criticism, even condemnation.

People are oversensitive about Israel, in large part because they fail to see it first as a geopolitical entity...that's it's primary attribute, not the dream, however important and potent, that is attached to it.

And, as you say, the ignorance flows both ways. For example, your continual accusaitons of antisemitism, to the point where "most" critics of Israel simply hate the Jews, is profoundly offensive to me. And I think you simply cannot see or understand this.

What I said was that I believe the majority of activists on the flotilla, and the types of people that take part in those things, are anti-semitic. I stand by that position, as that's what I've seen. I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find even one "activist" on the "Freedom Flotilla" that doesn't blame Israel entirely for the situation in Gaza and the broader Israel-Arab conflict. Don't pretend that people who take part in this kinda thing are often virulently anti-Israel and anti-semitic (a la Helen Thomas).

[dre]

I've heard (and made) all of those arguments before. To be anti-nationalist is absolutely to be anti-semitic, whether or not you realize it. As much as you like to think that only individuals have rights, it doesn't make it true. The world is composed of various groups, united and cohesive in different degrees and in different ways. Humanity doesn't begin and end with the individual. There is such a thing as the collective, whether or not you accept this. The collective has rights as well as responsibilities. When blacks were enslaved in the USA, there was a collective. This experience has shaped a cohesiveness among much of the black community in the USA - there is very real element of group-awareness, there. Sometimes this group-awareness mobilizes, justifiably, towards statehood in a mission to protect itself and advance its desires.

Let's examine the roots of anti-nationalist (anti-identity) perspectives. It's a typical communist/leftist line-of-thinking. Those who are anti-nationalist believe that issues of collective identity are the primary drivers of conflict and strife - if we can all drop our identities (religious, cultural, what-have-you) then all social barriers will be alleviated and we'll all be united as human beings. All social tension will be waived and we'll all be equal, unaffiliated humans. On an elementary and ignorant level, this is appealing. World peace, ho! Unfortunately, this line of thinking is ridiculous. By natural extension, this line of thinking is anti-identity, and naturally anti-semitic. It's anti-difference. It views differences between cultures as an affront to unity. It naturally leads to hatred of different cultures, and of ANY culture - as the goal is a culture-free society where there are no ethnic/cultural/religious lines of difference between people.

National identity can and often is a force for good, though. Anti-nationalists ignore this. A sense of collective identity motivates and mobilizes people to behave altruistically - to believe in a responsibility to something beyond yourself (contrary to your assertion that only individuals have rights, which by natural extension means only individuals have responsibilities, only to themselves and for themselves). If you have no identity, or a weak identity, you won't be able to take on large collective projects. Whether it's the establishment of a country and way of life, defending oneself from threats, public service to make things better, etc.

There's the way you wish things were and then there's the way things are - people with a strong sense of identity (religious, cultural, what have you) are much more likely organize community events, contribute to charities, and do other things to improve the world. The vast majority of the world's charities are cultural/religious. Unicef and Doctors Without Borders are non-affiliated charity programs that I can think of off the top of my head, but the vast majority of charitable work is strongly connected to one's identity and a belief in the well-being of the collective. United Way, as an example, was founded by Christian churches (also early on it received contributions from the Jewish community). I don't need to give many examples, I'm sure it's obvious that the vast majority of charity and outreach is performed by organizations with strong cultural ties. When was the last world atheist congress charitable dinner?

An identity and nationalistic movement can also be largely defined by its political values. In Israel, Zionism is staunchly democratic. This is not a value that can be compromised on. In some ways, this can be a liability - as Arabs are full citizens in Israel (and they're generally not loyal to Israel's Jewish identity, and don't fulfill the national service that others fulfill, Jews and non-Jews alike). In Israel there is a strong free press and strong free market, as well as socialist principles with respect to health care and military service (as examples). There realities are largely motivated by Israel's national pride and sense of identity. Israel's own creation is an amazing story of pioneers who believed in something beyond themselves, and it is literally a beacon of freedom and liberalism in a sea of despotism and tyranny.

Preservation and enrichment of a particular identity is also an objective of a nation-state. Clearly you do not care about the preservation of Jewish identity and culture, this is true for the vast majority of non-Jews. It's understandable. Why would you care? You wouldn't care if Judaism was merely a factoid in your local museum. Many Jews, including myself, do care about preserving our culture (which is admittedly ambiguous and abstract in many ways). This preservation can justify certain limitations on the rights of minorities in the nation-state, which I'm sure you find abhorrent. Take the Law of Return, for example (a beautiful thing!) which allows any Jew (with some exceptions) to come to Israel and become a citizen. Clearly this is a special permission only granted to Jews, even though non-Jews comprise about 25% of Israel's population. Discrimination to you, self-preservation to us. This is a perfectly acceptable law, to any reasonable person. It should be noted that many countries have similar laws allowing repatriation of those abroad who are a part of the nation.

Do I even need to mention that for all your whining about "the individual", much of the world continues

to view us as a collective group of undesirables? Go to any YouTube video regarding Israel or Jews and you'll see venomous anti-semitism (usually from screen-names like 'ahmed1992'). As much as you may want to view the world as all individuals, the world continues to see us as an undesirable minority to be liquidated. Did the Holocaust look at us as individuals? What about our Dhimmi status in the Ottoman Empire? Even when we tried to integrate and assimilate, we were still oppressed. It wasn't long ago that our rights AS A GROUP were denied to us as Jews. They still are denied to us in contemporary criticism of Israel's self-defense and of its Jewish character. Our identity is was holds us together, and is part of the social glue that's helped us survive and persevere through centuries of persecutions. There's the world the way you wish it was (no identities), and then the world the way it is. We want to be Jews, and the world has consistently let us down, to put it lightly: pogroms murdering thousands of us, expelling us from Spain, restricting where we could live, study, and work, genocide murdering half of us, dhimmi status among Muslim majorities, and constant attacks on our country. We can talk about dropping the nation state when the world no longer treats us as an inferior nation, ok?

As much as you want to believe it, we're NOT all alike. Arabs (at least in the Middle East), on the whole, do not share liberal values which are prevalent in Israel. They are therefore incompatible with the social fabric of Israel - one of pluralism, diversity, and broad economic, social, and religious freedoms. If this is the case, how can you be opposed to states with a sense of national identity when this national identity is the one thing that protects us from being overrun by tyranny? Of course there are exceptions among Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, but these do not override the broader trends. The Star Trek world may be nice on TV, but it's far from reality.

To be anti-nationalist is absolutely to be anti-semitic

Thats just flat out false. Zionists and Israel do not necessarily represent Jews, and in fact lots of traditional jews see the State of Israel as a violation of the Torah. You would label all these jews as anti-semites as well. Im a white aethist but I would oppose the creation of an explicitly "White State" so you would no doubt lable me an anti white racist as well.

This is really nothing but intellectual laziness.

[dre]

What I said was that I believe the majority of activists on the flotilla, and the types of people that take part in those things, are anti-semitic. I stand by that position, as that's what I've seen. I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find even one "activist" on the "Freedom Flotilla" that doesn't blame Israel entirely for the situation in Gaza and the broader Israel-Arab conflict. Don't pretend that people who take part in this kinda thing are often virulently anti-Israel and anti-semitic (a la Helen Thomas).

The problem is you dont know what "anti-semetic" means. A person could have no bias towards the Jewish religion or culture and still find the modern nation state of Israel and its government at fault for the situation in Gaza... although that wouldnt be my position. I think both sides share the blame.

[Bob]

Thats just flat out false. Zionists and Israel do not necessarily represent Jews, and in fact lots of traditional jews see the State of Israel as a violation of the Torah. You would label all these jews as anti-semites as well. Im a white aethist but I would oppose the creation of an explicitly "White State" so you would no doubt lable me an anti white racist as well.

This is really nothing but intellectual laziness.

The anti-Israel fringe group opposed to the state of Israel based on their flawed religious principles are the most minuscule fringe of Jewish society. There are most definitely not "a lot" of them. They are definitely anti-semitic.

Did you seriously just compare the cohesiveness of "whites" to the cohesiveness of worldwide Jewry? The claims and legitimacy of a "white" country to a Jewish country? Another ridiculous statement from dre...

[Bob]

The problem is you dont know what "anti-semetic" means. A person could have no bias towards the Jewish religion or culture and still find the modern nation state of Israel and its government at fault for the situation in Gaza... although that wouldnt be my position. I think both sides share the blame.

If you're anti-Zionist, you're anti-semitic. End of story.

[Remiel]

If you're anti-Zionist, you're anti-semitic. End of story.

What does it matter if someone is an anti-Semite once you have robbed the word of its what it means?

[dre]

If you're anti-Zionist, you're anti-semitic. End of story.

Not true at all. Zionism is a movement started in the late 1800's with the goal of returning Jews to Eretz Yisrael. It has only ancillary relation to the Jewish religion, and in fact many traditional jews reject it completely.

You could oppose the idea of a Jewish state being established on Eretz Yisrael without harboring any anti-semetic feelings at all, as many jews themsevles do.

In fact! Zionists embraced anti-semetism, and viewed anti-semites as people that would be of great help to them. Theodor Herzl wrote that “Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.”

Zionists welcomed and promoted anti-semetism because they felt that Jews being rejected in various countries around the world would further their goal of getting jews to populate a jewish state in the holy land.

You really couldnt be more wrong if you tried.

[Bob]

Not true at all. Zionism is a movement started in the late 1800's with the goal of returning Jews to Eretz Yisrael. It has only ancillary relation to the Jewish religion, and in fact many traditional jews reject it completely.

You could oppose the idea of a Jewish state being established on Eretz Yisrael without harboring any anti-semetic feelings at all, as many jews themsevles do.

In fact! Zionists embraced anti-semetism, and viewed anti-semites as people that would be of great help to them. Theodor Herzl wrote that “Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.”

Zionists welcomed and promoted anti-semetism because they felt that Jews being rejected in various countries around the world would further their goal of getting jews to populate a jewish state in the holy land.

You really couldnt be more wrong if you tried.

You are such a despicable liar. Did you ever consider that Zionism was born as a reaction to the realities of anti-semitism? Herzl himself predicated that something terrible would happen to the Jes of Europe, and indeed, the Holocaust took place. If Herzl said that (which I doubt), it's only in reference to anti-semitism being the motivator for the Zionist cause. How can you not know that Zionism was a reaction to anti-semitism? You're suggesting that Zionist tried to encourage anti-semitism? To encourage the further restrictions on Jewish freedoms, and abuse and mass murder of us? You really are a fucked up person to suggest that Zionism promoted anti-semitism. This is straight up lied from anti-semitic propaganda playbooks. Absolutely sickening.

It's a lie to suggest that many Jews are anti-Zionist. If you attack Zionism, you're attacking the overwhelming majority of Jews. Your anti-semitism couldn't be more blatant if you tried. It's easy to say despicable things like that behind the computer screen, obviously.

[naomiglover]

If you're anti-Zionist, you're anti-semitic. End of story.

And Bob pulls out the most desperate card of all.

[sharkman]

And Bob pulls out the most desperate card of all.

Says the one who has started yet another thread on Israel and it's only Wednesday! What is the matter with you NG? Why are you so obsessed with a tiny country that you simply can't stop yourself from getting into arguments about how bad they are?

Is this some kind of college project, play the devil's advocate until you puke, or are you unhinged?

[Jack Weber]

Says the one who has started yet another thread on Israel and it's only Wednesday! What is the matter with you NG? Why are you so obsessed with a tiny country that you simply can't stop yourself from getting into arguments about how bad they are?

Is this some kind of college project, play the devil's advocate until you puke, or are you unhinged?

Interesting questions....

[dre]

You are such a despicable liar. Did you ever consider that Zionism was born as a reaction to the realities of anti-semitism? Herzl himself predicated that something terrible would happen to the Jes of Europe, and indeed, the Holocaust took place. If Herzl said that (which I doubt), it's only in reference to anti-semitism being the motivator for the Zionist cause. How can you not know that Zionism was a reaction to anti-semitism? You're suggesting that Zionist tried to encourage anti-semitism? To encourage the further restrictions on Jewish freedoms, and abuse and mass murder of us? You really are a fucked up person to suggest that Zionism promoted anti-semitism. This is straight up lied from anti-semitic propaganda playbooks. Absolutely sickening.

It's a lie to suggest that many Jews are anti-Zionist. If you attack Zionism, you're attacking the overwhelming majority of Jews. Your anti-semitism couldn't be more blatant if you tried. It's easy to say despicable things like that behind the computer screen, obviously.

Hahaha too funny. More bombastic wretching.

The reality is that early Zionists cared more about the State of Israel than they did about Jews themselves. Zionism isnt just a reaction to anti-semetism as you claim, its about realizing what zionists saw as a biblical prophecy.

Look at this quote from the first prime minister of Israel...

December 7, 1938, Ben Gurion

If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.

Think about that for second... That guy would have willingly sacrificed the lives of millions of Jews to create a jewish state on Eretz Israel. Talk about anti semetism!

Your anti-semitism couldn't be more blatant if you tried. It's easy to say despicable things like that behind the computer screen, obviously.

I say whatever the fuck I want, wherever the fuck I want to say it, and I dont have a racist bone in my body... certainly not towards Jews which would involve me hating my mother and half my family (many of which still live in Israel).

You can toss that bullshit around all you want, but It wont stick to me. Iv never met a single jew I didnt like in my entire life, and I harbour absolutely no anti-semetic feelings what-so-ever.

Edited June 16, 2010 by dre

[naomiglover]

Says the one who has started yet another thread on Israel and it's only Wednesday! What is the matter with you NG? Why are you so obsessed with a tiny country that you simply can't stop yourself from getting into arguments about how bad they are?

Is this some kind of college project, play the devil's advocate until you puke, or are you unhinged?

You've already asked me about my interest in the region, in a thread and by sending me a private message. I answered both.

[Bob]

Hahaha too funny. More bombastic wretching.

The reality is that early Zionists cared more about the State of Israel than they did about Jews themselves. Zionism isnt just a reaction to anti-semetism as you claim, its about realizing what zionists saw as a biblical prophecy.

Look at this quote from the first prime minister of Israel...

December 7, 1938, Ben Gurion

“If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.”

Think about that for second... That guy would have willingly sacrificed the lives of millions of Jews to create a jewish state on Eretz Israel. Talk about anti semetism!

You can't separate the formation of the state of Israel from saving Jews from persecution, as you're trying to do. Persecution of Jews leads to the Zionist movement. One precedes the other. Look, let's not pretend you know anything about Zionism beyond five minutes of using Google to peruse anti-semitic websites. You're clearly on an anti-semitic and anti-Zionist rant.

Spare me the false quotes from anti-semitic websites. You are a really fucked up person. Ben-Gurion never said such a thing. Keep spewing your anti-semitism from behind the security of your computer.

[sharkman]

You've already asked me about my interest in the region, in a thread and by sending me a private message. I answered both.

Yeah, and you defended yourself by saying you only average 2 posts a day, which is a denial mechanism. I haven't even gotten into the content of your posts yet, but what you are doing is not normal. And your tirades against this tiny little country are certainly not normal since there is so many of them. So what's the deal, really?