Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumWhy Liberal Zionists Won't Join BDS
by Peter Beinart Feb 12, 2013 9:45 AM EST
From its start, Open Zion has been a liberal Zionist blog dedicated to open and respectful dialogue with liberal Zionism’s critics, both hawkish Zionists on the right and post and anti-Zionists on the left. In some ways, my model has been the New Republic of the 1980s, a neoliberal publication that published both conservatives like Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes and left-liberals like Hendrik Hertzberg. That’s why, in our coverage of the controversy at Brooklyn College, we’ve published not only liberal Zionists critical of BDS like Eric Alterman and Mira Sucharov, but also writers like Jerry Haber, who are critical of political Zionism and sympathetic to the BDS cause.
Since Jerry’s most recent article is addressed to liberal Zionists like myself, it’s worth answering. Haber starts with the claim that liberal Zionists agree with two of the BDS movement’s three demands: “Ending its [Israel’s] occupation and colonization of all Arab lands” and “Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.” But speaking for myself, I’m not sure that’s true. I certainly want Israel to stop subsidizing settlements and to do everything possible to create a viable Palestinian state on the vast majority of the West Bank. But if “all Arab lands” means Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, where Israeli control imposes a much less serious moral cost than in the West Bank, and where Israeli withdrawal would mean giving over control to the monstrous regime of Bashar Assad, or the chaos that may follow him, count me out. And if “Arab lands” means nothing more or less than the 1949 armistice line—and the loss of Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall—I’m also opposed. I don’t support a return to the 1949 line armistice line; I support land swaps that allow Israel to retain a small amount of land in the West Bank in return for an equal amount of equal quality land inside Israel proper. Mahmoud Abbas has agreed to that principle, but judging from the plain text of its call, I’m not sure the BDS movement has.
Similarly, I deeply oppose the ongoing discrimination against “Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel” that the Israeli government itself has chronicled. But if by “full equality” the BDS movement means an end to the “right of return” that makes Israel a haven for Jews in distress, I’m not on board. As Alexander Yakobson and Amnon Rubinstein have detailed, many liberal democracies have preferential immigration policies for a certain ethnic group, and given Jewish history, I think Israel has the right to be included in their ranks. Indeed, I would expect that when a Palestinian state is created, something I yearn to see, it will have a preferential immigration policy for Palestinians.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/12/why-liberal-zionists-won-t-join-bds.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)the outright bigotry exhibited by many anti-Zionists never ceases to shock me.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Liberalism and Zionism are incompatible philosophies. Being a liberal zionist is like being a consumerist communist, or an Islamic Baptist. Shit just does not work like that.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Representatives , Senators and our President are Zionists .
Are you saying they are not liberal ?
With your radical anti -Zionist viewpoints its clear to us all that you are way extreme left of the Democratic Party , good luck in swaying them to your anti Zionist side.. Probably best to support some other extreme left anti Zionist party ?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Are you being facetious and making incendiary statements for fun or are you actually describing this POV as a legitimate belief you hold?
Your examples, baptist and Muslim for example, are exclusive types from the same single, more general category. They are both types of religion. Liberalism and Zionism however, fall into different categories which are not exclusive to each other. Zionism is a form of nationalism that supports self-determination for the Jewish people. Liberalism is a political philosophy founded on support of liberty and equality.
There are no inherent aspects of Zionism that violate liberal ideals. As with all other forms of state nationalism there are proponents representative of the entire spectrum of political thought, ranging from arch conservative to ultra liberal and all points in between.
Insisting that members of a group, ANY group, are monolithic in their thinking, and incapable of sharing values that you identify with is a blatant attempt to dehumanize them; to cast them as somehow inherently different (always in a negative way) than yourself. We find examples of this act occurring again and again throughout history; whenever someone has sought to disenfranchise a specific group, it is the first step in a process that ultimately makes it easier to then shun, discriminate, cast out or even eventually kill its members.
That you can so casually defend the notion that Zionists are incapable of liberalism is shocking enough. But to fail to recognize this notion for what it is... to refute that it even qualifies as bigotry by virtue of its accuracy? That I find downright chilling. And in no way representative of liberal ideals.
I'll leave you with a relevant quote about Zionism from Martin Luther King Jr.
“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.”
I wonder if many would agree with your sentiment that Dr. King was not actually liberal after all?
King_David
(14,851 posts)There is no way to deny this.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The idea itself(although at present it's unworkable)is not inherently bigoted-hopelessly naive, most likely, and probably something that would never, ever be feasible, but not evil. You can leave it at that, especially since we all know Israel will never actually be wiped out no matter what anybody does.
A lot of those who declare themselves to be "antizionists", at least from what I can see, are people of good will who have simply become convinced that the Israeli government will never do right by the people of Palestine. In my view, that accounts for the vast majority of those who self-identify as antizionists in Europe, North America, the UK and the Antipodean/Latin American/African countries(those states and political leaders who are simply Israel rejectionists are in a different category, and shouldn't be confused with the people in groups like BDS).
also antiracist activists and supporters of a global program of social equality, and thus cannot be bigots)is to push the Israeli government to give up its bloodyminded stubbornness on settlement expansion and the Occupation(including those aspects of the Occupation that subject ALL Palestinians, not just the violent crazyhead minority, to collective repression and collective punishment), NEITHER of which have to be continued in order for Israel to be secure.
If a real two-state solution, one in which Palestinians had their state next to Israel and there was no chance that Palestinian sovereignty would be taken away again by the IDF by force at a moment's notice, had already been achieved, I seriously doubt that there'd be an antizionist movement of any sort today.
The way to stop antizionism is to push for a Zionism in which compassion and justice towards "the Other" have been restored...not by using unjust accusations of "antisemitism" and bigotry as a rhetorical bludgeon.
What use is it to demonize people and obsess about shouting them down? What good does that tactic do, in the end, anyway?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Do you have a solid source for it?
The debunked quote was a much longer letter king supposedly wrote defending Zionism. But this quote I used is legit.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/21/mlk-and-israel.html
The original blog post is worth a read as well.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/18/remaking-martin-luther-king-as-anti-zionist.html
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Thanks for providing that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Let's look at your own words here;
Did you know you can have self-determination for the Jewish people - all people, in fact - with just liberalism? I mean it seems pretty obvious, maybe you're looking at the screen and going "well duh." Duh indeed, if you can accomplish this with just one half of these two terms, though, why do you need the other half?
Because that other half - the nationalism - allows you to set limits to all that equality and liberty. It's like "Woah there, not you guys, fuck off!" People outside the particular nationalism's "brand" - whether they be Arabs in Palestine, Indians in the US, Albanians in Serbia, Turks in Germany, or Jews in Syria do not get to enjoy any of that "self-determination." They don't get equality or liberty - such outsiders are branded threats, dangers to the homogeneity of the nationalist state, and efforts are made to contain, restrict or preferably, purge them.
If you are not part of the "in" group of nationalism then you are effectively "out." You are second-place, if that. Your position in the society and the rights afforded you by that society are constantly in doubt and under scrutiny. The "in" group will always reign above you, so long as they are afforded that status by the nationalist philosophy of the state. You are not equal, your liberties are truncated.
This is what racial nationalism is about, Shaktimaan. It's not about "self-determination," that's postcard bullshit. It's about gaining power over others in your society through excluding them and making yourself above them. It is not self-liberation, it is putting restraints on the liberty of others to convince yourself that you have more than they do. This is the principle of Jim Crow, white nationalism in the US - lots of white people had it extremely poorly-off, but no matter how bad-off a white person was, they still had ultimate authority over a nonwhite, and so they still felt powerful and supported the system that was in no way benefiting them.
It is not possible to commit yourself to this sort of philosophy and still call yourself a liberal. Doing so, you say "I am a liberal, except where Arabs are concerned" or perhaps, "except where Jews are concerned," or of course, "except where blacks are concerned" or any other number of possible exceptions to your liberalism. But if you're making exceptions for your liberalism, then it's not actually liberalism. It's a fig leaf, a smiley-face over your bigotry.
Look at this article here, in Dave's OP. Here we have a "liberal" Zionist... who opposes any idea the Palestinians might put forth that doesn't let him keep the patches of occupied land that he wants to keep, even though it's just not his to bargain. He feels that, due to his ethnicity, he is specially entitled to determine what another people can and cannot do with their own property. He feels that he is granted the special power to make that determination for them - he is their better, not their peer, and they must obey. They are not granted self-determination; that is reserved for him.
That's liberalism? I suppose that in the context of Zionism, he's liberal - as in, "you're liberal, for a Zionist" - in that he's "willing to consider" land swaps. But he doesn't accept at all that the Palestinians have any actual right to self-determination without Israel making decisions for them. He opposes the idea that they should be treated equally or given the liberties he himself enjoys.
You cannot - I stress, absolutely cannot - be a Zionist and a liberal. Just as you cannot be a white nationalist and a liberal, just as you cannot be a dominionist and a liberal. You also can't go the opposite way and try to be a liberal while upholding these notions; Inclusive, egalitarian libertarianism does not mesh with exclusive, restrictive authoritarianism.
As is the case with this writer, you can be 'liberal' for someone who holds to an illiberal philosophy; you can be a Jim Crow-era white nationalist who is disgusted by lynchings, for example - but this does not actually make you a "liberal," it just means that you're maybe a little less crazy than the other crazy people you identify yourself with.
===============================================
Now as to your absurd argument... One cannot be "bigoted" against a political ideology. Are you going ot tell me i'm a bigot for opposing whatever this mess is that passes for "conservativism" in the US these days? Of course not. Am I a bigot for opposing the ideology of a bunch of goose-stepping skinheads? They might say I am (After all, they just want self-determination for white people!) but I know damn well I'm not. And while you might also insist my opposition to your absurd political ideals makes be a bigot, It's simply not true; you just have no better argument to offer in defense of it.
As for Dr. King, I believe he was a liberal. I also believe that the man was a man, and fully capable of error. It's interesting that you call me a bigot for saying that people who claim adherence to a political philosophy believe in that political philosophy, and then you come around and defend the notion that an entire race of people are proponents of that philosophy just because of their race. Plainly-stated, this is just factually wrong, whether it's someone at the status of Dr. King, or someone else scraping gutters on a messageboard.
Do you believe all Jews are Zionists? 'Cause I don't. Hell, I have doubts whether all self-professed Zionists actually are. "Zionism" is a rather different thing from how propagandists like yourself try to portray it, as just a vague sort of "yay Israel!" sentimentality, but many people buy into that notion just the same.
King_David
(14,851 posts)On the far left and far right , I also believe the vast majority of Jews are Zionists and I know the overwhelming majority of our Democratic Party representatives , Democratic Party senators and our President are all Zionists.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Some antizionists are antisemites. Some Jews are Zionists. Some people are strange combinations of all of these.
As for the US government... please don't be naive. Our politicians are "zionists" in the same way they're Chinese nationalists. It's politically expedient to dress up and nod and affirm eternal friendship, until it stops being politically expedient to do so. Israel is our stick and Saudi Arabia is our carrot, all with the goal of keeping the center of the world's major energy sources under the US sphere of influence. Within your lifetime, you will probably see US policy shift to "Israel who?" in favor of becoming sugardaddy to some west African nation.
But it is kinda cute that you believe that the US will still respect Israel in the morning.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Please continue though a lot of people may not have realized how radical they really are...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Since Shaktimaan felt like quoting Dr. King, I think I'll do the same.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Do you support the Democratic party and our President and Reps?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Abba Eban
There is no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel's statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal right of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination.
New York Times, November 3, 1975
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)So you consider Zionism to be racist, right?
How about Palestinian self-determination? Like the PLO? Racist?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Again, it's not about self-determination. Are you saying that Jews are dumb, mindless beasts utterly incapable of determining shit for themselves without you, the enlightened Zionist guiding them along? I hope that's not your intent, but it IS the message you're giving. Zionism just is not necessary for self-determination, as I already explained.
If it were about self-determination, why the need to perpetually lie? If it were about self-determination, why the need to regard non-Zionist Jews as race traitors ("self-hating Jews," "autoantisemites," "judenrat," kapo," etc)? If it were about self-Determination, why the unending need to steal territory and property from other people?
Again, race nationalism is not about self-determination. It's about exploitation and power. And not just exploitation of the "outsider" classes, either - it's subjugation and exploitation of the in-group that doesn't fall withing hte elite "leadership" as well. As I said in my post just prior, this is not exclusive to Zionism at all.
Which brings us to what you surely feel is your "meaty" question.
For starters, Palestinian "self-determination" is not being forced at gunpoint upon Costa Rica and accompanied with ethnic cleansing of Costa Ricans. We're not starting from equal places in this attempt at comparison, are we? But to directly answer the question, it certainly can be - there are racist strains of it. The question is, which ones are going to be the ones that are actually applied?
Consider, first, that the largest non-Arab population in Palestine are illegal squatters from Israel. They have absolutely no entitlement to hold onto their stolen property any more than you if you buy a stolen car. I'm sure that's awfully inconvenient, but that's just the way it is; If Palestine demands these people get the hell out, then it's a case of simply applying the laws of property ownership.
But then if Palestine then puts up a big "No Jews Allowed" sign on its immigration policy - such as several other Arab nations have - then that is indeed racist, and would not be something I support. If Jewish people want to become Palestinian citizens, equal to Palestinian Arabs (or Palestinian whoevers) then I believe they should be welcomed in good faith.
"Race X need not apply" is not something I get behind from any source.
Now to you. If Palestine decides to treat its current Jewish residents as Israel treated its Arab residents when it declared independence, would you support that?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)My question was really just about whether you judge Palestine by the same standards you do Israel. Pro-Palestinism, just like Zionism, is a political movement that supports self-determination for their relevant brand of ethnic nationalism.
Equality under the law depends on a blind judicial system, does it not? Can you truly advocate holding Palestine to a lower legal standard because Israel is more powerful, both politically and militarily? Is it possible to purportedly embrace liberal ideology while simultaneously denouncing Israel alone for a crime that Palestine is equally guilty of?
In 1949 all of east Jerusalem and the West Bank was ethnically cleansed of its Jewish inhabitants. Following that, under occupation by Jordan, Palestinian Arabs (most of them refugees from land that was now Israel), moved in to areas, and sometimes houses, previously belonging to the expelled/killed Jewish population. So, to recap, Jordan moved its own citizens into recently cleansed, occupied territory with no complaints from the world at large.
20 years later, following Jordan's ill-fated decision to attack israel, Israel retakes this land and begins occupying it. The first settlers to move there returned to historically jewish inhabited areas; the places they were expelled from 20 years earlier.
So why is it that Israel is denounced for reclaiming Jewish areas for Jews, allowing settlers to move back to land they own in some cases, while examples of Palestinians doing the same thing are ignored or sometimes even lauded?
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)There are no more 'Jewish areas' than there are 'Muslim areas' or 'Christian areas' or 'Buddhist areas'. What there is in that region is the state of Israel, and Gaza and the West Bank, both of which aren't part of Israel and Israel is occupying.
Reading endless justifications for the occupation and support of the settlement venture at DU is extremely irksome. No matter of twisting or manipulating it can make it a Left Wing cause...
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I'm not trying to justify settlements. My post was challenging Scoot's proclamation that he supports equality before the law. That he would judge any other movement which acted like Zionism the same way that he does Zionism itself.
To refute him I pointed out how he considers the WB to be rightfully and exclusively Palestinian owned. That no Jews have any legitimate rights whatsoever to live there and that the settlements are 100% illegal, in violation of international law and the Geneva conventions.
At the same time he holds that all palestinian refugees have the legal right of return to Israel and that by denying them this right Israel is again violating intl law.
So we've got a few contradictions as I see it. One: why are Israeli settlers illegal while Jordanian ones were not? Two: why are Palestinians supposedly guaranteed a right of return to Israeli land while Jews returning to Palestine are illegal squatters without any entitlement to the land they're occupying?
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)That's what my point is. If you want to ignore that you've made incorrect claims be my guest, but repeating them and saying they're refuting something probably isn't the way to go.
Also why do you insist on referring to Israelis as Jews? If yr talking about Israelis then call them Israelis but conflating the two terms is bigoted.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)By "Jewish areas" all I meant was the places that Jews had been living prior to being ethnically cleansed. I'm not insinuating that there are any exclusively Jewish areas. Just places that Jews had been inhabiting, in some cases for a very long time.
Where do I do such a thing? If I refer to Jews specifically like with the refugees expelled from the WB and EJ it's only bc solely Jews were expelled. Likewise, the only Israeli settlers in the opt are Jews.
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)But there was so much incorrect and abysmally one sided stuff in that post that I only touched the surface of it.
Again, there's no such thing as Jewish areas in the West Bank or Gaza. No more than there are "Arab areas" in Israel that Arabs were ethnically cleansed from and Arabs had been inhabiting in many cases for a very long time.
Here's where you referred to Israelis as Jews:
'So why is it that Israel is denounced for reclaiming Jewish areas for Jews, allowing settlers to move back to land they own'
And the settlers didn't own land in the West Bank. And Israel isn't 'reclaiming' Jewish areas. Though I'm sure the Hebron settlers would agree with every word you say.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)By Jewish areas I merely meant places in EJ and the WB that had longstanding Jewish inhabitants prior to the war. You could easily say the same thing about parts of Israel that were once heavily Arab inhabited and call them arab areas. I am not implying exclusive ownership by either group with these terms. I'm just alluding to the fact that these lands were never homogenous.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)It's what's for breakfast
King_David
(14,851 posts)Ambassador/Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The UN does not hold antisemitism in contempt. On the contrary, it is notorious for its antisemitic position. It has passed hundreds of anti-Israeli resolutions. When, in 1975, it passed a criminal resolution equating Zionism with racism, the UN delegate from Costa-Rica noted that the resolution "was an invitation to genocide against the Jewish people. . . .
It would be tempting to see in this propaganda nothing more than bigotry of a quite traditional sort that can, sooner or later, be overcome. But the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist campaign is not uninformed bigotry, it is conscious politics. ...Further, this fact of world politics creates altogether new problems for those interested in the fate of democacies in the world, and of Israel in the Middle East. It is not merely that our adversaries have commenced an effort to destroy the legitimacy of a kindred democracy through the incessant repetition of the Zionist-racist lie. It is that others can come to believe it also. Americans among them. ,
--In the introduction to "The Anti-Zionist Complex", by Jacques Givet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances.” [“…je suis un ardent supporter de toutes les instances et de toutes les circonstances d’Israël.”]*
~Thomas Mulcair, quoted in Canadian Jewish News, May 1st, 2008
delrem
(9,688 posts)An argument truly worthy of David.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:05 PM - Edit history (2)
"Did you know you can have self-determination for the Jewish people - all people, in fact- with just liberalism?"
Well, no, you can't, certainly not in any meaningful sense in the real world. Because Liberalism and self determination are two different things. Not mutually inconsistent things, but different. I can't say it better than Shaktiman, so I'll quote him again: "Zionism is a form of nationalism that supports self-determination for the Jewish people. Liberalism is a political philosophy founded on support of liberty and equality." Liberty and equality don't equal self determination. Self-determination is about that sense of national identity without which a Liberal state can't survive. Why do you think the Scots are voting to secede from the UK? Because the UK isn't Liberal? Because Scots aren't treated equally under the law? No, it's because they do things differently in Scotland and want more local control. States without a cohesive national identity break apart. Self determination isn't merely consistent with Liberalism, it's actually necessary to maintain a state which can protect Liberal values.
I suspect, based on what you have posted, that the real difference between you and Shak and I, is that you aren't' actually a Liberal yourself. You seem to be more of an anti-nationalist Leftist in your political philosophy.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Did you know you can have self-determination for the Jewish people - all people, in fact - with just liberalism? I mean it seems pretty obvious, maybe you're looking at the screen and going "well duh."
I am, but not for the reasons you think. While technically true, in reality the only way everyone could achieve self-determination through liberalism alone would be if everyone determined that they all wanted to be liberals.
So why do we need the other half? Because many people would prefer social and political freedom as opposed to enforced liberalism. Of course, once liberalism is imposed it can not be described as liberal anymore. But that's exactly my point, isn't it? Any solution that requires everyone to be liberals isn't really a solution at all.
We need the other half because freedom demands that people have the choice of not being liberal if they so choose. And the best way that we have thus far of allowing people from vastly divergent cultures to fulfill their cultural needs without conflicts due to mutually exclusive ideologies is through the use of that revolutionary invention, the nation-state.
Because that other half - the nationalism - allows you to set limits to all that equality and liberty.
Ok, no joke, while I totally disagree w/ you, I freaking' LOVE this argument. Nationalism exists as a means of limiting freedom? Borders are not about keeping threats to the freedom of its citizenry out; but rather to keep all the freedom safe inside. HYS-teri-CAL! Look, I hate to break it to you, but nationalism is a naturally occurring phenomenon. In most cases people do not set out to create a nation of people; it happens on its own as people living close to one another for generations tend to develop commonalities such as a single language, shared history, the same religion and ethnic similarities. These common traits serve to bond members of the same nation together while simultaneously highlighting the differences exhibited by non-nationals. There is nothing unethical about basing modern nation-states on pre-existing nations of people.
People outside the particular nationalism's "brand" - whether they be Arabs in Palestine, Indians in the US, Albanians in Serbia, Turks in Germany, or Jews in Syria do not get to enjoy any of that "self-determination." They don't get equality or liberty - such outsiders are branded threats, dangers to the homogeneity of the nationalist state, and efforts are made to contain, restrict or preferably, purge them.
Here you begin to go off the rails. How are American Indians denied equality or liberty in the US? America isn't homogenous, nor is it an ethically based nation-state. No one in America practices more self-determination than anyone else. Are you proposing that the Indians be granted independent self-determination, by virtue of the fact that they were living here first, in their own separate, pre-established nations? (Like some kind of reservation that would exist independently from the US.) Or should American Indians just get the same rights as every other American citizen? (And end the national independence of existing reservations, forcing them to adhere to the same laws and privileges as every other American citizen?)
Basically you're not describing a problem caused by nationalism, but one of xenophobia, discrimination and racism as it exists globally, in all cultures. Basically, you're opposed to the oppression of minorities. Great. Good job. Me too. So what is your solution to this ancient problem that seems to be inherent to mankind's very nature?
Liberalism can't be the answer because not everyone shares liberal values. So barring the mass conversion of the entire world's population to suddenly value tolerance over tribalism and reason over religion, how would you protect the rights of minority ethic groups living in nations with a hostile majority?
This is what racial nationalism is about, Shaktimaan.
No. This is the problem ethic nationalism seeks to address. As you pointed out earlier, this problem is seen in civic nations just as often as in ethnic nations, like the Indians in America or Arabs in France. And it happened to Jews the world over, no matter how well assimilated they thought they were, they were always considered "others" when push came to shove.
Self-determination grew out of a desire to take responsibility for one's own safety and well-being. As minorities in other nations, ethic and civic ones alike, Jewish citizens had to rely on the majority group's continuous good will to survive. Whenever this good will faltered, even temporarily, Jews found themselves subjected to oppression, pogroms and even genocide. It was a strategy that ensured their never ending persecution and demanded their perpetual designation as victims.
It's about gaining power over others in your society through excluding them and making yourself above them.
Is it really? Well, considering that there is no shortage of discourse wrt Zionist ideology, you must have a myriad of sources supporting your argument. Since the movement's founders were especially prolific though, don't you find it odd that your belief is not reflected in any of their life's work? If your theories about Zionist ideology had any validity, wouldn't we see them frequently supported in the manifestos and books penned by the very creators of the movement?
Look at this article here, in Dave's OP. Here we have a "liberal" Zionist... who opposes any idea the Palestinians might put forth that doesn't let him keep the patches of occupied land that he wants to keep, even though it's just not his to bargain. He feels that, due to his ethnicity, he is specially entitled to determine what another people can and cannot do with their own property. He feels that he is granted the special power to make that determination for them - he is their better, not their peer, and they must obey. They are not granted self-determination; that is reserved for him.
OK, so here's the problem with your argument, perfectly illustrated by this example. Anyone who has read much of Beinart's writing knows him to be an extremely vocal proponent of Palestinian rights. Since he is a journalist, his views about this subject have been duly recorded over years via opinion pieces and related essays. Thus we have an irrefutable record of evidence to point to as proof that your characterization of his ideology could not possibly be more wrong. Everything you wrote is the polar opposite of the actual views Beinart holds.
You do the exact same thing when describing Zionism's ideology. Essentially you insist that we ignore the hundreds of books written by the people who actually invented modern Zionism, those who brought its vision to fruition and subsequently governed the nascent state of Israel, and the historians and scholars who have dedicated their lives to the study of the history and ideology of Zionism, and instead rely on you (someone with not just a complete lack of any sort of credentials, and virtually no education on the subject to speak of, but who doesn't seem to have even BEEN to Israel in his lifetime), to educate us as to Zionism's true ideology and history.
Now, this makes about as much sense as relying on the Christian Scientist with an 8th grade education to get the "real scoop" on evolution, as opposed to the hundreds of college professors with PhDs who teach opposing views. Your entire argument which insists on the mutual exclusivity of liberalism and Zionism is predicated on fundamentally misrepresenting Zionism's actual ideology as evidenced by the countless examples of books, essays, speeches, declarations, laws and court rulings by Zionism's founders, prime ministers, historians and scholars.
Just as the only way that you can deny Peter Beinart's fundamentally liberal views is by flat out lying as to what his views actually are. We know what his views are because as a journalist Beinart frequently records them for public consumption. And he vehemently and frequently decries these ridiculous and odious views that you are trying to ascribe to him.
You simply can not make your case with an honest portrayal of the facts.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And ended up with a graduate thesis on nationalism. I have to admit, you do a good job of compacting and conflating things into a small amount of syntax space, require it to be dragged out and unfolded like a big ol' futon if someone wants to tackle your points. It takes soem amount of skill; compare to the "RARGHFLARGBARGLE!" style of some of your fellow Zionists around here.
So pardon me if i trim a bit for the sake of sparing us both the effort of slogging through each other's tomes.
I'm familiar with this concept. As I explained to your friend Pelsar in a thread prior to this one, I spent some time arguing with other believers in this outlook, on Stormfront's "anti" section. This is simple "separation of the races," bounded on the belief that races and cultures are naturally isolated and thus need to be kept separate for the good of everyone. Whether it's on the micro-level of segregation or the macro-level of attempting to create homogenous states, the concept is the same. You are saying nothing that I could not hear from David Duke or Louis Farrakhan.
Though you are saying it without asking for a speaker's fee, so there's that.
This is a self-referential argument, where Nationalism says that homogenous nation-states are naturally occurring, and since they are naturally-occurring, Nationalism is simply the way of nature. Makes a nice little closed loop.
However, actual history doesn't mesh well with this. Through human history, most societies on the level we would consider "nation" have been anything but homogenous. This is where that thesis I wrote took shape; The basic of it is, there are no actual walls to delineate one culture from that of its neighbors. If Citystates A, B, and C are very similar, perhaps they could be a nation - but what about Citystate D which is similar to C, but also to E, which has little in common with A and B? You've got five citystates, all similar to some degree, some more different than others. Do you include D but not E? You don't have walls, you have a grading continuum.
Also, you might want to read up on your European history, especially the two hundred years, a period which happens to coincide with the codification of nationalism and the nation-state. Even without a book on the subject on your lap, I think you can understand that the 19th and 20th centuries in Europe weren't calm, idyllic times where people living close to each other developed commonalities and developed into defined, separate nations through natural processes. No, this was a period defined mostly by millions and millions of dead people , dozens of wholesale ethnic purges (And more than a few against the Jews, as I'm sure you know) all in the effort to invent such nations. These "national identities" were created out of a great deal of bloodshed, all in the knowing effort to forge them.
It's a historical reference. I'm not going to explain manifest destiny to you, if you choose to be ignorant, then I can't help you.
Well no, you're not. You opened this post by advocating separating people by race or culture. That was your initial point. This carries the inherent burden of oppression against those people who do not fit in that mold. When we decide this is a German nation, what happens to the Jews? When we decide this is a Han nation, what happens to the Uighurs? When we decide this is a white nation, what happens to the nonwhites? They no longer have an accepted place in this nation, so they have to be dealt with in some fashion; actually (gasp!) including them as equal members of the nation would be contrary to the whole point, after all.
If you support the separation, then you also support the suffering it causes. Since you have stated your support for separation, don't try to tell me you don't support the logical path it takes and the well-documented effects it has. They go hand-in-hand.
Know what the difference between the two is?
The Indians were the victims of an ethnocentric nationalism - a nation that defined itself as "white" saw these brown peopel a nd did its best to eradicate them totally.
Arabs in France do indeed suffer their share of racism; but France does not have a pogrom running. There is no extrmination i nthe works. France considers them citizens of France, and does not endorse the rough attitudes they get from their neighbors.
That is, the Indians took the brunt of nationalism, and the French Arabs are taking a dose of xenophobia. They are related, but the results and motives are very different.
The founders of communism were especially prolific writers as well. They have soaring ideals, strong theories, and many of them are possibly literary and political geniuses. Didn't stop what happened with the actual implementation of the theory, though, did it?
I'm aware of the shiny, sparkly-eyed idealism of Zionist writers. I'm also aware that their "dream" was implemented by military force upon a populace that was deemed unfit to live, and summarily murdered en masse, driven from their homes, and barred from re-entry. I'm aware that modern Zionists such as yourself, look at the slaughter of civilians in 1948 as a high point, something laudable, enshrined as the defining moment of your movement. I understand that modern Zionists still worry over the demographics of their project, and the primary reason for their inhuman opposition to the return of the refugees you created is to preserve a particular ethnic demographic in Israel; they are barred because they are not the correct race.
However, unlike the likes of Marx, Engels, and Kautsky, who did not have any fathoming of the effect their ideas would have once actually implemented, the early Zionists did know. Herzl knew that his desired Judenstaat - Ottoman Palestine - was already peopled. This simply didn't matter. it also didn't matter to the First Zionist Congress, which endorsed the Palestine plan. Again, the current inhabitants were a non-issue, no one cared. In fact the very existence of such people was simply dismissed - the term "A land without a people for a people without a land"
This is the core of Zionism, and is thus the locus of your support for the philosophy.
Well, with this article he seems to have applied a big ol' asterisk next to his "actual views." he doesn't support an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan because of some nonsense about it not being as morally costly as occupation of the west bank - what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Like any Zionist, he opposes a right of return for the refugees created in the 1948 purge and the concurrent war. Not because the refugees are dangerous criminals, but because they're not Jews. They're not the right race so by Beinart's reckoning, human rights don't apply to them. Yet he holds that the "Settler movement" - that is, the transfer of middle-class European "refugee" Jews (who still retain their original citizenship, of course!) to the west bank with the approval of Israel "has its own momentum" - that is, it can't be stopped, no point in talking about it. In fact he implicitly support it by his demand that Israel preserve the notion that these people are refugees. He holds that Palestinians as a whole are responsible for the Hamas charter. He believes that even though Israel has far more power than Palestinians - he outright admits this - Palestinians still have to be considered as being on equal footing with Israel politically, no handicaps or considerations for the actual power balance... A position which puts them in a perpetual disadvantage against Israel, which has been the core problem with the two-state plan, and which guarantees the perpetuation of what he claims to be against.
That's all just from this one article.
My take on Beinart ends up being similar to my take on the author of the "liberalzionist" blog Oberliner provided me some time ago; He tries to be a liberal. Bless his heart, he seems to be making a real effort. But then he hits that wall of "Israel Uber Alles," and it all falls apart. Where the two ideologies conflict, he gives victory to Zionism. He is a Zionist who has some liberal ideas... So long as they don't contradict his Zionism.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)In an attempt to cut through the clutter strewn about this thread I'm going to focus on what I see as the key problem with both your argument and attitude regarding Zionism. There's a million points I'd like to make refuting almost every sentence in your last post but I'm going to refrain in the hopes of better clarifying the most egregious flaws in your outlook. You wrote this earlier...
Okay... So basically, you're just wrong here. I don't mean that I disagree with you. I mean that you are actually wrong. What you wrote is not so.
You aren't aware that modern Zionists believe any such thing. No Zionist ever said that to you, nor did they espouse that opinion in writing. Not a chance. And I can say this with such certainty because the historical events you described themselves never, EVER occurred. I'm sure you heard that they occurred. No doubt as part of a narrative describing countless other criminal endeavors the Zionists gleefully perpetrated. There's no shortage of hateful propaganda targeting Israel floating around out there. But the fact of the matter is that the events of Israel's war of independence are well documented, relatively recent history that are not currently contested by serious historians. And your description of them do not reflect any of the actual historical events as they were recorded or are currently understood. Simply, you do not know what you are talking about.
I would suggest that you take the time to learn something about this history, about Zionism, and about the actual spectrum of beliefs held by modern Zionists before ruling definitively on what we all think regarding any subject.
I'm sorry, but you simply lack the education at this point to possess an informed opinion about the subject at all. You hold a litany of beliefs about Zionism and Israel's history that are are not merely incorrect, but serve a key function in those anti-Israel movements who are dedicated to that state's destruction. Hateful propaganda like that shares the same authorship and motivation as holocaust denial and "protocols of Zion" type tracts.
I don't believe that you are a dumb person, and I think your heart is probably in the right place. I can't blame someone for holding certain views if that's all they've been taught. But assuming you're an adult now you have an obligation to research topics that you are disseminating information about, to ensure that your views are backed by facts. I know that you haven't done the work of reading any books from respected sources on this history, because your knowledge of what happened is so painfully flawed.
There are many aspects of that history that you're sure to find which challenge your pre-existing beliefs. Even taking a minute to Wikipedia "HaHavlagah" (the strict ideology which dictated the Hagana's policies on fighting/war, which translates to "restraint"
, would be beneficial for you to read.
More importantly though, you should know that the Palestinians were the ones who first employed violence, targeting innocent, indigenous Jews during the riots of 1920-21. It was the Palestinians who first committed massacres and ethnic cleansing; in 1929 they ensured that Hebron was entirely cleansed of its Jewish population, people whose families had been there for thousands of years. It was the Palestinians who started the 3 year long bloodbath called the Great Arab uprising. And it was the Palestinians who rejected any and all efforts at peaceful compromise, such as the peel plan and the UN's partition plan. Their response to the latter being to instigate the civil war in 1947.
The notorious Zionist terror group, Irgun, who committed the famous Deir Yassin massacre, themselves did not even begin their campaign of violent attacks targeting civilian Arab villages until 1936 or 37, after the uprising had begun and many years after anti-Jewish violence was first directed towards immigrants and indigenous Jews alike.
You may have been unaware that you've been repeating what amounts to anti-Semitic propaganda; that your opinions are based on hate speech. That said, you still chose to form monolithic opinions about millions of people based on a single trait... bigotry in any dictionary. But you have an opportunity to change that now. You can't come to a board like this and espouse such rhetoric, then act surprised when people label it bigotry. Hopefully you won't continue to do it.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:45 AM - Edit history (5)
Now as to your absurd argument... One cannot be "bigoted" against a political ideology. Are you going ot tell me i'm a bigot for opposing whatever this mess is that passes for "conservativism" in the US these days? Of course not.
Of course not. But this was never about criticizing you for holding an opposing viewpoint from my own. Nor did I refer to your rejection of Zionism as bigotry either. Make no mistake, this isn't an example of me taking issue with an opinion you hold, and then blowing it out of proportion. But I think you're probably already aware of that.
I wasn't shocked by your opposition to Zionism but by the prejudices you openly and unrepentantly hold against Zionists. (Zionists, btw, unlike zionISM, are people; and are thus just as susceptible to bigotry as anyone else.)
A bigot is defined as: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
Your prejudice wrt Zionists is your insistence that they are incapable of simultaneously supporting Zionism and identifying themselves as liberals. This is a straight up textbook example of prejudicial thinking; you are ascribing sweeping generalizations to an entire, diverse group of people, based on their shared support of a single, unrelated political issue.
The fact that you consider yourself qualified to act as the ultimate arbiter of both "liberalism" and "Zionism" is itself an indication that you've got the narcissism required for any true display of bigotry. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong so long as YOU'RE sure that you're right.
And while you might also insist my opposition to your absurd political ideals makes be a bigot, It's simply not true; you just have no better argument to offer in defense of it.
Not exactly. You see I was never defending any of the "ideals" you incorrectly attribute to Zionism in the first place. Nor was I ever offering that sad strawman of yours as my actual argument. Opposing Zionism doesn't make you a bigot. It is espousing your prejudicial beliefs about Zionists that reveals legitimate bigotry. It would not have been any less prejudicial to exclaim that "anyone who opposes the Patriot Act is siding with the terrorists." Or "anyone who voted against Obama is a racist."
It's interesting that you call me a bigot for saying that people who claim adherence to a political philosophy believe in that political philosophy, and then you come around and defend the notion that an entire race of people are proponents of that philosophy just because of their race. Plainly-stated, this is just factually wrong.
Factually wrong? It's downright incomprehensible is what it is. Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say, but whatever it is, I can assure you, it surely misrepresents any of my comments it tries to reference.
But that's not why I included it. My goal was merely to demonstrate MLK's support for Zionism and Jewish nationalism. You agree with my classification of MLK as a liberal. And he's voiced his support for Zionism on several occasions.
So we've got a prominent liberal who is also a supporter of Zionism. I forget... What was it you said about Zionist liberals?
You cannot - I stress, absolutely cannot - be a Zionist and a liberal.
Oh right. You sound very sure of yourself too. But wait... We just determined that MLK was both a Zionist AND a liberal. How does your theory go about reconciling such a thing? Besides being totally wrong, I mean.
You do offer the possibility that although he was undeniably a liberal, on Zionism he was simply "wrong." Ok. So... like, wrong how, exactly? Because your whole argument is predicated on the notion that a Zionist can NEVER be a liberal, right? Are you going to allow for the existence of liberal Zionists provided that they are shown to be "wrong" in some way?
I will grant you this... You've got a LOT of chutzpah, that when faced with beliefs held by no less a figure than MLK that directly contradict your own, you immediately assume that MLK had clearly just been wrong on this one.
Do you believe all Jews are Zionists?
Of course not. What's that got to do with anything? You do realize that I wasn't accusing you of making bigoted statements against Jews, right?
"Zionism" is a rather different thing from how propagandists like yourself try to portray it, as just a vague sort of "yay Israel!" sentimentality
I'm quite sure I never portrayed Zionism as anything that remotely resembles your description. If I offer a simple definition it is because Zionism is a big political tent, and many of its supporters offer extremely divergent views. Just as one might offer a simple definition of "socialism" without implying shallowness or vagueness. Rather the simplicity is an attempt at being inclusive of every complex aspect within the movement by giving just the shared common denominator as its definition.
That said, who are you to offer a definition of Zionism? You clearly don't know very much about it at all. I mean, come on! Have you even read a single book at all about Zionism?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)
.....in your apparent religious and intolerant belief in a simplistic view of "liberalism (i doubt you even know its real definitions-not the one u made up), you show your hatred for for humans in general.
in fact in your own "self-identity" which you apparently define as "the true liberalism" (the others all being fake, including MLK) is whats ironic
as you believe only your belief "is THE TRUE BELIEF" when in fact your nothing more than a "cookie cutter" of the typical intolerant fanatic found all over the world, in all societies, since history began
who infact play a large part in the wars of the world.
_____
btw you dont have to comment...you really wont have anything to say other than "how i cant understand, am a RW monster, etc etc etc. Shaktimaan did a nice job of refuting your bigotry.
I was just pointing out an observation in case it wasnt clear to the less experienced in life.
delrem
(9,688 posts)The link above is to Pelsar's definition of 'Israeli liberal', quoted in full:
{begin quote}
liberal..not the western mutation.....
the israeli version is quite simple: it contains to qualities that one doesn't find the western bastidization of it:
personal responsibility for your actions, responsibilities to the state and responsibilities to your fellow citizens (tolerance)....excuses not acceptable.
consequences matter, more than process or theatrics:
________
examples: democracy is more than voting, voting in a non democratic govt invalidates the vote-...i.e. consequences matter and voting in a govt that will infact take away basic rights is an illegal govt and has no right to exist.
voting with ID. Every citizen has the basic responsibility to have an ID, and has the right to vote as long as they have that ID
there is no such thing as "not being responsible" for your actions. The Israeli govt provides a strong safety net for those who need help, but it doesnt take away from personal responsibilities of its citizens.
{end quote}
Pelsar's definition contains no mention whatsoever of the principle "equality before the law". So I wouldn't call it "liberalism" at all. In contrast Scootaloo's argument focuses on the fundamental and universally recognized lynchpin of any true democracy: the principle of equality before the law. From the wiki article on this principle:
{begin quote}
Equality before the law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Equality before the law, also known as legal equality, is the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice (due process).[1] All are equal before the law.
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."[1]
According to the United Nations, this principle is particularly important to the minorities and to the poor.[1]
Thus, the law and the judges must treat everybody by the same laws regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status etc, without privilege.
Equality before the law is one of the basic principles of classical liberalism.[2][3]
{end quote}
civil rights, equality etc are the foundation blocks for any liberal society (unlike what the PA has as its foundation)....and liberal societies all over the world, also employ illiberal methods to preserve their liberal society....just do the research.
so whereas all those nice laws are great in principle and great to talk about, and great in internet forums to play "who is the better liberal" no country in the entire world actually follows them 100% and for good reason.
some of us live in a real world and are not afraid of its human limitations and actual consequences, others live in the fantasy world of the internet and dont have to worry about such things and can pretend that they have "moral superiority"
clearly your one of them
I understand that in discussions with a Zionist there is equality before the law and there's "equality" before the law, there're the nationals of a country and there are the "nationals" or a country, there're full citizens of a country and "full citizens" of a country, there's a real world and there's a "real world", and so on for every damn term.
So yes, Pelsar, that's it. You being a Zionist, I knew that you wouldn't get it. But I posted the direct quotations because they're directly relevant. And oh yes, they vindicate Scootaloo after your disgusting smear.
King_David
(14,851 posts)It's clear your views on Zionists and Zionism are extreme way radical left or right of the Democratic Party of the USA or even that of Thomas Mulclair of Canada's NDP .
Anybody talking about Zionists and Zionism the way some do here are marginal to the debate and way way off the Democratic Party compass. ( extreme right or left )
delrem
(9,688 posts)For example, the Zionist "home team" (sic) in this group insists on equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. I find that equation repugnant, and I find the intent behind it repugnant. In fact, I'm sure that if I started talking that way I'd immediately be called an antisemite (and rightly so). Maybe if those promoting the Zionist political philosophy in this group dealt with the subject fairly, and didn't represent the terminology coming from their mouths one way and the identical terminology coming from the mouths of their opponents in an exactly contradictory way, I wouldn't have to reference the their tactics and terminology as I do.
I responded to Pelsar (not you) w.r.t. his interjection in a debate between Shaktimaan and Scootaloo re. the notions 'equality (before the law)', 'nationalism', '(political) liberalism', and I responded with exact quotations re. the definition of '(political) liberal', one from Pelsar (from a discussion w. me) and the other from wiki. Pelsar's interjection aimed at Scootaloo was a disgusting smear whereas my response had some relevant substance, but his response to me was substance-less ad hominem.
So don't preach to me about respect - I show respect when it's deserved.
King_David
(14,851 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)Scootoaloo is an intolerant bigot....that has been made clear, by his broad generalizations, if you consider that a smear, perhaps you should look up the definition of bigot, you won't like it, but thats reality.
now, clearly you dont understand liberalism (not progressivism, dont confuse the two), so i shall give you just a few examples of how liberal countries in fact are not 100% liberal:
we shall begin with Canada: Immigration to Canada, if you speak the proper language , are educated in their preferred way, you can get citizenship faster than the non educated black Nigerian-not very liberal of them
Australia:anti terrorist laws: restrictions on speech, detention without charge or trial for up to 14 days etc
how about Spain:
the judge may order that suspects be held incommunicado
the list is longer....but there are just a few.....
____
it seems that liberal countries tend to believe, like israel, that illiberal methods are required to preserve their societies....
__
but just for fun, we have "progressives' here advocating/promoting for a society (Palestine) that has in word, deed and foundation documents are clearly anti- progressive and anti liberal..and i would guess you are one of them
delrem
(9,688 posts)His argument is substantive. If the only response that you can come up with to rebut his substantive arguments is to call him "an intolerant bigot", then your response reflects 100% on you alone, 0% on him.
shira
(30,109 posts)On the grounds that it is racist and genocidal in nature - according to both the Hamas and PLO charters?
Are such people bigots in your opinion?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)A bigot is defined as: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
his argument:
Zionists is your insistence that they are incapable of simultaneously supporting Zionism and identifying themselves as liberals. This is a straight up textbook example of prejudicial thinking; you are ascribing sweeping generalizations to an entire, diverse group of people, based on their shared support of a single, unrelated political issue.
Shaktimaan
that makes him a bigot.....and that is the foundation for his arguments
believe what you like, but when you "rape" the dictionary, its shows
___
hes also an internet coward: when he challenged me to find zionists that believe in the 48 lines and i gave him two, one an active journalist for major newspaper and the other head of a movement....and he couldnt even accept it.
delrem
(9,688 posts)and totally avoids dealing with Scootaloo's actual argument.
Again, your ad hominem attacks reflect back 100% on YOU, and don't touch Scootaloo.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)let me understand this:
i use his words to define zionism, apply his intolerance and generalizations as per his own words to the dictionary definition of bigotry, and it fits.
and because you dont like that very definition, which is his foundation, you've decided to ignore it:
_____
i'll move on to his other arguments, once we established that he's intolerant of other opinions and makes broad generalizations and consequently can be defined as a bigot.
if you disagree with the dictionary, just say so...... (lets see if you have guts to for that)
___________
btw,i'm not in 3rd grade:
Again, your ad hominem attacks reflect back 100% on YOU, and don't touch Scootaloo.
(reminds me of: I'm rubber your glue, whatever u say bounces off of me and sticks to you....)
delrem
(9,688 posts)Your usage is worthless drivel.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Your usage is worthless drivel.
you seem to be confused its not my "usage"...i'm just applying his usage to that thing called a dictionary that you dont like.
so at least write it out that you believe the dictionary definition of a bigot is not valid and that you refuse to accept dictionary definitions of words.
at least then we understand that in terms of communicating you take the view that anybody can define anything to mean anything
btw, if you have a different definition for bigot perhaps you might want to talk to webster.....
delrem
(9,688 posts)Your usage is worthless drivel.
I don't know what kind of decoder that you run plain language thru' to come up with the conclusions you do, but that doesn't matter a damn. My statement does NOT contest the definition of 'bigot', it contests your foolish and self-serving usage.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)just show how its wrong....
your saying that there is generalization across the board that no zionist can possibly be a liberal? or no liberal can possibly be zionist (dont forget to include MLK)
and that his opinion is tolerant?
___
i believe those are the two aspects that i'm looking at
____
your turn
delrem
(9,688 posts)Do you (as a liberal Zionist) believe that all Palestinian refugees ought to be granted their full right of return defined by international humanitarian law, Geneva convention 4? Do you as a liberal Zionist denounce the concept of a "demographic threat" as being incompatible with a liberal democracy, because no liberal democracy can *depend* on the hegemony of one sect?
Surprise me.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:05 AM - Edit history (1)
just a note,
you are the first to actually ask such a direct question in all of my years here.
you'll notice a clear answer from me, no redefinitions, no hiding, vaugue answers...somethiing that is clearly lacking on the progressive side of the line. And if you need clarification, continue to ask until its clear, you will not get a " i already answered that" from me either...loaded questions are fine as well.
___________________
the answer is a partial yes: a limited number base one those who actually left.
I reject the special status that the Palestinians refugees were given that they can "pass down their refugee status.
the demographic threat cannot be applied to a democracy, to create laws within the governing of the country that gives one group more rights over another, which is why israel has to leave the west bank
clear enough?
is it 100% liberal? no, but it is the standard of every single liberal society on the face of the planet, different expectations for israel are unacceptable in my world
_________________________________
*spare me the international law,when its applied EQUALLY to all nations, then and only then will I give it some credibility like i wrote earlier, when i see discussions from the court/UN for the arrest of bush, obama, seal team 6, returning of the sovereignty of the Chamorros to guam etc, then feel free to use it, but until then, its application is nothing more than a politics as usual.
Last first: I first encountered the notion that the Geneva Conventions can be dismissed as "nothing more than politics as usual" in this group. I find that dismissal astounding, esp. since Israel signed onto the Geneva Conventions on admission to the UN, including an explicit reference that Israel is obliged to recognize the right of refugees to return. But then, I'm now encountering the dismissal of the UN as well. If that attitude were prevalent, I'd expect Israel to quit the UN. Regardless, I won't debate the notion of universal human rights with someone who has contempt for the Geneva Conventions and recognized universal human rights like equality of persons before the law. There's just no point in such a debate.
You say:
"the answer is a partial yes: a limited number base one those who actually left.
I reject the special status that the Palestinians refugees were given that they can "pass down their refugee status."
That isn't Israeli law of Jus sanguinis, which applies through to the first generation born abroad. Of course things might get a bit dicey if Israel did recognize RoR. Certainly such a restriction makes sense for consecutive generations born abroad. But consider the likelihood that a considerable number of original and first born Palestinian refugees choose to return to lands that are now Israel, would they not be considered Israeli citizens (considering that they'd most certainly be required to sign certifications of loyalty to the country, to fulfill their own obligations)? Suppose not: then Israel will be apartheid w.r.t. law, where these refugees and their descendants aren't considered citizens and so won't have the protection of Israeli law as written to cover the rights of citizens. Suppose so: then how, in a non-apartheid country where law applies equally to all citizens, can the children of these returnees be denied the right to enter Israel?
you say:
"the demographic threat cannot be applied to a democracy, to create laws within the governing of the country that gives one group more rights over another, which is why israel has to leave the west bank"
Well, Israel hasn't left the west bank, and in fact is annexing more land and building more Jewish only roads as we speak. Saying "Israel has to leave the west bank" because "the demographic threat cannot be applied to a democracy" isn't very helpful, because Israel claims itself to be a democracy and yet has been in a continuous process of squeezing the non-Jewish arab (and other) population out of the west bank -- the reason for that squeezing/annexing tactic being the very "demographic threat" that we're talking about. Israel wants the land, but not the people, so bantustans are being created. I mention this because many Zionists on this list have repeatedly said that the demographic threat of full RoR etc. is an existential threat to Israel. You can't have it both ways.
you say:
"is it 100% liberal? no, but it is the standard of every single liberal society on the face of the planet, different expectations for israel are unacceptable in my world"
No, sectarian hegemony is NOT the standard of every single liberal society on the face of the planet.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)I'm not dismissing the geneva convention, as a principled document..I'm saying that israels obligations toward it, is equal to that of other countries who have also signed. Sticking to the standard of the world, no more an no less:
Do you believe that these "laws" should be applied equally?
do you really need a laundry list of how every nation on the face of this earth ignores certain aspects of it when its deemed against their self interests?
that is the question to be answered: why obama hasn't been pulled before the court? as well as seal team 6.... (UN/International Court?) I did notice that you have yet to answer it.
__________
and israel is annexing more of the west bank...i and the party that i voted for are against it. Apparently i'm in the minority.
_______
As it should be clear to you by now, intl laws that are not applied equally across the board to all nations, do not impress me. They serve as a guide, goals to be met, common ground for the western nations that have a common culture, they represent a better future...but they are not by any means actual laws.
Hence the refugee status of who gets to return to israel and who doesnt is purly a political question to be resolved by negotiation, the lawyers, post agreement will play with the words to make it work. That too btw is the international standard of international agreements.
Hence, who actually enters and get full citizenship, in my mind are those few that will not have the ability to cause damage to working liberal democracy. As you may have noticed in voting in gaza, egypt, iran, etc, some groups actually vote in facist theocratic regimes. Cultural change, learning to live in within a democracy is a long process. Israel has the right to use illiberal methods, just like every other country in the world, to protect its democracy.
____
again the question is back to you, why do you believe that israel must be above this world standard of using illiberal methods to protect its democracy? You'll note its a question of principle.
_____
so there are at least two questions for you to answer:
why hasn't obama etc been pullled in before the courts
if every liberal democracy uses illiberal methods to protect their society as they see it, why doesnt israel get the same standard?
delrem
(9,688 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)i get it.....my theory, since this happens a lot:
the questions are too close to the foundation beliefs. Its like asking a jihadnikim, a haridi, a religious settler to question the commandments from god, its something that simply cannot be answered, such blasphemy simply has no answer.
In the case of the progressive, one of the holies of holies is that israel is simply be "asked" to adhere to intl law/geneva convention, just like "everybody else." Or is being held up to the "higher western standard of which it claims to belong.
However, when we look at this "standard" and how other "liberal" countries actions actually relate to it, and discover that in fact it is neither high nor much of a standard, we're entering in the "holy ground" of the progressive belief.....
and liberal countries using illiberal methods to protect their democracy? Again one of the holies of holies that cannot be discussed. It may be true (see hate speech), but if its talked about, accepted, that may legitimize some of israel's ililberal actions, hence it too must not be mentioned.
the summary of it, is as in all those who have religious type beliefs, one can never discuss the foundation beliefs, the holy of holies and that is what we have an example of here.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Do you even remember what position you're trying to argue?
Damned if I'll remind you, or go over all your self-contradictions.
I get it, you claim to exemplify what it is to be an "Israeli liberal", some pure form and not some "western bastidization", whereupon you proceed to whine about how the whole world holds Israel to a higher standard than others, then you whine that every liberal country denies the geneva conventions, the right to equality before the law, etc., when convenient, to "protect democracy". Yes, I get it. Now g'day.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)
the position is simple: the israeli liberal, to which a certain degree i do represent, is that of a liberal who lives in the real world, with real world expectations and limitations and can answer and will answer any question asked, whether or not i believe its foolish, a fantasy, loaded or religious.
whereas i do claim that every liberal nation takes its liberties with the geneva convention, with intl law, with liberal values to protect itself or its interests as it sees fit, I'm also more than willing to back up those claims.
if you have claims counter to that, be a brave internet warrier and explain. Or perhaps i shall give u a few more examples, and perhaps this time you'll attempt to answer them, as you have refused to do so, so far.
and once we've clarified that all nations violate these agreements we can then discuss "equality before the law" (you do believe this correct?) and why only some select nations are publicly brought up on 'charges" and others are not.......and there you can "prove" what you think is obvious.
so thats the agenda, now perhaps you can surprise me and take up the challenge? (yes i know you wont....so dont worry, your beliefs will not be challenged).
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Pelsar's posts here tend to play a unique and valuable role, IMHO. He's a liberal Israeli who desires peace and is willing to make sacrifices to attain it. That said, he is a realist, and faces genuine consequences should his government misstep badly in policies related to these matters. His nation can ill afford to grant their enemies the benefit of the doubt and make concessions that would weaken the military supremacy they currently enjoy.
These are not abstract concerns. When faced with a violent and ideologically intransigent neighbor, any concession that allows militants a freer hand in launching attacks puts both Israeli and Palestinian civilians at greater risk. Especially the Palestinians. Because the flip side to obtaining greater freedom is the burden of greater responsibility. If Israel withdraws from the WB, for example, they relegate a lot of the responsibility for their security over to the Palestinians. A responsibility that carries severe penalties should they fail to meet Israel's strict standards.
These are the sorts of concerns that tend to muddy and well-meaning attempts at ideological purity. They're critical real-politick concerns that resist being dismissed with a callous remark about what liberalism demands. One can embrace the ideals of liberalism while still recognizing that to apply them recklessly could spell the end of not just their lives but the future of their nation. Many of the rules we refer to as "international law" demand universal respect in order to work effectively. A state that adhered religiously to the laws of war while engaged against an opponent who freely ignored them would find themselves at a critical disadvantage. No matter how great the disparity in their respective power might be, the stronger state would probably be hard pressed to achieve a decisive victory against an enemy unhampered by accountability, rules or ethics.
Comments like your own that casually demand Israel adhere to a standard that is not merely higher than what's expected of other states, but often puts their very lives in jeopardy, are not given much consideration in Israel. How could they grant any respect to an armchair moralist unwilling to consider the real world consequences of the actions they posit Israel take? Consequences they, themselves, are in no danger of facing. Moralizing is so much easier when someone else pays the tab.
Excellent post.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Why does that make it drivel? Because kluxers are bad? So what?
If I said that all KKK members would support the lynching of Obama, or even just that they don't decry the killing of convicted black criminals, that would be an example of bigotry. For one thing, we have no idea that it's true. I'm sure they're both beliefs held by a good percentage of KKK members. But all of them? No one can say that.
But what if I said that all KKK members think the Jews hold too much power in American politics? Aka: a statement we know to be fairly accurate since it's one of that group's key platforms. Guess what? It's STILL bigotry.
Whenever you unfailingly cleave to a prejudice, ascribing monolithic opinions to individual members of a group, you are actively engaging in prejudicial behavior aka: bigotry. Cut and dry. Whether your prejudicial beliefs happen to be true or not is entirely irrelevant to the fact that they're bigoted. Accurate prejudice is prejudice all the same.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Your post was/is drivel because you conveniently "forgot" the point you were supposed to be debating, namely
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=31462
".....in your apparent religious and intolerant belief in a simplistic view of "liberalism (i doubt you even know its real definitions-not the one u made up), you show your hatred for for humans in general."
Continuing to the end to berate Scootaloo for his "hatred of humans in general" because Scootaloo was of the (correct) opinion that liberalism was founded on principles like respect for the equality of persons before the law:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=31333
Scootaloo is correct because (as I pointed out), classical liberalism is founded on exactly that principle.
Now, if you want to deny that you said exactly what I quoted, above, and that the contents of the post the quote was extracted from isn't what I say, then go to it. I'll leave you to lie. Otherwise I repeat:
your usage is purest drivel.
And if you try to grasp at another bait-and-switch red herring, you'll only deepen your pool of drivel.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I never said what you are quoting.
Now it would appear that one of us is lying. I patiently await your apology.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)The post I responded to specifically dealt with the term "bigotry" and whether it was applicable to scoot's posts. My response was entirely on point, you and pelsar argued as to the applicability of the term over several posts.
I find it ironic that you'd critique me for not checking the subthread's subject matter well enough considering you didn't bother checking who you were even talking to before firing off some insults and accusations.
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)Why do you have to try accusing them of lying?
delrem
(9,688 posts)It's hasbara 101.
IMO Scootaloo is correct. Political liberalism (the ideology) is founded on principles including equality of persons before the law. That's just plain fact.
That's pretty much the sum of my debate with Pelsar (if you can call it a debate).
But also Scootaloo is correct in his other point.
Political Zionism, at least of the kind advanced in the I/P group and which claims that full RoR means the end of Israel (because Zionist Israel depends essentially on a decided demographic advantage) can not tolerate equality of persons, because given equality of persons the Palestinian refugees would automatically have full RoR. After all, a people can't found a state based on equality and immediately upon doing so assert that *these* refugees do have full RoR but *those* don't, because *those* don't belong to a favored 'nationality'. In any event it's pretty damn clear that the Zionist ideology demands that Israel enact a favored 'nation' status in law.
So, finally, Scootaloo's argument is sound: the notion 'liberal zionist' is a contradiction in terms. Simple as that.
But at the moment I'm only discussing point one.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)so were leaving the definition of bigotry and were on to political liberalism.
i'll make this easy: please show me where its been applied in a country that identifies itself as liberal, that meets your criteria. This is so i'll have a better idea of what your talking about and understand its application.
shira
(30,109 posts)Not only is no one in Israel interested in your 1-state solution, but at most 10-12% of Palestinians favor such a secular democratic state. The solution would have to be imposed on both nations against their will.
That will not result in justice and equality. It would not end well. Of course, justice must be served so damn the consequences, right? You won't have to live there....
Now here's where you run away again from defending your twisted, fascist version of justice and pseudo-liberalism....
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Is that it makes the automatic assumption that the concept of equality of persons before the law demands that Israel grant all Palestinian refugees the right of return. I'm not sure how you made this leap of logic.
All Israel's citizens DO currently enjoy equality before the law.
But the refugees in question were never Israeli citizens. Many if them have held citizenship in other nations between 1949 and today. And there isn't a historical precedent or international law granting ror as a right.
That said, no one's denying Palestinians an ror of their own once their own state is declared.
Liberalism is a varied concept. You simply do not have any authority to rule that support for any single, specific policy is required of everyone who would define themselves as a liberal.
These ideals are exactly that, ideals. The real world frequently demands decisions for which no solution exists that doesn't require compromising one's idealism. Situations must be judged within their context to be evaluated fairly. It is far easier to maintain the loftiest of standards when you face no consequences for doing so.
delrem
(9,688 posts)The obvious flaw in your argument is that if Israel was/is founded on the assertion that only those non-Jews who were *not* ethnically cleansed in the war leading up to Israel's establishment were/are eligible for citizenship, then Israel "in essence" depends on that ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from the lands Israel claims - and, of course, Israel will depend on a continuous demographic monitoring with all associated master/slave class (or 'nations', if you need the soft sell language) social infrastructure.
And of course in the Zionist mind that dependence is true, it is *foundational* to the Zionist concept, and why you, both a hasbarist and Zionist, argue that the ethnic cleansing of the lands taken by the new state of Israel was righteous and virtuous. And it's why you cannot argue that you give a flying fuck about "equality of persons before the law".
The obvious *problem* is that Zionist Israel *lied* to the UN when it asked for and got recognition as an independent nation, because it signed documents *contradicting* the very argument that you, a Zionist, are expressing right now, even while having no intention of ever honoring the obligations it signed onto. That is: Israel's word was NOT its bond.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)The ethic cleansing of 47-49 that we call the nakba primarily consisted of Israel's refusal to let any of the Arabs (aside from very few), return to where they were living in what then became known as Israel. The vast majority of these refugees left of their own accord. They were not forcibly expelled. No formal plan of expulsion existed.
The decision was made to refuse these Arabs the right to return after the war ended. Now we can argue the ethics of that decision, but it was made following two wars and a long violent conflict that was split entirely down ethnic lines so it was hardly an unreasonable response. Especially considering that the Palestinians expelled or killed 100% of the Jews living on their side of the green line.
Point being the nakba was not part of a pre existing plan to expel non-Jews. Your argument is simply not supported by any historical evidence. The Arabs who were eligible to become citizens were the ones who didn't leave. They were there when Israel declared independence.
That said, some instances of forcible ethic cleansing did take place. I'm not defending those instances beyond saying that population exchanges on both sides occurred. It's not a defendable action. It's merely commonplace. But these kinds of expulsions were a small minority of the total number if refugees. Certainly not enough to insinuate any kind of plan existed to cleanse Palestine of non-Jews.
This is all simply straight up bullshit. I never said anything of the sort, nor can you seriously insist that all Zionists think anything in particular at all. This sort of prejudicial thinking is just so odious and disgusting. I don't know why I think that logic or facts will have any influence on someone capable of actually ascribing to such obvious bigotry. How is it that you're unaware that people can support a movement or religion or whatever without supporting everything done in the name of said movement, or written down in the holy book of said religion?
delrem
(9,688 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Here a bigot, there a bigot, everywhere a bigot bigot, loses its shock value over time. Perhaps you could PM shira for some lessons. He's got a much wider range for "calling names" and might even give you a few tips on how slip in a "nazi", "fascist" or "hitler" now and again. That won't help you with actual content or substance, but I doubt you'd want to deviate from your bulletpointed hasbara lessons on that anyway. That would require actual thinking.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)However I offered a well reasoned, thoughtful explanation of what the term "bigotry" really means and when its application is justifiable. In response I received an irrational attack focusing on an entirely unrelated subject (the definition of liberalism), followed by an insinuation that I'd refuse to take ownership of pelar's quotes, thereby lying in a cheap attempt at a bait and switch.
Now even if I had written those things I fail to see the validity of this kind of defense. Rather than engage the content of my post for what it is I was accused of some sort of trickery by addressing one aspect of the debate as opposed to another. Besides that, it was an obnoxious response.
So if delrem wants to debate by casting aspersions and ad homenems then he should expect to be judged in the same manner.
Of course, my post was not a serious accusation, but rather a sarcastic comment intended to highlight the pointlessness of holding a discussion that embraces such cheap tactics.
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)It's lame and a pathetic and weak tactic.
You might think flinging round false accusations of bigotry and lying is what passes for well reasoned and thoughtful, but it's nasty and cheapens what little debate there is in this group.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)My accusation of lying was facetious. My accusation of bigotry was well justified. His statements were completely bigoted.
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)And you even admit to doing it. I'm not intererrsted in any pathetic attempts to justify doing it. Not from someone with such glaring double standards as to what is and isn't bigotry (see my pot kettle black post in this thread and the link to a post of yrs displaying a whole different standard when it comes to Palestinians).
Have a nice day
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I stand by my earlier statement as well. Offering a generalization of a group as it exists as a group is hardly prejudicial. I'm making no definitive statements about all members of the group. I'm not saying that Palestinians are all this thing or that thing. I'm saying that Palestinian society as it currently exists is very sick. That's totally different than if I said all Palestinians want to destroy Israel. Which is the kind of argument scoot is making.
Likewise, I'd support the statement that Israel's settler movement is fostering a very sick society and has a warped ideology. Not bigotry. Just an opinion. Note the difference between having an opinion about a group as it exists as a system as opposed to thinking that every member holds monolithic beliefs and opinions.
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)All the hysterical head explosions and untrue accusations of bigotry because someone insulted zionists, yet when it came to an incredibly ugly and ignorant broadbrushing of Palestinian society you reacted by saying you didn't care about bigotry and doubled down on something that you'd be shrieking in indignation about if said about Israeli society.
Yr weak attempt to try to claim you weren't making a bigoted statement about Palestinians because you didn't say ALL Palestinians is exactly the same as someone claiming them saying that Israel controls the media isn't bigoted coz its just a generalization and they weren't talking about ALL Jews. Or a misogynist insisting they're not bigoted against women due to their hatred of what they call 'feminazis' as after all they're merely generalizing and not talking about ALL women. Most of the time none of that is acceptable at DU because juries are smart enough to realize that what's touted as being just another opinion is actually bigoted speech. So, sorry but you do display a very clear and stark double standard when it comes to bigotry depending on who it's aimed at
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)The post was bigoted because it insisted that ALL Zionists always believe x and y but never believe z. It stated that individuals MUST feel/think a certain way because of their membership in an unrelated category.
Can you please explain how this doesn't constitute bigotry? (Especially since you see it as being the same as my earlier comment about Palestinian society, a comment you thought was bigoted?)
My statement wasn't about Palestinians as individuals. It was about their society, and I merely formed an opinion about it based on what I know regarding it. It's not prejudicial because its based on things actually occurring in the society. If I say that a specific Israeli is a sick, racist with hatred in his heart, that isn't bigotry if the person is Baruch Goldstein and I'm basing my thoughts on his actions. Likewise I'm basing an opinion of Palestinian society on Palestinian society's actions.
Similar statements would be:
Religious settler ideology is a hateful perversion of both Judaism and Zionism.
New York is a filthy city.
Zionism is a failure.
The Republican Party has lost touch with reality.
The tea party's ideology is rooted in intolerance.
Zionisms ideology is rooted in intolerance.
See, none of these are bigoted statements. Some are wrong, I disagree wit them. But they're not bigotry.
But saying:
Jews want to enslave Gentiles.
The Arabs want to push Israel into the sea.
Australians want to exterminate the aboriginal natives.
Those are all examples if bigotry. Do you see the differences yet? And why is my statement bigotry while Scoot's is not?
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)What yr doing is as ridiculous as someone claiming I'm bigoted against conservatives because I make insulting comments about them. I've explained clearly and patiently why what you said about Palestinian society was bigoted, and why insulting a political ideology isn't. That you see the latter as an insult, yet an ignorant, crude, and broadbrushing smear of an entire people isn't really reeks strongly of selective blindness and double standards on yr part.
I gave you some examples using groups you may be slightly more sensitive about to try to show you how the 'I'm not talking about ALL (insert name of group here) argument doesn't work. You seem to have overlooked those examples, so I'd like you to go back and read them and explain to me why according to yr logic they're not bigoted.
Whenever I tell you that the equivalent of what you said about Palestinian society is to say it about Israeli society, you come back with some ridiculous and very different example of Israeli extremists only as the equivalent. It's not. If someone were to say Israeli society was sick and diseased, that'd be the equivalent.
btw, it wasn't just me who thought yr statements about Palestinian society were bigoted. As I recall a jury hid a post where you were making that claim.
What you don't seem to understand is that being Jewish, Palestinian, Israeli, Muslim, male, femiale etc is something that we're born into and didn't enter into by choice. Being a Democrat, a liberal, a conservative, a Zionist etc is something that is a choice. Someone who attacks people because of something that they had no choice or control over is most assuredly a bigot. Someone who insults Republicans, Zionists, or socialists isn't. They might fall into the category of idiot, but they're not bigots...
Y'know, I'm really surprised to see you expending so much time and energy on the subject of bigotry when only a few months ago a post in response to yr 'diseased and sick society*' was titled by you ''Whether it is bigotry or not is a boring discussion. Who cares?'
So, clearly it's only something to care about when it suits you, and bigotry aimed at Palestinians doesn't seem to fall into that category. Just to remind readers what you had to say back then about bigotry, here's a link to the hidden post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=20728
And finally, I find it sad that you haven't bothered to try learning about Palestinian society since then. Because it was clear from what you wrote back then that you have no idea at all about what Palestinian society is, and rely on a few shallow soundbytes found on pro-Israel sites around the internet. I can recommend some great books on Palestinian society that show the depth and vibrancy of it, but I suspect that just like the last 'supporter' of Israel I recommended them to, you wouldn't be interested. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I'm not holding out much hope...
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Whether its something you were born into or not is irrelevant.
If someone were to say Israeli society was sick and diseased, that'd be the equivalent
I agree. And I don't find that comment to be bigoted. People say that kind of thing all the time.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)That religious Jews all think that women are inferior to men.
Is that bigotry IYO?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Bigotry is a poor description of your example which was more of an anti-Semitic belief. It differs from my statement in that it is untrue propaganda intended to foster division and hatred. My comment was just an opinion.
I don't understand this one. What is the bigoted statement being made? Let's say the person said that all feminists hate men. That'd be bigotry because it assumes that someone holds a specific belief merely because they're a feminist. It makes unyielding assumptions about people based on a single characteristic.
More examples.
Jews consider themselves superior to Gentiles. Bigotry.
Judaism is a misogynistic religion. Not bigotry.
Jews are all misogynists. Bigotry.
Israeli culture is sick and diseased. Not bigotry.
Israelis are all bigots. Bigotry.
Get it?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)An ad hominum attack would say something like "Scootaloo's argument isn't valid. That man is a bigot. Nothing he says has credibility for that reason." That's not what we're saying here.
My criticism is that Scoot's actual ARGUMENT is bigoted. Which is a credible response because any statement whose foundation is based on prejudicial thinking is inherently unsound for that very reason. To be fair, it's entirely possible for a bigoted opinion to be accurate. But the very nature of bigotry implies that its proponent rejects any information that contradicts their existing beliefs; a close-minded system that lends itself to antiquated opinions more frequently than not.
Besides that, I engaged his explanation point for point, so it's hardly even the meat of my argument.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)But I was merely responding to points YOU raised during your discussion with pelsar. You aren't obligated to respond to them of course, but they are hardly a deviation from this thread's topic. YOU were the one to cast the accusation of ad hominem attacks and YOU were the one to refute the accuracy of describing Scoot's comment as bigotry.
delrem
(9,688 posts)feh on ya all fer yer mendacity!
shira
(30,109 posts)Those days are long over.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I am paid per word, so why would I?
delrem
(9,688 posts)I don't think you're paid, Shaktimaan, nor do I think you're "evil" or any such thing.
But I've started reading the hasbara 101 websites since trying my hand at a dialogue here -- just to try to figure out wtf is going on. So I've read a bit about hasbara techniques to control discussions, and tho' I'm way out of date, about hasbara control of talking points. You do appear to be stuck on them.
I'm not a Jew, or Arab, (I'm a fucking mongrel) and I have no connection with the middle east beyond the connection the most general North American has with the weird paternalistic religions that originated there, and the huge economic/resources issue of oil. And that issue has nothing whatever to do with interaction between "nations". The issues are separate.
And you are correct: my interest in these issues has no concrete real life basis, except in the most general sense. My real life concerns are more immediately focused on how Canada interacts with the indigenous nations, the first nations, and tho' for most of my life it's made me ill, in recent decades I've seen some hope. But there's no analogy to the middle east and I/P. For one thing, this is the 20-21st century, not the 15-21st.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)What Hasbara 101 websites have you been frequenting? I'd like to look at them as well.
I think I know what you're talking about, but I've never actually been to one of those sites or read any of that kind of literature. Think what you will, but I've never approached these discussions with a specific agenda or used talking points or anything like that.
I would suspect that anyplace which disseminates information that benefits only one side is probably not trustworthy, regardless of which side they're supporting.
delrem
(9,688 posts)(just found a bookmark so see p.s. below)
Here's what I'm reading on I/P issues right now. From
Azure - Ideas for the Jewish Nation
AzureOnline - Autumn issue
http://www.azure.org.il/article.php?id=239&page=1
The Jews’ Right To Statehood: A Defense
By Ruth Gavison
A new look at Zionism from the perspective of universal rights.
This is a 7 web-page essay. I'm on p.5, pt. IV of VI parts, so it looks like I'll finish first reading tonight. I'll probably go over it again tomorrow, taking notes, once I get this first gestalt impression. I like to reserve judgement as much as I can until I've finished a review with notes, and have done some analysis of the overall argument.
The thesis covers a few of the issues we've been discussing in DU I/P.
p.s. here's a bookmark I found
http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf
This is an oldish pamphlet, 2002.
It's very basic. As I recall (I tend to forget stuff like this quite easily) one thing that stood out over the rest was that this project isn't about communication, it's about propaganda, and it assumes that if the target doesn't agree with the hasbarist's (is that a word) opinion, then that person needs to be dealt with using certain techniques, all of which tend to ignore the target's POV. A bit like religious indoctrination into the "christian evangelical" movement (which I have some experience of). My quickie judgement at the time was that this program as outlined is too uniform and obvious. That is, if you've already got a captive audience who's pre-primed to go out and convert the program will probably amplify the enthusiasm and zeal, but if the audience isn't captive and already locked into the viewpoint being pushed that way, the project might boomerang.
Anyhow no doubt the hasbara project, even for beginners, is no doubt more sophisticated in 2013.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Unless you also want to argue I'm a bigot for not supporting neoliberalism, too? That would be a peculiar conversation, I think.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)because the dictionary says so, unless you want to argue that the dictionary is wrong..it doesnt matter where its applied and to whom, its just a definition that fits your viewpoint.
if you dont like being a bigot as per the dictionary, perhaps you might change your viewpoint, but thats not my call.
As was pointed out to you, your definition of no liberal can be a zionist also includes the iconic figure of MLK, which means one of 4 things: (feel free to add)
1) MLK in your opinion is not liberal (that will get you kicked off the reservation)
2) You'll have to define MLK as a "unicorn" and decide that he is an exception
3) You might have to adjust your definition of zionist and liberal
4) you proudly accept that your a bigot and claim it
Please include MLK in your response, since hes a very good example, one that you really cant ignore.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Also, don't try to quote a dictionary if you don't know how to spell "you're. "Or "you" for that matter. I hate to be "that guy" but really, if you're going to try to throw the word-books at me, you could at least draw reference, kay?
I believe Dr. King was factually wrong in the statement quoted from him. I also do not believe one statement - even one in factual error - makes one a proponent of an entire political philosophy.
You can keep trying, if you like, but you're not going to be any more successful.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)communication is based upon agreed upon meanings, thats what the dictionary is all about. if you're going to modify meanings (which we 've seen you do with zionism) perhaps you should put an asterisk next to your definitions*
I dont believe i have to link to any specific dictionary, the definition of bigot is wide spread, try it
___________
here you have another example, so I'll show you how it works:
I believe Dr. King was factually* wrong in the statement quoted from him
*I am redefining the world fact (factually), which is something that exists and can be proven to define a philosophical belief (something that cannot be proven).
see? now we all understand that when you write the word "fact" it doesnt mean "fact" as per the dictionary definition.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But if you're going to grasp at straws, it helps to have straws in the first place. Have a good night, Pelsar.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)* this means that I understand that you've had enough and no longer want to try to defend you redefining of the word "factual" nor the real definition of the word bigot.
MLK was factually wrong? What does that actually mean? how does a belief, a philosophy become a "fact"
________
to explain that i suspect you'll also have to modify other word definitions, creating a whole new set of definitions, i.e. a mini dictionary based on a particular political philosophy...you fail to communicate to others who dont believe as you do and clearly thats ok with you.
I believe its best to keep to the dictionary, its acceptable to all, its clear in its definitions and if you dont like how they describe your viewpoint.....be strong and accept the reality of it.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I believe you're missing the point of the inclusion of MLK's point in this thread. Whether purposefully or not I couldn't say.
When you opine that MLK was merely "wrong" I'm assuming you mean in his assessment. That anti-Zionism is not merely anti-semitism in a cheap disguise. Whether this theory has any validity is impossible to really say. MLK was speaking from a position of limited experience; the I/P conflict wasn't really in his wheelhouse. He had only his own experiences to draw from. But the accuracy of his statement is entirely irrelevant. I didn't include it to imply that MLK would have considered your beliefs anti-Semitic but rather to offer evidence of his support for Zionism.
Your argument insists that liberalism and Zionism are mutually exclusive. While not being an avowed Zionist, MLK was nonetheless a supporter of the Jewish state and defender of Zionism against its detractors within his own movement.
http://books.google.com/?id=5y8zhmn-q4QC&pg=PA109
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That he was wrong in his assessment of people talking about anti-zionism being antisemites.
Yes, my position is that liberalism and Zionism are mutually exclusive. More to the point I hold that Liberalism and racism are mutual exclusive, and that zionism is simply a particular brand of racism - a Jewish take on White Supremacy and nothing more.
If the philosophy were simply believing Israel has the right to exist, okay, I would be wrong in that assessment. I'd still disagree (as I don't believe any state has a "right" to exist, which is an inherently silly notion) but such a philosophy wouldn't have any inherent racism to it.
Of course you and I both know that Zionism is not that simple. Perhaps in a purely theoretical sense, maybe. But as actually exercised? It's deeply racist. And the racism is so ingrained into it that you really can't de-racism it. it's not a taint, it's a core pillar in the foundation of the philosophy.
Zionism is not simply an endorsement of Israel. Zionism is an endorsement of the idea that Israel is a permanently Jewish state that has authority, alone among all nations on earth, to achieve that demographic status by ethnic cleansing and to preserve it by abuse of human beings who do not fall into that demographic. Zionism is not simply the belief that Israel has a right to exist, it's also the belief that its neighbors do not; Israel has more right to their land than they do. Zionism is not the belief in Jewish self-determination; it's the belief that Jews have a right to determine what's good for Arabs, and that Zionists in turn have a right to determine what's good for Jews (and thus those who disavow Zionism are denigrated as race-traitors).
I believe Israel can exist just fine - probably better - without this nineteenth-century baggage dragging it down. You and the other Zionists around here disagree. You disagree profoundly, and believe that the preservation of this racism, the perpetuation of the violence, the endorsement of this abuse, the continued thefts of land and property and basic human dignity are utterly integral to the very existence of Israel.
In fact not only do I figure that this inherent racism of the Zionist philosophy makes it at odds with the principles of liberalism, but I also believe that by its nature it is an anti-Israel philosophy. Israel doesn't benefit from constant conflict... but Zionism does. Which is why a Zionist murdered Rabin. It's why Zionists are the armed men and women stealing land from Palestinians. it's why Zionists are the ones burning mosques and desecrating graveyards. Because Zionism needs the conflict to keep going, it needs Jews and Arabs to be scared of and angry at each other, because accord between the two is the death knell of the philosophy you hold so sacred, just as integration was th death knell of its identical twin in the United States.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)When you say that Israel would do better without Zionism you mean an Israel that abandoned the idea of a Jewish state, allowing full Arab ror and even perhaps merged with the WB and Gaza to form a single state, correct?
In this Israel the name and infrastructure would remain but it's mission and identity as a Jewish state would have changed. Such a state would likely gain an Arab majority in the near future relegating the Jewish population to a minority. Right?
What do you mean when you say this would be better for Israel then? The Israel we know would have ceased to exist. Who would be better off exactly and why?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I don't know that it's impossible to be bigoted against a political philosophy, but it doesn't matter here because no one is accusing you of such a thing. To be clear, no one takes issue with your rejection of Zionism or considers criticism of it to be automatically analogous with anti-semitism.
Your belief that Zionism and liberalism are mutually exclusive constitutes bigotry because you are applying a litany of homogenous beliefs to an entire category of people based on a single, shared trait... their being Zionists. This is prejudicial thinking at its most obvious. You are pre-judging people because of an unrelated characteristic.
You are not acting bigoted to a political belief but to people. All those who ascribe to this one belief MUST also believe this and this and so on, and may NOT think this and that and the other thing.
What's important for you to understand is that it doesn't even matter if you're right. (You're not, as a matter of fact. You're nowhere even close to being right. Which is easy enough to prove by virtue of the fact that I am both a proud and committed liberal and an unapologetic Zionist. Nor do I support many of the opinions you've insisted all Zionists embrace.)
But that's inconsequential. Whether someone thinks that all Muslims support violent Jihad, or that gay people are inherently more fashionable than non-gays, the application of locked-in traits to every individual member of a category is the very definition of prejudice. And bigotry is the unyielding devotion to one's own prejudices, especially intolerant prejudices held against specific groups, as seen with racism or sexism.
Make no mistake. It's for these reasons that your beliefs constitute bigotry. Do not try and twist it to imply that this accusation is in any way related to your rejection of Zionism. Believe whatever you want. But this isn't MondoWeiss. Understand that prejudicial thinking about any group of people, be they Arabs, Palestinians, Israelis, Zionists or Jews, will be called out for being what it is. Bigotry, plain and simple.
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)Yet calling Palestinian society a 'sick and diseased' society was not only posted by you, but you stood by it after it being pointed out to you that it was bigoted. And titled yr post 'Whether it is bigotry or not is a boring discussion. Who cares?'
'As the perpetrator of the "sick and diseased society" comment I'd like to expand on that thought and address some of the responses to it.
First of all, I stand by the remark I made. '
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=20728
Wow, what a stark difference a few months and a different target group makes, hey?
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)All you do is run round this place accusing just about anyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot.
How about you quit it and try to engage people in a civil manner for a change?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and if someone believes that all zionists believe in the same thing, that we all we want is to expand and take all of the west bank, we're all power hungry and we all want to subjugate the Palestinians etc as per his many other simplistic viewpoints of zionism....
then i believe the person who holds such a viewpoint is a bigot, as per the dictionary definition.
He agreed to the challenge for me to find zionists that believe in the 48 line to prove his view point wrong: i found two major ones: Gordon Levy and uri avnery of Gush Shalom...that was the civil manner of discussion
i believe he called them unicorns.....
of course maybe hes right in principal and then i can believe that all Palestinians who belong to the PLO/PA and Hamas are terrorists and want a one state solution with the jews as second class citizens...and then you can call me a bigot as well. (and him)
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)What yr missing is that there's no agreement amongst people on what defines Zionism, so it's absolutely silly to be huffing and puffing away when you wouldn't even agree on what zionism is.
There are Zionists, quite a lot in fact, who do believe that Israel should have most, if not all of the West Bank. Many more Zionists don't tend to give a shit what happens to the Palestinians, just as long as Israel gets 'peace' and 'security' and all that lovely sounding stuff. And then there are Zionists, fewer in number, who do honestly believe in a fair two-state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians live in peace in their own independent states. Those Zionists also oppose the Occupation and are opposed to the settlements. The problem arises when Zionists who fall into the first two categories turn around and accuse the latter type of being anti-Zionists.
So, what does and doesn't define Zionism is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. Therefore I've decided that anyone who doesn't agree with my views on what is and isn't Zionism is a bigot, as per the dictionary definition.
My suggestion would be to stop calling other DUers bigots and antisemites. It cheapens any attempts at debate you make, imo...
pelsar
(12,283 posts)so perhaps you should explain that to him? i obviously failed during a nice political discussion....
So, what does and doesn't define Zionism is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.
so does that tolerance go to the Palestinians as well? If i define the PAs nationalism as bunch of KKK/zionist wannabes and i get "screamed at here for being a bigot, will you then come to my defense?
if i call everyone anti semites as its in the "eye of the beholder" shouldnt you be defending me?
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)Unless I missed the part where you both agreed you were talking about the same thing when you were talking about Zionism. If you can point me to that post, I'll apologise for my annoyance...
I'm at a loss as to how you can read what I said where I said that because of the complexity of Zionism, the definition is pretty much in the eye of the beholder and come away with some weird shit about me needing to defend you if you call everyone an anti-semite. Anyone who's nasty and ridiculous enough to call everyone else antisemites will find their posts will get hidden and hopefully Lithos will block them from this group the same way he blocked the person who told you you hate Arabs...
btw, there's an example in this very thread of someone labelling another DUer an anti-Zionist by using some totally bizarre and twisted narrow defining of Zionism.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113431122#post25
They've done the same thing to me and just about anyone else who opposes the settlements and the Occupation, so I hope people that this gets sprung on don't take it personally 
pelsar
(12,283 posts)people who want to subjugate the Palestinians and take all their land away deserves the same exact treatment.
if the definition of zionism, is in the eye of the beholder, than i take that very same right as to the definition of anti semitism. and define the Palestinian nationalism as the same....
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)1. Go back and read what I said to you in my first post, because it does appear that you didn't get it.
2. I have no idea why yr going on about 'rights' and wanting to redefine antisemitism so you can run round calling everyone an antisemite. If you want to dispute that there are a multitude of different forms of Zionism and what's Zionism to one person falls into the category of antizionism for others, feel free to try, but to do so is to argue for some narrow and rigid personal definition of it that you feel everyone else must fall into lockstep with.
3. I'm still waiting for that link where you and Scoot agreed between yrselves about who is a Zionist and who isn't. I assume that there's no post like that, and yr running along on full throttle believing that yr definition of Zionism is the only one and the one everyone else uses...
4. I look forward to seeing you get this worked up when one of the regular broadbrush smears of all pro-Palestinian supporters appears in this group. Because we will be seeing you take the person who posts those broadbrush smears to task, right?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)zionism has many variations...and all the zionists i know acknowledge that little fact, as you have, Scoot doesn't.
he rejects all shades of zionism and declares they are all one and the same...that is the disagreement.
its one thing to claim there are aspects in common and quite another to claim they are all the exact same.
_____
i believe he is the only one here in all my years here who has claimed such, its one think to make broad generalizations about ideological groups, of which i am for and have no problem with, its a bit different to claim a political ideology so broad as zionsim is in fact not broad and everyone believes the same exact thing, and when questioned he sticks to it.
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)How can you say all the Zionists you know acknowledge that fact, when one self-described Zionist is in this thread accusing another DUer of being an anti-Zionist by constructing some really bizarre criteria for it? They don't care whether the person is a Zionist, they've decided themselves that they're not. I was accused by the same person of being an anti-Zionist, even though I'm neither a Zionist or anti-Zionist. I'm just nothing when it comes to Zionism. I put the link in my previous post, btw.
I haven't seen Scoot say they reject all shades of Zionism, nor that they're all one and the same. I doubt very much Scoot would try to argue that there's no difference between post-Zionism and Christian Zionism, for example.
shira
(30,109 posts)Azurnoir is also for full RoR.
Such a program is anti-zionist. It would lead to the end of the Zionist state. Jews would no longer have self-determination and Jewish nationalism. You can both claim to be whatever you wish, but your advocacy betrays you.
So I'll do the same and explain what you're doing here via my scenario...
For example, I could claim I'm for 2 states but also be in favor of just about every rightwing pro-settler plan out there WRT greater Israel. You claim I'm for 1-state, but I claim I'm for Palestinian self-determination via 2 states. I'm doing the same as you and Azurnoir, right? Are you going to tell me what I believe? Or do you have a right to question exactly where I stand so that real dialogue results?
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)I know from experience that me telling you what my views are or aren't wont stop you from continuing to make the same false claims.
Thankfully most DUers who read this group would be aware of the way you falsely accuse just about anyone you disagree with of being anti Zionist. And thank you for providing PElsar with such an in yr face display of exactly what I was talking about.
shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)Even if I did that doesn't mean I belies e everything they do. That's got to be the weirdest logic ever.
It's good to see you making yrself useful by giving a great example of exactly what I was telling pelsar about.
shira
(30,109 posts)...from you, Azurnoir, or others here.
Azurnoir adamantly denied she was for full RoR just recently, even though she admitted it months earlier. It's hard discussing anything here when one side is attempting to obscure their views.
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)Itm sure I'm not the only DUer who's worked out that you aren't interested in what people's opinions are, but are fixated on ignoring what they say and creating yr version of what you want them to think.
When it comes to you telling me what other DUers believe I have no reason to take anything you say at face value and will believe what the person tells me their views are. That's what any reasonable and genuine person would do. So it's time you stopped falsely labeling me amongst others as antizionists.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)
...as to whether you're zionist, non-zionist, or anti-zionist.
Here you are supporting BDS...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x358421#358702
Here you are supporting 1-binational state...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=328071&mesg_id=330072
Those are not zionist or non-zionist positions. They're decidedly anti-zionist.
So in one post, you claim one thing and in another you claim the opposite. Who knows what you believe from day to day? At least with others here, they're more clear about their positions and aren't playing both sides. Like you, they don't like to admit what their positions actually mean, but at least they're pretty clear as to what positions they take.
Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)And we've been through yr habit of copying and pasting links to things you deliberately twist before. Do you need a link or will you yet again be ignoring everything that gets said to you? I'm starting to think that this isn't a case of total forgetfulness on yr part, but that it's very deliberate and not truthful. Or are you just going to sit there and pretend that you've never been picked up on this before either?
Instead of attacking people and making repeated false accusations about them, why don't you quit jumping in and telling people what you say they believe? I mean, it's up to you, but if you continue down this path, yr not going to like what you start to encounter...
Here's a link to what was said to you already on one of the occassions you posted that link yr so fascinated with.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=10121
I know there's a more recent and more definitive response to another time you tried the same thing after that, but it didn't come up in search. If you continue with this, I'll go through manually and dig it up...
So, if you continue to label me an anti-Zionist after being told clearly already that I'm not, it will be obvious that yr not interested in honest debate. And I'm thinking I'm being very generous with this as there's a long track record of the same thing that most people are aware of...
shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)I used to think it was a matter of not being able to comprehend what's being said, but I've become convinced that its actually malicious, especially when it's been patiently explained to you time and time again yet you insist in ignoring all of it.
Calling me an anti Zionist is dishonest as I'm not one and have said clearly that I'm not. What yr doing is clumsily trying to narrowly define Zionism so that you can label anyone you dislike as anti Zionist, and bigoted. That's very nasty and disruptive IMO.
While I know you do get fixated at following me round and yelling at me what you want me to be, you should be talking about issues, not about me. But you've already been told that before as we'll and chosen to ignore it so this time will likely be no different.
shira
(30,109 posts)...for Zionists and non-Zionists to support it.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Funny remark that.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)time that has been pointed out to you, one wonders why you persist in replying and especially in what is IMO a rather insulting manner
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Right there is the crux of pelsar and my debate with scoot. His argument is that everyone who self-identifies as a Zionist therefore must also support every single viewpoint and trait that he monolithically applies to the movement.
For example, as a self-proclaimed Zionist, I consider Palestinians undeserving of human rights and relish the thought of slaughtering non-jewish women and children in order to steal their rightful property; in fact, as a Zionist I consider the wanton massacring of civilians in 1948 to be the movement's defining moment. All Zionists oppose ror for Palestinian refugees of 1948 to Israel for reasons exclusively pertaining to race. And so on.
This is the reason we called his argument bigoted. He is applying sweeping generalizations without exception to everyone who identifies as being Zionist. IOW, bigotry.
i believe he called them unicorns.....
I don't want to get into an argument with you
I just want to correct something that is really bothering me
I am a member of Gush Shalom and Uri Avnery is someone I love and respect , he is NOT a Zionist , he is a post zionist .
It was he that coined the term .
As for " Gordon Levy " did you mean Gideon Levy ?
If so then he says it best himself :
After 115 years, it's time for Zionism to retire
Am I a Zionist? How shall I answer? If Zionism is settling in the territories then I am anti-Zionist. If Zionism is continuing the occupation then I am non-Zionist. And if Zionism is the Jewish people's right to a state, just like the Palestinian people's right to a state, including at least partial correction of the injustice done to them in 1948, then I too am a Zionist. If Zionism is striving for a democratic state, then in that case too I am a Zionist, son of a Zionist.
A concept as confusing and misleading as Zionism is today does not belong to the state that arose for the Jewish people gloriously (or not ), and therefore it should have ceased to exist long ago.
Source: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/after-115-years-it-s-time-for-zionism-to-retire-1.426843
You chose the wrong two .
pelsar
(12,283 posts)scoots definition of zionism...he has declared that all zionists believe in the same exact thing, no exceptions allowed, and he has has decided what all of those definitions are all by himself.
i was given the 'mission" of finding zionists who believe in the 67 line..and then in theory he would apologize for his ignorance and beg for forgiveness. Of course, bigots cannot accept being wrong (since that is the definition of a bigot), hence my examples were considered unicorns. (at that point, your information was not here)
_____
now on to your post:
i dont follow Uri Avnery, to me gaza was a watershed moment of testing of the left foundation belief of the settlements being the the issue as well as a few others. I don't believe the gaza pullout affected Avnery in any way (but again i dont follow him, so i wouldnt know)
and Gideon Levy..i like him, he's more nuanced, so he could be a `zionist" as he just redefines it as per your quotes.
____
as far as zionism' i simply define it as jewish nationalism, similar to the the nationalism, or other group identities that you'll find in every social and political group:
hamas, hizballa, progressives, post zionists, americans, democrats, betar etc..just a group identity that shares some basic goals involving the state of israel.
Then he does not understand the difference between Meretz and Likud .
Do you understand the difference between Meretz and Hadash ?
I was given the 'mission" of finding zionists who believe in the 67 line..
Then give better examples than Uri Avnery or Gideon Levy .
You are the Zionist pelsar , I'm a post zionist .... you defend Zionism , I cant .
pelsar
(12,283 posts)any problem with a teacher, teaching your kids to be "nazis" or to be members of the KKK, cause if your going to play with "liberalism" out of context, with no environment, then you will be respecting that teachers beliefs as well as his need to teach the new generation about how good it is to be a member of the KKK, isnt your shade of liberalism about respecting others?
or are you going to say:
I am a liberal, except where KKK are concerned" as well as other philosophies that i disagree with and dont respect them such as: kkk, nazisim, budhism, conservatism, nationalism, communes, kibbutzim, communisim...and every other philoosphy , way of life that does not adhear to my version of liberalism and they have no right to teach their garbage to my kids..that would not be very liberal of you, infact it would be called Illiberal
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)he wants a return to the 1949 armistace lines but not the return of the Golan hmmmm was the Golan included in the 1949 'armistace' lines? and then the kicker he wants discrimination against Palestinians with Israeli citizenship to stop, but not Jews only RoR citing as we see oh so often here that many modern countries have laws allowing preferential immigration, first off the RoR that is being denied is that of Palestinians that were forced to leave Israel and most modern countries that have these preferential don't go back a couple of thousand years, in fact none that I know of do.
What Mr Beinart says comes off as we think they should have equal rights but we still don't want them drinking out of same water fountains we do
shira
(30,109 posts)Both sides of his mouth......?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)No. He wants the exact opposite.
And if “Arab lands” means nothing more or less than the 1949 armistice line—and the loss of Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall—I’m also opposed. I don’t support a return to the 1949 line armistice line
Right. Which has nothing to do with the Palestinian ROR. Those refugees were never Israeli citizens nor were they forced out of Israel. They were Arabs who were, at most, forcibly relocated to another part of Palestine. They identify themselves as Palestinians, right? Not Israelis. Many of the people in question have since become citizens of other states. Yet because the land they rented a house on 65 years ago is now part of Israel they deserve the right to claim citizenship? Lame. And not contradictory to any of Beinart's essay.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)what you said just proved is that Mr Beinart and Mr Netanyahu (based on what he says)are brothers when it comes to the mythical Palestinian state in fact their philosophy's differ very little if at all, and unintentionally lending credence to those who say there is no such thing as liberal Zionism
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Thanks shira that's really nice of you because well gee see here glad you set me straight though
Response to Reply #36
39. Well, to me it just means Israel's right to continued existence
and doesn't require supporting the Occupation or expansionist policies. Lots of Zionists don't, e.g. supporters of Peace Now and similar groups.
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. well in that case I too am a Zionist
that being said I've seen too many here equate withdrawal from the West Bank ( surely Hamas rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv ect) with the destruction of Israel along with Israel having the right to build anywhere it pleases in East Jerusalem for me to accept that the two have not become linked at least for some if not most
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=372957#373095
shira
(30,109 posts)Once that happens, the Jews lose their self-determination.
End of Zionism.
Hence, you're an anti-zionist.
=======
Where am I wrong?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)of a global Palestinian conspiracy to over run Israel if there were 2 states I think most refugees would not want to live in another extremely hostile foreign country who's recent record concerning non-Jewish refugees shows what can be expected
however your fear based philosophy is once again noted
shira
(30,109 posts)...only then will you start advocating against such a motion, in order to maintain Israel's demographic balance that would keep Zionism intact?
Please.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)I kind of hate this controversy, but I will give in to the temptation to put up what I think.
Israel was for many years a model of democratic socialism. Gorbachev, visiting in either the 80s or 90s, was amazed at the kibbutzes, and declared that this was what socialism was supposed to be about all along.
Beside that, we have the present-day image of Israel as a voracious empire-builder and fave of the far-right Christian evangelicals, personified by Glenn Beck (who's actually a Mormon) giving a speech in Jerusalem.
Both are cartoons.
Israel has the perfect right to provide refuge, preferentially, to Jews, given that they have been either seriously oppressed or actually thrown out of almost every single country (including, when you consider what happened to some of the refugees who tried to get into the US during and after WWII, the US) they've ever been resident in in non-trivial numbers, both in the West, and in the Arab world (England and the Netherlands are two notable exceptions). The whole purpose of a nation-state is to provide that refuge to those who can claim to be part of that nation. To deny that is to be anti-Semitic in the purest sense: you are denying their nationhood. If you think that's not anti-Semitic, you're out to lunch.
Once you yield on the point that Israel is, and isn't going away, everything else falls into place. Obviously the 1949 armistice line is impractical, and some modifications to it are going to have to be made. No reasonable person would deny this.
Just as obviously, Israel's settlers policy is nuts. Not because it's unprecedented; the US did the same thing when it settled the West, after all. But the difference is a practical one: the Arabs outnumber the Jews. This is a simple fact. In the US case, white settlers overwhelmingly outnumbered the small bands of Indians that hunted in the Dakotas, Nebraska, and so on, and that overwhelming numerical superiority translated into the inevitable evacuation and resettlement of those bands onto the least desirable land the USG could find to put them on.
Not so in the Middle East, in fact, quite the opposite. Unlike the unfortunate Native Americans of the US, Israel is very well armed and very capable of keeping the Arabs at bay, but not forever. Israel is going to have to deal with that one way or the other.
And that's about it.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)where as you have a good summary on a practical level, on the level of "nation states" and practicality, that is not the issue here at DU.
the issue in this forum is a very vague "culturally tainted" definition of "justice."
Toss that in to any solution, you will never have a solution......
