Any Zionists here?

Post Reply New Topic

I am very pro-palestine which is not to say I'm anti-Israel although I think just like my own country Israel was founded on sham principles and ethnic cleansing. See the Ethinic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe, The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sands, and The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finklestein. As an aspie I feel a lot of kinship with the Palestinan outsiders and recognize that Jewish people have been outsiders in the past. Anyone learning the right lessons of the Holocaust would would say "never again" but mean everybody not just Jews.

Last edited by Shadwell on 23 Jan 2010, 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

A lot of those Russians were not actually Jewish, but in the words of Noam Chomsky "that hardly matters."

I highly doubt that in the beginning French were France and Mexicans were Mexico given their macabre history of wars.

But I guess you can say that unlike zionism in Israel, these inhabitants have already adapted to the many cultural and tribal influences.

I doubt even zionists would call themselves zionists since it is now mostly equated with the word racist, fascist, american and so forth.

Your sig.
God is a pain by which we measure our concepts. (Sorry- off subject)

Don't make fun of my hero John!

That's OK. From what I remember of Lennon he had a great sense of humor.

Actually, in the case of France, i reckon there was some "savages" that got "naturalized" into the Roman Empire (sure, some of them likely got killed <.<). So it was much more of an assimilation by a greater power (The greatest power at that time). They slowly converted to christianity which softened their ways and paved the way for France to exist.

Mexicans is much more complicated, since history about that patch of land is not that well known to me. But from what i gathered, the Spanish and then the Americans fought for it (ok, might be wrong with the Americans, memory lapse -.- ) and i sadly don't know much about the native populations on the territory at that point.

Regarding Israel, i do understand they needed a land, a place to call their own, but the way they did it (through force and expropriation) is just wrong. -.- I stand a bit more closely with the Palestinians on that one BUT i do not think their case also warrants the use of violence to solve the conflict. There's a quote i heard from Ghandi recently (might need to checkproof it) :"An eye for an eye makes everyone go blind". ~

Indeed he did...

Most Palestinian resistance is largely non-violent. Israel commits most of the violence. I do not condone violence by either side.

Last edited by Shadwell on 23 Jan 2010, 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And Nara44 I think the lack of a drive for nation-hood from the Palestinians prior to the establishment of Israel was a mature thing. The nation state is much celebrated f****d up institution and Israel is one of the offshoots of it's terrible logic. That's not to say I don't support a Palestinian state because that is the framework we must currently work in, but between a one state, two state, or a no state solution ideally I pick the no-state solution. As far as Israel being one of the most advance states I am reminded of a quote by George Orwell that I will paraphrase from memory:

"Right now highly civilized beings are dropping bombs on me,"

Just out of curiousity, please define what you mean by "Jewish." The term as used in the US seems to be unacceptably broad in the context of emigration to Israel, or acceptance as an Israeli citizen.



I don't believe the French have a "right" to France, the Mexicans a "right" to Mexico, the Serbs a "right" to Kosovo or what have you, so I'm not sure where you're going here. I certainly see no reason to grant Israel some sort of special status I am unwilling to grant either France or Mexico, so I see no reason not to reject your statement.

Or to stand your point on its head: Where does such a "right" come from? It is certainly the case that there has not always been a France or a Mexico, and I see no reason to believe that these states will exist for all eternity moving forward, whether or not you can define and defend your -- in my eyes, anyway -- rather dubious use of the term "rights." Meaning at a minimum this right is apparently a revocable one. in the sense that no one realistically expects it to last forever. (Or do they? Meaning Scotland is restored to the Picts, large portions of Mexico to the Aztecs who would then have to immediately cede large portions of THAT territory to the Anasazi and on and on. )

Zionism is not about just a land for the Jews.
They, the Jews, could gather their funds and buy property, establishing their own state, but is not what happens.
They thrive on Biblical bullshet. They believe they can do anything to get their "holy land"("Greater Israel", larger than Palestine) and this is what they have done. Killed people, displaced entire cities, occupied territories belonging to other people, filled the country with Jews from eastern Europe and infiltrated govts, mainly the US govt, sucking its funds and changing its foreign policy to support their cause or why do you think the US is in the middle east? The PNAC document, AIPAC, The MSM. What do these have in common?

Sure, Israel has the right to exist. I just don't like them claiming to be the typical "Western" country that has high standards for human rights. Also, they are an expansionist state. Many in Israel may deny it. But there is strong evidence to back up the claim. For instance, the government is building a railway line connecting Jerusalem to the occupied West Bank. If that is not enough evidence to suggest that Israel is hungry for more land (the West Bank in this case) then I don't know what else is enough evidence. Israel withdrew from Gaza but now they decided to make it an open-air prison where people are forced to use smuggling tunnels to get basic neccesities (no, the tunnels are not just for smuggling weapons as the Israeli government may tell you).

So yes, Israel has the right to exist but this right comes with responsibility.

Having worked in Israel and knowing it pretty well Historically, i can tell you that your analysis of Israel being an Expansionist state conflicts with reality..The time period when Israel held its most land was from 1967-76 after the Six Day War when it annexed the Sinai and the West Bank..And from 1982-2000 it held land up to the Litani River in South Lebanon. All those lands have been handed back...the Sinai in exchange for peace treaty. The West Bank is disputed territory...Negotiations are based on U.N resolution 242 and 338..with differing interpretations of exchanges of territory wording in the language. And you forget who the govt. of Gaza is..you act like it was made that way out of a deliberate policy...Gaza is run by Hamas...they aren't a peacenick lets share hands and sing kumbaya group...they are Islamic inspired Fanatical group....and Mubarak has set up the same border policy with Gaza as Israel has done...so if that doesn't tell you something, i don't know what does....

It doesn't matter who the goverment in Gaza is. Cutting off supplies to a population is unethical and fits the definition of terrorism as Israel is pressuring Hamas to bend to its will by threatening the well-being of the population in Gaza. It may not fit Israel's definition of terrorism (random crazy guy attacking in a crowded place, rocket landing in dense urban area, etc) but it is terrorism. You cannot excuse an action based on the condition a country is in. If you can do that then Hamas too would be justified by firing rockets at Israel because of the way its people are being treated and the lack of sovereignty Israel gives them by controling the ports, borders, and airspace. You wouldn't want to suggest that Hamas is taking appropriate action would you? So why would you suggest that Israel is taking appropriate action? I feel bad for the victims of rocket attacks but I also feel bad for the victims in Gaza who are affected by Israel's actions.

Lets go back to 2005...What happened after Hamas won its legislative elections? it murdered its chief rival Fatah group out of Gaza, basically ending the PA having any jurisdiction in Gaza...creating 2 different palestinian arab enclaves..Hamas has been smuggling in Iranian and Hezbollah weaponry for the past half decade, in the process..to say it doesn't matter what kind of gov't is in charge there is ridicoulous..of course it does...Hamas has an open policy of hostility to any compromise or any sit down discussion...They are the ones being punished by the actions they supposedly voted for, ( the people)..remember the Arab world credited Hamas victory there as democracy in action? well the people voted in a govt that believes in firing missiles at soverign states rather than sitting down at the negotiation table.....They act according to a concept called a Hudna...a temporary lull in violence to build up strength...and Israel does control the Air space, and ports. of Gaza because it doesn't want an Iranian vessel coming in with sophisticated weaponry...it is still a war between hamas and Israel....i do too feel bad for the rate of reproduction in a tiny confined place like Gaza...but their is plenty of space in the Sinai for resettlement there, but that wouldn't fit Egyptian political or societal behavior. You seem a bit young and naive to the circumstances and what Hamas represents and who supplies them and the ideology they live by......spend some time in the Middle East and you'll have a better perspective.