 |
 |
<< Back | MER Blog | MER General Forum
| Author | Topic:
Zionism Is Not Racism
|
topic by
larthia kurvenas
(51 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/1/2004 (24:14) |
|
Zionism Is Not Racism
In 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution
slandering Zionism
by equating it with racism. In his spirited response
to the resolution,
Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog noted the
irony of the
timing, the vote coming exactly 37 years after
Kristallnacht.
Zionism is the national liberation movement of the
Jewish people, which
holds that Jews, like any other nation, are entitled
to a homeland.
History has demonstrated the need to ensure Jewish
security through a
national homeland. Zionism recognizes that Jewishness
is defined by
shared origin, religion, culture and history.
The realization of the Zionist dream is exemplified by
more than four
million Jews, from more than 100 countries, including
dark-skinned Jews
from Ethiopia, Yemen and India, who are Israeli
citizens. Approximately
1,000,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs, Druze, Baha'is,
Circassians and
other ethnic groups also are represented in Israel's
population.
Many Christians have traditionally supported the goals
and ideals of
Zionism. Israel's open and democratic character and
its scrupulous
protection of the religious and political rights of
Christians and
Muslims rebut the charge of exclusivity.
The Arab states define citizenship strictly by native
parentage. It is
almost impossible to become a naturalized citizen in
many Arab states,
especially Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Several
Arab nations have
laws that facilitate the naturalization of foreign
Arabs, with the
specific exception of Palestinians. Jordan, on the
other hand,
instituted its own 'law of return' in 1954, according
citizenship to all
former residents of Palestine, except for Jews.
The presence of thousands of black Jews in Israel is
the best refutation
of the calumny against Zionism. In a series of
historic airlifts,
labeled Moses (1984), Joshua (1985) and Solomon
(1991), Israel rescued
almost 42,000 members of the ancient Ethiopian Jewish
community.
To single out Jewish self-determination for
condemnation is itself a
form of racism. 'A world that closed its doors to Jews
who sought escape
from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to
complain about Israel's
giving preference to Jews,' wrote noted civil rights
lawyer Alan
Dershowitz.
When approached by a student who attacked Zionism,
Martin Luther King
responded: 'When people criticize Zionists, they mean
Jews. You're
talking anti-Semitism.'
The 1975 UN resolution was part of the Soviet-Arab
Cold War anti-Israel
campaign. Almost all the former non-Arab supporters of
the resolution
have apologized and changed their positions. When the
General Assembly
voted to repeal the resolution in 1991, only some Arab
and Muslim
states, as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam were
opposed.
Responses:
1
21
|
|
reply by
melissa carr
(455 posts)
Killeen,TX,
USA
4/2/2004 (03:02) |
|
Response to topic written by larthia kurvenas
Racism may not be the greatest term to describe it, but it most certainly is a discriminatory concept that attempts to conceal religion in political policy and colonialism.
The mere suggestion that a religion needs a land to call its own by suggesting Judaism is more than a religion is deceptive. With the mere exception of Iran as a theocracy, there are no other theocratic nations in existence today. Despite Israel's attempts to suggest it is a democracy, the key is that Jews must always remain the majority. There is nothing democratic about that. There is also nothing admirable about telling a Palestinian he's got to vacate his house because a Jewish family from Brooklyn wants to move in.
Furthermore, Israel is not exactly known for its tolerance of non-Jews, and it even maintains an unspoken classe system in which certain Jews (i.e. Ethiopians) are treated in a discriminatory fashion. Israel has repeatedly destroyed Bedouin crops and refused to acknowledge Bedouin villages in its attempts to destroy their way of life. According to the US report on human rights released last month, there is systematic discrimination of Arabs in everything from the amount of funding given to their schools as opposed to Jewish schools and discrimination in hiring practices.
Many of the Christians who support Israel are Evangelical Christians bent on apocalypse, so much so that they've abandoned their Arab brethren who are Christians. How incredibly admirable and Christian of them!
Using the words of Martin Luther King is another means of twisting something for your own purposes. King never lived to see the oppression, indiscriminate killings, checkpoints, curfews, and land expropriations that Israel repeatedly carries out today. There is no doubt that King would not support any of that.
So, regardless what a UN resolution says or doesn't say about Israel and Zionism, it doesn't change the facts on the ground.
Responses:
2
3
5
6
|
|
reply by
g.j.crabb
(21 posts)
Pacific Palms,
Australia
4/2/2004 (03:43) |
|
Response to message 1 written by melissa carr
I.Kurvenas obviously hasn't read the Talmud.
Responses:
4
10
|
|
reply by
i.hanan
(1230 posts)
Ancona,
Italy
4/2/2004 (09:37) |
|
Response to message 1 written by melissa carr
- A B S O L U T E L Y - C O R R E C T..
Responses:
11
|
|
reply by
i.hanan
(1231 posts)
Ancona,
Italy
4/2/2004 (09:49) |
|
Response to message 2 written by g.j.crabb
- Yes...All the sins and immorality of the Jews are contained in the book called The Talmud of Babylon..The Jews tend to hide it from non-jews..
- The Talmud is the spirit and soul of Zionism, and The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion..
- The Zionists deny ''The Protocols..'', but their deeds affirm it..!!
Responses:
12
|
|
reply by
chris russell
(474 posts)
Little Rock AR,
USA
4/2/2004 (11:53) |
|
Response to message 1 written by melissa carr
Do you think that fanatical Muslims descriminate against Jews?
|
|
reply by
j krueger
(27 posts)
Columbia, Mo,
USA
4/2/2004 (12:44) |
|
Response to message 1 written by melissa carr
Melissa,
In response to your rebutal of 'Zionism Is Not Racism' posted by Iarthia Kurvenas. You are correct in that you note 'Racism may not be the greatest term to describe it,' refering to Zionism. Actually Zionism is a reaction **TO** racism or religious discrimination or Jew hatred or antisemitism or what ever you want to call it. Unfortunately all of the above named prejudices have proven to be lethal with centuries of murderous results ranging from forced expulsions, massacres, pograms, crusades, inquisions, the Shoah, and now the intifadas. Please pardon me if I feel the need for a Jewish homeland, life among the nations has not proven healthy to the Jewish people whether they are religious or not. The lions share of modern Israelis are secular with over 40 percent of them being victims of *forced* migration from Arab countries. Do a DNA test on most Israelis and the results would be indistinguishable from that of their Arab neighbors.
Why would Jews wish to remain a majority in Israel? The answer is self defense. I've given you a thumbnail history of the world's enmity towards the Jewish people, the Jewish religion and all things even remotely associated with Jews. If you don't believe anti-Semitism (Jew hatred) exists; read a few of the postings by I Hanan or a few of his Jew hating buddies. It's sad that your idealistic (onesided)understanding of the incredibly complex issues at play in the modern Israeli/Palestinian dialogue has placed you in the company of *true* racists and other hate mongers that use Israel as a euphamism for *Jew* and attempt to legitimize their pathologies by cloaking their hate talk in anti-Zionist retoric.
Regarding M.L.King Jr. He would have been aware of the creation of the State of Israel as THE legitimate homeland for the Jews and 4 of the 5 wars by Arab states to destroy that state. He would have been aware of the Hebron Massacre and terrorism directed against Israeli civilians. He was also *obviously* aware of the vicious assaults against Israel by those proporting to be speaking against Zionism while they were actually reworking centuries old anti-semitic hate talk.
All the best, jk
Responses:
8
13
17
|
|
reply by
splender inthe ass
(1 posts)
Dallas,
United States
4/2/2004 (15:19) |
|
Zionism = Racism
Zionism is a racist ideology, like all nationalisms. The specific racist characteristics are summarised here: labelling them racist should be uncontroversial in itself. However Israel and its supporters are allergic for the label, and that hinders rational assessment of nationalist ideology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationalism and racism
Nation states are components of a nationalist world order, and nationalism is the ideology or movement that promotes that world order. The specific characteristics of that world order are listed in the introduction to Nation Planet. The present world order is composed of permanent states. With one exception, the Vatican, they are formed by trans-generational communities - nations. Together these states hold all inhabitable territory, as contiguous national territories: a planet of nations. All nationalists hold certain core beliefs about this world order, about the nation itself and about the nation state. Some of these core beliefs are clearly racist. Others - such as the belief that nation states should be transgenerational - are not racist in themselves, but lead almost inevitably to racist policies by the states. All modern nation states are founded on certain racist principles, which derive directly from nationalist ideology. The multi-ethnic empires, the traditional target of European nationalist resentment, did not always apply such principles.
The catechism of nationalism
The nations are collectively equivalent to humanity: they are its natural units.
Each person inherently belongs to a specific nation, and no-one can validly claim not to belong to any nation.
Nations are sacred: they have a status which no other group or collectivity can have. Nations deserve supreme respect, beyond that for other groups.
The nations have a monopoly of state formation. No entity which is not a nation may acquire or hold territory, to form a state.
Nations have a great historical continuity and should be continued. National cultures have intrinsic value, therefore nations must exist to produce and preserve them.
Nations may not be abolished, singly or collectively. No process which terminates the existence of any nation is legitimate. The world order of nation states shall never be terminated. If a nation ceases to exist, by decline or erosion, then its place in the world order shall be taken by a successor nation.
from: Nation Planet
All nation states are founded on the nationalist belief that each nation has a specific claim to a specific territory. Nationalists can and do recognise other nations claims to other territories, but almost all make an exclusive claim to at least some territory. This claim is, by definition, an expression of group superiority. The members of the nation, according the nationalist movement in question, possess an inherently superior claim to the territory, purely by membership of the group. They do not have to do anything for it. The claim covers not only their claimed right to live there, but their claimed right to exclude others.
There is one exception to this pattern: the diaspora nationalism of the Roma. The Roma do not know exactly where their ancestral homeland is located. Therefore, in sharp contrast to other nationalist movements, Roma nationalism does not claim territory. And until they know where it is, Roma nationalists can not attempt to expel the existing inhabitants of that territory.
All existing nation states do make a claim of superior right to national territory. In all cases, this claim is made on behalf of a single ethnic group, or a cluster of ethnic groups (titular nation plus national minorities). That the groups are ethnic is the source of most of the racism in ideology and policy. If states were exclusively founded on gender, their ideology might be sexist, but not racist.
Conversely, all nation states claim that other groups do not possess that specific right to the territory in question. Irish nationalists believe that the 'Irish people' have a superior right to the island of Ireland, and that the Paraguayan people do not possess this right. They believe that individual Irishmen and Irish women are the bearers of this collective right, and that these individuals can not be denied the right to reside in Ireland. They they do not believe this about randomly selected individual Paraguayans. Ireland has no indigenous ethnic minorities so the definition of the nation is relatively simple. However these beliefs can be held on behalf of more than one national group, but never on behalf of all nations of the world - at least not in any existing nation state. The formal expression of these underlying beliefs is the citizenship and immigration policy of the nation states. Note that nothing stops Irish and Paraguayan nationalists from respecting each others claims, especially since they have no common disputed territory. However, that does not make their claims any less racist.
It is often said, that the nation states have widely differing conceptions of citizenship. In fact they all operate in conformity with these two principles of superior claim, and legitimate exclusion. All existing nation states share two other characteristics. No nation state has an absolute open-border policy (totally free immigration), and all nation states allow the acquisition of citizenship by descent.
These four characteristics allow Zionism to be considered racist - in the company of other nationalisms, including the quasi-official ideologies of each nation state.
The superior claim to national territory is the attribution of a superior quality to members of the national group. The denial of this claim to certain other ethnic groups is the attribution of an inferior status to their members. The lack of an open-door immigration policy means, that these claims are translated into real exclusion. Finally, the acquisition of citizenship by descent is a purely biological mechanism: it is racist in the general sense, but it is also closest to the biological ideologies first described by the term 'racism'.
French and German attitudes are said to represent the extremes of citizenship policy, but in fact both states share a biological concept of citizenship. Both illustrate this core policy, despite their differences in emphasis. Germany has a generally restrictive immigration policy, which it relaxed in the 1960's and 1970's to allow labour migration for (West) German industry. The children of the many Turkish immigrants grew up in Germany as foreign citizens, with a Turkish passport and a German residence permit. Even the third generation, often born in Germany of German-born parents, usually speaking only German, were still Turkish citizens. If they committed a crime they were liable to be deported to Turkey, even if they did not speak a word of Turkish and had never been there before. Only in the last few years has naturalisation become almost automatic for the third generation. In contrast, descendants of Germans who settled in eastern Europe, sometimes two or three centuries ago, can arrive in Germany and claim full citizenship. It is not necessary that their parents are German citizens, and they are not required to speak a word of German. The German state will pay for their full integration in German society, because they are considered part of the German 'Volk'.
French policies are based on different assumptions, about the effectiveness of French society in transferring its own core values. Living in France for a long period, or growing up in France, is considered to effectively assimilate the migrant or the child. (There is an underlying belief in the self-evident superiority of French values). Naturalisation is therefore easier, and in principle birth in France confers citizenship - but the parents must get there first, for the child to be born there.
However in both cases a basic rule applies, which undermines the French pretensions to have a 'non-racist' citizenship and nationality policy. The child born of citizens is a citizen. All existing nation states apply this principle, usually without regard to place of birth. The child born to a French-citizen mother and a French-citizen father, in Zambia, is a French citizen. The child born to a German-citizen mother and a German-citizen father, in Zambia, is a German citizen. No special procedure is required of either the parents or the baby, and no supplementary qualifications.
The child of Zambian parents, who have no German or French ancestors and no connection with Germany or France, can make no claim on the citizenship of these countries. Both doors are equally closed. That essential inequality is by definition racist. As an adult, the Zambian child can later try to enter either country, and acquire citizenship. That means going through a special procedure, and meeting certain norms, for instance on educational level. Ultimately, acquiring citizenship might be easier in France, but there is no guarantee there either.
This is the reality of nation states: most people got their citizenship from their parents, and they did nothing for it. They certainly did not have to cross the Strait of Gibraltar in a small boat, and spend 10 years picking tomatoes or cleaning toilets - which is what a Zambian might do to acquire legal residence in an EU country. In other words the average citizen, certainly in the richer countries, is complicit in a grand racist scheme. They benefit greatly from their privilege at birth, while others lose horribly. That is presumably why they don't like to talk about the issue, but in terms of human suffering this is the worst aspect of the inherent racism of the nation states. If adults in a western city were arrested, and condemned on the basis of their ethnicity to the typical conditions of life in rural Africa, it would be considered a crime against humanity.
Origins and definition of Zionism
The racist characteristics of nationalism can be found in the Zionist ideology and in the State of Israel, a nation state. The word Zionism is used today for the foundational ideology of the Israeli nation state - the claims by which it justifies its existence. However Zionism as a nationalist movement is older than that state: past and present Zionism do not always coincide.
Zionism is a diaspora nationalism of the Jewish people. In a diaspora nationalism, most members of the national group are not resident on the claimed national territory, and the nation state can only be achieved by 'return' migration. Zionism is an unusual nationalism: it is largely the creation of a single individual, Theodor Herzl. He was the first to make a public claim to a Jewish State, and promoted that idea in Europe. His work reflected the general climate of nationalist revival movements in eastern Europe at the time, especially in the Austro-Hungarian empire. It was almost inevitable, that a Jewish movement would identify Jews as 'a people' when all around them Germans, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, and Hungarians were doing the same. The other historically possible options - a purely religious revival movement, and an emancipation movement - were side-tracked.
Zionism is also unusual because, in the early years, there was no clear idea of the national homeland. There was a clear territorial concentration of Jews in Europe, in what is now Poland, Belarus, the Ukraine and southern Russia. However, except for local concentrations, they were in a minority even in this territory. The idea of a Jewish nation state in eastern Europe was never influential in Zionism. Some of the early plans for Jewish resettlement were not even formally nationalist: they made no claim to a state. Resettlement in a British colony, such as Uganda, was for a time the most serious option. The negotiations came to nothing - but the idea influenced British policy, when Palestine became a British mandate territory, after the First World War.
By the time of the Balfour Declaration, Zionism was a standard nationalist movement. Zionists claimed to speak on behalf of a people, the Jewish people. They claimed a nation state for that people in Palestine, on the grounds that it was the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The 'Jewish people' for almost all Zionists was (and is) an ethno-national group - and not a religious community. A minority of religious Jews still opposes Zionism for religious reasons.
Zionism in the State of Israel
When the State of Israel came into existence, it included a mainly Arab minority, now about one million people. Historically Zionism has never recognised any 'national minority' within the nation, the status of (for instance) the Frisians within the modern Dutch nation. For Zionists, the Jewish people is the Jewish nation: Zionism is a mono-ethnic nationalism comparable to Irish nationalism. The present State of Israel generally has the constitutional structure of a secular nation state. It has conceded citizenship to the 'Israeli Arabs', although many will identify themselves as 'Palestinians'. However there is no tradition in Zionism which sees this group ('Arabs' or 'Palestinians') as a constituent minority of the Jewish people. Although many Zionists claim the territory where Yasir Arafat lives, no Zionist sees him as a Jew.
There is also no nationalist movement to establish a bi-national state on the former mandate territory of Palestine. Zionism is not such a movement, and the State of Israel does not claim to be a bi-national state. In this respect, Zionism is comparable to Czech nationalism or Slovak nationalism - not to Czechoslovak nationalism.. No Zionists call themselves Palestino-Jews or Judaeo-Palestinians. The State is called Israel, not Filastino-Israel or Israelo-Filastina
Within this framework, which includes contradictory ideas about Israeli citizenship, the four racist characteristics can be identified.
Firstly, the Zionist movement historically made a claim to territory on behalf of 'the Jewish people', an exclusive geopolitical claim. It claimed that individual Jews had a right to residence in that territory, which did not apply to randomly selected non-Jews outside that territory. None of the early Zionists advocated the ethnic cleansing, which in fact preceded the establishment of the Sate of Israel in 1948 - but none of them believed that non-Jews had a right to the Jewish homeland either. Zionists attribute a superior quality to Jews, namely the exclusive right to the Jewish national territory. The State of Israel, by definition, claims Israeli territory for Israeli's. It attributes a superior quality to Israeli's, although paradoxically that includes the Arab minority with Israeli citizenship. However, the State of Israel is not 'Israelist' - in the sense of consistently presenting these claims for both its Jewish and Arab citizens. In official pronouncements, such as its defensive speech to the Durban anti-racism conference, Israel continues to claim state legitimacy as the national homeland for the 'Jewish people'. It is therefore not correct to say, that in Israel Jewish diaspora nationalism has been succeeded by Israeli nationalism. The legitimising ideology of Israel is still largely Zionism, and not 'Israelism'.
Secondly, Zionism attributes an inferior status to members of non-Jewish ethno-national groups: that they lack the absolute right to residence in the Jewish homeland, and to citizenship of a Jewish nation state. The State of Israel confers no right of residence or citizenship on persons born outside Israel, unless they have specific links to Israel, to the Jewish people, or to Judaism. That excludes about 99% of the world population. The only exception to the general pattern of nationalist exclusion is, that the State of Israel extends citizenship to the historically resident Arab minority. However, some groups in Israel dispute even their right to residence, and propose their expulsion as part of a 'peace settlement' - together with the expulsion of Palestinians from all or part of the occupied territories. According to a 2003 opinion poll in Israel (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies), 31% now support the expulsion of the Arab minority, and 46% support clearance of the territories.
The most obvious exclusion, which was not foreseen by the early Zionists, is the status of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Theodor Herzl never imagined that a Jewish state would be an occupying power, and therefore the de facto government, for a large non-Jewish population. In addition, about three million people belong to the clearly identifiable 'Palestinian-refugee' minorities, in other Arab countries, although most were born in their present country of residence. The State of Israel clearly attributes an inferior status to this population: namely that they do not possess the right to Israeli citizenship. This population is generally equivalent to the 'Palestinian people' in the occupied territories, although it includes small non-Jewish, non-Arab minorities. The members of this population, (primarily Palestinian), can not vote, for instance, and if they did all vote in Israeli elections, it would mean the end of the State of Israel. Again it is true that all nation states operate this exclusion, and none of them extend citizenship to everyone, certainly not to hostile populations. That does not make such policies any less racist, since the exclusions are by definition on ethnic or national grounds.
That would not matter so much, if Israeli borders were open to all immigrants: but they are not, and this is the third racist characteristic of Zionism. Israel has one of the highest immigration rates in history, but immigration policy has always been restrictive. Although Israel grants citizenship to the resident Arab minority, it does not permit Arab immigration, even by former residents of its territory. Only those who stayed in their villages in 1948 got Israeli citizenship: those who crossed the front line to the Arab side can not get back - not as a citizen, and probably not as a visitor. Other Arabs, who have no connection with Palestine, can not simply migrate to Israel, nor can most of the world's population. Israeli immigration is essentially for Jews only, and this is the most obviously racist policy of present Zionism. In this case, the State of Israel has a formal and explicit policy of Jewish immigration, which is clearly Zionist. It is the logical consequence of the original Zionist demand for a Jewish state formed by migration, meaning migration of Jews.
In one respect Israeli policy differs from most national immigration policies: citizenship can be indirectly acquired on religious grounds. A person who converts to Judaism can be a Jew in the sense of the Israeli Law of Return, if the conversion is accepted as valid by religious authorities in Israel. The convert can then go to Israel (entry can not be legally refused), and can claim Israeli nationality and citizenship. Sometimes this is quoted by Israel's supporters, to show Israel is not racist. In theory, all the inhabitants of the Palestinian territories can sincerely convert to Judaism tomorrow, and on acceptance of their conversion move to Israel. - where they will all presumably live as good and prosperous Israeli citizens. In practice this is absurdly unlikely. And the question is: why should they have to convert to Judaism, when native-born atheist or Buddhist Israelis can still be part of the Jewish people?
This is the fourth racist characteristic, equally present in the state policies of Israel and present Zionist belief. It was not very relevant for the early Zionists, who were too far from a Jewish state to think about its future citizenship policy. Nevertheless, it was predictable even at the time Herzl wrote, on the basis of the general characteristics of European nation states (and of the Austro-Hungarian empire where he lived). The child of an Israeli citizen mother and and Israeli citizen father is an Israeli citizen. (I am not sure if this applies to the children of Israeli Arabs, born in the occupied territories). The child acquires this privilege without effort: no application under the Law of Return, no conversion to Judaism, no other qualification for citizenship. The child simply acquires the rights (and duties) of an Israeli citizen through unconscious biological process. The child without this biological advantage (birth, or parentage, or genetic material) does not automatically acquire citizenship. Life in Israel is not always pleasant, and many western Jews hesitate to emigrate there, but within the region an Israeli-born child has the advantage. The child born to Israeli settlers in central Hebron will statistically live longer, be better educated, and have a higher standard of living, then the Palestinian child born in an adjoining house. This advantage is part of the general advantage of being born in a rich country, which about one-fifth of the world's population share.
In citizenship and immigration issues, biology determines fate. Not inevitably, but because nation states are structured that way. There is no inherent moral reason why states should limit immigration, or residence, or citizenship, simply on grounds of birth. In fact, it is hard to think of any moral justification for it. It is clearly racist in the general sense of the word, and its derivation from the ideology of nationalism indicates the racist origins of that ideology. The nationalism underlying the nation state Israel, which is accurately called Zionism, is no different in this respect. Here too, Zionism is racist.
Responses:
14
|
|
reply by
g.j.crabb
(24 posts)
Pacific Palms,
Australia
4/2/2004 (18:00) |
|
Response to message 6 written by j krueger
I have written some comments about the Zionist/Jew/Palestinian drama and I would object to being called a Jew hater. This is the sort of rhetoric which is being used consistently by Jews to cloud any criticism of their actions. The Anti-Defamation League was set up for that precise purpose...to condemn those as racists who criticize Jewish activities. Can not you people see what your activities are doing. Intelligent and informed people have had enough. None of my family or friends hate Jews; dislike, distrust yes, but not hate.
From an article by J.Vialls..........
Within Jewish Zionism a book called the Talmud reigns supreme, and makes very clear that all non-Jews are vermin to be exterminated, including women and children. The best example of this insane law that I can think of is current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. During 1956, Sharon was interviewed by General Ouze Merham, and the quote below is verbatim, not edited by me in any way. The sacred Talmud itself confirms that where Ariel Sharon refers to women as 'Palestinians' or 'Arabs', religious law interprets this to mean all non-Jewish females.
'I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him.
'With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do.' [Media Monitors]
After committing gross war crimes at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon during 1982, Ariel Sharon was eventually sidelined at the public level, but still exercised enormous power. . At the time Yvonne Fletcher was murdered in 1984, Sharon was Israeli Minister without Portfolio, with direct covert control of Sayaret Matkal, the most secretive Special Forces unit in Palestine, responsible for covert diplomatic protection and international assassinations ordered by the Mossad. Sayaret Matkal is the direct descendent of 101 Special Commando, responsible for revenge killings in the late fifties under the command of Ariel Sharon.
A few words of spiritual advice from the Talmud............,
Just the Jews are humans, the non-jews are not humans, but cattle.
The non-jews are created to serve the Jews as slaves.
The non-jews have to be avoided even more than sick pigs.
As you replace lost cows and donkeys, so you shall replace non-jews.
The birth rate of non-jews has to be suppressed massively.
Do you people really think that others are so mindless not to concern themselves with this racial propaganda and have no right to express their concern.
The activities of Mossad alone is enough to make the strongest chill.
Responses:
15
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(55 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/2/2004 (20:16) |
|
I certainly knew this would get the goat of ANTI-SEMITES, I'm glad MER didn't delete this.
Melissa while religion is a part of Israeli poicy it is not hiddeen. Even you must admit that. As for 'colonial'.
It does not meet the definition of colonialism in either 17th century nor 19 century phases. Israel doesn't exploited Arab Palestine in an industrial or agricultural manner. Labor is on a on/off process due to terrorism. Some settlements may be considered colonial but many are not and haven't displaced many inhanitants. Inhabittants have certainly been displaced by terrorism.
Judaism is not only a religion but a nationality. That not deceptive. Zionism is that nationalism.
For Israel to be a theocracy it need to be run by Rabbis which is obviously not true. And when did anyone on this board copndem Iran for its theocracy(?).
Yes it must be Jewish, at least until Arab persecution stops. It is democratic behind the green line.
Few if any Arab Palestinians have been forced to vacate.. Certainly not behind the Green line.
True there is a class system in Israerl that discriminates but there has been a gradual lessenening of dioviding lines as in any polyglot society. Name a nation that doesn't have a class system!!
Israel has acknowleged the Bedouin Arabs and there have been victories for them through the democratic oprocess, much more than Bedouin Arabs in any Arab state.
There is discrimination but then many Israelis asociate Arabs with terrorists.
yes many Christian 'Zionists' hignore the Arab Christians but Christianity has never automatically emraced their brtheran especially in opposition to doctrine.
King might not support policy in the West Bank but he'd support the existence of the Jewish state.
UN resolutions hardly change the facts on the any ground.
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(56 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/2/2004 (20:17) |
|
Response to message 2 written by g.j.crabb
You certainly haven't. You don't have any of your facts straight
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(57 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/2/2004 (20:18) |
|
Response to message 3 written by i.hanan
A B S O L U T E L Y I N C O R R E C T !
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(58 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/2/2004 (20:19) |
|
Response to message 4 written by i.hanan
You are obviously reading a counterfeit Talmud.
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(59 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/2/2004 (20:20) |
|
Response to message 6 written by j krueger
A B S O L U T E L Y - C O R R E C T..
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(60 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/2/2004 (20:55) |
|
Response to message 7 written by splender inthe ass
Nice ID!
Nationalism does often contain or attract racist philosophy. Not all of the time. Irish, South African, come to mind. It endgenders the Bush-like us versus then headset.
I agree with many of the tenents but this alway could promote the New World Order. While I confirm these beliefs I do not endorse them.
'Zionism is an unusual nationalism'. 'Zionism is also unusual because, in the early years, there was no clear idea of the national homeland.' I agree here.
'Zionism is also unusual because, in the early years, there was no clear idea of the national homeland.'
The Jewish people coming from many countries and nations and races is beyon a ethno-national group.
Israel doesn't official recognize the Israeli Arabs but the Frisians haven't attacked other Dutch on millenia! War has shelved much.
' It has conceded citizenship to the 'Israeli Arabs'',there is no tradition in Zionism which sees this group ('Arabs' or 'Palestinians') as a constituent minority of the Jewish people.'
Because Arabs simply aren't Jews.
Nationalism cannot be bi-national.Its inherently impossible.
Jews have preferential treatement to settle in Israel but many Non-Jews have immigrated.
'None of the early Zionists advocated the ethnic cleansing, which in fact preceded the establishment of the Sate of Israel in 1948' Zionists believed any one accepting and therefore not attacking Jews has a right to rside in Palestine. While some religious Zionists have this superior attityude a majority of Israelis DO NOT!
Zionists have no official policy denigrating non-Jews, it contradicts state philosophy Jewish principles as well.Terror bombings have radicalized Israeli opinion toward expulsion. That is only a recent trend.
The State of Israel has never incorporated the West Bank there it is not part of Israel. Israel seeks nationhood for this area despite the contradictory existence of settlers.
While Israel resticts some immigration it has many Christians from all over the world. Many states have similar policies. See Arab States for intensive restictions.
When the arab 73 year old war stops I guess Arab immigration will be eased.
I'm sure that if the Oslo accords were succeeded by settlement; then the health and economic stituation would improve drastically. You realize there is no rule applied equally to all nations despite nationalism.
Morol have to be applied to both sides for fair comparison. There are exclusion in the Israeli state mostly the cost of war. A very long war.
The charge of racism doersn't apply since the Israelis themselves come from every corner of the world. Zionism includes classism not racism .
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(61 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/2/2004 (21:08) |
|
Response to message 8 written by g.j.crabb
'I would object to being called a Jew hater. This is the sort of rhetoric which is being used consistently by Jews to cloud any criticism of their actions.'
Congratulations you have just qualified yourself as such by labeling actions of a group in a stereotypical manner. EG bigot!!
What have intelligent people had enough of? too much 'Jewishness'?
J.Vialls is a noted Austrailian right wing racist or racialist.
The Talmud or a commentary on the Bible
does not condemn or call for extermination of non-Jews. The Talmud does not refer to Nall non-Jewish women as Arabs. Ariel Sharon is not a religious man and often eats seafood forbidden by Jewish law!
Early in his carreer Sharon led many reprisals against Arab raiders/terrorists in response to massacres and killings. This led to an early hatred of all things Arab. A personal not national belief. Today I believe he has mellowed. Today many Islmist and White Supremacists sites have radiclized his identity with forgeries. So much on Sharon is disinformation as well as information. Sabra and Shatilla refugee camp massacres in Lebanon during 1982 were committed by Christian Lebanese in revenge for massacres by Palestinian Arab (PLO) fighters.
The activities of Vialls alone is enough to make the strongest chill.
Responses:
18
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(78 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/2/2004 (23:14) |
|
Dateline Durban: U.N. World Conference Against Racism
The Draft Declaration: Unfair Charges of Racism Against Israel
Nations preparing for the U.N. World Conference Against Racism are negotiating the language of a Declaration that will serve as a guide to future generations in addressing racism around the world. The Draft Declaration and Program of Action – still subject to revision – railed against what is termed 'racist Zionist practices' and 'Zionist practices against Semites.' The Declaration equates the Holocaust with 'ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Excerpts Dealing Specifically with
Zionism, Israel and the Holocaust
(as of July 5, 2001)
Note: Red text in brackets [] indicates language under negotiation.
PP30 [Reaffirming that colonization by settlers and foreign occupation constitute sources, causes and forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;] (Ongoing, Prep. Com.2)
29. All States must acknowledge the suffering caused by lack of respect for the equality of human beings manifested through wars, genocide, holocaust, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities. All States must reject/prevent and punish ethnic and religious cleansing and genocide in all regions of the world and work together to prevent their recurrence. [The (holocausts/Holocaust) and the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine…must never be forgotten;]
30. [We affirm that a foreign occupation founded on settlements, its laws based on racial discrimination, with the aim of continuing domination on the occupied territory, as well as its practices which consist of reinforcing a total military blockade, isolating towns, cities and villages under occupation from each other, totally contradict the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a serious violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, a new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity and a serious threat to international peace and security;]
33. We salute and acknowledge the memory of all victims of racism, and racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, slavery and slave trade, colonialism, [holocausts/Holocaust], [ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine] and in Kosovo and apartheid and foreign occupation all over the world and at all times;
60. [We express our deep concern about the practices of racial discrimination against the Palestinians as well as other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories which have an impact on all aspects of their daily existence such that they prevent the enjoyment of fundamental rights, and call for the cessation of all the practices of racial discrimination to which the Palestinians and the other inhabitants of the Arab territories occupied by Israel are subjected];
62. [We are convinced that combating anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and [Zionist practices against Semitism] is integral and intrinsic to opposing all forms of racism, stresses the necessity of effective measures to address the issue of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and [Zionist practices against Semitism] today in order to counter all manifestations of these phenomena;]
63. [We recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism and hostile acts against Jews in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas concerning the Jewish community.] [The World Conference recognizes with deep concern the increase of racist practices of Zionism, anti-Semitism in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular, the Zionist movement which is based on racial superiority;]
112. We are conscious that humanity’s history is replete with terrible wrongs inflicted through lack of respect for the equality of human beings/through lack of recognition of human dignity and rights manifested through [wars], [military occupation by settlement] [and settlement policies], genocide, slavery, in particular, the transatlantic slave trade, holocausts, [colonialism], apartheid, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities, and we salute the memory of their victims [and we understand/acknowledge the quest] of/recognize the right of the victims and their heirs for justice, dignity, respect and correction of, and compensation for, the historical wrongs and their continuing consequences of historical wrongs] [We call for open national and international dialogue as required to address these concerns;]
102 [We recognize that States which pursued policies or practices based on racial or national superiority, such as colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, slavery, the slave trade and ethnic cleansing, should assume the responsibility therefore and compensate the victims of such policies or practices;]
Reports from Durban Conference
Durban Update: Final Declaration Recognizes Palestinian Right of Return; Omits Language Critical of Israel (09/8/01)
Durban Update: Parties Deadlocked on Mideast (09/07/01)
Conference Continues Without U.S. and Israel (09/05/01)
Anti-Jewish, Anti-Israel Language Prompts U.S., Israel to Leave U.N. Conference (09/04/01)
Opening Day of the UN World Conference On Racism (08/31/01)
Anti-Israel Hecklers Interrupt Press Conference (08/30/01)
Anti-Israel Rhetoric Prevalent at the U.N. World Conference Against Racism (08/29/01)
Background on
Durban Conference
About the UN World Conference Against Racism
ADL Call to Conscience for All Nations
Background on Anti-Zionism at the United Nations
What is Zionism?
World Figures Refute the Zionism=Racism Charge
The Draft Declaration: Unfair Charges of Racism Against Israel
ADL Statements on Durban
ADL Letters to Media about the U.N. World Conference
Durban Derailed into a Conference of Hate
Abraham H. Foxman on the Durban Conference
Press Releases:
ADL Commends U.S. Rejection of Anti-Jewish, Anti-Israel Bias of U.N. Conference Against Racism (8/27/01)
ADL Urges Congress To Reject Incendiary Language Against Jews, Israel At Upcoming U.N. Conference Against Racism (7/31/01)
ADL Urges Foreign Ministers to Reject Anti-Jewish Rhetoric at U.N. Conference on Racism (7/17/01)
ADL Urges U.N. Members to Reject Anti-Israel Focus at Forum Against Racism (5/18/01)
Letters:
ADL to President George W.Bush
ADL to Foreign Ministers of U.N. Members
Resources
Related ADL Articles:
Israel and the UN
Related Web Sites:
UN World Conference Against Racism
The United Nations
E-Mail This Article
Home | Search | About ADL | Contact ADL | Privacy Policy
© 2001 Anti-Defamation League
|
|
reply by
melissa carr
(461 posts)
Killeen,TX,
USA
4/3/2004 (02:10) |
|
Response to message 6 written by j krueger
I find it very interesting that you suggest that Zionism is a response to discrimination, but by doing so you seem to imply that Jews have always been this angelic crowd of innocent folks who just happen to be punching bags for those oh-so-vicious gentiles despite always wanting to fit in. In Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's book Original Sins, he writes:
--In September 1789 it was Count Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre who stated the essence of the coming emancipation: 'that Jews should be denied everything as a nation but granted everything as individuals.' Emancipation, indeed, was to mean the end of the Jewish community, a process which spread with Napoleon's armies all over Europe. But many Jewish leaders saw only the dangers of equality. Actually, when French Jews were offered equality after the Revolution, there was little enthusiasm among them: they were mostly concerned about living as an autonomous community. The Jews of Holland simply refused to accept emancipation, wishing to preserve the Jewish tradition of separateness. (19)
These are but two instances in which there were no poor oppressed groups, but rather groups that chose isolationism over equality and assimmilation.
The entire notion of Zionism stemmed from the plight of Eastern European Jews. Jews in the United States were not interested in even hearing what early European Zionists had to say about a homeland. German Jews were also rather content with their standing and had no interest. Jews in Arab lands had ancient, tight-knit, established communities with no need for a homeland. So, Zionism and later Israel created a bigger problem than the existing one of the European Jews. Interestingly, Zionist leaders were offered unoccupied land in Argentina and Uganda, but they held out and applied pressure for the already-occupied land of Palestine. It's quite possible that had their religious aspirations not blended with their politics, much that occurred thereafter could have been prevented.
Keeping that in mind, I'll go back to your concept of cause and effect. Much of what has occurred there and continues to occur there, as well as anti-Jewish opinion in other parts of the world, stems from Zionist activity in the past 100 years and Israel's adamancy in equating itself with all Jews in the world. In doing so, it actually endangers Jews in the world who are being falsely associated with Israel. And so it creates a Catch-22--endangering people who wouldn't have otherwise been endangered, then insisting that's why it must continue to exist. Maybe if it weren't carrying out such grandiose human rights abuses and widescale discrimination, there wouldn't be such a stigma surrounding that concept.
With each passing day of hearing about missiles being lobbed into crowded cities to get one person or land being expropriated for Jewish settlers to live in illegal camps, it becomes harder to digest the idea that such an aggressor is actually a victim. If you feel that makes me a racist or that makes me (attach label here), then so be it.
And I reiterate there is NO doubt in my mind that if MLK were alive today, he would not be supporting Israeli provocation, violence, and human rights abuses today. Would he support suicide bombings? Absolutely not, and there's no moral relativity that makes one any better than the other.
There's much more I could comment on in all that you've said, but I feel that's sufficient for the time being.
Responses:
20
26
27
|
|
reply by
g.j.crabb
(25 posts)
Pacific Palms,
Australia
4/3/2004 (03:15) |
|
Response to message 15 written by larthia kurvenas
Early in his carreer Sharon led many reprisals against Arab raiders/terrorists in response to massacres and killings. This led to an early hatred of all things Arab. A personal not national belief. Today I believe he has mellowed.
If he's mellowed today Vialls must have underestimated him in 1956.
Responses:
19
22
|
|
reply by
i.hanan
(1247 posts)
Ancona,
Italy
4/3/2004 (09:57) |
|
Response to message 18 written by g.j.crabb
- That's Correct..!
Responses:
23
|
|
reply by
g.j.crabb
(30 posts)
Pacific Palms,
Australia
4/3/2004 (18:01) |
|
Response to message 17 written by melissa carr
Melisssa.
Your comments are well written ,resourced and economical. You also have the patience to stay on the subject which is what we all should endeavour to do. History being what it is, and the vast amount of disinformation covering it, makes for confusion.
I often think about the burning of the books over the centuries and how well it has created the present ignorence and confusion. It is a long haul out of it.
Responses:
29
|
|
reply by
tkmadison
(107 posts)
Wendigo City, ON,
Canada
4/3/2004 (18:19) |
|
Response to topic written by larthia kurvenas
Christ! It'd be nice to see people get this worked up about the Roma. Sure, the Jews have definately had it rough, but everyone here cannot deny that they've come a long way.
Meanwhile, the Roma still struggle on against horrible ethnic cleansing, racial intolerance, and the fact that the UN is still the only body in the world that recognizes them as a distinct people without a homeland who were also slaugheterd by the millions by Nazi Germany.
Responses:
24
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(87 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/3/2004 (21:49) |
|
Response to message 18 written by g.j.crabb
Did Joe Vialls estimate anything in 1956???
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(88 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/3/2004 (21:50) |
|
Response to message 19 written by i.hanan
I N C O R R E C T
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(89 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/3/2004 (21:51) |
|
Response to message 21 written by tkmadison
How did the Roma get in here?
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(90 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/3/2004 (21:52) |
|
NOTE MY RESPONSES WERE UNANSWERED.
They cannot.
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(91 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/3/2004 (22:05) |
|
Response to message 17 written by melissa carr
So Melissa, you obviously feel Jews are NOT angelic. Kruger did not say they were.Not angeleic...SATAN!
Yes Melissa is an anti-semite.
French Emancipation like much of the enlightenment was granted on a individual basis. Yes the Jewish people were suspect and reticent and relucant. They has JUST been through a 1500 year persecution.
Theuy also realized that freedom might tempt Jews away from the religion. A valid thought.
They WERE oppressed. Surely you cannot deny the anti-semitic riots throughout the 1800's..the Dreyfus case in 1900!!
American Jews were not threatened so they were much less interested.
German Jews were culturally assimilated but they did help escape annihilation by Hitler. Jews in Arab lands were forced to flee their home to Israel between 1948 and 1967 as a result of riots and massacres.
Israel may endanger diaspora Jews but diaspora Jews were always endangered except in the USA.
The Zionists were offered haven in Argentina and Uganda not land. Good thing they refused, anti-Jewish regimes popped up there in 1970's!!
The world focuses on the war between terror and Israel but bigots only see the fallout and misinterpret it.
|
|
reply by
j krueger
(31 posts)
Columbia, Mo,
USA
4/3/2004 (23:07) |
|
Response to message 17 written by melissa carr
Greetings Melissa,
Thank you for your response. First of all, regarding my assertion that Zionism is the result of discrimination hence implying that (in your words) 'Jews have always been this angelic crowd of innocent folks who just happen to be punching bags for those oh-so-vicious gentiles despite always wanting to fit in.' If you will re-read my post you will notice I never mentioned 'fitting in.' For most of history 'fitting in' has not been an option for Jews. The 'fitting in' offered by the dominant cultures in which Jews have lived has been limited to forced conversions from Judaism to the parent religion of the area, usually Christianity or Islam. These forced conversions are well documented. You suggest the *option* of emancipation was offered (from what???Judaism). Are you suggesting Jews be emancipated from Judaism? The most troubling thing you suggest is that DEEP ROOTED BIGOTRIES among the peoples with whom the Jews lived could be simply shrugged away. The cultural isolation of pre 1789 could *not* simply be walked away from by the force of will. I'm sure you are not naive enough to believe this was possible. Jews did not live in a 'tradition of separateness' but in a culturally imposed *condition* of separateness. Answer me this--How long has the discrimination continued against African Americans in spite emancipation after the Civil War. You use as an authoritative source for these preposterous notions of emancipation and assimilation the writings of the Israeli psychologist (Not historian) Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi. I enclose a review of his oddly named book 'Original Sins'. I say oddly named because 'original sin' is a Christian theological construct, not a Jewish one. Judaism refutes the notion of 'original sin.'
Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel
by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi
---------------------------------------
Editorial Reviews
From Kirkus Reviews
A critical and largely one-sided view of modern Zionism and the history of Israel. According to Beit-Hallahmi (The Israeli Connection, 1987), who sees the Palestinians as innocent victims of foreign colonialism, Israel is plagued by a curse--``the curse of the original sin against the native Palestinians''--and there will be no peace until it atones for its sins. The author first establishes that, in modern times, the majority of Jews have had only a vague understanding of rabbinical Judaism (which he depicts as a kind of primitive mythology). Zionism, he says, offers these ``sociological'' Jews an identity--but the Zionist movement is doomed because ``it desired national territory occupied by another national group...with its own normal existence.'' Moreover, because the Jewish people have no legitimate claim to the land of Israel, while they occupy it they can never enjoy their own ``normal'' existence. Though provocative, Beit-Hallahmi's argument is marred by inaccuracies and generalizations. He claims, for instance, that ``all Israelis have come to recognize Zionism's original sin against the Palestinians.'' A look at Israel's electorate, however, makes it clear that most Israelis assume no such culpability. Furthermore, in discussing Hebrew and Yiddish, the author contends that ``Yiddish remains the language of the Orthodox, who have always opposed Zionism.'' In fact, though, most Israeli Orthodox Jews under age 60 speak only Hebrew, and only a small minority aren't fervent nationalists. Engaging but misleading. Here again, as in too much writing on the Middle East, sincerity has replaced balanced analysis. -- Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
On to your next point. In your 4th paragraph you offer some disjoint ideas and hopscotch historically in a way I find dificult to follow so I may not have fully understood your juxtaposition of 'contented' German Jews and enmeshed Jews living in Dhimitude in Arab lands with the plight of Eastern European Jews. There are also some realities of history which you omit. Allow me to fill in your omission.
(A) The 'contented' German Jews were murdered in the Shoah.
(B) The 'Jews in Arab lands that had ancient, tight-knit, established communities and no need for a homeland' actually were living in a state of *dhimitude (second class citizenship)* that fluctuated in severity with the personality of the local rulers. In the end-these Jews were stripped of their property and driven from their homes. Some were murdered and most were forced from their 'ancient, tight-knit, established communities.' Over 40 percent of the Israeli population is made up of these displaced MiddleEastern Jews.
(C) Eastern European Jews--Murdered in the Shoah.
***I'm sorry you found these realities of history too trivial to mention****
The rest of your analysis seems to boil down to the notion that anti-Jewish feelings world wide are the fault of Jews (read ZIONISTS) Defending themselves from the attacks by it's nehilist Palestinian Arab neighbors and if Jewish (read ZIONIST) solidarity would dissapear the Non-Zionist Jew would then be safe. I quote Abraham Lincoln. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' But then, that really IS what you have in mind, {isn't it?}
In one of your last points you state 'And I reiterate there is NO doubt in my mind that if MLK were alive today, he would not be supporting Israeli provocation, violence, and human rights abuses today.' The way in which you construct your sentence informs the reader. 'Israeli provocation, violence, and human rights abuses.' All point irrefutably to the evil Zionist occupier. 'Would he (MLK) support suicide bombings?' You fail to mention who the SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE. YOU FAIL to mention what the SUICIDE BOMBERS DO! They are terrorists that wantonly murder woman and children. And you talk about human rights abuses, provocation and violence. It leaves YOU, ME and MLK sitting like three monkeys, who, in order to be politically correct must be prepared to SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL AND SPEAK NO EVIL.
I'm not willing to shut up. Are you? There is much more that I could comment on. Your move.
Ps. For a more (hopeful) book on Israel/Palestine try 'The Dignity of Difference' by Rabbi Jonathan Sachs
L'shalom--jk
Responses:
28
|
|
reply by
melissa carr
(464 posts)
Killeen,TX,
USA
4/6/2004 (02:52) |
|
Response to message 27 written by j krueger
First and foremost I'd like to address your criticism of Beit Hallahmi's book. The editorial review you offered did not debunk the notion of emancipations that Beit Hallahmi brought up and I quoted. The reviewer merely refers to the book as a 'one-sided view of Zionism and the history of Israel.' Had the reviewer bothered to read page 2 of the book, he/she would have found the following:
'This book does not aim to present a comprehensive history of Zionism...The book offers some narratives, but mostly interpretations and reflections. It is first and foremost about ideas, their origins, and their consequences.'
Now, if you've actually read the book and there are specific chapters or pages or issues in it you'd like to discuss, I welcome your commentary. I could offer you as many positive reviews of the book as you can offer critical ones, and I see no point in starting a battle of reviews--especially if you yourself have not read the book. But I reiterate, the editorial review you offered in NO way refuted the quote I used.
That being said, I return to the emancipations. This was not some figment of Beit-Hallahmi's imagination, but a historical fact that is even documented in several Holocaust museum websites I found online. Rather than question why anyone would refuse such offers of equality, you suspect and/or discredit the very olive branches offered. You said, 'Jews did not live in a tradition of separateness, but in a culturally imposed condition of separateness.' Not only do the refusals to accept emancipation go against that very claim, but so do passages in the Talmud. It is at the very core of Judaism, not something that anyone else 'imposed' upon Jews.
I have a few remarks about your very use of the words 'culturally imposed' and your statement, 'The fitting in offered by the dominant cultures in which Jews have lived has been limited to forced conversions....' For starters, the latter is a generic statement that could be counted false for as many times as it could be counted true. To simply trace the history of a religion, isolate the times in history that group faced persecution, and completely overlook the times people of that religion have prospered and flourished does not an accurate history make. Likewise, Judaism does not a culture make. It is a religion as any other. While there may be ritual behaviors, routines, or customs associated with the religion, that does not qualify it as a distinct culture.
My reason for offering you a collage of how Jews in the world reacted to the fledgling concept of Zionism was to demonstrate it was not a collective or popular idea. Jews in Arab lands with thousands of years invested in their communities had no interest in packing en masse to move to Israel. Whether you wish to cite 'dhimmitude' or any other factor you believe was unfair, the fact is that many Jews prospered and lived side by side with their neighbors throughout history in those Arab lands prior to the birth of Zionism and then Israel. I will reiterate that if the leaders of the Zionism movement had been truly interested in the plight of the Eastern European Jews, they would have accepted either offer of Uganda or Argentina in order to end the plight of those Eastern European Jews. Those offers were both made in the turn of the century, far before the Nazis came to power. But, for whatever reason, the Zionist leaders chose to hold out for Palestine, demonstrating their agenda was more than simply alleviating the plight of European Jews. Rather, they held out for Palestine and, as I stated earlier, created a much bigger problem than the one they purportedly wanted to solve.
And finally, I have addressed a few specific statements that you made:
'The rest of your analysis seems to boil down to the notion that anti-Jewish feelings worldwide are the fault of Jews (read Zionists)'
--No, I said ISRAEL endangers Jews worldwide when it claims to speak for all Jews of the world. When a nation is making such a claim while simultaneously oppressing a group of people, it is only a matter of time before people start believing the claims of that nation and associate Jews worldwide with that oppression.
--There are far more non-Jewish Zionists in this world than there are Jewish ones. Unless you consider them inferior or unworthy of mention, it is time you own up to their existence and stop pretending that only Jews are Zionists and vice versa.
'All point irrefutably to the evil Zionist occupier.'
--Yes, they do! There's no need to whitewash or pretend the daily reality of Israeli provocation, violence, and human rights abuses don't really happen!
'You fail to mention who suicide bombers are. You fail to mention what suicide bombers do'
--The term suicide bomber seems self-explanatory enough, and I was not aware that I was discussing the issue with an amateur who is unaware of who is conducting suicide bombings in the West Bank and Gaza. My very purpose for bringing up suicide bombers at all was to stave off the typical argument of moral relativity where there's no such place for an argument.
'I'm not willing to shut up. Are you?'
--Not at all. I most likely wouldn't be on a discussion forum if I didn't want a discussion.
|
|
reply by
melissa carr
(465 posts)
Killeen,TX,
USA
4/6/2004 (03:06) |
|
Response to message 20 written by g.j.crabb
g.j. crabb,
Hello, and thank you for your kind remarks. I agree with you completely--separating history and the truth from propaganda is a most difficult task.
Melissa
Responses:
30
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(113 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/6/2004 (16:39) |
|
Response to message 29 written by melissa carr
Unfortunately Melissa has yet to discern that dividing line.
Responses:
31
33
|
|
reply by
melissa carr
(467 posts)
Killeen,TX,
USA
4/6/2004 (17:38) |
|
Response to message 30 written by larthia kurvenas
I am quite capable of distinguishing the two, while Kreppy's busy creating disinformation such as Charles Krauthammer is not Jewish and Avraham Burg is dead. LOL, how many bitchslaps are you up for, Krep?
Responses:
34
|
|
reply by
ssdavis
(1 posts)
washington pa.,
US
4/7/2004 (03:26) |
|
The (mormons) or church of jesus christ of latter day saints think they are the lost tribe or sheep of the bible, the whole state of Utah in USA is based on Zionism. i was a gentile there.
being zeroed out into a catagory (gentile) seemed racist or biased.
the frame of mind: Animosity towards religion or race is a primitive direction of un-intelligence. its easy to get tangled into hatred when you can only see so far..
|
|
reply by
g.j.crabb
(43 posts)
Pacific Palms,
Australia
4/7/2004 (08:56) |
|
Response to message 30 written by larthia kurvenas
I consider Melissa is doing very well; has far more patience with your 'knock it down at all costs' replies than I do and an exceptionally good knowledge which you should try and understand and appreciate.
Knowledge is just a tool and can be a dangerous one and this is precisely the problem in the world today. There are sinister vibrations controlling us on a level we find difficult to understand.
Zionism, Fascism and all the others are just different names for this same controlling energy which manifests itself as dominant over human behavior.
Your 'us and them' stance is what is needed to keep this evil feeding; as is the atrocities occurring today in the M.East and elsewhere.
Have you ever stopped to think that your drama in the Middle East could end up involving the entire planet.
MLK's dream would now be a nightmare.
Responses:
35
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(130 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/7/2004 (14:29) |
|
Response to message 31 written by melissa carr
Lets repeat for the record.
I was mistaken about Krauthammer. As For Burg I tgot mixed up between his decaesed father and Mr. Burg. Nevertheless Melissa still posted a forgery attributed to Burg.
Responses:
36
|
|
reply by
larthia kurvenas
(131 posts)
Vilnius, Lithuania ,
Lithuania
4/7/2004 (14:33) |
|
Response to message 33 written by g.j.crabb
With the advent of Western culture haters Al Qaeda IT INVOLVES THE WHOLE PLANET NOW!
From The Phillipiines to Madrid.
Any movement can be subvwerted to fascism. Look at Islamists and theor control over society , women. education etc. Zionisn is not Fascism. Its simply the access of Jews to their ancestral homeland. The tools can become fascist just like any religious fundamentalism.
Responses:
37
|
|
reply by
melissa carr
(482 posts)
Killeen,TX,
USA
4/7/2004 (17:03) |
|
Response to message 34 written by larthia kurvenas
The article came from the Forward! Those forgery-minded bastards!! LOL
As I did previously, I will let you pick and choose your source and still tell me it was really Islamic or neonazis posing as Avraham Burg.....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Avraham+Burg++the+end+of+Zionism&btnG=Search
Responses:
39
41
|
|
reply by
g.j.crabb
(47 posts)
Pacific Palms,
Australia
4/7/2004 (24:22) |
|
Response to message 35 written by larthia kurvenas
Zionism is Fascism as is Stalinism etc.. I am not talking about a top of the range intellectual study comparison I am referring to what has and is actually happening in the covert and overt activities posturing as Zionism. They are all, what has been coined as, 'opposames'.
Religious fundamentalism does not imply fascism it's how it struts its stuff. The catholic inquisitians are an example of that.
You don't have to slaughter people to be a fascist or whatever but it usually ends that way.
Responses:
38
40
|
|
reply by
j krueger
(51 posts)
Columbia, Mo,
USA
4/8/2004 (14:07) |
| |
|
|
|
