What does "Zionist" mean anyway?

[1337m4n]

"Truthers" use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with "Jew"; you can't tell the difference. I get the feeling they're butchering the ACTUAL definition of the word.

Which got me wondering: What IS the actual definition of the word?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zionist


Main Entry:
Zi·on·ism Listen to the pronunciation of Zionism
Pronunciation:
\ˈzī-ə-ˌni-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1896

: an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel

Hmmm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Zionism is an international political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”), and continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.

You know, I wasn't able to find anything in there about a massive conspiracy to take over the world.

But surely "THEY" have edited Wikipedia to keep that information out.

In any case, it seems "Zionist" can simply refer to anyone who supports Israel's right to exist as we know it...Hardly something that you could make a Vast Conspiracy(tm) out of, as two people who support Israel's right to exist could easily disagree on just about every other political issue.

Makes me wonder just what "Truthers" are telling themselves it means.

[Thunder]

Zionist means Jews who want to take over the world and install a jew-supremacist autocracy.

=)

[Hokulele]

Zionist means Jews who want to take over the world and install a jew-supremacist autocracy.

=)


Doesn't everyone want that? :confused:




;)

[Brainster]

Zionist: Anybody who opposes the destruction of Israel.

[Thunder]

in all honesty, the term Zionist should have become outdated the day Israel was established. it really just means someone who supports the continued existance of the jewish state.

[Ateius]

From what I've observed of CTists on this forum, "Zionist" can be defined as "Any Jewish person with financial or political influence, real or imagined, or any Jewish person I personally dislike or need to discredit."

"Zionist Sympathiser" is "Any non-Jewish person who disagrees with me, or any non-Jewish person I personally dislike or need to discredit."

[Confuseling]

At the risk of injecting any seriousness where it's not wanted, there are still useful distinctions to be made with the term - there are some ultra-orthodox Jews, for example, who are opposed to 'political' zionism for religious reasons.

[ronpaulisright]

At the risk of injecting any seriousness where it's not wanted, there are still useful distinctions to be made with the term - there are some ultra-orthodox Jews, for example, who are opposed to 'political' zionism for religious reasons.

true zionists can be traced to back to the zealot tribe. back in the times of the tribes of israel.

[gumboot]

"Zionist" is a word used by Antisemites who want to conceal their antisemitism. It is probably most accurately translated as "filthy Jew" as simply "Jew" doesn't express the blatant racism and bigotry inherent in the way the word is used.

On this note, anyone ever seen this video before? Is it a parody?

9bfR1wsdxUs

[Confuseling]

true zionists can be traced to back to the zealot tribe. back in the times of the tribes of israel.

Ron Paul is a devout Pythagorean revivalist. His sole intent is to replace the US constitution with the following rules:


1. To abstain from beans.

2. Not to pick up what has fallen.

3. Not to touch a white cock.

4. Not to break bread.

5. Not to step over a crossbar.

6. Not to stir the fire with iron.

7. Not to eat from a whole loaf.

8. Not to pluck a garland.

9. Not to sit on a quart measure.

10. Not to eat the heart.

11. Not to walk on highways.

12. Not to let swallows share one's roof.

13. When the pot is taken off the fire, not to leave the mark of it in the ashes, but to stir them together.

14. Do not look in a mirror beside a light.

15. When you rise from the bedclothes, roll them together and smooth out the impress of the body.


Do you see how this works - or to be slightly more precise, doesn't work - if we don't have to bring any evidence?

[NickUK]

Good post 1337. I was thinking about exactly this last night before I saw your post weirdly enough. As far as I can make out, Truthers use it to mean any Jewish person in any position of influence in any area.

[Brainster]

"Zionist" is a word used by Antisemites who want to conceal their antisemitism. It is probably most accurately translated as "filthy Jew" as simply "Jew" doesn't express the blatant racism and bigotry inherent in the way the word is used.

On this note, anyone ever seen this video before? Is it a parody?

9bfR1wsdxUs

It's new to me, Andrew, but if it's a parody, it's been done seriously before. This is the whole Justin Raimondo bit.

Knowing the nutbars I am sure I would have heard about Dylan being a Jew by now if there were anything to it. That's certainly new.

[hamelekim]

"Zionist" is a word used by Antisemites who want to conceal their antisemitism. It is probably most accurately translated as "filthy Jew" as simply "Jew" doesn't express the blatant racism and bigotry inherent in the way the word is used.

On this note, anyone ever seen this video before? Is it a parody?

9bfR1wsdxUs

Just like anyone who is critical of Israel is an anti-semite, right? Give me a break. Zionism is a racist and militant belief system that some Jews have. It's the whole Jacob vs his brother in the OT. They believe that everything they do is inherently right, and that they cannot trust anyone who isn't a Jew.

I'm not racist, I don't have Jews, but I cannot agree with the politics of Israel. The entire formation of Israel as a state should never have happened and has only caused massive pain and suffering for both the Arabs and the Jews.

Israel hasn't adhered to the original outlined agreement for what land they were to control, and until they pull back peace will never happen. The Zionists are the settlers and those on the far right in Israeli politics.

[Damien Evans]

true zionists can be traced to back to the zealot tribe. back in the times of the tribes of israel.

:rolleyes:

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. There never was a zealot "tribe".

[David Swidler]

Just like anyone who is critical of Israel is an anti-semite, right? Give me a break. Zionism is a racist and militant belief system that some Jews have. It's the whole Jacob vs his brother in the OT. They believe that everything they do is inherently right, and that they cannot trust anyone who isn't a Jew.

I'm not racist, I don't have Jews, but I cannot agree with the politics of Israel. The entire formation of Israel as a state should never have happened and has only caused massive pain and suffering for both the Arabs and the Jews.

Israel hasn't adhered to the original outlined agreement for what land they were to control, and until they pull back peace will never happen. The Zionists are the settlers and those on the far right in Israeli politics.

This is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

First off, modern (i.e. nineteenth century and onward) Zionism began as a SECULAR movement - and secular parties have been in control all along - so imputing Biblical motives to the movement is laughable. The Jewish connection to the land of Israel goes back pretty darn far, irrespective of what the Bible has to say.

And we'll just ignore the massive, hulking, putrid pile of festering straw that composes the rest of your description of Zionism. Militant? None of the thousands of Zionists I know are militant, unless you count a willingness to take steps to prevent one's own violent death "militant". In which case, so are you. Now it's a meaningless term.

Can't trust anyone but Jews? What kind of insanity is that? Why expend all that time and effort toward the Balfour Declaration, the UN partition plan, or anything else if you can't trust anyone anyway? You've never actually met a Zionist, have you?

Quit wallowing in anti-Israel propaganda and read some real history. The Zionist leadership was all set to abide by the terms of the UN partition plan. It seems, however, that a bunch of armies invaded when they tried to implement the plan. For some reason, the neighbors were upset that the vote didn't go their way in the UN, and they decided to defy said UN and wipe out the nascent Israel. But according to you, that was somehow Israel's fault for not adhering to an "agreement for what land they were supposed to control."

No, my friend, the "Zionists" are not only those on the far right of the Israeli political spectrum. The Zionists are anyone who maintains that Israel should remain primarily a Jewish state, and that's a hell of a lot more than
"the settlers and those on the far right in Israeli politics." It's everyone not on the far left of Israeli politics.

[DC]

omg you dont even know what Zionist's are???????
Mount Zion...... Jerusalem?
and its oc not a word used by antisemites to not say Jews.

[gumboot]

true zionists can be traced to back to the zealot tribe. back in the times of the tribes of israel.

Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Asher
Issachar
Zebulun
Joseph
Benjamin

Hrm... no "Zealot" tribe there...

[gumboot]

and its oc not a word used by antisemites to not say Jews.


It is friggen so.

[DC]

It is friggen so.

the only ones that i see bringing up Israel and or judaism on this forum is you debunkers.

i find that very suspect.
and you seem not even informed about Israel / Palestina

[Confuseling]

Counterpunch is probably a good place to look for a critical examination.

Zionism as a Racist Ideology (http://www.counterpunch.org/christison11082003.html)

I don't expect that one to be popular :)

[gumboot]

Just like anyone who is critical of Israel is an anti-semite, right?

No. But someone who tries to poison the well by throwing around the term "Zionist" instead of actually offering up genuine points critical of the state of Israel is, in my opinion, an antisemite, yes.

Having said that in my experience people with rational and reasoned opinions regarding Palestine-Israel, established through fact, seem few and far between (and that goes for either side of the argument). I don't know what it is about that bit of dirt but it seems to turn even the most reasoned educated westerners into rabid bigots.

[gumboot]

the only ones that i see bringing up Israel and or judaism on this forum is you debunkers.

There's already a thread about that topic. News flash, this subforum is not the entire world.


and you seem not even informed about Israel / Palestina


You have no idea what I know about Palestine-Israel. I bet you don't even know what side of the "argument" I am on. And no, I'm not going to discuss it here. This isn't the politics subforum.

[DC]

"Zionist" is a word used by Antisemites who want to conceal their antisemitism. It is probably most accurately translated as "filthy Jew" as simply "Jew" doesn't express the blatant racism and bigotry inherent in the way the word is used.

On this note, anyone ever seen this video before? Is it a parody?

9bfR1wsdxUs

sounds very well informed. indeed.......

[gumboot]

sounds very well informed. indeed.......


My post had nothing whatsoever to do with Palestine-Israel.

[DC]

ah i se, zionism has nothing to do with Israel - Palesina....

[Par]

Counterpunch is probably a good place to look for a critical examination.


Do you mean the same Counterpunch for which Michael Neumann is a writer?

Sometimes it is gentile hangers-on, whose ethos if not their identity aspires to Jewishness, who take on this task. Not to be utterly risqué, they then hasten to remind us that antisemitism is nevertheless to be taken very seriously. That Israel, backed by a pronounced majority of Jews, happens to be waging a race war against the Palestinians is all the more reason we should be on our guard. Who knows? it might possibly stir up some resentment!

I take a different view. I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues. I will argue for the truth of these claims; I also defend their propriety. I don't think making them is on a par with pulling the wings off flies.

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html

[A] general remark that may help you to understand my attitudes[:] My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it. And, implausible as it may sound to you, I believe I can do *much* more damage by staying entirely away from such issues.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/neumann2.htm

If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable antisemitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious racist antisemitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care. This is not to say there isn't plenty of room for legitimate disagreement about whether a direct attack on the Jewish lobby and Jewish influence generally is tactically sound or not: we disagree on this, and the issues are too complex to argue here and now. I understand that you may suspect I rationalize here; all I can say is I disagree.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/neumann2.htm


I’m afraid that I’m going to have to remain sceptical of your assessment.

[gumboot]

ah i se, zionism has nothing to do with Israel - Palesina....

In this context? No.

[Confuseling]

Do you mean the same Counterpunch for which Michael Neumann is a writer?
...
I’m afraid that I’m going to have to remain sceptical of your assessment.

Yes, the same.

I know he's controversial. Let's be fair - the first quote isn't damning in context, and the second two are from private emails.

If the substance of your case is that the article can't make sense, because another person who writes for the organisation writes controversial emails, then you may keep your scepticism.

[Edmund Standing]

Counterpunch is probably a good place to look for a critical examination.

You are joking, though, really, right?

[Travis]

true zionists can be traced to back to the zealot tribe. back in the times of the tribes of israel.

You have the Zealots all wrong. Here is a more accurate description of them:

The heart and soul of the Protoss military are the fierce Zealots who have sworn their lives to the defense of Aiur. Through the path of the Khala, they learn to hone their innate battle rage to a fine edge. The power suits worn by Zealots enhance and channel their already formidable Psionic abilities, allowing them to form a protective shield around themselves and project massive energy blades from their forearms. Even a handful of these dedicated warriors can easily control an entire colony of other, lesser species, as they are capable of tearing through armored structures and vehicles alike.

From here. http://www.battle.net/scc/protoss/units/zealot.shtml

[Confuseling]

You are joking, though, really, right?

I am open to suggestions for better sources.

[Par]

Let's be fair - the second two [quotes] are from private emails.


From private emails they might be. But unless we have any reason to think that what he says in private emails isn’t actually what he thinks, then I would suggest that the point still stands.

[Par]

Counterpunch is probably a good place to look for a critical examination.Do you mean the same Counterpunch for which Michael Neumann is a writer?If the substance of your case is that the article can't make sense, because another person who writes for the organisation writes controversial emails, then you may keep your scepticism.


Well, no, that isn’t the argument that I’m making. Rather, I’m saying that Counterpunch features articles on Jews written by a quasi-anti-Semite who has readily admitted to not being terribly interested in truth or justice if the result is favourable to the Palestinian cause, even if that result also foments violent anti-Semitism. (Incidentally, I could also provide a further example or two from other Counterpunch writers.) Therefore, when it comes to the issue of Zionism, Counterpunch all but certainly is not “a good place to look for a critical examination”.

[Confuseling]

There is a text document apparently written by him http://members.tripod.com/~mneumann/cjctripo.txt

I am the first to admit, and regret, the disturbing and intemperate
language of the paragraph, but in context its meaning is not
alarming. My correspondent has reproached me for showing no
interest in further investigations into Jewish power. Having
failed to demonstrate that Jews control America, he nevertheless
wants me to endorse open-ended, unsystematic investigations into
Jewish ownership. He wants me, that is, to help him dig up dirt on
the Jews, in the guise of pursuing The Truth.

In this context, it could hardly be clearer that my reply concerns
my political writing, not my academic work. My political writing
has a political, not an academic purpose; it is to help the
Palestinians. For reasons detailed in the "Jewish power' article
under discussion, I believe that the myth of Jewish control of
America - an antisemitic myth - harms and discredits the Palestinian
cause. So I say that, even if it is true that Jews own this or that
or the other thing, I am not *interested* in such truths.

...

What then of the statement: "If it means encouraging vicious,
racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I
still don't care"?

In the first place, as the preceding statements make clear, I am
stressing the importance of the Palestinian cause by considering
extreme possibilities. I first say that "if talking about Jewish
power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it." In other
words, I first say that I will not uncover truths detrimental to the
Jewish people if that doesn't help the Palestinians. This hardly
sounds like the project of an antisemite.

In the second place, the statement is neither antisemitic, nor does
it encourage antisemitism. It raises a remote possibility, and
says that, should what I do - my writing - encourage antisemitism,
that will not deter me. As I said in my letter to the National
Post: "I will not self-censor my writings because they may be
misused by antisemites, and it is only in this very particular and
limited sense that I 'don't care' about encouraging antisemitism.
Antisemites misuse all sorts of materials, includin g the statements
of committed Zionists and of Mahatma Gandhi. It would be futile and
impossible for me to tailor my writings to avoid such misuse." The
notion that I would even contemplate deliberately cultivating
antisemitism is absurd, not only because my family has been
decimated by (Nazi) antisemites, but also because I have argued, at
length, that Zionists manipulate antisemitism to their own purposes.


It sounds a lot to me like he was in a conversation with some deranged Nazi, and not thinking too hard about what he was writing. It certainly is controversial, but I'm not writing him off - and I'm most definitely not writing other people off because they're published in the same magazine.

ETA: If you have examples of other writers there who you believe to be anti-Semitic, I am genuinely interested to see them. I'm not wedded to the site - I've just read some things from it before that seem quite balanced, and intelligently written. And I still stand by the link I posted in the first place.

[TheDaver]

I like the term “Zionazi”. Inflammatory as all hell, but technically accurate.

[Darth Rotor]

The entire formation of Israel as a state should never have happened

You will find that Herzl would have disagreed with you, as would have a considerable portion of the inner circle in the British Empire circa 1918.

Should is poorly used here. Try to deal with what is.

The Zionist movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries developed in parallel with nationalism's growth as various imperial powers changed form in the post-Napoleonic era. It was a political movement founded on a combined ethnic, religious, and cultural identity. (OK, you can call it secular, but a core element of the group identity is the common bond of Judaism from a cultural perspective.) Islamism is a political movement of a similar character. (It has the practical shortcoming of diverse ethnic/national/cultural baselines, which disperses its potential political power.) The leaders of the the Zionist political movement, and their successors who fulfilled the original vision, were able to make enough political deals, and succeed when blood and iron came into play, to turn a vision into a reality. That reality, of course, is a bit messier than the original vision of a shining city on a hill, eh?

Otto von Bismarck and his partisans likewise transformed a vision of a German empire in to reality over a generation, using a combination of politics, appeals to nationalism, deal making, and of course blood and iron.

The nationalistic leadership element among the Serbs appealed to a similar nationalist strain in the early 1990's in Yugoslavia, and in former Yugoslavia. They failed in their attempt to achieve their vision, in part due to their failure to make the necessary alliances with the various Powers in support of their vision. Their attempt to apply blood and iron to their political vision was successfully opposed. The mess is still being cleaned up in the Balkans, and is likely to be so for the next generation.

Not all that different from what Israel is mucking about with.

DR

[Edmund Standing]

I am open to suggestions for better sources.

OK, well here's one:
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism/

This page is worth a look in particular:
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_issues.htm

The Counterpunch radical leftist line about Zionism being racist is propaganda, and Counterpunch's articles are so extreme and so into the 'evil neo-con' notion that Alex Jones features them approvingly on his sites.

Anyway, back to the Zionism = Racism idea:

Do Israeli Arabs live under an Apartheid Regime?

Anti-Zionists charge that the Arabs of Israel live under an "Apartheid" regime similar to that practiced in South Africa. South African Apartheid was practiced against native Africans who wanted an equal say in South African affairs. Regulations prevented marriage between races, enforced unequal pay and discriminatory employment and denied Black Africans equal representation. Israeli treatment of Arab minorities is not perfect, but it is improving. It is not "Apartheid." Israeli Arab citizens vote and participate in the government along with Jewish citizens, can own and buy land (a frequent and false charge made by the those who claim Israel is an Apartheid state, is that Arabs cannot buy land in Israel.) Israeli Arabs are legally protected against discrimination in government services and the work place. Arabs and Jews can marry Israeli Arabs. They enjoy a far higher standard of living and better health care and educational opportunities than their neighbors in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Arabs can serve in the Israeli army and some do, especially Bedouin and Druze.

[Confuseling]

OK, well here's one:
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism/

This page is worth a look in particular:
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_issues.htm



Does the Flight and Expulsion of Palestinian Refugees prove that Zionism is Racist?

The Palestinian refugee problem was created because the Arabs of Palestine refused to live in a Jewish state and Arab states refused to accept U.N. Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine. The refugees were not created by Zionism. The Arab side instigated a war, driven by Nazi-collaborator Haj Amin El-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Husseini told the British that his solution for the "Jewish Question" in Palestine was the same as "the solution that had been adopted in Europe," namely extermination. Had there been no war, there would have been no refugees. The Jews of Palestine defended themselves, as any people would, regardless of ideology. After the war, they were reluctant to admit a large body of people who were belligerents by definition, because they had refused to live in a Jewish state. After World War II, Czechoslovakia expelled ethnic Germans who had been Czech citizens living in the Sudetensland, because they proved to be a threat to the national existence of Czechoslovakia. Nobody claimed that Czechoslovakia is racist for that reason.


Looks pretty neutral to me. :p

The question was whether you had any better suggestions for sites critical of the ideology. In less you believe the ideology is above criticism.


The Counterpunch radical leftist line about Zionism being racist is propaganda, and Counterpunch's articles are so extreme and so into the 'evil neo-con' notion that Alex Jones features them approvingly on his sites.


I disagree - you can make the case that Zionism is justified racism, but you can't by my reckoning claim it isn't racist. It's an ideology based on giving people who don't live in an area more rights to live there than the inhabitants on grounds of race.

As to Counterpunch and AJ... you don't seriously just mean he links to them, do you? I've seen him link to the mainstream media. Does that mean they're nutters too?

Re: Do Israeli Arabs live under an Apartheid regime. Figures from 2003.

In the end, Halper says, the advance of Zionism has been a process of displacement, and house demolitions have been "at the center of the Israeli struggle against the Palestinians" since 1948. Halper enumerates a steady history of destruction: in the first six years of Israel's existence, it systematically razed 418 Palestinian villages inside Israel, fully 85 percent of the villages existing before 1948; since the occupation began in 1967, Israel has demolished 11,000 Palestinian homes. More homes are now being demolished in the path of Israel's "separation wall." It is estimated that more than 4,000 homes have been destroyed in the last two years alone.

The vast majority of these house demolitions, 95 percent, have nothing whatever to do with fighting terrorism, but are designed specifically to displace non-Jews and assure the advance of Zionism. In Jerusalem, from the beginning of the occupation of the eastern sector of the city in 1967, Israeli authorities have designed zoning plans specifically to prevent the growth of the Palestinian population. Maintaining the "Jewish character" of the city at the level existing in 1967 (71 percent Jewish, 29 percent Palestinian) required that Israel draw zoning boundaries to prevent Palestinian expansion beyond existing neighborhoods, expropriate Palestinian-owned lands, confiscate the Jerusalem residency permits of any Palestinian who cannot prove that Jerusalem is his "center of life," limit city services to Palestinian areas, limit development in Palestinian neighborhoods, refuse to issue residential building permits to Palestinians, and demolish Palestinian homes that are built without permits. None of these strictures is imposed on Jews. According to ICAHD, the housing shortage in Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem is approximately 25,000 units, and 2,000 demolition orders are pending.


http://www.counterpunch.org/christison11082003.html

[Doctor Evil]

I disagree - you can make the case that Zionism is justified racism, but you can't by my reckoning claim it isn't racist. It's an ideology based on giving people who don't live in an area more rights to live there than the inhabitants on grounds of race.


Could you please explain what you mean by that?

[Confuseling]

Could you please explain what you mean by that?

You could argue that it is a necessary expedient to be racist in favour of Jews, after the persecution they have suffered, and most specifically the Holocaust.

But an ideology that states that a racial group has the right to enter an area and forcibly evict the people living there is by my definition racist.

I suppose I would add the qualifier that if people who advocate the continued existence of Israel, within the stipulations and borders dictated by international law, and treating non-Jewish Israeli citizens equally are also now designated Zionists, then Zionism is not necessarily racist* - that is simple pragmatism, now that Israel very definitely exists.

But I assert that during the foundation of Israel, Zionism was, inescapably and by definition, racist.

* although even this would be complicated by the right of return presently enjoyed exclusively by Jews... it's blooming complicated :boggled:

[quarky]

In 20 years, Israel will have a majority of non-jews.

This will mean the end of the democracy, or the end of Israel.

Perhaps Utah could come to the rescue.

[Doctor Evil]

But an ideology that states that a racial group has the right to enter an area and forcibly evict the people living there is by my definition racist.


If this is your description of the creation of Israel then I think you really need to improve your historical knowledge, probably using better sources. I would recommend Martin Gilbert's book "Israel: A History". Other posters may recommend other sources, as it is really hard to find unbiased, and unpolitical books on the subject.

[Doctor Evil]

In 20 years, Israel will have a majority of non-jews.

This will mean the end of the democracy, or the end of Israel.

Perhaps Utah could come to the rescue.

In what borders? If you mean the pre 1967 borders than this is simply untrue. Do you include the west bank? Gaza? Do you assume that there will not be a political solution by then?

Anyway, I do not want to derail this thread. This is not relevant to the meaning of the term "Zionist".

[David Swidler]

You could argue that it is a necessary expedient to be racist in favour of Jews, after the persecution they have suffered, and most specifically the Holocaust.

But an ideology that states that a racial group has the right to enter an area and forcibly evict the people living there is by my definition racist.

I suppose I would add the qualifier that if people who advocate the continued existence of Israel, within the stipulations and borders dictated by international law, and treating non-Jewish Israeli citizens equally are also now designated Zionists, then Zionism is not necessarily racist - that is simple pragmatism, now that Israel very definitely exists.

But I assert that during the foundation of Israel, Zionism was, inescapably and by definition, racist.

I disagree that it was by definition racist. Zionism as a political view does not have a specific position on any other peoples who might already (or subsequently) live there. The Zionist leaders in the decade or two prior to Israel's establishment were not of one mind about how to address the presence of non-Jews in Israel. Some actively lobbied for expulsion. Some argued for a softer approach. Some didn't care one way or the other. Clearly, Zionism per se did not (and does not) carry a specific implication as to the perceived fate of Palestinians.

It wasn't Zionism that caused the flight of Arab refugees, but war. Note that Israel's declaration of independence acknowledges and welcomes non-Jews. The degree to which the Zionist leadership encouraged the flight of Arabs from the nascent state remains unclear - they knew it was happening, no doubt, and in some cases may have let the demographic/political "benefits" of removing a potential fifth column color some military decisions, but to place the blame for the Palestinian refugee problem at the door of Zionism itself (even if not exclusively) is to misunderstand the movement.

[Confuseling]

That's interesting, though I have to admit it does sound a little bit like the "Leninism isn't a bad idea - it's just that historically Leninist regimes have happened to be sociopathic" argument.

If you can point me to a group of Zionists who had a serious plan for creating Israel as a political entity without forcibly displacing Arabs, and without any racial stipulation as to who could move there, then I will recant.

[moon1969]

evict the people living???? How did they "evict"? They didn"t evict people who lived in TransJordan? So how did they evict them? There was British Mandate of Palestine before 1948. So if Israel does not have the rigth to exist then Jordan does not have the rigth to
exist because before 1948 that area was called TransJordan and it was apart of the British Mandate of Palestine. United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine????? Maybe Jimmy Carter and other would like to talk more about Munich massacre that happend during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, West Germany? Black September in Jordan and how Yasser Arafat tried to kill Hussein of Jordan? Whatabout Second Intifada? How IDF israeli Soldiers evicted Gaza settlers?

[Darth Rotor]

Anyway, back to the Zionism = Racism idea:


Try Zionism = racialist, with the nineteenth century paradigm of race in the mix. You'd find writings discussing the French race, Spanish race, Russian race, etc., presented in all sincerity by essayists in the nineteenth century.

In that context, Zionism was a pro Jewish, racialist movement with a specific vision/goal: re establishing a Jewish homeland.

That does not require apartheid, though it did require a bit of emigration and, as it turned out, conquest.


ETA: What in the name of Sam Hill is this thread doing in R & P? This is a political thread, and Zionism is a political movement.

DR

[FireGarden]

That's interesting, though I have to admit it does sound a little bit like the "Leninism isn't a bad idea - it's just that historically Leninist regimes have happened to be sociopathic" argument.

If you can point me to a group of Zionists who had a serious plan for creating Israel as a political entity without forcibly displacing Arabs, and without any racial stipulation as to who could move there, then I will recant.

Try Uri Avnery at Gush Shalom,
http://gush-shalom.org/

He's a Zionist, in the sense that he is in favour of the 2-state solution -- ie: including a Jewish state. He is also a very long-time supporter of justice for the Palestinians. As far as the one-state solution goes, his main argument against it is that it is not practical. But he says he hopes that, after a 2-state solution is made, a "federation" could come about:

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1177227796

Avenry was a member of the Irgun, fighting the British, but "left the Irgun in protest against its anti-Arab and reactionary social attitudes and terrorist methods" (see:
http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/uri2.html

In September 1947, on the eve of the Israeli-Palestinian war, Avnery published a booklet entitled "War or Peace in the Semitic Region", which called for a radically new approach: An alliance of the Hebrew and Arab national movements in order to liberate the common "Semitic Region" (a term coined by Avnery in order to avoid the colonialist term Middle East) from imperialism and colonialism, and create a Semitic community and common market, as a part of the emerging third world. Excerpts of the booklet were sent to the media throughout the Arab world and mentioned in some Arab newspapers, just before the start of the war.

[...] Throughout the war, Avnery reported on his experiences as a combat soldier who took part in nearly all the major battles on the Jerusalem and southern fronts. These reports, which appeared in the Ha'aretz evening paper,

So he was certainly a Zionist in the 1940's. He's a zionist today, by the definition of supporting the existence of a Jewish State in Palestine. But I don't think he was ever anti-Arab.



Oh, and, Counterpunch also publishes Avnery -- if you like the site:

Anti-Semitism vs. Anti-Zionism
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery01192004.html

[FireGarden]

evict the people living???? How did they "evict"?

Try reading this interview with Benny Morris:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=380986

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=380984

Brought to you via ddt's post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112651

which has, so far, gone unanswered.

[Moose]

'Zionist' is a verbal warning label, like 'Darwinist', 'Commie Pinko', the slurred 'Librul', 'fag', and the dreaded 'n' word. Bigots are apparently required to use those terms to signal to one and all that they can (and should) be avoided.

[Doctor Evil]

Try reading this interview with Benny Morris:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=380986

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=380984

Brought to you via ddt's post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112651

which has, so far, gone unanswered.

As far as I know, Benny Morris believes that the 47-49 war was initiated by the Arab side, with the goal of driving all the Jews out (or killing them). He then state that in the latter stages of the war there were instances where the Jewish army drove local Arabs from their homes. Though he insists there was no overall plan to clean the country from its population.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-letter-to-irish-times.html

He apparently wrote a new book on the war:
Historians have tended to ignore or dismiss, as so much hot air, the jihadi rhetoric and flourishes that accompanied the two-stage assault on the Yishuv [the Jewish residents of Palestine before the founding of Israel] and the constant references in the prevailing Arab discourse to that earlier bout of Islamic battle for the Holy Land, against the Crusaders. This is a mistake.
http://hnn.us/articles/49503.html

I think that Morris started his carrier by examining mainly the actions of 'his side' - the Israeli side. Naturally, he found a lot to criticise. (This war the probably worst Israeli-Arab war.) Apparently, while working on his new book he found enough blame for everyone. FireGarden, since you brought Morris up, do you agree with his conclusions cited here?

[gtc]

I like the term “Zionazi”. Inflammatory as all hell, but technically accurate.

Are you referring to Zionist plus Ashkenazi = Zionazi?

I believe, but I would be interested to hear otherwise, that the term was coined as Zionist plus Nazi = Zionazi. My understanding was that it was only later did those who want to use it start pretending that it simply meant Ashkenazi.

This seems plausible as the Ashkenazi are only a subset of Jews and I have never seen it used in the context of only those Zionists who are of Ashkenazi origin.

It is similar to the way that anti-semite was coined to indicate hatred of Jews (as semite was commonly used by people who saw Jews as belonging to an inferior race); but is now disavowed by some people who claim to like non-Jewish semites (i.e. Arabs) just fine.

I apologise if I have misspelt the word.

[The Fool]

'Zionist' is a verbal warning label, like 'Darwinist', 'Commie Pinko', the slurred 'Librul', 'fag', and the dreaded 'n' word. Bigots are apparently required to use those terms to signal to one and all that they can (and should) be avoided.
so its sort of like the word "democrat" If you use it.... its a verbal warning that indicates the user is quite possibly a facist....is that how it works?

[gtc]

so its sort of like the word "democrat" If you use it.... its a verbal warning that indicates the user is quite possibly a facist....is that how it works?

The correct word is demoncrat. Democ-rat is also acceptable.

[mrbaracuda]

On this note, anyone ever seen this video before?

Parts, mainly the beginning and then the Israeli talk show part. It's in a documentary film called "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", where an American Jew talks with different people about the protocols, including some Arab newspaper guy and some sort of director of an American Neo-Nazi organisation. The parts with the breasts is not in the documentary, nor are those labels like the "5 Israelis".

Link. (http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=7169205203825782546&q=protocols+elders+zion&ei=qEMgSODNHIem2gKI_bzDAQ)

Saw it some time ago, was interesting. :)
It's by a man called "Marc Levin". Maybe you know him, I don't.

ETA You can find the relevant part beginning at the ~23rd minute.

[mrbaracuda]

I'm not racist, ... , but


My rule of thumb is when someone starts out saying, "I'm not a racist, but..." they really are racists.

Hmm. :rolleyes::D

[JoeEllison]

As this thread has displayed, the word "Zionist" means whatever people want it to mean, and mostly so that it can be used as a weapon against people they disagree with.

[mrbaracuda]

You have the Zealots all wrong. Here is a more accurate description of them:]

"My life for Aiur!" sums it up really. :)

[FireGarden]

Though he insists there was no overall plan to clean the country from its population.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-letter-to-irish-times.html

So, Morris' position now is that there were expulsions but no 'overall' plans for such. Just great minds dancing to the beat of an unheard drum, perhaps? That's quite hard to believe. But he tries the same thing in his 2004 interview with Haaretz:

Haaretz ::: What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

Morris ::: "Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."

[...] "From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."

No orderly, comprehensive policy -- just an atmosphere. But there's no doubt in his mind that the orders originated from Ben-Gurion.

He apparently wrote a new book on the war:

http://hnn.us/articles/49503.html

I think that Morris started his carrier by examining mainly the actions of 'his side' - the Israeli side. Naturally, he found a lot to criticise. (This war the probably worst Israeli-Arab war.) Apparently, while working on his new book he found enough blame for everyone. FireGarden, since you brought Morris up, do you agree with his conclusions cited here?

Morris' position, in 2004, was already one in which he blamed the Arabs. In fact, this is how he puts it in the interview I linked:

"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."

[...] "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."

Here's more Benny Morris:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/12/DI2007031200377.html

Stewartstown, Pa.: I can sympathize with the basic idea of Zionism: the creation of a Jewish homeland where Jews would not be in danger of persecution. But I don't understand the blindness of most Zionists concerning the Arabs. How could they be surprised at the Arab resistance to Israel's creation? In no other place in the world is it accepted that a people have an inherent right to establish a nation on land they possessed 2,000 years ago, regardless of the wishes of the majority of the present day inhabitants of the land. How then did the Zionists expect the Arabs to accept that Jews had a "right" to a nation in Palestine?

Benny Morris: I don't think the Zionists, by and large, at the end of the Nineteenth and in the early Twentieth century, were blind. They realized the land was inhabited (fairly sparsely: There were then 450,000-600,000 Arabs; today the country has a population of 10 million) but knew the Arab inhabitants at the time were not nationally conscious or minded; they grew so progressively from the 1920s on, under the impact of Zionism. And secondly, the Zionists truly believed they would bring progress and development to Palestine and that the Arab inhabitants, as well as the Jewish settlers, would benefit. Lastly, the Zionists looked around and saw that the Arabs had an enormous stretch of land from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf and thought maybe they would be generous and allow the Jews 0.0005 percent of that stretch for their homeland. They were, of course, wrong. So today we have 22 and a half Arab states and one Jewish states, and most Arabs believe they should have 23 states and the Jews none.

So the arguent goes:
1) The Arabs didn't have a nation-state mind-set
2) Zionism would help the Arabs
3) The Arabs have got so much, you'd expect them to be generous.


That's Morris' argument. The Arabs didn't want to share their 23 states. Bad people.

Difficult to agree with.
There are 50 American states. Give me one, please. A little one will do.




Perhaps more on topic for this thread, is the next question Morris answers:

Re: Churchill's recent revelations: It has been reported recently that Churchill said that some of the problems of the Jews were of their own making -- this said at the time when the Jews were being exterminated in the death camps. Did this sort of view spring from his upper-class milieu, where these feelings about the Jews were so prevalent at that time, or did Churchill's feelings go much deeper -- have some personal experience, perhaps?

Benny Morris: I assume Churchill shared the outlook, at least in part, of his class and milieu. But he was impressed by the Zionist settlers and enterprise (and Haim Weizmann) and traditionally was pro-Zionist and a philo-Semite, and had good Jewish friends. And he acted to promote a Jewish state, generally with consistency, from WWI until 1948 and by and large was 'friendly' to Israel in its first decade, during his second term as prime minister.

So Churchill was just fitting in. He's pro-Zionist, in favour of a Jewish state and philo-Semitic. Yes -- even if he did say the Jews were facing problems of there own making during WW2.

Who was it who said: "In a perverse way, a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist."

[Doctor Evil]

Firegarden brings more citations from Morris, but still did not find the time to answer my question. Do you agree with Morris' conclusion when he argues that the Palestinian and Arab side started the war with the aim of removing the Jewish presence from the area. Or do you only agree with his claims when they suite your political opinions?


ETA: I felt the need to clarify. My goal here is to find out whether you value Morris as a professional historian. (If he is a good historian we should consider all his claims on a-priory equal footing.)

[Darth Rotor]

"My life for Aiur!" sums it up really. :)
10827

Entaro Adun!

DR

[FireGarden]

I do agree that the Arabs wanted the Jews out and used violence to acheive that.

I do not agree that the Arabs had a responsibility to be generous and give up land. Taking in refugees is one thing -- letting the refugees set up a nation state on your land is another.

Or do you only agree with his claims when they suite your political opinions?

I thought it was clear what I was disagreeing with.

I agree with the claims there is evidence for. There was armed resistance to a Jewish state. And there was expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish state.

Immigrants are often met with racism -- I'm not surprised that Arabs are the same as the rest of Humanity in that regard. Some of what Morris says implies that it was only racism which was at the root of the problem. That is difficult to agree with. Or would you support my claim for a small state in the Americas?

And I also don't agree that the expulsions were simply about security. I think it more likely that there were thoughts along the lines which inspired the term "present absentees" -- a group of "refugees" displaced within Israel itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_and_Property_laws_in_Israel#The_.27Absentees_ Property_Law.27

This law created the novel citizenship category of "present absentees" (nifkadim nohahim), that is, Israeli Arabs who enjoyed all civil rights -- including the right to vote in the Knesset elections -- except one: the right to use and dispose of their property.

If they're dangerous -- an existential threat -- then why let them vote in the Knesset? If they are not dangerous, then why not call them "present non-absentees" and let them decide what to do with the land they own?



ETA: I put "refugees" in quotes because that's what Morris does in one of the articles. According to his definition, you're not a refugee if you stay in the same country.

[FireGarden]

ETA: I felt the need to clarify. My goal here is to find out whether you value Morris as a professional historian. (If he is a good historian we should consider all his claims on a-priory equal footing.)

I've no reason to doubt his abilities as a historian. Morris seems able to to do his research and present the facts. His original work was very matter-of-fact and some people interpreted it as an attack upon Zionism. He'd left his political views out of the history. He later clarified his position, which he says he held from the beginning, that the actions were justified. The Haaretz interview begins with a good summary:

Benny Morris says he was always a Zionist. People were mistaken when they labeled him a post-Zionist, when they thought that his historical study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem was intended to undercut the Zionist enterprise. Nonsense, Morris says, that's completely unfounded. Some readers simply misread the book. They didn't read it with the same detachment, the same moral neutrality, with which it was written.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he says. Some of it, as I have said, is difficult to agree with. So the Arabs had 23 nations. Does that mean they were obligated to give one away?

I don't think so.

ETA: I'm also suspicious of his dancing around the idea of there being an overall plan regarding expulsion. On the one hand, there's no doubt in his mind where the order came from. On the other, there is only an "atmosphere" rather than a detailed plan.

[Doctor Evil]

I've no reason to doubt his abilities as a historian. Morris seems able to to do his research and present the facts. His original work was very matter-of-fact and some people interpreted it as an attack upon Zionism. He'd left his political views out of the history. He later clarified his position, which he says he held from the beginning, that the actions were justified.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he says. Some of it, as I have said, is difficult to agree with. So the Arabs had 23 nations. Does that mean they were obligated to give one away?

I don't think so.

ETA: I'm also suspicious of his dancing around the idea of there being an overall plan regarding expulsion. On the one hand, there's no doubt in his mind where the order came from. On the other, there is only an "atmosphere" rather than a detailed plan.

Thank you for the answer. I can't seem to make my mind regarding him. I might leave that for some future discussion.

Regarding the expulsion plan, I would think he has no evidence for one. His argument, as you cited above, seems very weak. (For instance, one may wonder how often would Ben-Gurion meet with his commanders during the war. Did other commanders leaving meetings with him behave as if given similar orders?) Anyway, work is calling. I might come back to this discussion in the future, but only after doing some further reading.

[ddt]

To also chip in my 2 cents:

Regarding the expulsion plan, I would think he has no evidence for one. His argument, as you cited above, seems very weak. (For instance, one may wonder how often would Ben-Gurion meet with his commanders during the war. Did other commanders leaving meetings with him behave as if given similar orders?) Anyway, work is calling. I might come back to this discussion in the future, but only after doing some further reading.
Morris mentions two major expulsions, both tied in with previous visits by Ben Gurion:

(1) the well-known expulsion of the population of the cities of Lod and Ramle, carried out by Yitzhak Rabin. That was some 60,000 people, so about 9% of the total number of Palestinians expelled from Israel during that time.

(2) the expulsion of the population of the Upper Galilee by Moshe Carmel. This was about a considerable number of villages, so I'm not sure about the numbers, but it quite likely adds up.

I don't think it unthinkable that Ben Gurion regularly visited the front and indeed gave such orders, but it seems that in tying it to BG personally, Morris contradicts himself with his other quote about the atmosphere that was created.

I do think Morris is a bona-fide historian, and he deserves the praise for, e.g., using the major parts of the IDF archives that were opened (and he had the luck to be there at the right time). However, there are two main criticisms to his methods: (a) he doesn't use Arab sources; (b) he rejects oral testimony, both raised by Pappé.

As to the latter, Plan Dalet is a case in point: the text of the plan is both consistent with Pappé's thesis that it was a grand plan to expel all Palestinians, as well as with others' stance that it wasn't. Which is the right interpretation then, depends on how people at the time perceived it, and then oral testimony about the atmosphere is badly needed.

[quarky]

There's always an option to refuse to be identified by one's race or religion or nationalism.
I've had lots of Jewish friends, and still do. Not one has been able to explain to me what it meant to be Jewish. Its very confusing. Lots of paradox. Jewish purity implies inbreeding; hence, not very good as a long range plan. Mixing it up means slowly losing track; redefining loyalties; not knowing what religious hooplah to lay on the kids.

I'm a wasp. I have no big-time identity thingy going; no homeland to identify with.
Imagine if wasps did have this? I would demand refuge in Ireland, and take the British to task for the genocide that killed half my ancestors during the so-called 'potatoe famine'.

Has there ever been a group of people that had any specific identity that has not suffered some attempt at genocide? Its what people do. We kill other people that aren't like us. Killing other people is humanity's single largest and oldest project.

Why is it so cruel to say this:
Nobody has to be a Jew anymore.
Or a Catholic.
Or an Irishman.

Or even a negro.

Miles Davis was a musician.

This is off-topic. But I'm not so sure that Israel was such a great idea.
I wish it could have happened in Utah. I hope it still can. The Mormons could use the challange. I can't wait until we can't really tell each other apart; when we don't identify with ancient history. When people don't want to exterminate us because we have special needs. There is no one alive today that doesn't have a worthwhile historical background, full of suffering. We are all equally old and new. Some of us have no sense of our history.
Some people live in New Jersey.

My advice is this:
Have sex with whomever you can.
But when you want to procreate, mix up the gene pool.

[David Swidler]

Um, Quarky, I think you'll find that a Jew can be of any race.

[Confuseling]

Hmm... well that's the blurred distinction between Judaism and Jewry is it not? One's cultural / religious, and the other cultural / genetic.

And Quarky, I'm not sure it's possible to say that everyone's suffered genocide. Mass murder, yes, but this was completely different - a conscious and systematic attempt to exterminate a people. I don't know of any analogue - even the most brutal colonial projects tended to attempt to drive people off land or enslave them, which while tragic and awful, doesn't instill the existential fear that Jews suffered. Earlier events that were actually genocidal (perhaps the elimination of other hominids would be the paradigm case) were not conscious - nobody had any concept of 'extinction' then.

As to inbreeding, it really isn't that simple. There is a balance between inbreeding and outbreeding - if you outbreed too much, desirable characteristics are diluted and vanish. This is regulated quite well biologically; I think the simple description is that you fancy people who look like you (perhaps more specifically your parents) but smell different, via a process called major histocompatibility complex olfaction.

[Furi]

As this thread has displayed, the word "Zionist" means whatever people want it to mean, and mostly so that it can be used as a weapon against people they disagree with.

so its sort of like the word "democrat" If you use it.... its a verbal warning that indicates the user is quite possibly a facist....is that how it works?

'Zionist' is a verbal warning label, like 'Darwinist', 'Commie Pinko', the slurred 'Librul', 'fag', and the dreaded 'n' word. Bigots are apparently required to use those terms to signal to one and all that they can (and should) be avoided.

From what I've observed of CTists on this forum, "Zionist" can be defined as "Any Jewish person with financial or political influence, real or imagined, or any Jewish person I personally dislike or need to discredit."

"Zionist Sympathiser" is "Any non-Jewish person who disagrees with me, or any non-Jewish person I personally dislike or need to discredit."

Good post 1337. I was thinking about exactly this last night before I saw your post weirdly enough. As far as I can make out, Truthers use it to mean any Jewish person in any position of influence in any area.


As Far as I can tell, I become a Zionist whenever I disagree with anything a CT or flagrant AntiSemite says (strangely the 2 often go hand in hand),

I find the term tends to be thrown around with the words plot, sympathiser, controlled, sheep, etc they seem to be a last resort argument too many times, "Well if you think that, you are clearly a Ziionist, and therefore anything you state I can ignore LALALALA Can't hear you.".

In this and other CT fora I expect to hear the term thrown around like so many vol-au-vents at a drunken buffet, seems it is more popular than Shill at the moment.

In the other bizarre thread in the CT sub, it was pointed out that the number of degrees of seperation from Effect - Cause - Global Zionist Plot is quite small.

[quarky]

Hmm... well that's the blurred distinction between Judaism and Jewry is it not? One's cultural / religious, and the other cultural / genetic.

And Quarky, I'm not sure it's possible to say that everyone's suffered genocide. Mass murder, yes, but this was completely different - a conscious and systematic attempt to exterminate a people. I don't know of any analogue - even the most brutal colonial projects tended to attempt to drive people off land or enslave them, which while tragic and awful, doesn't instill the existential fear that Jews suffered. Earlier events that were actually genocidal (perhaps the elimination of other hominids would be the paradigm case) were not conscious - nobody had any concept of 'extinction' then.

As to inbreeding, it really isn't that simple. There is a balance between inbreeding and outbreeding - if you outbreed too much, desirable characteristics are diluted and vanish. This is regulated quite well biologically; I think the simple description is that you fancy people who look like you (perhaps more specifically your parents) but smell different, via a process called major histocompatibility complex olfaction.



Yes, it was a whacky post. I like to stir up crap sometimes.
In truth, I'm glad for the diversity of humans, but discouraged by human arrogance and violence.

[Mycroft]

Why is it so cruel to say this:
Nobody has to be a Jew anymore.
Or a Catholic.
Or an Irishman.

Or even a negro.

It's cruel because it's dismissive of the fact that people want to embrace these identities. Jews want to be Jews. If they didn't, they'd stop. Ditto for Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, and any other religion you can name.