Can you be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic? [Archive]

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

16th July 2004, 08:46 AM

I would need clarification

Zionism in what sense?

The creation and continuation of the State of Isreal as a political, secular entity? nope, I have no problem with this

The recreation of the reforming of Judea and or the reunifiaction of Biblical Judah and Isreal and or the lands of the 12 tribes (the spiritual state?) based on interpretations and claims of God's promises of delivering to the Hebrews their own kingdom? I am not in a postion to know if these claims and interpretations are ligitamate or not.

maybe we need some definitons to help, though maybe a dictionary is not an absolute authority on definitions like this

from m-w on -line

Zion (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Zion&x=15&y=16)

Israel (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=israel)

Jacob (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=jacob+)

Zionism (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Zionism&x=12&y=14)

Judea (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Judea&x=9&y=13)

drkitten

16th July 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Lucky

It is also obvious that the answer depends on what we mean by Zionism.

My answer will be no, because saying you are anti-Zionist is a different thing from not saying you are a Zionist. I interpret anti-Zionism to mean opposition to the existence of the state of Israel.

I agree with Mr. Lister that working definitions will be almost mandatory for this discussion to be useful.

Just firing from the hip, I think it's easily possible to be anti-Zionist (in the sense you describe) without being anti-Semitic (in the sense of being prejudiced against Jews). The State of Israel was created by a UN mandate -- if for some reason one objects to the UN or disagrees with its authority to decide/regulate territorial disputes (an opinion that has been expressed in many other border disputes across the world; for example, in the recent Ethiopia/Eritrea dispute, where Ethiopia rejected the UN-drawn boundary), then Israel has no legal justification for existing.

Under this analysis, the fact that Israel is a Jewish state would be irrelevantt.

richardm

16th July 2004, 08:48 AM

Not all Jews are Zionists, therefore you can be anti-Zionist without being Anti-Jewish. QED?

Lucky

16th July 2004, 09:18 AM

Please, for the purposes of coherent forum discussion, please define the following as quickly as possible:

I’ll try.

Zionist - That’s really what we’re discussing, and the definition depends on whether you’re pro or anti. I believe that a religious state is an anachronism, but that Israel has the right to exist and therefore to defend itself, and that it would be bad for the Jewish people if Israel were to be destroyed. Some people that call themselves Zionists would say that I am also one; others (especially the ultra-religious right) would not.

Semitic – Can we ignore semitic and just agree that anti-semitic in this context means anti-Jewish? (that is what the question intends).

Jewish – 2 necessary conditions:
1) Jewish according to Halacha.
2) Identifing as Jewish in whatever sense they choose (i.e. don’t have be religious).

Cleon

16th July 2004, 09:21 AM

Speaking as a Jew who is anti-Zionist, let me say that yes, yes you can. :)

What I think many in the Jewish community lose sight of is that until WWII, the Zionist movement was a small minority of Eastern European Jews. There was a lot of opposition to it; the Chassidim saw it as blasphemous (many still do, as in the case of Neturei Karta, Satmar, and others), the socialists (Bund) wanted to fight for their rights in Europe, and the assimilated Jews--well, it wasn't even on their radar screen.

The idea that being Jewish entails being a Zionist, and being opposed to Zionism (a political philosophy) means being opposed to Jews or Judaism (a people/culture/religion/etc) is a fairly recent phenomenon. Interestingly enough, it is also still principally Ashkenaz; the majority of the die-hard Zionists out there come from Ashkenazi families. Where you might see support for Israel in the Sephardic, Mizrahi, and other Jewish communities, it does not get to the level of zealotry you see among Ashkenaz Zionists. (Certainly the settlers have virtually zero support outside the orthodox Ashkenaz community.) This is not to bash Ashkenazim, being of Yiddish stock myself, but it's an interesting historical note--the basis of Zionism within the Jewish community remains much the same.

There are, of course, genuine anti-semites who like to play the game. The National Alliance, for example, has tried to cozy up to Palestine solidarity groups by claiming to be "anti-Zionist." And, of course, anti-semitic groups use the words "Zionist" and "Jewish" interchangeably (including the phrase, "Zionist Occupational Government" to describe Washington--the claim being that the US government is run by Jews). This adds fuel to the fire, and certainly those of us in the Jewish community who are anti-Zionist or at least sympathetic to the Palestinians want nothing to do with these people.

Rob Lister

16th July 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Lucky

I’ll try.

Semitic – Can we ignore semitic and just agree that anti-semitic in this context means anti-Jewish? (that is what the question intends).

You can do pretty much anything you wish but by evading the issue and opting for the anit-issue instead, you do yourself, and this discussion, and others, a disservice. I recommend you define semitic explicitly rather than defer to the connotations of that ride on the use of the term 'anit-semitic'. If the two terms are not necessarily polar opposites, state that. If they are, state that.

I do applaud you for otherwise clarifign so quickly. A troll would not.

Lucky

16th July 2004, 09:58 AM

From richardm:
Not all Jews are Zionists, therefore you can be anti-Zionist without being Anti-Jewish.

A logical error!

1) Certainly there are non-Zionist Jews.
2) Although it doesn’t necessarily follow from 1), there also exist Jewish anti-Zionists (non-Zionist and anti-Zionist are not the same thing).
3) Unfortunately, however, there exist anti-semitic Jews (like, for example, anti-American Americans; it is not uncommon to be prejudiced against your own).
4) Therefore the existence of non-Zionist (and even anti-Zionist) Jews does not prove the existence of anti-Zionists who are not anti-Semitic.

Your conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but your reasoning is.

Baker

16th July 2004, 10:52 AM

Just look at the upsurge of anti-Semitism in many parts of the world synagogue bombings, physical assaults on Jews all in the name of anti-Zionist.

I have been reading through some articles on the subject this was a round table discussion on the subject.

Kay: Obviously, Prof. Dinnerstein is correct to say that you can be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic. The problem is that in Muslim countries, which have supplanted the West’s racist right as the leading producers of anti-Semitic propaganda, the distinction has been entirely blurred. Islamic religious authorities increasingly cite anti-Jewish hadiths and Koranic passages in their anti-Israel screeds.

In Pakistan, to take one example, Michael Kamber of the Village Voice reported last year that his interviewees made no distinction between Jews and the Jewish state, slipping casually in their poisonous criticism from one to the other. “Anti-Semitism flows as easily as water,” he wrote. “In interviews conducted while I was there, government officials would occasionally veer off into long diatribes about the Jews; fundamentalist religious leaders, who educate hundreds of thousands of children in the country's madrassas, spoke of little else.” This hateful conflation would be a worrying phenomenon even if it were confined to the Muslim world. But it’s not. As I noted above, anti-Semitic hatreds are being imported into the Hard Left protest movement through Western-based pro-Palestinian activists and Web sites.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6651

Cleon

16th July 2004, 11:27 AM

Well, if it's on frontpagemag.com, my instinctive response is to call "BS." That's a propaganda outlet for David Horowitz, nothing more.

The question of anti-semitism/anti-zionism in the Arab/Muslim world is complex. Much more complex than people like Horowitz like to admit.

You have a situation where the majority of the Arab world's only contact with Jews is the so-called "Jewish state." Zionists refer to attacks against it as anti-Semitic; the US government, the most powerful on earth, agrees with that assessment; everyone seems to give the opinion that Israel acts on behalf of the Jewish people. If that's the case, then of course those who suffer at Israel's hands are going to become very anti-Jewish.

Think about it--if your only contact with, say, the Finnish people is when the Finns invade your village and shoot a bunch of people claiming it's out of necessity for the security of the Finnish people, you're not going to up and say, "Well, it's ok, I know it wasn't all Finnish people, just this government who claims to speak on their behalf." You're going to be really pissed off at the Finns. And that's true whether or not the Finns are correct in saying that it's necessary for their security.

As an example--when there's an attack on Israelis, whether soldiers or civilians, Israel's cheerleaders immediately say the Palestinians are out to "kill Jews." Israeli = Jew, you see; an attack on Israelis is an attack on Jews. Now, suppose a Palestinian family has their house torn down so the Israelis can build this wall of theirs--this is fairly common--and says to the press, "the damn Jews destroyed my home." Who do you think would be the first to shout "anti-semitism?" Is it true anti-semitism--that is, is it real contempt and hatred of the Jewish people? Or is it more a tragic creation of an unfortunate situation? Isn't there a double-standard when Zionists can equate Israelis with Jews, but Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims can't?

This is an inherent problem when you have a very real political situation born out of a pseudo-religious ideology, like Zionism. Nobody blamed Isaac Stern for refusing to perform in Germany after the Holocaust. Nobody would blame a Kosovar for hating Serbs. But the moment an Arab says an unkind word about Jews or Israel, they are branded an anti-Semite.

Lucky

16th July 2004, 12:03 PM

From Rob Lister:
You can do pretty much anything you wish but by evading the issue and opting for the anit-issue instead, you do yourself, and this discussion, and others, a disservice. I recommend you define semitic explicitly rather than defer to the connotations of that ride on the use of the term 'anit-semitic'.

I am not trying to evade any issue. If I were, I don’t think that starting a thread on it would be a very good method; do you?

I did not write the question. If I had, I might have used ‘anti-Jewish’ rather than ‘anti-Semitic’, because, as you point out, there can be some debate about the meaning of ‘anti-Semitic’.

I didn’t see the need to define ‘Semitic’ because it is not in the question, and is actually not very helpful in defining ‘anti-Semitic’. ‘Semitic’ peoples, or languages, definitely include both Jewish and Arab, but ‘anti-Semitic’ has come to refer only to the Jewish context (presumably because there was an urgent need for some such term).

I hope we will not get bogged down in a discussion about whether ‘anti-Semitic’ is a good synonym for ‘anti-Jewish’. Obviously it is not. However, it seems to me that common usage is the best guide, and I am sure that most people would understand anti-Semitism to mean prejudice or hostility towards Jews.

I was trying to simplify.

Lucky

16th July 2004, 01:12 PM

From Cleon:
And, of course, anti-semitic groups use the words "Zionist" and "Jewish" interchangeably (including the phrase, "Zionist Occupational Government" to describe Washington--the claim being that the US government is run by Jews). This adds fuel to the fire, and certainly those of us in the Jewish community who are anti-Zionist or at least sympathetic to the Palestinians want nothing to do with these people.

Can’t you see that, if sincere, you must therefore stop labelling yourself ‘anti-Zionist’. And I really am only talking about labels; you are absolutely entitled to express your views how and where you please. You might think that the term ought to mean ‘an end to encouraging diaspora Jews to move to Israel’, or ‘opposed to the influence of religious parties’, or ‘in favour of a negotiated peace with the Palestinians’ or something similar.

But it no longer does, for two reasons:
1) Israel exists.
2) See Baker’s post.

For a Jew to publicly state that she/he is ‘anti-Zionist’ confers legitimacy on ‘anti-Zionism’ in the hateful modern sense. Do you understand why Jews would object to this and would not be inclined to listen to your arguments?

Tmy

16th July 2004, 01:18 PM

I dont think anyone is against the creation of a jewish state. (unless they are anti semetic).

The problem is HOW and WHERE the jewish state was created. Which really has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the people. If the UN did the same with Gypsies youd stiil have the same problems/.

Cleon

16th July 2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Lucky

For a Jew to publicly state that she/he is ‘anti-Zionist’ confers legitimacy on ‘anti-Zionism’ in the hateful modern sense. Do you understand why Jews would object to this and would not be inclined to listen to your arguments?

Well, first, see my statement on what I think of the drivel Frontpagemag puts out. I don't consider it remotely legitimate.

Second, remember, I'm Jewish myself, so I reject the whole "why Jews would object" bit--it is a rather obvious linguistic twist to separate me from the Jewish community. I take offense at that, and I reject it.

But regarding your claim, I consider myself an anti-Zionist, because I am against the state of Israel as a Jewish state. The idea of a "Jewish State" in historic Palestine is undemocratic and--dare I say it--racist. Anti-zionism, meaning being against zionism, zionism meaning support for a Jewish State in Palestine (currently embodied in the state of Israel).

There is no "modern sense" as opposed to "classic sense" for being an anti-Zionist. Zionists like to conflate it with anti-Semitism (and genuine anti-semites have no problem considering themselves anti-Zionist); I refuse to yield. In any event, do you really think anyone would notice the distinction between "anti-Zionist" and "non-Zionist?" I am both. Arguing between the two, in this day and age, is arguing a distinction without a difference.

Tmy

16th July 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Cleon

.

But regarding your claim, I consider myself an anti-Zionist, because I am against the state of Israel as a Jewish state. The idea of a "Jewish State" in historic Palestine is undemocratic and--dare I say it--racist. Anti-zionism, meaning being against zionism, zionism meaning support for a Jewish State in Palestine (currently embodied in the state of Israel).

.

Racist?? That depends on how the country is run. What is Italy, other than a country filled with Italians. Does that make Italy racist??? Now if they have special citizen rules based on a persons race, well then it gets tricky.

Baker

16th July 2004, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, if it's on frontpagemag.com, my instinctive response is to call "BS." That's a propaganda outlet for David Horowitz, nothing more.

The question of anti-semitism/anti-zionism in the Arab/Muslim world is complex. Much more complex than people like Horowitz like to admit.

You have a situation where the majority of the Arab world's only contact with Jews is the so-called "Jewish state." Zionists refer to attacks against it as anti-Semitic; the US government, the most powerful on earth, agrees with that assessment; everyone seems to give the opinion that Israel acts on behalf of the Jewish people. If that's the case, then of course those who suffer at Israel's hands are going to become very anti-Jewish.

Think about it--if your only contact with, say, the Finnish people is when the Finns invade your village and shoot a bunch of people claiming it's out of necessity for the security of the Finnish people, you're not going to up and say, "Well, it's ok, I know it wasn't all Finnish people, just this government who claims to speak on their behalf." You're going to be really pissed off at the Finns. And that's true whether or not the Finns are correct in saying that it's necessary for their security.

As an example--when there's an attack on Israelis, whether soldiers or civilians, Israel's cheerleaders immediately say the Palestinians are out to "kill Jews." Israeli = Jew, you see; an attack on Israelis is an attack on Jews. Now, suppose a Palestinian family has their house torn down so the Israelis can build this wall of theirs--this is fairly common--and says to the press, "the damn Jews destroyed my home." Who do you think would be the first to shout "anti-semitism?" Is it true anti-semitism--that is, is it real contempt and hatred of the Jewish people? Or is it more a tragic creation of an unfortunate situation? Isn't there a double-standard when Zionists can equate Israelis with Jews, but Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims can't?

This is an inherent problem when you have a very real political situation born out of a pseudo-religious ideology, like Zionism. Nobody blamed Isaac Stern for refusing to perform in Germany after the Holocaust. Nobody would blame a Kosovar for hating Serbs. But the moment an Arab says an unkind word about Jews or Israel, they are branded an anti-Semite.

I don't see anything complex about it you seem to be trying to justify anti-Semitism with your comments so the rest of the world should just put up with anti-Semitism because the Arabs are fed up with Israel?
If you go back to before the creation of Israel outside of Arab propaganda you will find a long history of anti-Semitism.

But these articles show the main point I was trying to make how anti-Zionist is being used to create anti-Semitism.

On Saturday morning, masked assailants smashed stolen cars into a synagogue in Lyon before setting them ablaze. A witness said a group of approximately 15 youths stormed the building. No one was injured in the incident, but the synagogue was destroyed.

Another synagogue, in the southern city of Marseille, was burned to the ground over the weekend. The same building was the target of another attack last October when assailants hurled a Molotov cocktail at it.

The Marseille attack occurred after police had completed a patrol of the synagogue, as part of tighter security measures recently employed around Jewish sites across the country. Anti-Semitic assailants also attempted to burn down a pavilion at a Jewish cemetery in Strasbourg and fired at a Jewish butcher shop near Toulouse over the weekend.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/france_antisemitism020403.html

European governments are not accurately reporting or effectively combating antisemitic violence, creating a climate that has contributed to the rise of anti-Jewish speech and violence. Often the official response of governments is silence, or to attribute attacks to political protest. For much of early 2002, the French government made few public statements about the rising tide of anti-Jewish violence; the government has now firmly condemned the violence, but has yet to release official statistics on such incidents in 2002. The governments of Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Russia, where a majority of the other attacks have been concentrated, have made public statements condemning the surge in violence. But the governments have released little documentation of anti-Jewish violence, and have, according to nongovernmental observers, done little to abate the rising tide.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pubs/antisemitism/antisemitism.htm

On June 17, perpetrators broke windows and threw burning material into the Orthodox United Synagogue in South Tottenham, near the predominantly Orthodox Jewish community of Stamford Hill, destroying prayer books smuggled out of Germany and Poland prior to World War II.

The next day, a fire at Aish HaTorah, a Jewish educational center in the north London suburb of Hendon, inflicted an estimated $450,000 of damage. Two handwritten Torah scrolls were torn up and used as kindling for the fire.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2004/07/02/jews_in_britain_see_prejudice_against_them_on_rise/

Tmy

16th July 2004, 01:44 PM

This reminds me of that thread about the Libertarians who wanted to move into Grafton New Hampshire and then vote as a block and turn the town into a Libertarian utopia.

The people of Grafton were really upset about this. NOt because they are anti- libertarian, Im sure most couldnt care about the party. THey were afraid of being displaced by the interlopers.

Cleon

16th July 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Baker

I don't see anything complex about it you seem to be trying to justify anti-Semitism with your comments so the rest of the world should just put up with anti-Semitism because the Arabs are fed up with Israel?

Gotcha. You don't understand, don't want to understand, and anything I say is just justifying anti-Semitism. Thank you for not bothering to read a single thing I wrote; I'll be sure not to waste my time again.

Responses like yours are exactly why the problem's been acerbated. You'll only listen to one side of the story, and the other side is just hateful.

Mr Manifesto

16th July 2004, 01:47 PM

"Can you be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic?"

Well, it depends. If you are like most people, the issue is complex. As pointed out above, a definition of terms need to be proscribed to begin with. Even then, you have to examine closely the motivations and intentions of the anti-Zionist based on the situation and evidence available. However, keeping within the spirit of what I believe you are trying to ask (in all good faith), I should say there aren't many people who wouldn't say, yes, you can be anti-Zionist without necessarily being anti-Semitic.

If you're Skeptic, however, the answer is NO!

Cleon

16th July 2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Tmy

Racist?? That depends on how the country is run. What is Italy, other than a country filled with Italians. Does that make Italy racist??? Now if they have special citizen rules based on a persons race, well then it gets tricky.

But Italy wasn't created by a group of Italians living in Scandinavia who wanted to take it back from the non-Italians already living in Italy. Therein lies the difference. Israel, on the other hand, was created by European Jews "on top" of the people already living there. In order to do that, they had to expel, chase out, or subjugate the people already living there. And that is what made the idea racist.

Skeptic

16th July 2004, 01:53 PM

(Shrug)

There is an old (male-chauvinist) joke about a kid who asks his dad what's the difference between theory and practice. Dad tells him to ask his sister if she'll sleep with the neighbor for $1,000,000.00. The sister says yes. "In theory", dad explains, "we're millionaires. In practice, your sister's a whore".

Same thing here. In theory, I suppose it's possible to hate the jewish state, want it to be destroyed, claim the jews who live there are mere colonialists occupiers who need to go back where they came from, and all those other nice things "anti-zionists" say, and not have any problem at all with jews as such.

In practice, however, active "anti-zionist" are almost invariably antisemitic, using "zionism" as an excuse to hide their hatered of jews under a socially-acceptable facade.

Tmy

16th July 2004, 01:59 PM

But it was the ANTI SEMITES who helped create Israel. They were pro Zionist.

They Euros (as well as countries around the globe) didnt want to take in the displaced Jews after WW2. Why? CAUSE THEY WERE ANTI SEMITES THATS WHY! So they they got rid of there "problem" by giving them a chunk of land that was in someone elses back yard.

Dont kid yourslef with this idea that the noble allied countries helped create Israel cause they felt bad for them. There was alot of antisemitism in their actions.

zenith-nadir

16th July 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
They Euros (as well as countries around the globe) didnt want to take in the displaced Jews after WW2. Why? CAUSE THEY WERE ANTI SEMITES THATS WHY! So they they got rid of there "problem" by giving them a chunk of land that was in someone elses back yard.So true...so true Tmy.

My personal feeling is that one can be anti-zionist without being anti-semitic. You may not want to live in Israel or desire all jews to live in Israel or really give a crap about Israel yet be ok with people who are jews. I think too many jews tie anti-zionism too closely with anti-semitism. When I talk with my mother, who lives in Israel, she always gives me grief, "when you coming back to Israel", "when you gonna move". I kinda understand her zionism-like comments, it's kind of a psuedo-survival instinct inbred for generations because of the level of persecution jews have suffered over the ages. Many jews instinctively desire to settle amongst other jews in order to keep the jewish race alive. That place, in this point in history, is inside Israel. When I answer my mother with "I am happy where I am" I can sense the dissapointment in her voice but I know she doesn't consider me anti-semetic.

Mycroft

16th July 2004, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
You can do pretty much anything you wish but by evading the issue and opting for the anit-issue instead, you do yourself, and this discussion, and others, a disservice. I recommend you define semitic explicitly rather than defer to the connotations of that ride on the use of the term 'anit-semitic'. If the two terms are not necessarily polar opposites, state that. If they are, state that.

Originally posted by Lucky
I didn’t see the need to define ‘Semitic’ because it is not in the question, and is actually not very helpful in defining ‘anti-Semitic’. ‘Semitic’ peoples, or languages, definitely include both Jewish and Arab, but ‘anti-Semitic’ has come to refer only to the Jewish context (presumably because there was an urgent need for some such term).

Anti-Semitism did not come to mean anti-Jew, it's always meant that.

The term was coined by a racist from the late 19th century named Wilhelm Marr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr).

demon

16th July 2004, 11:59 PM

So I don't see anything wrong in accepting the equation that anti-Zionism = anti-Israel in many cases..
Also, what is of definite value is to distinguish between Zion/Zionism and "Semites" (ie Khazar and Sephardic Jewish people).

Zionism has a definite origin in Europe, amongst the descendant of _converts_ to Judaism. They are not racially any different from Europeans/Turks, imo, and they most certainly are not "semites".

Their relationship to Zionism is pretty much the same as that of the German people to Nazism: it was an idea that took root and flourished to the extent that it was powerful enough to conquor and dominate others.
To hate Nazism in both ideal and reality (the idea and the instrument of its realisation) is not to hate _all_ the Germans, nor to blame the present Germans, but to accept that some Germans were dangerous to the world and they _did_ act out this danger.

I oppose Israel because it stands upon Palestine, move it to Britain, and I'm no longer opposed to "Israel" (given Lords Palmerston and Balfour's and the British Empire's fundamental responsibility for "Israel" being there in the first place).

I still may not like the racism, the fascist mythology that it is soaked and pickled in, but it'll simply be a culture rather than a coloniser.

As long as it remains a coloniser-state it remains something worthy of demolition, and that goes for any other coloniser-state in my view.
So long as there is a Palestinian people, they have a superior right to that land.

I'd say there are three key issues we should address when we get "into" Zionism:

1)The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
2)The close relationship between Israel and the US and in this context the influence Israel brings to bear on other Mideast countries
3)The wider role of highly privileged businesspeople, bankers, media moguls, lawyers, lobbyists and politicians who align themsleves to a Zionist project and who seem to prefer a definition of Zionism that includes supremacy of the Jewish over other nations as opposed to a definition that includes self-determination for an independent Jewish state living in harmony with its neighbours.

In my mind an anti-semite is someone who either denies people of the Jewish faith the same rights as everyone else or someone whose narrow worldview blames the world's woes mainly on Jews collectively.
Identifying the socio-economic interests of prominent Zionists and their powerful supporters (in the US administration for instance), as something to be concerned about is not anti-semitism.

a_unique_person

17th July 2004, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Lucky
At my Shul (I belong to the Reform Synagogue) we have an alternative service one Shabbos in each month for people who want something more thought-provoking than the main service. Tomorrow, in the study session, we are to debate the question: Can you be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic?

It is obvious that this is two different questions, depending on whether it is addressed to Jews or non-Jews. However, it could be quite controversial even amongst Jews, and even amongst Reform Jews (though, it being Shabbos, we will be expected to discuss in a calm and seemly manner).

It is also obvious that the answer depends on what we mean by Zionism.

My answer will be no, because saying you are anti-Zionist is a different thing from not saying you are a Zionist. I interpret anti-Zionism to mean opposition to the existence of the state of Israel.

Anyway, I will be interested to hear people’s opinions, at Shul and here.

Lucky, I was wondering if you were Jewish when you said we may not agree on much. I can assure you, I am not consciously and actively anti-semitic. Cleopatra like to play mind games in which she assures me she has noticed me being unconsciously anti-semtitic.

Be that as it may, I hold no grudge against her, only the offensive people around here like Skeptic, who accuse me of being actively anti-semitic, without being able to offer one atom of proof that I trawl anti-semitic web sites looking for reasons to hate Jews. I can assure you , I don't. For what it is worth, a great, great grandfather was half Jewish, which puts some Jewish blood in my own family tree. As Hitler has shown, you can have Jewish blood in your family tree and still be anti-semitic, but I cannot claim to be dyed in the wool, blue eyed and blond headed aryan. He left Germany to move to England and then Australia, because Germany was becoming too 'militaristic', (and, may I guess, anti-semitic).

I think that people asking questions and examining their thinking openly, such as you are doing, is one of the best ways to have a civil society in which conflicts can be resolved peacefully rather than violently. I think that if we had more people like you influencing the debate over Zionism, the issue would have already been resolved, not perfectly, but at least with something approaching the optimal solution for both Jews and Arabs in the Middle East.

As I have said in another thread, the real enemy is fundamentalism, whether it is political or religious. That is, hard line, unwavering thinking, that places people second to ideology.

I hope I can have interesting and thoughtful debates with you at JREF. Despite what you may think, there are people here with whom I can do just that. When I first joined JREF, I complained about abusive posts, and was told there was nothing to complain about. This is the understanding I have been working on, that if I am abused, the person doing so will get it back. Randi appears to want to change this culture. If others are prepared to change to a new set of rules to be followed, I am more than willing.

E.J.Armstrong

17th July 2004, 03:37 AM

originally posted by Lucky
Your conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but your reasoning is.

Unfortunately this is incorrect. The problem is that you have not provided proper definitions. This is crucial.

As you have chosen not to properly define the terms you wish to debate his reasoning is perfectly logical and correct. If there is a group of people who are semitic (such as Arabs) and there are another group of people who are zionists and one group is not exactly the same as the other then it is logically possible to be both anti-zionist and not anti-Semitic. I would have thought this was self evident.

Mr Manifesto

17th July 2004, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
(Shrug)

There is an old (male-chauvinist) joke about a kid who asks his dad what's the difference between theory and practice. Dad tells him to ask his sister if she'll sleep with the neighbor for $1,000,000.00. The sister says yes. "In theory", dad explains, "we're millionaires. In practice, your sister's a whore".

Same thing here. In theory, I suppose it's possible to hate the jewish state, want it to be destroyed, claim the jews who live there are mere colonialists occupiers who need to go back where they came from, and all those other nice things "anti-zionists" say, and not have any problem at all with jews as such.

In practice, however, active "anti-zionist" are almost invariably antisemitic, using "zionism" as an excuse to hide their hatered of jews under a socially-acceptable facade.

Like I said.

American

17th July 2004, 06:32 AM

Skeptic

17th July 2004, 07:19 AM

hope we will not get bogged down in a discussion about whether ‘anti-Semitic’ is a good synonym for ‘anti-Jewish’. Obviously it is not. However, it seems to me that common usage is the best guide, and I am sure that most people would understand anti-Semitism to mean prejudice or hostility towards Jews.

Correct. In fact, the term "antisemitism" (antisemitismus) was coined by a 19th century antisemite as a "scientific" replacement of the term "jew-baiter" (judenfresser). It has nothing at all to do with semitic people as such.

The new refrain, "we're not antisemitic beause we support the semitic Arabs" is a (deliberate) "misunderstanding" to try and claim hatered of jews is not antisemitism. If those who use this excuse prefer "jew-baiter" or "hater of jews" over "antisemite", be my guest...

Mycroft

17th July 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by demon
3)The wider role of highly privileged businesspeople, bankers, media moguls, lawyers, lobbyists and politicians who align themsleves to a Zionist project and who seem to prefer a definition of Zionism that includes supremacy of the Jewish over other nations as opposed to a definition that includes self-determination for an independent Jewish state living in harmony with its neighbours.

Where is the Fool when you need him?

Skeptic

17th July 2004, 11:27 AM

3)The wider role of highly privileged businesspeople, bankers, media moguls, lawyers, lobbyists and politicians who align themsleves to a Zionist project and who seem to prefer a definition of Zionism that includes supremacy of the Jewish over other nations as opposed to a definition that includes self-determination for an independent Jewish state living in harmony with its neighbours.

Yup, that makes sense, demon: "I'm NOT an antisemite! I just hate zionism because it's part of the global plan for world domination by the racist jewish plutocrats! How DARE you!"

Elio

17th July 2004, 11:30 AM

Hello everyone,

Zionism seems to imply some sort of segregation...

So, with the best of intent, it is not acceptable for me....

I understand than when people are subject to discrimination then tend to stick together. I would do the same.

Tmy ,I dont think anyone is against the creation of a jewish state. (unless they are anti semetic).

I'm against a jewish / white / black / hetero / homo state. This is simply discrimination...

Elio.

crimresearch

17th July 2004, 01:47 PM

"Unfortunately this is incorrect. The problem is that you have not provided proper definitions. This is crucial.
As you have chosen not to properly define the terms you wish to debate his reasoning is perfectly logical and correct. If there is a group of people who are semitic (such as Arabs) and there are another group of people who are zionists and one group is not exactly the same as the other then it is logically possible to be both anti-zionist and not anti-Semitic. I would have thought this was self evident."

So when we use the term 'anti-semitic' as it was coined, we aren't using the 'proper definition'?
And who pray tell gets nominated as the chosen arbiters of proper definitions in this case?

IIRC the book of Mormon claims that Native Americans are also one of the lost tribes of Israel...so now 'anti-semitic' can only refer to denigrating Jews and Arabs and Native Americans as a single group?
:rolleyes:

Lucky

17th July 2004, 01:50 PM

From Cleon:
I reject the whole "why Jews would object" bit--it is a rather obvious linguistic twist to separate me from the Jewish community. I take offense at that, and I reject it.

Please accept that I would never take it upon myself to suggest that a person is not Jewish, or part of the Jewish community, no matter what their views or actions might be (including active support for the Palestinians). I feel very strongly about this, and have always objected whenever any Jew has tried to do so in my presence.

I hope it is obvious from my posts that I am a tolerant person who is open to argument from anyone who will respond with the same tolerance and not try to hammer me into the ground. (It is rather ironic, by the way, that many in the Orthodox community would consider my views indistinguishable from yours.)

I have said that I disagree with the concept of a religious state. I have no wish to move to Israel; I love my country and it is my right to live here, despite anti-Semitism. I do not call myself a Zionist, and I think that Zionism has caused great problems for the Jewish community in my country. But I would never describe myself as anti-Zionist, and it pains me when I hear Jews or non-Jews do so. Whether you mean it or not, it implies hostility towards the Israeli people, because this is how it is understood by their enemies.

I think of my Israeli relatives – they are not Zionist monsters, just people. Most of them were (or are descended from) Holocaust survivors or refugees (my family was from Germany). They went to Israel because they had lost their country, their homes and, in some cases, their families. They felt that only Israel could offer a chance to build a meaningful future, and, above all, they believed that they would be safe there from anti-Semitism. For these reasons they wanted a Jewish state.

Cleon, Demon and other anti-Zionists: You may think that they were wrong, but surely you can understand how they felt. And it is not at all obvious what else they should have done. To their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren Israel is simply their country, the only one they have known, and they feel about it as I do about mine. They know it is far from perfect; they tolerate its faults more than corresponding faults in other countries - more, perhaps, than they should (at least, they feel that nothing can be done). They love their home and feel that they have the right to stay there. That is what Zionism means to them.

demon

17th July 2004, 02:09 PM

"They love their home and feel that they have the right to stay there. That is what Zionism means to them."

A hell of a lot of Palestinians loved their homes too, and the livelihoods they had, and felt they had a right to stay where they had stayed for ages. For them, Zionism means they couldn`t.

Don`t be so egocentric about this...put the boot on the other foot for a change. It wasn`t for the Palestinians to pay the price so the Jews could have homes and feel security. The Palestinians were in the wrong place at the wrong time and still are and many won`t be happy until they are ethnically cleansed from the entire region.

Just ask our fellow contributors here, the Mycrofts, the ZNs, the "Skeptics"...they can`t even tell you where they think Israel should draw the line at stealing more land...it`s all there to be taken according to them and guess what...it`s happening right before our eyes.
Zionism, anti-semitism, pretty academic questions when there is a 900lbs gorilla sitting in the corner of the room..aka The Occupation.

Lucky

17th July 2004, 03:06 PM

Demon: I was just trying to get you to see the Zionist monsters as people, and, in some cases, people that I love dearly. Plainly I failed. What else can I do? Photographs? Names? Biographies? I feel that nothing could ever work with you, because they are Jews.

As it happens you are completely wrong in your speculations about my views on the Palestinian issue. I feel that the plight of the Palestinians is a terrible shame on the Jewish people through our state, Israel. Though I certainly do not believe that Israel is the only wrongdoer here.

Many Jews make a point of denying the historical existence of a Palestinian people, but I say that that is ridiculous. There may not have been a Palestinian people fifty years ago, but large numbers of people now feel this to be their identity, and if they say that they are Palestinian then that is what they are.

The situation for Israeli Jews and Arabs and Palestinians at the moment is truly horrible. I try to have hope.

Yes, I do care more about my relatives (some of whom are very close friends) than anonymous Palestinians, because I am human. But more than anything in this world I want peace, justice and a secure future for all of them.

Lucky

17th July 2004, 05:15 PM

From a_u_p:
Lucky, I was wondering if you were Jewish when you said we may not agree on much. I can assure you, I am not consciously and actively anti-semitic.

...

I think that people asking questions and examining their thinking openly, such as you are doing, is one of the best ways to have a civil society in which conflicts can be resolved peacefully rather than violently. I think that if we had more people like you influencing the debate over Zionism, the issue would have already been resolved, not perfectly, but at least with something approaching the optimal solution for both Jews and Arabs in the Middle East.

a_u_p: I have a lot to say to you. First, I must thank you for your kind words. It is important that you have said these things, and I know we will make much more progress if we can talk to each other rather than trading insults.

Yes, I have noticed that you are unconsciously anti-Semitic. Ask yourself, for example, why you concern yourself with the plight of Muslims in the Jewish state but have never once mentioned the plight of Jews in Islamic states.

But it is late, and I am tired. I hope that we will continue to discuss. (I know we will.)

a_unique_person

17th July 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Lucky

a_u_p: I have a lot to say to you. First, I must thank you for your kind words. It is important that you have said these things, and I know we will make much more progress if we can talk to each other rather than trading insults.

Yes, I have noticed that you are unconsciously anti-Semitic. Ask yourself, for example, why you concern yourself with the plight of Muslims in the Jewish state but have never once mentioned the plight of Jews in Islamic states.

But it is late, and I am tired. I hope that we will continue to discuss. (I know we will.)

I don't know if I agree with your opinion, as there are reasons for why I do this, however, I don't find it offensive, in that you have a rational reason for thinking this. What I object to is Skeptic making lurid allegations against me with no evidence whatsoever.l

Meadmaker

17th July 2004, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by demon
"They love their home and feel that they have the right to stay there. That is what Zionism means to them."

A hell of a lot of Palestinians loved their homes too, and the livelihoods they had, and felt they had a right to stay where they had stayed for ages. For them, Zionism means they couldn`t.

I think the reality of the situation is more complicated than that.

But first, let me give my answer to the original question. For context, I am an atheist first generation Irish-American who married a Jewish woman and is currently raising a Jewish son.

I think it is possible to be anti-zionist without being anti-Jewish.

I'm opposed to mixing church and state. I'm also opposed to any notion that one piece of land is somehow "special" to one specific ethnic group, and members of that group have some sort of inherent right to be there, while others do not. Most people would say that makes me anti-Zionist.

There's a much weaker notion of Zionism, which says that Jews should go to the Land of Israel, and should there try to form a society in which they can live freely. I'm not opposed to that, because it doesn't interfere with the rights of the people who already happened to be living there.

In my involvement with the Jewish community, which began with my marriage, I've seen an awful lot of Jews who think that Jews have a special right to live in Israel, and that Arabs have plenty of places that they could live, so what's the problem? To me, I don't know how anyone could deny the inherent racism of that attitude.

So, I'm opposed to a "Jewish state", unless all you mean by that is a state where Jews can live freely, alongside any non-Jews with whom they share the place. I think most people would say that makess me anti-Zionist. But my wife is a Jew, and my kid is a Jew, and I go to Temple with them, and I send my kid to a Jewish school, and we celebrate Shabbat every Friday and...well, I don't think I'm anti-Jewish.

So, why do I think demon's remarks were unfair? Because reality isn't that simple. In fact, at the end of WWII, there were an awful lot of homeless Jews. They had to be "put somewhere", and the Powers that Be decided Israel was a good place. Otherwise, they might have moved to their backyard, which they would have found unacceptable.

So, a lot of Jews moved to Israel, and the British carved up the place into one where the Arabs were a majority, and one where the Jews were a majority. The Arabs didn't think that was fair. After all, they were a large majority in the place, and they didn't think there was a need to Gerrymander the place so that the Jews got a place where they were in charge.

And so, they launched a war. This was pretty predictable, but it wasn't something they were forced to do. It was as a result of the war that the Arabs were displaced. In other words, I don't think Zionism forced them to lose their homes. I think war forced them to lose their homes, and I think Arabs started the war.

And now, the whole situation is an atrocious mess. I don't like a lot of what Israel does, and some of their policies are absolutely horrible. On the other hand, for all its faults, Israel is better than any of its neighbors. If they were adjacent to any democracy, I think Israel would be different, and I'm certain the region would be different.

demon

18th July 2004, 12:40 AM

Lucky:
"I feel that nothing could ever work with you, because they are Jews."

Oh, here we go...the anti-semite charge.

You made a post about Israelis loving their homes etc, I have no doubt they do. I respond by reminding you of the Nakba, and indeed I should also have mentioned the ongoing crimes of Israel, the collective punishment, the creating of more and more refugees as we speak and you see it as an attack on Jews because they are Jews and not an attack on what they are doing.

People like Skeptic, Mycroft and ZN need and create anti-semites to justify standing on their Zionist scaffold, I didn`t think that was your position too. I still hope it isn`t.

My position on these issues is fairly clear and I`ve discussed it at length (and sometimes constructively...I make special refernce to "Cleopatra" here), many times before. My arguments do not rely on anti-semitism but are about "justice" for a people who, collectively, suffer more in one day than Israel does in a year.

I think you and I might have got off on the wrong footing.

demon

18th July 2004, 12:50 AM

Skeptic:
demon: "I'm NOT an antisemite! I just hate zionism because it's part of the global plan for world domination by the racist jewish plutocrats! How DARE you!""

They say necessity is the mother of invention and it certainly is with you. Your case is so flimsy you find it necessary to invent and conjour up quotes by any number of people to justify your existence on this forum.

Bloody pathetic.

E.J.Armstrong

18th July 2004, 02:23 AM

orignally posted by Demon
Bloody pathetic.

Based upon his behaviour he really does seem to have difficulty with the truth. A bit like Mossad agents and psychics in many ways.

E.J.Armstrong

18th July 2004, 02:29 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
Where is the Fool when you need him?

Not sure what this means? Are you and Skeptic not able to debate the paucity
of definitions offered by the person who started this thread?

crimresearch

18th July 2004, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Not sure what this means? Are you and Skeptic not able to debate the paucity
of definitions offered by the person who started this thread?

First of all, this isn't the debate forum, it is the skeptical and critical thinking forum.
The debate forum is over there, at 'alt.politics.gossip'.
Feel free to join it and engage in debating, sophistry, and rhetoric to your heart's content...

And second, you are failing to answer specific and direct questions about your assertions regarding definitions, which combined with your other comments makes is highly likely that any attempt to engage you in civil discourse will be a waste of time.

But feel free to prove otherwise.

Lucky

18th July 2004, 10:04 AM

From demon:
Oh, here we go...the anti-semite charge.

Actually, I did not call you anti-Semitic, and it probably would not be helpful to use that term to explain your apparent attitude to Jews (which is very common amongst the Left).

I do think that you display an inability to see Israelis, and Jews who identify with Israel, as people. It seems that we are just stereotypes to you. For instance, you (quite incorrectly) inferred my views about the Palestinians before I had said a word on the subject, simply, as far as I can see, from the fact that I am Jewish.

The problem is that people don’t deal very well with complexity. On the Left just as much as on the Right, we want political situations to be nice and simple, with clearly-labelled heroes and villains. So we have, for example:
Arabs good, Jews bad
Kosovons good, Serbs bad
(“four legs good, two legs bad”).

I remember a particularly ludicrous example, from the Falklands war. It was a problem for the ultra-left groups in Britain (e.g. Vanessa Redgrave’s Worker’s Revolutionary Party) to decide what line to take. As a matter of course their own country had to be in the wrong, so they decided that it was a colonial struggle, with the Argentinean right-wing military dictatorship playing the role of the underdog fighting imperialism!

I hesitated about starting this thread, because Israel-related topics here tend to generate hostility and pointless abuse rather than reasoned discussion. However, most of the replies have been to the point, and have given me a lot to think about.
(Thanks especially to Baker, Cleon, zenith-nadir, a_u_p, Meadmaker.)

Mr Manifesto

18th July 2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by crimresearch
First of all, this isn't the debate forum, it is the skeptical and critical thinking forum.
The debate forum is over there, at 'alt.politics.gossip'.
Feel free to join it and engage in debating, sophistry, and rhetoric to your heart's content...

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Ah, you crack me up.

E.J.Armstrong

18th July 2004, 01:07 PM

originally posted by crimesearch
First of all, this isn't the debate forum, it is the skeptical and critical thinking forum.
The debate forum is over there, at 'alt.politics.gossip'.
Feel free to join it and engage in debating, sophistry, and rhetoric to your heart's content....
This is not meant to be a forum for debate? Do I take it that James Randi himself is wrong when he invites visitors to visit the forum to 'Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe.' Perhaps someone should tell him?And second, you are failing to answer specific and direct questions about your assertions regarding definitions, which combined with your other comments makes is highly likely that any attempt to engage you in civil discourse will be a waste of time. What questions are you talking about? Please justify this claim as you seem to be confusing me with someone else. A simple apology will suffice.But feel free to prove otherwise. If you had actually clarified what you were talking about that might actually be possible. Until then...

E.J.Armstrong

18th July 2004, 01:17 PM

edited for dupication

E.J.Armstrong

18th July 2004, 01:29 PM

originally posted by Lucky
Actually, I did not call you anti-Semitic, and it probably would not be helpful to use that term to explain your apparent attitude to Jews (which is very common amongst the Left).
I also took your remarks to be a deliberate charge of anti-semitism against demon.

I also find your propensity for trying to associate sectarian views to other posters, as the following paragraph in your post suggested, rather worrying for a newbie.

I do hope you are here to listen to rational debate.

demon

18th July 2004, 04:21 PM

"Actually, I did not call you anti-Semitic, and it probably would not be helpful to use that term to explain your apparent attitude to Jews (which is very common amongst the Left)."

Oh, just **** off will you, I heard it all before.

crimresearch

18th July 2004, 09:01 PM

"What questions are you talking about? Please justify this claim as you seem to be confusing me with someone else. A simple apology will suffice."

Went back and checked, they are still there, as anyone can easily see by reading the thread.
Not to mention the posts from others pointing out the same inconsistencies in your point about definitions.

And it was posted as you, not as you claim, 'someone else'.
The only apology due would appear to be yours.

davefoc

18th July 2004, 10:23 PM

Lucky said:Actually, I did not call you anti-Semitic, and it probably would not be helpful to use that term to explain your apparent attitude to Jews (which is very common amongst the Left).

I've noticed that there is more support for the Palestinians amongst the left also. I'm not quite sure why this is. For what it's worth I'm a person with somewhat right of center political views who is strongly criticical of the current Israeli policies and in particular American policies toward Israel and Palestine. I think it is very likely that the current situation is sustained almost totally by the huge American aid to Israel. American aid for Israel is bad for Israelis, bad for Palestinians, bad for Americans and bad for the world. The day that America stops its crazy aid to Israel is the day that Israel stops its disastrous expansionist policies of the last 30 years.

As to the topic of this thread: can somebody be anti-zionist and not be anti-semitic? The answer is, of course, yes if any of the most standard definitions of those terms applies.

But the term anti-zionist seems to be ambiguous enough that it can be interpretted as being very antagonistic towards Jews and as such the use of the word seems to cause a lot of animosity around here, in particular with a particular poster from Greece. So whether intended or not the use of the term anti-Zionist can be offensive to some might be equivalent to anti-semetism with certain definitions.

Lucky said to AUP:
Yes, I have noticed that you are unconsciously anti-Semitic. Ask yourself, for example, why you concern yourself with the plight of Muslims in the Jewish state but have never once mentioned the plight of Jews in Islamic states.

I can tell you why I might concern myself more with the welfare of Palestinians than Jews living in Islamic states.

1. My country (the US) has given one third of all of its foreign aid to Israel over the last thirty years. The average Israeli citizen on a per capita basis receives more than a thousand times more American foreign aid than the average citizen of the world. And a great deal of that aid is used to subsidize the destabilizing expansionist policies of the Israeli government. As an American I feel somewhat responsible for that. American policies are not responsible for the mistreatment of Jews in Islamic countries and while that doesn't mean I don't care about that, it doesn't mean that I have a sense of responisiblity about it either.

2. I frankly don't hear that much about the mistreatment of Jews in various Islamic countries. If I did perhaps I would think more about it. I am aware of the large Jewish migrations to Israel out of various Islamic countries but I am not aware of an ongoing mistreatment of the Jews that remained. Perhaps you could tell me specifically what you had in mind with this reference.

A link to a Jewish organization that is working for the implementation of the Geneva accords and an end to Israeli expansionist polities:
http://bringthemhome.btvshalom.org/

Although I don't think they'd call themselves anti-zionists I think thier views on how to bring peace to Palestine and Israel are very similar to AUP's, Cleon's, Carpel Dodger's, Demons and numerous other posters around here. It is hard to see how views that are consistent with a mainstream Jewish organization like this could mark one as an anti-semite but for some people around here it seems to.

Mycroft

19th July 2004, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Not sure what this means? Are you and Skeptic not able to debate the paucity
of definitions offered by the person who started this thread?

Wrong and irrelevent. Guess again.

JJM 777

19th July 2004, 12:34 AM

Let me try to clear my throat upon this issue:

Jew:
1) GENETICAL MEANING: A genetical descendant of a Biblical person called "Israel", who had 12 sons.
2) RELIGIOUS MEANING: A person who has converted into religious doctrines that are strictly controlled by the politically most influential genetical Jews of our days. (Example: It is permissible to believe in any Messiah whatsoever EXCEPT Jesus.)

Semitic:
1) PRECISE MEANING: A genetical descendant of a Biblical person called "Shem" (one the three sons of Noah, the only survivor of the global flood).
2) COLLOQUIAL MEANING: A genetical descendant of a Biblical person called Abraham (whose two most famous sons are Israel the father of Jewish people, and Ishmael the father of Arab peoples).

Anti-Semitic:
1) PRECISE MEANING: Person with negative racist attitudes against any "Semitic" people.
2) COLLOQUIAL MEANING: Anti-Jewish, person with negative racist attitudes against Jews.

Pro-Jewish (Pro-Semitic):
Person with POSITIVE racist attitudes in favour of Jews (common among charismatic fundamentalist Christians).

Zionist:
1) LIMITED MEANING: A person who is interested in protecting the current land area and political rights of the state of Israel.
2) COMMONLY USED MEANING: A person who supports the idea that all Jews in the world should have the right to move to the state of Israel, if they so please, but no person of any other religion or human race should have a similar automatic right for citizenship of the state of Israel.

Non-Zionist:
A person whose political views about the future of Middle East differ from those of Zionists.

Anti-Zionist:
A person who actively opposes Zionists.
1) NEUTRAL MEANING: A person who actively promotes Non-Zionist political views.
2) EXAGGERATED MEANING: A person who would like to give Zionists inferior human rights in the Middle East, compared to other peoples of the region.

With these definitions, you can certainly be Anti-Zionist without being Anti-Jewish or Anti-Semitic.

demon

19th July 2004, 01:04 AM

"I think the reality of the situation is more complicated than that."

Really?
I know some people who would disagree.
I know a couple with three kids that are now homeless, happened seven days ago...they lived in Rafah. You heard of that yes, because it was on the news?

Anyone here actually know any Palestinians? This question seems to get laughed at. They are a top people in the face of adversity.

Esther

19th July 2004, 03:26 AM

To the question that was posed in the opening post, I believe that the answer is yes. One can refuse the right of Israel to exist without being an antisemite. I do not accept people claiming though that anti-zionism means " opposing to the policy of Ariel Sharon". Anti-zionism means that Israel must not exist. I respect those who claim openly such a thing, I do not respect those who use Sharon as a pretense. To my experience 9 to 10 people who claim that they are anti-zionists because of Ariel Sharon in reality, they are antisemites whether they are aware of their antisemitic feelings or not. 9 to 10 antisemities do not accept that they hate jews anyway.

Lucky

20th July 2004, 03:22 PM

From Davefoc:
I am aware of the large Jewish migrations to Israel out of various Islamic countries
'Migrations'? I think you are being unnecessarily euphemistic here!
www.yaledailynews.com... (http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=20342)
www.jpost.com... (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1080707285067)
en.wikipedia.org... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_refugees)

From Davefoc:
I am not aware of an ongoing mistreatment of the Jews that remained. Perhaps you could tell me specifically what you had in mind with this reference.
A few examples of modern outrages:
www.yije.org... (http://www.yije.org/israel/act%20now/2004/29MAR.htm)
www.babylonjewry.org... (http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/ninejews.htm)
www.iran-e-sabz.org... (http://www.iran-e-sabz.org/news/torture4.htm)

I was thinking partly of the wholesale destruction from 1948 of all the ancient Jewish communities throughout the Arab world, and the panic, terror, murder and robbery that accompanied the expulsions. But mostly of dying communities of elderly people afraid to reveal their Jewish identity, or, where they are in larger numbers (primarily Iran), a constant barrage of unbelievably foul anti-Semitic official propaganda, fear of attacks, fear of being arrested as ‘spies’ etc.
www.thepolitic.org... (http://www.thepolitic.org/news/2003/03/01/Features/The-Condition.Of.Jews.In.Iran-388583.shtml)
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/lebjews.html)
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/syrianjews.html)
www.indianexpress.com... (http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/20001217/iin17034.html)
www.usatoday.com... (http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020702/4240409s.htm)

‘in 2001 a Ba’th Party official stated that “lowly Jews” were “descendants of monkeys and pigs”’
‘the anti-Semitic distortion of Koranic texts in popular translations of the Koran that are being published in Iran. On the very first page of the Koran, where the original Arabic reads only "those who raised God's anger" or "those who strayed" the Farsi translation, used by the overwhelming number of Iranians not familiar with Arabic, inserts the word "Johood," a negative term applied to Jews in Iran and roughly the equivalent of terms such as "the Yids" or "the Kikes”.’
‘they prefer to pass themselves off as Parsis because of the intolerance for Jews in Muslim Pakistan’
‘Though he has lived tranquilly with his Muslim neighbors for decades, there are so few Jews left here and political tensions run so high that Balassiano and the last of the city's Jews keep a quiet profile. He doesn't tell people he is Jewish’

Anyone reading these and similar stories must be struck by the same thought: Why on earth don’t these people leave, and go somewhere they would be more welcome? But we (rightly) would not apply that principle to the Palestinians.

CapelDodger

20th July 2004, 03:27 PM

I am anti-zionist but not anti-semitic, so it is possible.

Lucky

20th July 2004, 03:49 PM

From CapelDodger:
I am anti-zionist but not anti-semitic, so it is possible.
It seems that I have somewhat changed my mind as a result of this discussion, because I said:
My answer will be no, because saying you are anti-Zionist is a different thing from not saying you are a Zionist. I interpret anti-Zionism to mean opposition to the existence of the state of Israel.
But now I would agree: Yes, it is possible.

CapelDodger

20th July 2004, 04:40 PM

from Lucky: was thinking partly of the wholesale destruction from 1948 of all the ancient Jewish communities throughout the Arab world, and the panic, terror, murder and robbery that accompanied the expulsions. But mostly of dying communities of elderly people afraid to reveal their Jewish identity, or, where they are in larger numbers (primarily Iran), a constant barrage of unbelievably foul anti-Semitic official propaganda, fear of attacks, fear of being arrested as ‘spies’ etc.
One of the reasons why I am anti-zionist and oppose the existence of the state of Israel is the way that the need to justify it has hidden and distorted Jewish history. There are no end of people who can describe the deaths of Jewish comunities, without any idea of the lives of those communities. The "ancient Jewish communities" of the Middle East were indeed ancient, but since the creation of Israel they have largely vanished. Is there not a prima facie case of cause and effect here? If Muslim anti-semitism is so murderous, how did these communities exist for so long? (It's outside the Arab world, but the Iranian Jewish community survived until Khomeini, when they sensibly emigrated - and not all to Israel, the US, as ever, was first choice.) The traditions of these societies have not survived the dislocation and their experience of Israel. It's all lost because the lives of those communities were non-European, native lives and could have nothing to offer Israel except their labour and assimilated offspring and the deaths of their communties as a justification for the creation of the thing that killed them.

a_unique_person

20th July 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Lucky
It seems that I have somewhat changed my mind as a result of this discussion, because I said:

But now I would agree: Yes, it is possible.

If you take the 'Skeptic' interpretation, it appears anti-zionist means you want all the Jews in Israel massacred in their beds. As has been pointed out, however, anti-zionist has many nuances. Just like 'left' or 'conservative' does.

The last thing I want to see is a massacre of anyone in the Middle East, or anywhere else on earth. I think the creation of Israel was a deeply flawed concept, and think that history has shown this to be true.

How do I resolve the conflicts inherent in these statements? I can't, but no-one else on this planet has been able to,either. One thing I do know, the postions of the extremists aren't going to resolve anything. As I said before, Sharon used to be considered unelctable, because he was too extreme. Now he is the PM of Israel.

Lucky

20th July 2004, 05:01 PM

From Lucky:
Ask yourself, for example, why you concern yourself with the plight of Muslims in the Jewish state but have never once mentioned the plight of Jews in Islamic states.
From a_u_p:
I don't know if I agree with your opinion, as there are reasons for why I do this
a_u_p: A question for you (and it is a question, not an accusation): Could part of your reason be a belief that these Jews somehow deserved what happened to them, because of the actions of Zionists? If so, I would say that is an example of unconscious anti-Semitism. I truly do not wish to offend you, but, please listen.... I believe that I don’t have prejudice against any group of people. If anyone suggested that I have unconscious prejudice then it would seriously worry me, and I would examine it and try to eliminate it, because it is wrong.

I think that the feeling that Jewish suffering caused by Muslims matters less than the other way round probably indicates anti-Semitism, on some level (though obviously understandable that Muslims might feel like this). The belief that bad actions are worse if they are carried out by Jews (or Israel) also indicates anti-Semitism. (Many Zionists, of course, hold the mirror-image belief: Bad actions are less bad if they are carried out by Israel).

From Esther:
To my experience 9 to 10 people who claim that they are anti-zionists because of Ariel Sharon in reality, they are antisemites whether they are aware of their antisemitic feelings or not.
Esther: Several other people here have suggested that, whilst it is possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic, in fact many (perhaps most) people who make a point of calling themselves anti-Zionist are also anti-Semitic (some people at Shul said this, too). It is interesting to speculate whether it is cause or effect, but anyway I think that is probably the best answer (I wasn’t expecting a yes/no resolution when I started the thread).

CapelDodger

20th July 2004, 05:09 PM

from a_unique_perosn: As I said before, Sharon used to be considered unelctable, because he was too extreme. Now he is the PM of Israel.Begin was commander of the extremist Irgun, condemned as terrorists by the Yishuv. He became PM in 1977. While the Labour tradition tried to create good Europeans out of the incoming Middle Eastern Jews, Likud groomed them. The parliamentary system that was supposed to guarantee power to the one large block of votes - the Establishment - suddenly let in another one. The recent Russian influx has tilted the balance again, in the same direction initially. But Likud is falling apart ... An incursion into Lebanon has got to be looking tempting right now.

CapelDodger

20th July 2004, 05:27 PM

from Lucky:Several other people here have suggested that, whilst it is possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic, in fact many (perhaps most) people who make a point of calling themselves anti-Zionist are also anti-Semitic (some people at Shul said this, too)The Power of Suggestion is something that all critical thinkers should take account of. If you're already prepared, before you hear an anti-zionist argument, that the argument is created to hide anti-semitism, you'll start looking for other clues to said anti-semitism. You're being innoculated against the arguments. " ... many (perhaps most) ..." where are the figures? The Left is generally regarded as being anti-zionist, but the Left is pretty much by definition anti-racist, anti-clerical and anti-nationalist. Not pro-Islamist, pro-Arafat or pro-Palestinian. Persuaded of that, is it surprising that they are generally anti-zionist?

a_unique_person

20th July 2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from a_unique_perosn:Begin was commander of the extremist Irgun, condemned as terrorists by the Yishuv. He became PM in 1977. While the Labour tradition tried to create good Europeans out of the incoming Middle Eastern Jews, Likud groomed them. The parliamentary system that was supposed to guarantee power to the one large block of votes - the Establishment - suddenly let in another one. The recent Russian influx has tilted the balance again, in the same direction initially. But Likud is falling apart ... An incursion into Lebanon has got to be looking tempting right now.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The wedge that has always worked so well in the past, and if that doesn't work, just shoot them. This is not a unique phenomenon, it is a tactic that has worked to the advantage of extremists around the world and through history.

CapelDodger

20th July 2004, 06:06 PM

from a_unique_person:The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The wedge that has always worked so well in the past, and if that doesn't work, just shoot them. This is not a unique phenomenon, it is a tactic that has worked to the advantage of extremists around the world and through history.The Christians of Lebanon don't see Israel as the future any more. This time they will unite against Israel. There are no games to be played. Israel is as fractured as any of its potential enemies, which is a new situation.

a_unique_person

20th July 2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Lucky
a_u_p: A question for you (and it is a question, not an accusation): Could part of your reason be a belief that these Jews somehow deserved what happened to them, because of the actions of Zionists? If so, I would say that is an example of unconscious anti-Semitism. I truly do not wish to offend you, but, please listen.... I believe that I don’t have prejudice against any group of people. If anyone suggested that I have unconscious prejudice then it would seriously worry me, and I would examine it and try to eliminate it, because it is wrong.

I have been accused of saying as much before here. It is not just he Jews that have been suffering due to the conflicts in the Middle East.

I have met some Xian refugees from Syria, who felt they had to leave, too. The rift in the middle east is affecting many people in many ways. I do not blame the Jews of Syria for what has happened, for example.

Over here, the middle eastern kids at school are in a minority, among the white anglo kids, and stick together. This has brought about a Xian Syrian and Muslim from the ME being friends, and being hostile to the racist taunts from the white kids.

I don't know that I blame the Jews themselves for what has happened. Like any group, there are numerous shades of opinion on the validity of creating Israel and what should be done with it now. To 'blame' all Jews for this is pretty pointless.

I read about a Palestinian who went to see the occupant of his old house in Israel, just to say, I think, that he would like his old house back, even though he knew he wouldn't get it. The occupant offered him the keys from his old house in Iraq.

The whole Middle East is one big mess. The transformation from colony to modern democratic nations was always going to be difficult, if history is any guide, and the mix of Israel in the middle has just added to the overall confusion. It also makes a convenient whipping boy, if anything is wrong in the Middle East, just blame Israel. This is a nonsense, of course, but having Israel being led by the likes of Sharon is not going to convince many Arabs otherwise, especially when leaders who don't say what the extremist Zionists want to hear get shot.

Add to this the American Xian Zionists. Capel Dodger has mentioned them before, and I saw a documentary 'the world according to Bush'. These are seriously scary, kooky people. The Jews are part of gods grand plan to defeat the devil. When armageddon comes, (and they seem to be looking forward to it, frightening when you think these are the people with their finger on the button for the nukes), the Jews will get one last chance to become Xian and be saved by Jesus. Now, tell me, isn't that anti-semitic? These so called friends of Israel, who send it billions of dollars, still think that the Jewish faith is not a valid one. (I don't happen to believe in any god, so all relgions are equally valid, to me. I see them more as cultural institutions).

I think that the feeling that Jewish suffering caused by Muslims matters less than the other way round probably indicates anti-Semitism, on some level (though obviously understandable that Muslims might feel like this). The belief that bad actions are worse if they are carried out by Jews (or Israel) also indicates anti-Semitism. (Many Zionists, of course, hold the mirror-image belief: Bad actions are less bad if they are carried out by Israel).

I don't think bad actions carried out by Jews are any less or worse than others. However, the only reason I seem to side with the Palestinians here is that I think they are done a disservice by the right wingers here.

If someone was to try to tell me that all Jews are evil, I would be defending the Jews. I don't hang around anti-zionist chat forums, indulging in the self congratulatory back slapping that Skeptic seems to think I do. If I have something to say, I will say it here, and let my beliefs stand up to scrutiny and examination.

Also note that there are many Jews/Jewish sympathisers here that I don't attack. It really just boils down to three, ZN, Mycroft and Skeptic, because they take what I believe to be an extremist position, which appears to be that Israel can do nothing wrong. Skeptic has made outrageous claims as to what I 'really' think, with not one iota of proof.

What I have said is that there is a war on, and innocent people are dying on both sides. More children, for example, have died from the Palestinian side than the Israeli.

I don't differentiate between the suicide bombers and the pilots of an Apache, either. Having better equipment to kill with doesn't make you any more moral.

I don't think Arafat is a good leader for the Palestinians, and I hope that the current ruckus going on will see him deposed and someone more intelligence and with better integrity ruling the Palestinians. Ditto Sharon.

Meadmaker

20th July 2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by demon
"I think the reality of the situation is more complicated than that."

Really?
I know some people who would disagree.
I know a couple with three kids that are now homeless, happened seven days ago...they lived in Rafah. You heard of that yes, because it was on the news?

Anyone here actually know any Palestinians? This question seems to get laughed at. They are a top people in the face of adversity.

I know people who would disagree with almost anything. What's your point?

One of my coworkers is a Palestinian. Her grandfather lived in what is now Israel, and was displaced after the first war.

I think she would agree with everything I said.

I think Israel has a horrible track record on human rights, and does lots of very bad things. However, let us imagine that the United States withdrew military support from Israel. Let us also imagine that the Israeli nuclear option didn't exist.

In other words, let us imagine that the State of Israel would cease to exist, because its Arab neighbors would overrun the place and return it to Arab rule.

Does anyone seriously think that the Middle East would suddenly become a center for democracy and human rights? Does anyone think that if we just let Palestinians or other Arabs run the place that everything would suddenly turn out ok?

And does anyone think that if you gave complete independence and a separate state to what is now called "the Palestinian Authority" that Arabs would stop strapping bombs to themselves, launching rockets, or any of the other things they do?

I think Arabs are more likely to be victims in the conflict because Jews are more likely to be winning, for the moment. There would be plenty of room for anti-Jewish atrocities if the situation were reversed.

And that's why I think the reality is more complicated. It is easy to look at bad things that happen in the Middle East, and blame the Israeli government, because they are in charge. I think there is a lot of truth in that position. But anyone who is not hopelessly naive recognizes that the Israeli government is no worse than the other actors in that stage.

In the long term, the only hope for the region and the people who live there is democracy. Israel is the closest thing to that in the region, but because they keep one ethnic group as second class citizens, they barely deserve the term. Turkey is not horrible. Iraq has some slight bit of hope. There are some noises about instability of the Iranian dictators. However, for the moment, most Arab countries are just plain dictatorships. Most non-Arab Islamic countries are only slightly better, except for some that are worse. And Israel is very good, if you happen to be Jewish, but not so good otherwise.

In other words, the whole area is rotten to the core, and until you remove the rot, the situation will be bad. Israel, for all of its faults, is still better than its neighbors.

Skeptic

20th July 2004, 07:46 PM

I can tell you why I might concern myself more with the welfare of Palestinians than Jews living in Islamic states.

You forgot the most important reason: since the 1940s and 50s, the Muslim majority in the newly-independent Arab states of the Mideterranian engaged in systematic ethnic cleaning, through discrimination, terrorism, mob violence, etc., which kicked out the vast majority of jews and Christians in those nations, making them purely Muslim; so there simply aren't any of those whiney jews in Arab lands to worry about anymore.

It is in this way, children, that the Arab world became "holy Muslim land". It is this that it plans for "liberated Palestine", if it gets the chance. Why think they'd treat the jews or Christians any differently there than they did everywhere else?

Esther

20th July 2004, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Lucky:One of the reasons why I am anti-zionist and oppose the existence of the state of Israel is the way that the need to justify it has hidden and distorted Jewish history. There are no end of people who can describe the deaths of Jewish comunities, without any idea of the lives of those communities. The "ancient Jewish communities" of the Middle East were indeed ancient, but since the creation of Israel they have largely vanished. Is there not a prima facie case of cause and effect here? If Muslim anti-semitism is so murderous, how did these communities exist for so long? (It's outside the Arab world, but the Iranian Jewish community survived until Khomeini, when they sensibly emigrated - and not all to Israel, the US, as ever, was first choice.) The traditions of these societies have not survived the dislocation and their experience of Israel. It's all lost because the lives of those communities were non-European, native lives and could have nothing to offer Israel except their labour and assimilated offspring and the deaths of their communties as a justification for the creation of the thing that killed them. You have the talent to make your opinions look like facts. :)

I haven't read the whole forum so you might be of some help here. Is there a member in this forum that has claimed that Israel has been established because of the "muslim murderous anti-semitism" ? Israel was established because of the murderous and vicious and continuous european anti-semitism. As for those who destroyed the jewish communities of M.E were those that they were refusing to aknowledge Palestinians as a separate nation.

After the appearence of the Ottoman Turks and the destruction of the unique character of the arabic civilization the jews were the only carriers of civilization in the M.E. and the Balkans so the present condition of the arabs is not a surprise to me.It's true that the jewish communities of M.E. and E. Mediterranean have very few things in common with the european jewish communities and those who migrated to USA managed to save something from their unique identity but apart from the jews those who lost most were the arabs that destroyed them.

Esther

21st July 2004, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Lucky:The Power of Suggestion is something that all critical thinkers should take account of. If you're already prepared, before you hear an anti-zionist argument, that the argument is created to hide anti-semitism, you'll start looking for other clues to said anti-semitism. You're being innoculated against the arguments. " ... many (perhaps most) ..." where are the figures? The Left is generally regarded as being anti-zionist, but the Left is pretty much by definition anti-racist, anti-clerical and anti-nationalist. Not pro-Islamist, pro-Arafat or pro-Palestinian. Persuaded of that, is it surprising that they are generally anti-zionist?

The Left generally is regarded as confused and disoriented when it comes to M.E but I will return to that later. It would be easier and it would clear up any misunderstandings if you and others did what you seem to avoid; explain why you keep using the word zionism. Political Zionism that has been the vehicle that was used to lead to the establishment of Israel has only one meaning. Since the aim of political zionism is fulfilled it's strange (to put it mildly) to keep using this term, especially its opposite: anti-zionism.

You were born quite late to be an anti-zionist. Anti-zionists were some of our ancestors back in 18th and 19th century. After the establishment of the state of Israel what is the point to use this word?

It leaves the door wide open to speculation for the motives of those who use it.

Now let's come to the case of the usually disoriented Left. The Left was passionately pro the establishment of Israel at the beginning because "The Left" saw in the jewish model of social organization ( kibbutz) the realization of the vision of socialism in the heart of the western capitalists, the Americans and the British.

"The Left" though hasn't realized ( as many others) that Israelis wouldn't bring the interests of the communist party before the interests of their own country so claiming that "The Left" is traditionally anti-zionist is kind of amusing.

zenith-nadir

21st July 2004, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Esther
It would be easier and it would clear up any misunderstandings if you and others did what you seem to avoid; explain why you keep using the word zionism. Because all jews are "zionists" and Israel is quote "the zionist entity" unquote. Originally posted by Esther
It leaves the door wide open to speculation for the motives of those who use it. You don't have to speculate. Usually your first impression is the correct one. ;)Originally posted by Meadmaker
Does anyone seriously think that the Middle East would suddenly become a center for democracy and human rights? Does anyone think that if we just let Palestinians or other Arabs run the place that everything would suddenly turn out ok?
Nope. Not in a million years. And I base my answer on the performance and historical records of Haj Amin al-Husseini , Yasser Arafat, the Assad family, Saddam, The House of Saud, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini, Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi, President Lt. Gen. Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, etc, etc.Originally posted by a_unique_person
I read about a Palestinian who went to see the occupant of his old house in Israel, just to say, I think, that he would like his old house back, even though he knew he wouldn't get it. The occupant offered him the keys from his old house in Iraq.So If jews started strapping bombs to themselves and began a suicide/terror campaign to kill innocent Arabs riding buses or eating in restaurants to get their homes back, (in Iraq, Syria, Jordan), your opinion on that course of action would be what exactly?

a_unique_person

21st July 2004, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir .So If jews started strapping bombs to themselves and began a suicide/terror campaign to kill innocent Arabs riding buses or eating in restaurants to get their homes back, (in Iraq, Syria, Jordan), your opinion on that course of action would be what exactly? [/B]

That you are still an idiot.

zenith-nadir

21st July 2004, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That you are still an idiot. One can read between the lines in your evasion to my original question. :D

Mycroft

21st July 2004, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have met some Xian refugees from Syria, who felt they had to leave, too. The rift in the middle east is affecting many people in many ways. I do not blame the Jews of Syria for what has happened, for example.

If the Jews of Syria are not to blame, which Jews are?

Skeptic

21st July 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
If the Jews of Syria are not to blame, which Jews are?

The jews in "occupied Palestine", of course, who are the "fundamental reason" for all this "rifting" in the middle east. It's clear, for instance, that the existence of israel simply FORCED the Syrians to expel, prosecute, and kill their Christian population. One can never be too sure with these things; some of them might have been secret zionists.

Incidentally, I don't recall AUP ranting how Bashar or Hafez al-Assad are "thugs" or "murderers"...

CapelDodger

21st July 2004, 03:08 PM

from zenith-nadir:Because all jews are "zionists" and Israel is quote "the zionist entity" unquote. Almost very post I make points out the way that the zionists have conscripted Jews, that zionism was initially rejected by the majority of Jews and still is rejected by many, that zionists are not only Jewish but Christian, everything that would point out to any ratonal being that I believe exactly the opposite of "Because all Jews are zionists". Do you even read any of my words? And of course Israel is the zionist entity. WTF else is it?

CapelDodger

21st July 2004, 03:10 PM

from Mycroft:If the Jews of Syria are not to blame, which Jews are?The European Jews who created zionism, in concert with a contingent of Christians.

Mycroft

21st July 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Mycroft:The European Jews who created zionism, in concert with a contingent of Christians.

They're to blame for Syria oppressing Syrian Christians?

CapelDodger

21st July 2004, 04:05 PM

from Esther:I haven't read the whole forum so you might be of some help here. Is there a member in this forum that has claimed that Israel has been established because of the "muslim murderous anti-semitism" ?A lawyer's trick. I made no such claim, and in fact have consistently pointed out that Israel was created by European Jews. I was responding in part to Lucky's post in which he raised the destruction of ancient Jewish communities after 1948 without, it seemed to me, understanding the implications. I also wished to make a general point, which is that Jewish history is being presented as a series of end-points, with no appreciation of the long and fascinating lives of Jewish communities. Such as the Golden Age in Iberia, Salonika, Mesopotamia, the East End and North London. Poland and the Ukraine, on good days (and lets not forget that everybody gets rained on out there).
As for those who destroyed the jewish communities of M.E were those that they were refusing to aknowledge Palestinians as a separate nation. It was partition that wasn't recognised. Syria would have happily accepted a state of Palestine because it would have stymied Abdullah's plans, which involved Syria pretty intimately. Lebanon had no problems with it, partly for the same reason. The Sauds have always compensated for their (well deserved) bumpkin image by taking an extreme stance on Islam and Arabism, as long as it isn't obviously and immediately dangerous. The Egyptians had no ambitions in Palestine, and would have expected a Palestinian State (a state for people living in Palestine) to be an ideological ally. The Iraqis wouldn't have been much involved, but would have seen a Palestinian State as a counter-balance to Syria and as another nail in the coffin of the anachronisms in Arabia Proper. Only Transjordan (Abdullah and his people) was in favour, and he couldn't afford to say so.

During the first half of the 20thCE none of these governments had any degree of legitimacy (or even existence before 1920). The only sort of power they had was to denounce such things as partition. Denunciation is cheap. Accepting partition was a risk, since partition was a European suggestion, the regimes were only in power because of European (pronounced "British") influence, the opposition was nationalist and therefore anti-European and then there was the whole religion thing. Tends to blow up in your face, the religion thing. Best not to poke at it with a stick.

a_unique_person

21st July 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
The jews in "occupied Palestine", of course, who are the "fundamental reason" for all this "rifting" in the middle east. It's clear, for instance, that the existence of israel simply FORCED the Syrians to expel, prosecute, and kill their Christian population. One can never be too sure with these things; some of them might have been secret zionists.

Incidentally, I don't recall AUP ranting how Bashar or Hafez al-Assad are "thugs" or "murderers"...

"Blame" isn't quite the right term, either. I don't mind 'blaming' those who take a bad situation, like Sharon and his extremist coterie, and make it worse.

The basic act of founding Israel, however, reminds me more of a Greek tragedy. A course of actions that leads to disaster, without the participants being aware of all the forces they are unleashing.

E.J.Armstrong

24th July 2004, 04:53 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
Wrong and irrelevent. Guess again.

Is it now your position that you want people to guess what you are talking about rather than answer simple questions about your posts? Interesting.

E.J.Armstrong

24th July 2004, 05:08 AM

originally posted by crimesearch
Went back and checked, they are still there, as anyone can easily see by reading the thread.
Not to mention the posts from others pointing out the same inconsistencies in your point about definitions.

Then why do you have so much difficulty defending your claim? It is really very easy is it not? You have been asked a simple question. You have failed to defend it. Until you do it seems that you see fit to make things up.

Can I suggest that you will not be taken seriously until you produce evidence. Making things up is Uri Geller behaviour.

Perhaps you would also like to tell us exactly what inconsistencies you are talking about because, once aai, you have failed to support your claim. Perhaps that is not important to you?

Lucky

24th July 2004, 01:04 PM

From CapelDodger:
If you're already prepared, before you hear an anti-zionist argument, that the argument is created to hide anti-semitism, you'll start looking for other clues to said anti-semitism.

1) As a British Jew I am very familiar with the arguments against Zionism. I have used many of them myself! I have tried to explain why, though, I don’t call myself anti-Zionist even though I am against the concept of a religious state, believe that the creation of the Jewish state was bound to turn out badly, and detest the politics of the ultra-Zionist right in Israel.

2) Also as a British Jew, it is not necessary to go around looking for anti-Semitism. Believe me, on too many occasions some far-from-subtle ‘clues’ have been offered to me and my family. I don’t want to exaggerate this (à la Sharon), and most of the incidents have been verbal only (one particularly nasty exception). If it seems at all possible that the person is not meaning to be anti-Semitic (especially if it is in the context of an outburst against Israel or Sharon) then I always try to explain in a non-hostile way why it could be interpreted that way.

CapelDodger

24th July 2004, 03:10 PM

Lucky : I'll revisit your post in the light of your very reasonable points Several other people here have suggested that, whilst it is possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic, in fact many (perhaps most) people who make a point of calling themselves anti-Zionist are also anti-Semitic (some people at Shul said this, too)My problem is with the "many (perhaps most)". You say it is "suggested", but other people here cannot get their heads around anti-zionists like me not being anti-semitic. In my experience - which is pretty wide as far as the UK is concerned, for what that's worth - Jewishness just doesn't register with most people. But the behaviour of Israel does, and while the majority response is to side with Israel there is a significant negative response, more so the younger people are. (I'm leaving the Muslim community out of this, because I've never really got to know any believing Muslims. That may just be down to the alcohol thing, but I suspect it's something deeper than that.) Most racists - anti-semites included - aren't concerned about disguising it, they're usually more interested in telling people why they're right.

If I were you, I'd wonder what agenda the people at Shul had.

Lucky

24th July 2004, 03:21 PM

From a_u_p:
the Jews will get one last chance to become Xian and be saved by Jesus. Now, tell me, isn't that anti-semitic?
The beliefs of these people are extremely offensive to me (offensive is too mild a word), and I think it is absolutely wrong to regard them in any way as allies. Reform Jews in general would feel the same.

From Esther:
You were born quite late to be an anti-zionist. Anti-zionists were some of our ancestors back in 18th and 19th century. After the establishment of the state of Israel what is the point to use this word?
It leaves the door wide open to speculation for the motives of those who use it.
I have tried to make this point several times, but seem not to have been understood.

From Meadmaker:
let us imagine that the State of Israel would cease to exist, because its Arab neighbors would overrun the place and return it to Arab rule
I think if that were to happen then some on the Left would change sides and sympathise with the new underdogs, whilst others would not.

From a_u_p:
The basic act of founding Israel, however, reminds me more of a Greek tragedy. A course of actions that leads to disaster, without the participants being aware of all the forces they are unleashing.
That’s a perceptive and interesting way to put it. I would make a few points:

1) What should have been done instead with the displaced Jews after the Holocaust? I asked Cleon and Demon but they didn’t answer. I personally feel that the problem was not solvable, that any suggested resolution (including the one adopted) would have been unworkable, unjust and in some way disastrous for the Jewish people (and others).
2) Israel exists; history cannot be undone; in general, past wrongs cannot be righted without wronging others.
3) Let’s try not to be too fatalistic. We should avoid suggesting that Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to fight each other and suffer for ever (sooner or later it will be someone else instead).

CapelDodger

24th July 2004, 03:51 PM

from Lucky: 1) What should have been done instead with the displaced Jews after the Holocaust?Actually, many survivors of the Holocaust returned to their homelands. Including Germany and Austria. When you consider the numbers, the USA could have absorbed all of them without a hiccup - and for the vast majority, that would have been the preferred option. The way the surivors were exploited by the zionists is an unmatched exercise in cynicism.
2) Israel exists; history cannot be undone; in general, past wrongs cannot be righted without wronging others.Israel - the Jewish State - will fail. The only question is how long it will take, and what damage will be done in the meantime. A one-state solution is inevitable (unless the nation-state model is superceded first).

3) Let’s try not to be too fatalistic. We should avoid suggesting that Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to fight each other and suffer for ever (sooner or later it will be someone else instead).See above. What really pisses me off is the lost opportunity of a multi-ethnic secular state in Palestine. But it may not be lost, merely deferred.

Lucky

24th July 2004, 05:47 PM

Not really sure why I started this thread, and I doubt I’ll do it again; it’s too much like hard work!

CapelDodger: There’s a problem here with people like you and a_u_p: Life would be a lot easier if I could dismiss you as anti-Semitic s**tes, but apparently you will constantly upset my ideas by discussing the thing reasonably and treating me as though I am a human being even though I’m a Jew/Zionist (whatever).

Now I would much rather spend a Saturday night with: the family, friends, a good book, a bottle of wine, a good film, most combinations. But... you have made a lot of good points; they all deserve an answer. (A little time is required.)

I will take your last point first because it is easiest to deal with.

If I were you, I'd wonder what agenda the people at Shul had.
They don’t have an agenda. On the whole they don’t have my long-time awareness of the political issues, they don’t understand the hostility that we have learned to expect in recent years (nor should they). They don’t like being on the receiving end of racism (nor do I). Most of them, actually, feel as I do: That whenever we suffer an anti-Semitic attack we give the person another chance, we listen, we make every effort to present ourselves (and Israelis) as people. It sometimes works.

If there was anyone there who could be said to have an agenda it was me.

The rest of the stuff, about British attitudes towards Jews, about relations between British Muslims and Jews; I have so much to say about it, don’t know where to start (but I will try to answer you).

Skeptic

24th July 2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
They're to blame for Syria oppressing Syrian Christians?

Of course. It's a worldwide jewish conspiracy. The Syrian Christians were in on the act, no doubt paid by jewish money.

a_unique_person

24th July 2004, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Lucky
1) As a British Jew I am very familiar with the arguments against Zionism. I have used many of them myself! I have tried to explain why, though, I don’t call myself anti-Zionist even though I am against the concept of a religious state, believe that the creation of the Jewish state was bound to turn out badly, and detest the politics of the ultra-Zionist right in Israel.

Skeptic is always hounding me, 'does Israel have the right to exist'. I tell him it exists, I don't think the people in it deserve to all be called or massacred because they do. I am sure that many Jews do detest the ultra-right, just as most people around the world don't like the extremists, not matter who they are or where they live. I am no fan of the extreme rightg wing in Australia. Similar sentiments to wards the left.

You, as a Jew, are naturally going to side with Jews, however, in terms of loyatlies. We are all basically tribal by nature, as far as i can tell. There is nothing intrinsicially evil in that. We can imagine a world without such boundaries, that seem to be one of the root causes of misery in the world. I don't think anyone group or nation is near achieving that state of 'enlightenment'.

2) Also as a British Jew, it is not necessary to go around looking for anti-Semitism. Believe me, on too many occasions some far-from-subtle ‘clues’ have been offered to me and my family. I don’t want to exaggerate this (à la Sharon), and most of the incidents have been verbal only (one particularly nasty exception). If it seems at all possible that the person is not meaning to be anti-Semitic (especially if it is in the context of an outburst against Israel or Sharon) then I always try to explain in a non-hostile way why it could be interpreted that way.

I think that each group experiences it's own racist experiences in a personal way, and finds it uniquely hurtful. As you live in GB, you know that there is a vocal facist minority that achieves notoriety from time to time. They seem to hate all non-whites equally, from where I sit. The Jews they would hate perhaps more not because they are Jewish, but more sucessful. As racism is largely about envy and fear, this would make sense.

Anyway, as I said, it is people asking themselves these questions that, IMHO, leads to real long term resolution of issues. The skinheads and Sharon would never question the correctness of what they are doing. I would include Arafat here, too, but I have never been able to work out just what it is that he is after.

Mycroft

24th July 2004, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Lucky
1) What should have been done instead with the displaced Jews after the Holocaust? I asked Cleon and Demon but they didn’t answer. I personally feel that the problem was not solvable, that any suggested resolution (including the one adopted) would have been unworkable, unjust and in some way disastrous for the Jewish people (and others).

The whole point of Zionism was that some had come to the realization that Jews could not trust their liberty and safety to non-Jews. This isn't an affliction unique to Jews, if you look at other genocides there are similarities. The primary difference here is that some saw the danger ahead of time.

I think it's ironic that the Germans have largely been forgiven for their crimes of this era, yet the Jews are still being asked to repent. There is something wrong with that.

davefoc

24th July 2004, 11:43 PM

I hesitate to add anything at this point because the posters before me have been so well spoken and informed about their various views.

I mostly wanted to say that I appreciated the posts by the people living in Israel and to thank them. I also wanted to thank an@s for his contributions. I have had very little opportunity to hear directly from people living in the Arab world and I was happy to see an@s posting again. (Incidentally an@s, I think your English has improved a lot from your earliest posts, congratulations).

Although the thread has moved on from this, I wanted to add my two bits about the definition of anti-zionism. Before this thread I did not realize that, as understood by some people, the word described individuals who favored the destruction of Israel. To me the word meant that one was opposed to the founding of Israel and/or that one was opposed to the continued expansion into the occupied territories, but one could still be anti-zionist and favor the continued existence of the state of Israel.

Now that I understand how the word can be interpretted, I have a better understanding of the emotion associated with the phrase.

a_unique_person

25th July 2004, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Lucky
The beliefs of these people are extremely offensive to me (offensive is too mild a word), and I think it is absolutely wrong to regard them in any way as allies. Reform Jews in general would feel the same.

maybe it is possible to be pro-zion and anti-semitic.

1) What should have been done instead with the displaced Jews after the Holocaust? I asked Cleon and Demon but they didn’t answer. I personally feel that the problem was not solvable, that any suggested resolution (including the one adopted) would have been unworkable, unjust and in some way disastrous for the Jewish people (and others).
2) Israel exists; history cannot be undone; in general, past wrongs cannot be righted without wronging others.
3) Let’s try not to be too fatalistic. We should avoid suggesting that Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to fight each other and suffer for ever (sooner or later it will be someone else instead).

I tried to write a response to this a couple of times, and stopped. Perhaps a new thread? It is very complex, and I must admit I am not unique in the world in that I alone can come up with a solution to what is a problem that deserves serious and considered attention.

Jessica Blue

25th July 2004, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Actually, many survivors of the Holocaust returned to their homelands. Including Germany and Austria.And just as a matter of interest, many came to Australia. The largest population of Holocaust survivors, per capita, outside Israel, live in Melbourne.

CapelDodger

25th July 2004, 01:53 PM

from Mycroft:I think it's ironic that the Germans have largely been forgiven for their crimes of this era, yet the Jews are still being asked to repent. There is something wrong with that.Very few of "the Germans" had anything to do with the Holocaust. Very few of "the Jews" had anything to do with the creation of Israel, so nobody's asking them to repent that. People are responsible for their own actions, and the conquest of Palestine which continues is something for which many Israelis are responsible. "Israeli" and "Jew" are not interchangable terms, nor are "Israelis" and "Jews" homogenous in their beliefs and behaviour. It's that kind of thinking that leads to the sort of tragedy we see in Palestine.

demon

25th July 2004, 02:19 PM

CapelDodger:
"Very few of "the Germans" had anything to do with the Holocaust. Very few of "the Jews" had anything to do with the creation of Israel, so nobody's asking them to repent that. People are responsible for their own actions, and the conquest of Palestine which continues is something for which many Israelis are responsible. "Israeli" and "Jew" are not interchangable terms, nor are "Israelis" and "Jews" homogenous in their beliefs and behaviour. It's that kind of thinking that leads to the sort of tragedy we see in Palestine."

This is another old chestnut that rears its head periodically isn`t it?
I refer you to Goldhagen's mindless book "Hitler's willing executioners" (which I`m sure you are familiar with), as an example of deep hypocrisy that surrounds this issue.

Mostly taken from an earlier I wrote:
Here we come to what we can call the Goldhagen paradox. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you adopt the view that the Germans are complicit in genocide, you MUST adopt the view that all Jews are complicit in apartheid. This time, however, the reasons Goldhagen gives for German complicity actually apply. Many Jews have known about the purges in Israel - the reality - since 1948 and they've known it first hand. They actually did have access to knowledge that was largely buried away from the Western mind. Moderate Jews have been sending money and aid to the Jewish state and kibbutzes for 50 years. So they are physically complicit in a way Germans never were in the genocide. But we can't ever say this - because it is simply forbidden to lump all Jews together (a view I actually agree with).

It's fine to collectively accuse Germans and Arabs and collectively punish Palestinians, but asking the Jewish community to take collective responsibility for something that for a large part even moderate synogogues have supported - the establishment of an ethnically cleansed state - is seen as anti-semitic.

Mycroft

26th July 2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by demon
It's fine to collectively accuse Germans and Arabs and collectively punish Palestinians, but asking the Jewish community to take collective responsibility for something that for a large part even moderate synogogues have supported - the establishment of an ethnically cleansed state - is seen as anti-semitic.

Wow, you simultaneously say Jews shouldn't be lumped together, then moan that it would be seen as anti-Semetic if you did.

demon

26th July 2004, 03:33 PM

The point I make in my last post Mycroft is pretty clear.
Your petty quibble doesn`t make it any less clear.

By the way, how`s your "Greater Israel" musings coming along...got anything concrete to say to us on that yet or is it still as vague and contorted as your musings on torture?

E.J.Armstrong

27th July 2004, 01:13 PM

Don't want to be a bore crimesearch but are you going to justify your claim or withdraw it?

Lucky

28th July 2004, 02:49 PM

From CapelDodger:
Actually, many survivors of the Holocaust returned to their homelands. Including Germany and Austria. When you consider the numbers, the USA could have absorbed all of them without a hiccup - and for the vast majority, that would have been the preferred option. The way the survivors were exploited by the Zionists is an unmatched exercise in cynicism.

What really pisses me off is the lost opportunity of a multi-ethnic secular state in Palestine. But it may not be lost, merely deferred.

From Mycroft:
The whole point of Zionism was that some had come to the realization that Jews could not trust their liberty and safety to non-Jews.

From a_u_p:
I tried to write a response to this a couple of times, and stopped. Perhaps a new thread? It is very complex, and I must admit I am not unique in the world in that I alone can come up with a solution to what is a problem that deserves serious and considered attention.

There’s rather an interesting book if you can get it: Behind the Silken Curtain by Bartley C. Crum. He was one of the six American members of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine after WW2, and the book is an account of their research and hearings in Europe and the Middle East. a_u_p, CapelDodger: you will disagree with his conclusions, but there’s a lot of useful background and detail.

One of the most interesting parts is his tour of Displaced Person camps in Germany and elsewhere. He provides a vivid picture of the overwhelming feeling of hopelessness felt by the survivors, and of the widespread and deeply-felt desire to go to Palestine, which was most certainly not simply the result of indoctrination by Zionist agents. These people were desperate to begin again in a new land, to be amongst Jews, to have useful work, preferably agricultural, also to claim their identity as the Jewish people as well as some kind of continuity with the past.

In Zeilsheim we were given the result of a poll of 18,311 D.P.s in the area. Of the 18,311, thirteen said they wished to remain in Europe. Of the 18,298 who said they wished to leave, 17,712 said they wished to go to Palestine.

Up to the time the Nazis segregated us all in a ghetto I had not been a Zionist.

In the ghetto and in the concentration camps all differences between Zionists and non-Zionists, assimilationists and non-assimilationists, cosmopolitans and Communists, disappeared completely. Each one of us regretted that he had not gone to Palestine.

I came to my town and found none of my people there. Not a single Jew left. I visited the mass grave where they were all buried. I stayed two days and then I fled. There is nothing left for me now but to go to our own soil in the land of Israel.

A photograph of my school class. All who went to Palestine – ten – survived. They are alive. All who remained in Poland – thirty-three – are dead.

CapelDodger: From personal information and much reading I can’t doubt that most survivors preferred to go to Palestine. Mycroft: I think you are nearer the mark, but I would not agree that Zionism was primarily about safety, either before or after the Holocaust. Many of the most committed Zionists, including those who had fought as Partisans, were quite aware of the dangers they would face in Palestine. Others, however, simply overlooked the problems, as people will. Some of the statements made by Zionist leaders at the hearings reveal a considerable amount of wishful thinking. And the Middle East was never going to be the safest place for Jews. All in all, though, it is not difficult to see why Palestine seemed the best hope for so many.

Of course, that is a different question from the setting up of a Jewish state as such. However, a_u_p: You are right. A separate thread is required. Also, CapelDodger (and anyone else who might be interested): I would like to tell you something about what it is to be a Jew in an area with a large Muslim population, and about friendships and other relations with our Muslim neighbours. But that might also be better in a separate thread.

I won’t be starting one just yet, though, as I am off to Israel next week to visit Zionist monster relatives.

crimresearch

28th July 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Don't want to be a bore crimesearch but are you going to justify your claim or withdraw it?

My 'claim' has been fully proven to be correct, using the actual record on this thread for all to see.

And you have been proven to be a dishonest troll.

Buh-bye, enjoy your stay in Plonkland.

E.J.Armstrong

30th July 2004, 07:40 AM

originally posted by crimesearch
My 'claim' has been fully proven to be correct, using the actual record on this thread for all to see.

And you have been proven to be a dishonest troll.

I have gone over the thread with again and have now discovered where the problem is. Apologies for not noticing your post before but you made no refernce to my name when starting your post. I will respond to it below.

E.J.Armstrong

30th July 2004, 08:44 AM

originally posted by crimesearchSo when we use the term 'anti-semitic' as it was coined, we aren't using the 'proper definition'?
And who pray tell gets nominated as the chosen arbiters of proper definitions in this case?

IIRC the book of Mormon claims that Native Americans are also one of the lost tribes of Israel...so now 'anti-semitic' can only refer to denigrating Jews and Arabs and Native Americans as a single group?

My responses are no, subject to debate and no.

My point remains that,in relation to the entire human race, if there are two groups of people; one consisting of 'those who are anti-semitic' whatever they are defined to be and another group consisting of 'those who are anti-zionist' then, unless the two groups are identical, there will by definition be a group of people who are anti-zionist and not anti-semitic.

Even if you consider only Jewish people, the argument remains the same. Unless the anti-semitic group of Jews postulated by Lucky is identical to the group of Jews who are anti-zionist then by definition there is a group of Jews who are anti-zionist and not anti-semitic.

The question then devolves simply to whether the two groups are identical or not. To show they are not identical, all you need is one person who is anti-zionist and not an anti-semite. Cleon essentially identified himself as such, therefore, by definition, the two groups are not identical and the proof is supplied.

CapelDodger

30th July 2004, 10:01 AM

from Lucky:One of the most interesting parts is his tour of Displaced Person camps in Germany and elsewhere. He provides a vivid picture of the overwhelming feeling of hopelessness felt by the survivors, and of the widespread and deeply-felt desire to go to Palestine, which was most certainly not simply the result of indoctrination by Zionist agents. These people were desperate to begin again in a new land, to be amongst Jews, to have useful work, preferably agricultural, also to claim their identity as the Jewish people as well as some kind of continuity with the past.I haven't read this particular book (if the public library service have it, I will). One thing I will be looking for is the description of the actual tour - who escorted him around the camps, and who did he speak to? The deeply-felt desire to go to Palestine is at odds with the number of DP's who settled in the US, Australia, the UK and elsewhere - if they could - and have remained there even after the creation of Israel.The impression this American gentleman came away with doesn't, to my mind, chime with some very obvious evidence.

The "preferably agricultural" part is particularly jarring. European Jewry - actually, Jewry everywhere - has always been overwhelmingly urban. Israel is also strongly urban, and the Yishuv was always more urbanised than the Arab population of Palestine (which was highly urbanised in Arab terms). This was a serious problem in the early days of Hovevei Zion and Bilu, who had to establish an agricultural college to prepare their Palestine-bound emigrants for a completely different lifestyle. Later, in the Second Aliyah, which was strongly influenced by Russian socialists fleeing the failed 1905 Revolution, the character-building nature of agricultural work was an ideological tenet. (This was when the kibbutz movement got going. It was pretty disastrous at first, and will probably be disastrous in the long term. Doing agriculture from a book is not a good idea, and when the book was written in a different climatic region it's an even worse one.) All in all, I smell a rat. But I'll check out the book.

(from the book, I assume):I came to my town and found none of my people there. Not a single Jew left. I visited the mass grave where they were all buried. I stayed two days and then I fled. There is nothing left for me now but to go to our own soil in the land of Israel.As an old saying has it, hard cases make bad laws.
Some of the statements made by Zionist leaders at the hearings reveal a considerable amount of wishful thinking.Tell me about it. But what they conceal is a deliberate attempt to down-play the risks and the inevitable warfare that was to come. The callous exploitation of Holocaust survivors by zionism is arguably the most evil aspect of the whole project.

CapelDodger

30th July 2004, 10:16 AM

In Zeilsheim we were given the result of a poll of 18,311 D.P.s in the area. Of the 18,311, thirteen said they wished to remain in Europe. Of the 18,298 who said they wished to leave, 17,712 said they wished to go to Palestine.
Again assuming this is from Behind the Silken Curtain , I get the feeling that the details of the poll - who carried it out, what the question was - are not given. If that's the case, it's not worth even considering.
In the ghetto and in the concentration camps all differences between Zionists and non-Zionists, assimilationists and non-assimilationists, cosmopolitans and Communists, disappeared completely. Each one of us regretted that he had not gone to Palestine.Or the US, or Australia, Siberia, or anywhere, rather than a concentration camp. When the state of Israel was created, it was a step in a project that long pre-dated the Holocaust, and by then the concentration camps were closed. But not forgotten, and shamelessly exploited by scumbags like Ben-Gurion and Sharon in pursuit of their Jewish State (and their place in history, their statues, squares, streets, Memorial Institutes ...)

zenith-nadir

31st July 2004, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
When the state of Israel was created, it was a step in a project that long pre-dated the Holocaust, and by then the concentration camps were closed. But not forgotten, and shamelessly exploited by scumbags like Ben-Gurion and Sharon in pursuit of their Jewish State (and their place in history, their statues, squares, streets, Memorial Institutes ...) Don't sugar-coat it Capel Dodger, how do you really feel about "the jews shamelessly exploiting the concentration camps"....oh ya, you forgot the obligatory "Heil Hitler"....

a_unique_person

31st July 2004, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Don't sugar-coat it Capel Dodger, how do you really feel about "the jews shamelessly exploiting the concentration camps"....oh ya, you forgot the obligatory "Heil Hitler"....

In fact, this idea has been debated a lot amonst Jews too. Finkelstein (the Jewish anti-christ, apparenlty), has used the quote "there's no business like shoa-business" in his book.

Do you do a disservice to the Holocaust by exploiting the suffering of others to your own political ends?

Aplogies if this is a neo-nazi site, but it appears to be a reasonable article at a glance.
http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/archive.asp?doc={503FA711-712E-11D4-B996-009027BA226C}

demon

31st July 2004, 02:00 AM

"there's no business like shoa-business"

Hey, you are in for it now...I used that expression before on here and got the book thrown at me.
Good luck to you! lol

davefoc

31st July 2004, 02:35 AM

Correction to AUP link:
http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/archive.asp?doc={503FA711-712E-11D4-B996-009027BA226C}

AUP when the URL has an equal sign in vbulletin doesn't place the url delimiters properly and you need to move them to make the link work.

a_unique_person

31st July 2004, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by demon
"there's no business like shoa-business"

Hey, you are in for it now...I used that expression before on here and got the book thrown at me.
Good luck to you! lol

I don't know if I would agree about Ben-Gurion using the Holocaust, though. Six million or so dead is still a lot of people. I can't believe he didn't feel vindicated in his aims, no matter how devious you could accuse him of being. The 'no business' quote did not come about until many years later.

And Ben-Gurion, no matter what his faults in his resolve to create Israel, no matter what the consequences, knew that once it was created, it had to rapidly achieve some sort of stability, recognition and legitimacy. This included a humane solution to the issue of the people displaced from Israel when it was created, that is, not trying to achieve a 'historical' boundary for the state, but giving the Palestinians room for a state of their own in the West Bank.

Unfortunately, he had already unleashed the extremists who didn't care for anything but a Jewish state on it's historical borders.