New Anti-Semitism

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
It is still growing at the Expense of another Culture (referring to the illegal settlements which are still growing or being new build within the westbank [despite current efforts to tear down at least the newer ones] and for which Palestinian Houses often are torn down )

If the Israel settlements are illegal since they were taken by war then why don't you also consider half of Poland to be one Giant illegal settlement or nearly all of Russia or China or Turkey or every country in the new world or Australia or New Zealand or just about every single country on Earth? It seems very hypocritical to condemn one but let the other 100 just slide by. Is there some reason you are so eager to have to rules inforced for just one country while all the others walk free?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Frankly I think it'd a smashing idea if the entire idea of a 'Jewish state' or 'Muslim state' or 'Christian state', etc. were relegated to the ashheap of history. We've had enough religious intolerance in our history, do we really need anymore?

[Agathon]

If this is going to degenerate into silly racial slurs a la Bods, then I'll add one:

THE JEWS ARE NO GOOD AT HOCKEY!!!

What sports are they good at?

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are a few very good Jewish baseball players.

[Sirotnikov]

Bollocks, it's a Jewish State.

And Jewish is my nationality.

I'm somewhere around agnostic spiritual jewish in my religion (certainly don't fit most of the people in Israel)

And while I'm ethnically jewish, I'm also probably ethnically german and lithuanian and many other things.

I can't think of anything other trait that would some up my Jewishness other than nationality.

Are these modern western democracies?

No. It doesn't matter. I can give you exapmles of modern western democracies. In any case, this is a straw man, since there's no reason to hold different nations to different standards.

So if Israel will call itself non-moden non-western democracy, it will be allowed to continue to use violence?

Then why don't all nations, just use the old Civ 2 trick, and change to Fundamentalism. That way you can you spies to poision water supplies and explode nuclear devices in neighbouring civs, and come out with only a slap on the wrist

The different standards towards different countries is rather unfair, and the motiefs behind the diffferent standards are at times... suspicious.

Yes there is - Israel is supposed to be a modern, developed country.

again, irrelevant.

They were ethno-national states and the only people that want to return them to that model are the BNP and the National Front.

Ah but you're generalizing people who are racists and people who merely want their own definition.

Are the Basques racist? They want to have an ethno-national state. They, on grounds of nationality and ethnicity, refuse to share a state with Spain.

Their right for this is assured by the self definition rights sponsored by the UN.

I would agree that if Israel had lost it's jewish majority, making laws to repelnish it would be racist. However, making immigration laws to assure the current situation stays balanced is no way 'racist'.

What would be the whole idea in a Basque state, if all the catalonians move there, and would be 55% of the population?

Just because you disagree with the idea doesn't make it dead or wrong.

Australia was almost solely British for most of its history.

Under brittish rule, but it was never seen as a 'purely brittish' colony, as in 'meant for brits alone to come and settle'. More like 'yet another place brits settle'.

Again, straight from the BNP's manifesto.

That's great, but again irrelevant.

You're comparing a group that wants to revert a political democracy to an ethnical one. A move that is impossible, and immoral, since it would harm the local citizens.

Good. I don't think states should be "Jewish" or "Christian" or "white" or "black".

And as of that point, jews will once again become a minority in Israel, and once again will suffer from the same racist ideas, that you thought were awfully natural, and didn't take care to uproot.

And why do you think that is....

But that is irrelevant why that is. It is a fact that will cause the dissimilation of Israel as a democratic western society, similar to bringing 300,000,000 chinese to USA.

The reasons don't matter since they don't change anything. This fact is an active limiter of the Israeli immigration policy.

Come on - it's race.

The fact that you have limited ability to understand more complex ideas that genetic code, like national history, culture and values , doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't. I think most of them are justifiably angry.

...Over Israel. Which is what they say, but they are equally angry about chechnia, and nigeria and all the other countries in which Islam is trying to create a state.

They are pretty clear. Most of them want you lot out so they can have their land back. After that only the extreme nuts really care.

They are very clear.
They have a value called 'muslim land', which means that once a land has been owned by a muslim, it can't go to non-muslim hands. That would be sinful. And that is what bin-Laden is trying to promote, but not only regarding Israel.

And the thought that the Malasyan government and people would be so damn angry about Jews taking away a small patch of land from the Palestinians is completely nuts. You must agree that there is something very wrong here. And that is called religious fanaticism which is the driving force behind this conflict.

The fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now a pan-arab and pan-moslem issue, is a result of religious fanaticism.

Btw, the main forces against Jews in Israel were always the religious leaders. Land owners were usually quite happy to sell the land to Jews and move. Religious leaders starting the whole issue of 'stealing moslem land', which motivated the masses in Palestine, and later around it as well.

But how many people would support this if Israel was gone. Not many. Even Bin Laden has mostly material things in his manifesto.

Did you ever read his manifesto?
I doubt it.

I have seen tapes of him declaring his manifesto, which is clearly to fight christianity and judaism, and promote Islam around the globe.

If there wasn't Israel, then he'd use S. Arabia, or Iraq, or Chechnia or any other reason he could to 'justify' his actions in the eyes of westerners.

I never said there was.

By answering my warnings about racism against jews as a result of the conflict with "Well they have a good reason to hate Israel" you give justification to their actions - promoting of racism.

Not really - that and oil are what the fuss is about.

No, not really.
I hardly think bin Laden cares much about oil. For him it's merely a tool. An advantage. Not a goal. His goal is assuring Islam dominates.

Why would I?

Because these are all hot-spots around the world, where the same muslim terrorist groups are active.

Hezballah and Al-Qaeda are all active in those places. So are local branches of the muslim brotherhood.

Each place is considered a local 'muslim land' and there is religious strife over it.

Oh come on...

No, YOU come on.

Just because you can't connect the dots, doesn't mean it's not there.

It's all a conspiracy.

No, more like a religious war.

To the problem of "Israel hating" yes.

Ah, but you again elquently ignore jew hating.

Do you seriously claim that saying that jews drink palestinian kids blood, is "israel hating"?

Do you seriously claim that beating up jews in france, is "israel hating"?

You are living on someone else's land which was given to you against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants who had no say in the matter. You've deprived a large number of them of their civil rights and forced them to live in bantustans under a pernicious sort of apartheid.

Hell, what's not to like.

I am living on no one elses land.

If you have troubles differentiating actual ownership from sovereignity it's your problem.

Jews tried to get ownership of all the land in Israel. Muslim clerics revolted, chanting about not wanting Jews in the neighbourhood, so the British Mandatorial government, limited the legal amount of land Jews could buy. In fact, it forbade jews from buying most of the land. And I'm talking about jews who legally immigrated to Palestine.

That would be equivalent of your government, telling jews that they can't buy an appartment in a certain building, because the neighbours don't want them there.

After a long struggle, the UN gave Israel sovereignity over a piece of land, according to the Partition plans. The arab neighbours disagreed and turned to force to set up their own ideas of boundries. Surprisingly Israel came out the victor and the 49 cease fire lines have become Israel's sovereign borders.

That is until 67, when threatened with war, Israel expanded it's borders, and later returned much of the territory, and has been willing to return the rest, in return for a permanent peace deal.

As for the land owners that left during 1947-1949, that was mostly their choise. Some of them returned btw, between 49 and 51, until Israel declared that whomever didn't return up to that point, has wavored his rights, due to apparent animosity to the state.

I'm sure you're aware of more exapmles than me, of events when an owner of land found himself under different sovereignity.

Infact, you can look at the W. Bank which was under Jordanian sovereignity.

As for apartheid and batustants, that is infact what Jordan and Egypt did until 1967. from 1967 till 1993 we modernized the areas and kept the residents under the proper treatment as described in the responsabilities of military occupation.

In 1993 we began a process in which we tried to give them some sort of independance, which the leadership abused to create "better grounds" for a conflict that would pressure Israel to compromise more on the land issue.

As far as land ownership goes btw, you fail to mention Jewish residents of old cities, that were chased out by bloody pogroms, in 1920, 1929 and the arab revolt.

Because I'm saying that the main cause of this anti-semitism is the unjust actions of Israel and the great powers.

And I am saying that it is irrelevant and that what ever causes it, it is unjustified and should be combatted with.

The cause can be one which is solvable or not. That is to be determined.

But what you're trying to say is that it is ok for anti-semitism to be a natural part of the conflict, and I am telling you that it is not ok and not legitimate.

It is exactly like terrorism. Obviously the cause for terrism is a conflict. A conflict can be solved in one or another way. But unless you're suggesting we always give those who employ terrorism 100% of their demands, I'm suggesting that we make terrorism illegitimate and will not accept it as a normal part of conflict solving.

And the same should be done with anti-semitism.

And your saying "well they have good reason to ..." is not really valid, since we're not discussing the validity of their reasons but rather the morality of their methods. And their methods, anti-semitism and terrorism are unacceptable.

Ever seen a WWI Propaganda poster?

yes. many.
which one specifically?

And Muslims were regarded as dirty lustful dope-smoking towel headed perverts. Next.

Irrelevant.

You claimed that anti-semitism in the arab world is a direct and natural result of the Israeli-palestinian conflict.

I showed you that it existed before, as a political tool used to direct population anger at enemies of the regime, and it is still used in such a manner today.

You ignore my point and make some references to racism towards muslims in the western world, which has no effect on my claim what so ever.

This is the usual move. Obscure the material basis of the conflict with intangibles, and then you don't have to admit you are wrong.

This is your usual move. You seek the answer under the flashlight where you like it to be found. Instead, you should try to see things in context.

There's no reasonable explanation for the fact that hundreds of millions of arabs and muslims all hate Israel as much, because of it's conflict with the Palestinians.

My whole point is that the behaviour of the muslim society is far from reasonable but instead mass manipulated by religious leaders. And as such, it can be dealt with properly using your reductionist tools.

But they do!!! Haven't you read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion!!!!!

See my point?
There isn't a lack of 'justifications' to insert racism into play. What we have to do is to make it unacceptable. Instead you're telling me to deal with it...

More power to them on the latter front.

lost you

Not what I said.

Yes you have.
The existance of Israel on lands which the muslim nation considers its own, is an 'in your face' to them.

Just like the existance of jews in mandatorial palestine.

And you are saying that it's merely a natural phenomena that will continue as long as the muslims are unsatisfied.

But that's what everyone does to their enemies. Picking on Muslims alone isn't fair.

No it isn't what everyone does to their enemies.

You try to present it as natural and act in a forgiving fashion. Your way results in racism as a regular way to solve conflicts.

I'm trying to make it illegitimate and obsolete. My way will hopefully result in racism being made illegitimate in conflcits.


If I can paraphrase our arguement like this:

Siro: People are using voilence against me.
Agathon: Well for good reason. You annoyed them before.
Siro: I know, but voilence is a bad way to solve conflicts.
Agathon: Well if you appologize, they will probably stop.
Siro: I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in making voilence illegitimate when dealing with conflicts. It will make settling them easier.
Agathon: Well it's natural that they would be violent. You were really really bad. No use expecting people not to be violent towards you.


Do you get the difference now?

[Dinner]

I think that was the longest post I've ever seen.

[Sirotnikov]

Btw, one more point, to those supporting the quest for palestinian refugee return.

One of the main pillars of your anger at Israel, is the settlements which you accuse of demographically altering the territories (though they've already been altered several times during 1929-1949, each time cleansed from jews).

Leting 3.5 M arabs go to Israel, would definately consitute a great demographical change for Israel. The same change that is so evil and harmful, when it comes to settlements.

Why is one thing a no-no and one thing ok?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like they are the same thing Siro .

No one is railing against the settlements because they 'constitute a demographic change'. We rail because it is MORE STEALING of their land!

[Sirotnikov]

Oerdin - I had MUCH MUCH longer posts before.

Just search for my name in threads about: Israel, Religion, Social Sciences, History....

[Sirotnikov]

No one is railing against the settlements because they 'constitute a demographic change'. We rail because it is MORE STEALING of their land!

Are you suggesting that Israelis evicted palestinians from standing homes, destroyed them, and built theirs on top?

Because if you're talking about Israelis building homes on "palestinian land" then there is no such thing since there was no palestinian sovereignity. Ever infact.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And that's the main complaint over the settlements... DUH!

Isrealis come into the West Bank and Gaza and act like they own the place... which makes peace impossible. Forever.

[Sirotnikov]

As far as acting like they own the place - depends. Israel contributed a whole lot to modernization in the W.Bank and Gaza. Far more than Arafat has done since 1993. Infact I'm sure his efforts strive to nothing. Maybe building himself and his cabinet some nice villas.


But you talk about settlements.

As for the other part, Who infact does own the place?

People own their house and their property. And what, a meter or two beyond?

Who owns a hill top between houses?


Suppose there was a jewish neighbourhood that existed for years (as many have been) in Hebron. After the bloody events of 1929 it was left by jews. A result of a pogrom. Practically an extermination of jews in Samaria and Judea. All the remaining jews left in 1948 when Jordan invaded.

Who is to say, once Israel got hold of the land, they are not allowed to rebuild their property on the exact place/ close to it, on a hill?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who owns a hill top between houses?

It's supposed to be the Palestinians... that is what you Israelis say, but don't really believe .

It it were up to me, I'd give the PA totally authority over the pre-existing settlements, and forbid Israel from building new ones outside of PA authority.

[The Vagabond]

The racial/national/ethnical/religious (choose the word you like) character of the state of Israel is clearly the key attribute that distinguishes Israel from the other countries that are regarded modern, civilized and democratic. Agathon elucidated this well in his posts. OTOH, the very existence of the state of Israel finds its justification in being an inherently Jewish state. Hence a fundamental contradiction. The future of Israel depends on how this contradiction is resolved.

[Cruddy]

From the original post I'd guess this was a declaration of the existence of "an international anti-Jewish conspiracy".

I'd give this the same amount of likelihood as "an international Jewish conspiracy."

That is, none at all. First because the Israelis are blatantly obvious about the importance of torture and murder to the existence of their nation.

Second, because those who hate all Jews regardless of their politics are never quiet about it.

So these "conspiracies" are too blatant to be called conspiracies.

In your face OTT ethnic hatred, that's more like it.