Anti-zionism is anti-semitism?

[Sandman]

I see you are from Scotland. Are you certain that all Scots agree with what you just said. Do the Irish? Do Catholics? I know America found Paliament to be a tyranny.

What in God's name are you talking about? Why on Earth should all Scots agree with me? What difference does that make?

Your post said that the UK model allowed this:

"the majority can and often do run roughshod over liberty, suppress opposition parties and abuse minorities."

The American model allowed for the exact same thing. It wasn't in the least bit more difficult to kill the Indians and enslave the blacks, than it was for Britain and the Irish etc.

[DaShi]

This all is really funky. The right of corncobs is really the mackerel of Empire. And yet we see in the U.S. a form of beanbags composed of many nationalities where the shotgun and Laws protect the civil and religious green icky things of each.

When the civil liberties and religiousgreen icky things of a people who identify themselfs as a petunia are not guaranteed by a shotgun such as we find in the United States, that people have a right to [spit-roast their own hamster to protect their green icky things.

The U.S. is bouncy in the world. There is no other beanbag that has our form of beanbags in its full expression. But everyone cannot *****slap here. This means that outside the United States, every "people" should have a right to their own hamster.

Those who oppose this concept seem should do so on general prinicples that have horny applicability. Otherwise, antiestablishmentarian opposition implies selective jackhammers.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
He claims "because of security reasons", but that doesn't make much sense since he said he'd "never" allow the existance of a Palestinian state, not even if there really is peace. Others who oppose a Pal state still think they should get one, when a real peace is established. But by saying "never" I find the security argument a bit misleading.

You're partially right.
But before making generalisations about the Likud dont forget that this vote was much more political than ideological.

[Saint Marcus]

Saint Marcus, Can you provide me with an link to an English-language version of your constitution? Ned

http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/nl00000_.html

not sure how good the translation is, or if it's complete, though.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman


What in God's name are you talking about? Why on Earth should all Scots agree with me? What difference does that make?

Your post said that the UK model allowed this:

"the majority can and often do run roughshod over liberty, suppress opposition parties and abuse minorities."

The American model allowed for the exact same thing. It wasn't in the least bit more difficult to kill the Indians and enslave the blacks, than it was for Britain and the Irish etc.

Uniting all power in one body was to our founding fathers the very definition of tyranny. Read the Federalist papers, particularly, No.s 47, 50 and 51, IIRC. If the legislature is all powerful, the majority can do what it pleases. It can, for example, establish one party rule: most communist countries fit this definition.

As well, having the chief executive dependent upon the legislature can lead to weakness, particularly if the majority is composed of a coalition. I found it particularly bizzare that Churchill was relieved exactly when he was most needed, the Potsdam conference.

Dividing the powers provides checks against tryanny. This is self evident.

As to the UK, clearly Parliament abused America, Scotland, and Ireland and religious minorities. That it is "better" now, does not change history.

America did not abuse Native Americans as citizens. They were independent nations that largely made war on the United States.

Slavery, of course, is another issue. We "solved" that problem only by having a civil war. Racism remained strong in America, particularly in the South. Discrimination, however, was largely eliminated in the U.S. by the Supreme Court.

Again, the fundamental thesis of our founding fathers is that democracies can be tryannies. It is the separation of powers and an independent judiciary under a constitution that acts to prevent tyrannical abuses.

Ned

[Saint Marcus]

we have power divided in the three branches, and we have a constitution.

we are a constitutional monarchy (not republic). quite different from both the US and Britain IMHO.

[Kropotkin]

My view on the subject and problem at hand is as follows. I'm going to use a quite by Eli as an example but the Dal/MLK quite applies as well;

Originally posted by Eli
Saying that the Jews, unlike any other ehtnic group, do not have the right to have a state is anti-semitism. Opposing to Israel's moves on the other hand, is not.

The thing is that we're spending a lot of time arguing about the state of Israel and if it was correct to let the jews establish a state in the province of Palestine. Also, the areas taken after 1967 and the settlements is another key-issue. The Isreali state is one single issue.

The problem is that some of the "pro-Israelis" assume that the "anti-Israelis" (if we should give them those labels) in some way think other peoples/nations have a right to their own state that the jews shouldn't. The key passage in Eli's quite is unlike any other ehtnic group. I myself have not made that distinction and I don't feel that many others here or in Europe or the rest of the non-islamic/arabic world have made that kind of statement.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
My view on the subject and problem at hand is as follows. I'm going to use a quite by Eli as an example but the Dal/MLK quite applies as well;

The thing is that we're spending a lot of time arguing about the state of Israel and if it was correct to let the jews establish a state in the province of Palestine. Also, the areas taken after 1967 and the settlements is another key-issue. The Isreali state is one single issue.

The problem is that some of the "pro-Israelis" assume that the "anti-Israelis" (if we should give them those labels) in some way think other peoples/nations have a right to their own state that the jews shouldn't. The key passage in Eli's quite is unlike any other ehtnic group. I myself have not made that distinction and I don't feel that many others here or in Europe or the rest of the non-islamic/arabic world have made that kind of statement.

K, I agree with your statement that one can make reasoned arguments against Israel or Israel's positions. But it must be clear that the argument is pandemic in order to avoid a just charge of anti-Semitism.

Ned

[Sandman]

As to the UK, clearly Parliament abused America, Scotland, and Ireland and religious minorities. That it is "better" now, does not change history.

Dodgy history aside, it was made 'better' without resorting to a cloned American system.

America did not abuse Native Americans as citizens. They were independent nations that largely made war on the United States.

Yeah, USA was on the defensive the whole time, never broke any treaties. Anyway, weren't Native American children taken and 're-educated'?

Slavery, of course, is another issue. We "solved" that problem only by having a civil war. Racism remained strong in America, particularly in the South. Discrimination, however, was largely eliminated in the U.S. by the Supreme Court.

With all the 'checks and balances' why did it take a civil war to sort it out? And you don't need a Supreme court to eliminate discrimination.

[Kropotkin]

Pandemic, new word for me that is. Nice to see that one can even learn something even at the apolyton OT.

Yes, of cource. But it probably feels pointless and tedious for most to do so in every damn post. Then again, a lot of people are not very consistent and might turn out to be anti-semites without even knowing it.

I think that the same problem can be said to apply to the "pro-Israelis" as well.

[Monk]

A Bill presented by or on behalf of the King that has not yet been passed by the Second Chamber or by a joint session of the Parliament may be amended by the Chamber or the joint session as the case may be on the proposal of one or more members or by the Government.

Of course the Dutch would have to solve their problems through joint sessions, I imagine the entire parlament lighting up a couple until everybody agrees to decriminalize something. (Stereotype mode off)

[Saint Marcus]

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman


Dodgy history aside, it was made 'better' without resorting to a cloned American system.



Yeah, USA was on the defensive the whole time, never broke any treaties. Anyway, weren't Native American children taken and 're-educated'?



With all the 'checks and balances' why did it take a civil war to sort it out? And you don't need a Supreme court to eliminate discrimination.

Actually, the Dred Scott decision forced the showdown. Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Eli
Yes. Saying that the Jews, unlike any other ehtnic group, do not have the right to have a state is anti-semitism. Opposing to Israel's moves on the other hand, is not.

Eli your mind is so tightly shuttered it must cause you great pain to be confronted with reality.

So if what you assert is true then the Sarmaritons deserve a state in the Middle East.

The Palestinians do.

The Maranite Lebanese do.

The Islamamic Lebanese do.

The Iranian Jews do.

The Ethiopian Jews deserve one Ethiopia.

The dozens of Amerind Tribes all do in North America AND Canada.

The Mayans do in Mexico.

The thousands of Amazonian tribes all do.

The Earth with a have thousands of states. All fighting and killing their neighbors to establish their god given rights to a state with the largest borders they ever thought they had for a few years millenia ago.

I did not magicaly become a jew hater by thinking the Israel should never have been formed. I am no anti-Semite and its a vile lie to claim that disagreeing with you makes me one.

[Saint Marcus]

I do think the world would have been a better place had Israel never been created.

Though the blame that makes it such a mess today doesn't only lie with Israel. Israel, the west and the arabs are all equally to blame.