There are many types of Zionism, but all basically adhere to the idea of Israel being a safe haven for the Jews. That is it's most practical and realistic function. People who say Zionism is racism know nothing about it.Originally Posted by Danny
Make no mistake, the Holocaust created Israel. By 1945 every Jew in Europe knew they would never be safe again, unless they had their own country, and that's not always safe either...
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Norwegian Lynch Mob/Stirring the Pot
They know full well no verdict can be enforced and their actions only stretch a nasty political dichotomy further by fueling the fires of the blame game. The Palestinians will have much less compromising to do if Israeli leaders are found guilty of war crimes a Norwegian Court. Talk about a Hamas PR coup to bolster their claims of victory despite the rubble that surrounds them and the bloody in-fighting that still rages amongst themselves.
The Petraeus briefing: Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story, by Mark Perry. ForeignPolicy.com, March 13, 2010.
There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military. While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now.
I have to admire this god-like ability to see the future that is not shared by the other billions of people.
Let's say the survivors had their conclusions; the correctness of these conclusions is up for debate.
Besides, Zionism started in the late 19th, so the holocaust was at best a catalyst.
It's got nothing to do with a "god-like ability to see the future" - The catastrophe which became the Holocaust was predicted, in very general terms, in Europe, as early as the 1870's. After 1945 there was a substantial body of opinion that it could happen again. Sure you can debate it, but so what?
Wrong. Modern Zionism started in the "late 19th Century" and was a very different brand of Zionism to that which came to exist post-1945, or even post 1948. Sure Ha Shoah was a catalyst. Again, so what?Besides, Zionism started in the late 19th, so the holocaust was at best a catalyst.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Wilf, I consider zionism as an ideology, and as pretty much every ideology is has its own myths to sustain itself.
The assertion that Israel is the only safe place for Israelites is its central myth.
I'm not a friend of myths and at times even trash my own countries' myths (myths linked to Marschall-Plan, trade balance surplus & Weimar republic plebiscites for example).
The zionist assertion that no other place would be safe is a) delusional because Israel is obviously not safe, b) the assertion of impossible foreknowledge and c) an insult to most other countries.
I'm not particularly interested in Near Eastern mythology, but there's a considerable chance I expose bull if I see it.
That's "so what".
This should explain everything.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
And...? All ideologies are built on myths. Democracy? Christianity? Islam? if you want to sum all of them up with "so what?" then OK.
To whit,
Would have been safer than Germany in the 1940s. - and the issues is safer, not safe. I can quote you many other examples, after 1948.a) delusional because Israel is obviously not safe,
It's an aspiration. It's not prediction.b) the assertion of impossible foreknowledge
I can live with that. I have very happy to insult countries that stood by and watch their Jewish populations predated up by either the people or the Government. I can start a list of you wish.c) an insult to most other countries.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Isn't the Jewish population of the US more numerous, prosperous, and secure than that of Israel? Never good to be too sure of what you "know".
Sorry what did I know?
Today I think there are marginally more American Jews than Israeli Jews with about 300,000 Israelis living or working in the US. I would submit that the Jewish population of Sweden is actually more "prosperous" and "safer" than the one in the US given. - and that is even given Sweden's deeply anti-Semitic culture.
I'm sure Pashtuns and Iraqis living in the US are safer and more prosperous, so I'm not seeing your point.
If you cannot understand the reasoning and power of an idea, (politics?) then it is no wonder some folks here struggle so much with the concept of culture.
Last edited by William F. Owen; 03-18-2010 at 07:29 AM. Reason: Typo
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Not you. The comment referred to this:
They "knew" they would never be safe unless they had their own country, yet the very act of seizing a country and taking it for their own that left them less safe than many Jews who do not have "their own country". The prediction, or at least expectation, that Jews in Israel would be safer than those outside Israel was not entirely accurate. The predictions and expectations regarding the reaction of the non-Jewish population to the prospect of incorporation in a State where they would be by definition marginalized or excluded - a State "as Jewish as England is English" - might have been slightly faulty as well.By 1945 every Jew in Europe knew they would never be safe again, unless they had their own country
I do understand the power of an idea... and the power of the unintended consequences that so often arise when we submit to the power of an idea.
Stop trying to dodge points with such nonsense, please.
Your "So what" implies (as far as I understand English) that my counter-argument has little merit. It's thus inappropriate.
See the bunker buster thread on the "safer" argument. The comparison with the worst alternative is an idiotic line of reasoning. You need to compare with the best known alternative in order to identify the best overall option.
You disagree with yourself anyway:
About your "It's an aspiration. It's not a prediction":There are many types of Zionism, but all basically adhere to the idea of Israel being a safe haven for the Jews.
a) It's afaik always verbalised as a prediction, I've never seen it verbalised as an aspiration.
b) It's still the assertion of impossible foreknowledge.
"I can live with that. I have very happy to insult countries that stood by and watch their Jewish populations predated up by either the people or the Government."
This is again a very, very poor application of logic.
NO country's majority should accept an ideology that insults all other states. That's outright stupid (and dangerous).
Besides; "countries" are illusions. The humans responsible for what happened in the early 40's are now 90+ years old or dead - in either case without any ability to exert meaningful influence (and they aren't the same as 55 years ago anyway).
The societies changed a lot as well - no Western society is even close to its state before '45.
In other words; your line of thought fits to the eternal collective guilt thesis. Your readiness to provide lists of historical examples instead of lists of arguments about why it might still be the same supports this.
The eternal collective guilt thesis is the stupid thing that makes people blame Jews for killing Jesus. Do you really want to argue on that level?
Last edited by Fuchs; 03-18-2010 at 09:33 AM. Reason: typo hunt
Do you really expect the collective and corporate reasoning of the Jews that survived the Holocaust to be either entirely rational or reasonable? Read the history. Having their own country was a way of having some control over their destiny and not being hostage to the assurances of others.
They "knew" because there were essentially 6 million good pieces of evidence.
I take the rest of your post to be another basis for the argument as to Israel's right to exist, which is always the argument used to basically say you don't need to exist?
Now, like the American here make not pretence as to their belief and patriotism in defence of their beliefs, I'm not pretending to do it either. I am telling how the issue is seen. You can nitpick all you like with your perception of the logic.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Well then you are poorly informed on the idea. What's the last safe place for human called in the MATRIX? Clue is in the name? Is it actually safer? - or does it aspire to be safer?
Are you saying you don't like Zionists? OK. I'm happy with that. At least I know where you stand.
No and I never did. - A Jewish quote for you from a Jewish Book: "The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself." - which is why Israel honours all the many Germans who stood against the Nazis. -The eternal collective guilt thesis is the stupid thing that makes people blame Jews for killing Jesus. Do you really want to argue on that level?
BUT That does not forgive the history of nations who victimised - and would continue to victimise Jews. It's unforgivable, thus should never be forgotten.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
You mentioned the right-to-exist issue (which is a really poor idea on an international internet forum).
Israel has a right to exist because
- it was recognized by the UN and many states, is thus a sovereign nation at least in its borders of 1967
- the present inhabitants exercize sovereignty.
It's similar to the Falklands issue; the legitimacy of control over some territory depends on the will of the inhabitants (and on whether it was taken away by force 'recently').
The legality of control over some territory depends on whether it conforms with international law.
Ideology does never play into this. Ideology does not illegalize or delegitimize possession of land nor does it legalize or delegitimize the same. The ideology of zionism does not legalize or legitimize the state of Israel. Thus no motivation of zionism can legitimize or legalize Israel through zionism.
The Western world's relationship with Israel is coined as much by lobbyism and more or less clever political games as it is by hypocrisy and the acceptance of myths.
It would serve us well to favour clarity of though over accepting mythology and ideology. The past Western-Near East foreign policy was obviously not very smart. It did not lead to a sustainable, favourable state.
Hi Fuchs,
Without getting into specifics, I would have to say that you are wrong, here. Ideology underlies international law, the nation-state system and its latest offspring, the UN.
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
I'd rather characterize that as an almost universal agreement, a treaty signed by every nation. It designs an institution and lays out a framework as well as accepted and binding rules.
This may be traced back to philosophy like the contract social, not so much to ideology.
We disgress, though.
Hi Fuchs,
"almost universal"? Did you sign it? Did I? Did AQ? Nope, it is only "almost universal" in the sense that it was signed by a collection of representatives of the fictitious entities we can nation-states. If the underlying ideology is viewed as illegitimate, which it is by many including AQ, then it is not "almost universal".
Fuchs, do you seriously think that philosophical positions are not also ideological? They are the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of any ideological position - the formal system of the ideology.
Nope, we're getting to the root of the question
Cheers,
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Forgive me, but Ya All*h! Zionism - in its many expressions and forms - is nothing to do with legality any more than Buddhism is.
It's an idea. OK it's an idea with actual physical expression now. Israel exists because of that idea. No Zionist, no Israel. It's that simple.
Zionism is not an idea seeking legality or legitimacy. It's an idea seeking security. My guess is the founding fathers of the US where no whole lot bothered by legality or the early Texans either!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Very true. Israel was established on exactly the same principle as the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand: the principle that "superior" races are entitled to take land they want, expel, subjugate, or kill the existing inhabitants, and establish a nation. The only difference is that in the 17th-19th centuries this was seen as the natural order of things; by the second half of the 20th the "superior" races were starting to rethink that order and the "inferior" were starting to object, using the same tools that were used against them. Anyone proposing such a maneuver today would be seen as morally abhorrent (because you shouldn't do such things) and insane (because you can't).
The whole "right to exist" thing is incomprehensible to me... who could assign such "rights" in the first place? The Jews have the right to pursue their political objectives, the Palestinians have the right to pursue theirs. Both have elected to use violence. What's the difference? The Zionists seized the nation they wanted by force, including the use of terrorism. The Palestinians are trying to seize it back the same way. Again, what's the difference? The Zionists had their driving idea, so do the Palestinian nationalists. Just as the Jews "knew" they would never be safe and secure without their own country, the Palestinians "know" the same.
Any claim based on religious tradition is of course absurd. Anyone showing up in my neighborhood and announcing that his imaginary friend had instructed him to incorporate our town into a nation devoted to his security would be met with an immediate and violent rejection; I wouldn't expect anyone else to respond differently.
The relevant question here is is not about abstract and indeterminable "rights to exist". The relevant question is whether Israel has the right to perpetual and unconditional support from the US, and this American's answer there is an emphatic "no". US relations with Israel should be as US relations with anyone else: based on a balance of perceived short, medium, and long-term US interests. Israel wouldn't dream of putting our interests ahead of theirs, why should we put theirs ahead of ours?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks