Israel: the arsenal of an undeclared nuclear power.

Post Reply New Topic

@ codarac - I don't think anyone here has questioned the right of the jewish people as an ethnic group to their own state - the problem arises in why on Palestinian land? If you really want to protect the jewish people create a state in europe, the Germans of the beginning of the 20thC set on a course of action that was clearly not going to end well in any respect and should correspondingly pay for the failure to protect their own citizens - it should have been that someone marked out a space on the danube south and south west of stuttgart and munich. No major population centers, connected by land to the rest of NATO, borders long term neutral states in switzerland and luxembourg.

The claim to Palestine is based on.....a book. And their ancestors having lived there cetnuries ago. So they are killing children in the name of a book and the dead. I hope I'm only being facetious and ridiculously simplistic. I find it difficult to accept that is a simpler,more elegant explanation which accounts for all the data than Israel used as western tool to drive a wedge into an area rich in mineral resources.

Here's another article by another Israeli very upset about current Israeli policy.

http://www.counterpunch.org/levy08272009.html

Before the Israelis got their independence and before the Brits had the Mandate (that goes back to 1920) the Palestinians were "governed" by the Ottomon Turks who treated them like dirt. Also the Palestinians lived a life of squalor until Jews capitalized by Europeans rebuilt the agricultural capacity of the land. The Jews made Palestine bloom like the garden it was in biblical times. This provide plenty of employment for Palestinians who came in large numbers for the work.

You ought to ask yourself how many jobs do poor people create?

ruveyn

And the American Indians, likewise, should be eternally grateful for the better use of their land so they could live in poverty and disdain.

I did not offer any judgement in my post about the existence and location of the Jewish state. I was just responding to Sand’s point. Sand seemed to be saying that Zionism has corrupted a portion of the Jewish people, just as nationalism – which Sand seems to view as wholly negative – has supposedly corrupted other peoples. I responded to make the point that (1) nationalism is not negative in itself, since it is just an expression of ethnocentrism, and ethnocentrism is normal and natural, and (2) Jewish nationalism did not begin with Zionism, since Judaism is itself a form of nationalism.

But on the subject of the Jewish state of Israel as it now exists, I do not share the sentiments of skafather and Sand, mainly because I would like Europeans to have for themselves in their lands what the Jews have for themselves in Israel. For some reason though, the idea that the Jews as an ethnic group have a right to their own land (wherever it may be) is generally treated as far less controversial than the idea that, say, the English, French or Germans as ethnic groups have a right to keep hold of theirs.

As for this simpler explanation for the existence of Israel that you are searching for, try this: Israel exists as a Jewish state in Palestine because that is what the Jewish Zionists wanted. How about you stop blaming Euro-man for a change.

Humanity is still relatively new at accepting that this planet is critically in need of a view of a humanity that accepts we are all basically the same type of animal and need to work together to keep the ecology and decency of our social organizations at a level where we all prosper and remain alive with some security. The social progress of the species has very gradually moved to larger and larger groups with consenting rights and laws. Already the corporate community has recognized this and operates internationally more or less outside local laws. When local conditions get too negative it moves away. Although the Zionists have this concept that a nation of Jews can secure it's safety the whole history of Israel is making it more or less an armed ghetto in an aggressively negative environment. The Jews in New York and Berlin and Paris are basically safer. The Military industrial complex is a huge waste of money and effort and treasure on a humanity that creates angry enclaves of self righteous separatists and this, at end, has a good chance of destroying everything.

The military is such a waste of time that without it, I would have become a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathroom sink.

By the way, the genetic uniformity of our species has been know for nearly eighty years. At this juncture there is only one species of the genus homo left on the planet. That is us. Earth is the Planet of the Hairless Apes.

ruveyn

The soap myth was disproved years ago even by Jewish historians.

If we are all one species how come if anyone criticizes Israel they are "Anti-Semitic"? Hasn't anyone noticed that Palestinians are also "Semites?"

If we are all one species then why is the Jewish bloodline so important. If your mother is a Jew then you are a Jew. If your father is a Jew then you are in trouble.

Semites are a cultural and linguistic groups of folk, not a genetically defined species or race.

The term "anti-Semite" was invented by a German writer, Wllhelm Marr as a euphimism for hatred of Jews. It was invented by and intended by the man who coined the term to apply to hostility and hatred of Jews.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr

Also see:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... mMarr.html

Source: The Holocaust Chronicle




Wilhelm Marr
(1819-1904)

Known as the father of modern antisemitism, Wilhelm Marr led the fight to overturn Jewish emancipation in Germany.

Born in 1819, Marr entered politics as a democratic revolutionary who favored the emancipation of all oppressed groups, including Jews. However, when he became embittered about the failure of the 1848-49 German Revolution to democratize Germany, and about his own rapidly declining political fortunes, he turned his venom against the Jews. His essay “Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum von nicht confessionellen Standpunkt” (“The Victory of Judaism over Germandom: From a Non-Denominational Point of View”) reached its 12th edition in 1879.

Marr’s conception of antisemitism focused on the supposed racial, as opposed to religious, characteristics of the Jews. His organization, the League of Antisemites, introduced the word “antisemite” into the political lexicon and established the first popular political movement based entirely on anti-Jewish beliefs.

Marr’s often-reprinted political tract, “The Victory of Judaism over Germandom,” warned that “the Jewish spirit and Jewish consciousness have overpowered the world.” He called for resistance against “this foreign power” before it was too late. Marr thought that before long “there will be absolutely no public office, even the highest one, which the Jews will not have usurped.” For Marr, it was a badge of honor to be called an antisemite.

Marr and others employed the word antisemitism in the largely secular anti-Jewish political campaigns that became widespread in Europe around the turn of the century. The word derived from an 18th-century analysis of languages that differentiated between those with so-called “Aryan” roots and those with so-called “Semitic” ones. This distinction led, in turn, to the assumption--a false one--that there were corresponding racial groups. Within this framework, Jews became “Semites,” and that designation paved the way for Marr’s new vocabulary. He could have used the conventional German term Judenhass to refer to his hatred of Jews, but that way of speaking carried religious connotations that Marr wanted to de-emphasize in favor of racial ones. Apparently more “scientific,” Marr’s Antisemitismus caught on. Eventually, it became a way of speaking about all the forms of hostility toward Jews throughout history.

Over the centuries, antisemitism has taken on different but related forms: religious, political, economic, social, and racial. Jews have been discriminated against, hated, and killed because prejudiced non-Jews believed they belonged to the wrong religion, lacked citizenship qualifications, practiced business improperly, behaved inappropriately, or possessed inferior racial characteristics. These forms of antisemitism, but especially the racial one, all played key parts in the Holocaust.

Importantly, Hitler and his followers were not antisemites primarily because they were racists. The relation worked more the other way around: Hitler and his followers were racists because they were antisemites looking for an anti-Jewish stigma deeper than any religious, economic, or political prejudice alone could provide. For if Jews were found wanting religiously, it was possible for them to convert. If their business practices or political views were somehow inappropriate, changed behavior could, in principle, correct their shortcomings. But antisemites in the line that ran from Marr to Hitler believed that Jews were a menace no matter what they did. As Marr put the point, “the Jews are the ‘best citizens’ of this modern, Christian state,” but they were that way, he added, because it was “in perfect harmony with their interests” to be so. Undoubtedly, Marr believed--and Hitler agreed even more so--that the interests of Jews were irreconcilably at odds with Germany’s.

For antisemites of Marr’s stripe, converted Jews were still untrustworthy Jews. Jewish behavior might change in any number of ways, but the “logic” of racist antisemitism did not consider such changes as reasons to give up antisemitism. To the contrary, this antisemitism interpreted Jewish assimilation as infiltration, Jewish conformity as duplicity, and Jewish integration into non-Jewish society as proof of Jewish cunning that intended world domination. On the other hand, if Jews insisted on retaining their distinctively Jewish ways, that insistence provided evidence of another kind to show that Jews were an alien people. Added to earlier forms of antisemitism, racial theory “explained” why the Jews, no matter what appearances might suggest to the contrary, were a threat that Germans could not afford to tolerate.


Und so weiter.....

ruveyn

evidence?



I always took Judaism to be a religion, not a political-ideology. Not sure I see how the above could go beyond being an (incorrect) assertion.



It's less controversial mainly because a) the French and Germans do control their own states and the English kingdom was unified with that of Scotland by the powers that be willingly - a union which was then followed by said unified state becoming the single dominant power in the world within a century. Also b) nationalism as a political ideology in europe has uniformly been outright negative if not a horrific bloodbath, for example - Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, the KLA in Kosovo, the Serbs in Kosovo, the Polish invasion of the Ukraine Soviet in the 1920's (I understand they were trying to rebuild the Polish-Lithuanian kingodm). I'm sure there are more - both inside and outside europe I have not mentioned or am not aware of.

I fail to see what the problem is for Europeans, unless nationalism obfuscates the actual site of the problem by displacing it on to something else (which I think it does). If anything shouldn't you be supporting the Palestinians in this instance? It was the Jewish people who migrated to Palestine in the 1940's and not the other way around.

Also, Zionism is not nationalist per se, there are different variations of Zionism e.g. Socialist Zionists seting up kibbutzes (sp.)
The problem is with Israel that following the Nationalist Zionist (the Likud party I think which has been pretty dominant for years) line with such.....vigour...and setting up a state in Palestine in such a way that it has led to thousands of people killed, maimed and/or left with severe psychiatriac problems. Again, nationalism has brought nothing positive, only death and destruction of an abitrarily excluded group or groups.



Simple, yes, very simple. Explains all available information, no. I care little for what nationalists of any creed do or don't want, I would go so far as to refuse to acknowledge it as a viable political ideology.

If the UN's intention was to provide a safe state for the jewish people partition Europe, not Palestine. It was Europeans who committed the vast majority of anti-semitic crimes (at least to my knowledge) and should therefore pay the price. Furthermore not all Zionists want to exterminate the Palestinians and other Arabs, so far as I can tell there are more than a few who advocate full citizenship to Arabs, observance of human rights etc. How about you not using a tone to address me? Treat me as an equal and I will do the same for you - if not then I will bid you good day.

Fact to the idiot Zionists: Arabs are semites too.

True. But the term "anti-semitism" was invented by the German, Wilhelm Marrs to mean Judenhasse (hatred of Jews). A kind of euphimism in order NOT to refer to the religion of the Jews.

ruveyn

You mean like how "Faith-based Initiatives" was to refer to the funding of Christian organizations including proselytizing groups?

You mean like how "Faith-based Initiatives" was to refer to the funding of Christian organizations including proselytizing groups?[/quote]

Yup.

ruveyn

Yeah, I'm very familiar with political doubletalk and how the powers that be manipulate public opinion.

One that I wish I could get numbers on:


How dealers did when the used the term CARS in their ads vs the dealers who referred to it by "cash for clunkers".

I get the feeling that the CARS ads generated more revenue and interest.

I can expand on my sentence above, but I am not quite sure what you mean by asking for “evidence”.
Ones ethnic group is just an extension of ones family. Just as loyalty to ones family is normal and natural, so is loyalty to ones ethnic group. This is because genetic kinship is the natural basis for altruism, as explained in Dawkins’s ‘Selfish Gene’ (among other places).



You don’t see – and neither do most people – because this concept I am dealing with lies outside the realm of political discussion that is usually offered up for public consumption.
One definition of a nation is “a people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language”. Under this definition, the Jews are a nation. (You yourself referred to the Jews as an ethnic group, and I would agree.)
Nationalism then, is really just a way of defending and furthering the interests of a particular nation. It should be obvious then that the religion of Judaism is a form of nationalism since it serves the interests of the Jews as a nation – a cursory study of Judaism will reveal that it is a religion based on a covenant between “God” and a specific people: the descendants of Jacob. Christianity and Islam (and I am a follower of neither) are universalist religions, whereas Judaism, with its discouragement of out-marriage and its barriers to conversion (e.g., circumcision), is not.
If it were not for Judaism the religion, the Jews in diaspora might have been assimilated out of existence as a distinct kinship group.
Zionism and Judaism are really two sides of the same coin.



Perhaps I should have been more explicit here.
The European peoples are losing control of their lands because of mass immigration. Europeans who oppose mass immigration get the unperson treatment at the hands of their own treasonous establishments. The nations of Europe are currently not (for the most part) being governed in the interests of Europe’s native peoples. They are being governed in the interests of globalism.




I am not taking sides here. I am neutral. I am primarily interested in my own kind and in Europeans as a whole.
I will say though that in an ideal world the Jews would have their own state and so would the Palestinians, and so would the Tibetans, and so would the Kurds …



The question here was whether the driving force for the establishment and maintenance of Israel was (and is) Western imperialists (using Jews for their own Machiavellian ends) or Zionist Jews (i.e., the people who met at the Zionist congress in 1897, the people who refused the British offer of Uganda, the people who bombed the King David hotel, the people who unilaterally declared independence in 1948 and ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Arabs in the subsequent war). The questions of what the UN should have done or of whether or not you care what nationalists want are beside the point. I think we are talking at cross purposes here, and I should have been clearer with my wording.



Apologies – I thought I was being civil, but I will obviously have to try harder.