Israeli airstrike into Gaza kills fighter

[duck_duck]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

and antisemites invariably try and draw over themselves a veil of anti-Zionism.
.

I was wondering about that. It seems the term anti-zionist is just a more PC way of saying anti-semite.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I dunno, rkzen. Pierce's position is not easily distinguished from antisemitism, and antisemites invariably try and draw over themselves a veil of anti-Zionism.

How so? I think that Israel should be combined with Palestine to make one united state. I do not want to kick out the Jews.

Originally Posted by Merc

The most vocal anti-zionists are often traced back to some serious conspiracy theory groups who are wrapped up in Illuminati stuff and fears about Jewish domination of money, diamonds, the world, or whatever.

There are a lot of conspiracists that are anti-Zionist but not all anti-Zionists are conspiracy theorists. I am actually not a true anti-Zionist either. A separate Jewish state will not work in the Middle East but I am not against a non-violent Zionist state that would be placed somewhere that peace is possible.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What's a Zionist, then?

There are many different types of Zionists. That is why you can't give one definition. They all believe that the Jews should have its separate state but then they views usually split from there.

Originally Posted by UG

Better you should listen to someone with fifty years of world experience, over half of which has been spent studying and opposing despotism -- it's why I'm a libertarian in spite of any naysaying the likes of Kitsune or Radar can come up with -- than to two callow youths, one of college age, the other not yet out of high school, who are in the perfect demographic to be seduced by fascism's blandishments

Or, you could pick the best argument which is subjective. There are many aged people with doctorates that are pro-Zionists and there are many aged people with doctorates that are anti-Zionists.

I am also curious on how I live in the perfect demographic to be seduced by fascism's blandishments. Could you explain?

Originally Posted by UG

This point of view utterly ignores a historical fact: the Jews were in Palestine centuries before the current batch of competitors were. The Bible's account is in some considerable measure confirmed by other sources, such as Roman Imperial history, of which sources it appears Ibbie knows nothing. There's archaeology, too, of which Ibbie ought to know something.

So we should just kick them out? How about we bet them both live there since no one group deserves a piece of land over any other group especially when both groups have been there for the past 1,500 years.

Originally Posted by UG

What propaganda? --asks Pierce from his ostrich pose.

I know both sides of the argument and I have picked my side. I accept other sides and agree with them on some issues like I did with Undertoad. You on the other hand will never even look into the other side making you bias.

[Ibby]

NO! nonono, duck2, dont start listening to UG.

Trust me. Just don't.
Anti-zionism means you think that the jews have no more right to kick people off their land for their own country than the christians or the sikhs or the bokonists do.

Note that I'm not saying I'm an anti-zionist -- or a pro-zionist either.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Anti-zionism means you think that the jews have no more right to kick people off their land for their own country than the christians or the sikhs or the bokonists do.

This point of view utterly ignores a historical fact: the Jews were in Palestine centuries before the current batch of competitors were. The Bible's account is in some considerable measure confirmed by other sources, such as Roman Imperial history, of which sources it appears Ibbie knows nothing. There's archaeology, too, of which Ibbie ought to know something.

Note that I'm not saying I'm an anti-zionist -- or a pro-zionist either.

Of course you're not; you're afraid of being tarred with the antisemitism brush.

I am NOT. (Makes me happy.)

But you, little bro, have got a taint, and I'm not talking about the one back of your balls. It's up to you to get rid of it.

[TheMercenary]

The whole anti-zionist movement is a ruse. Anti-semites, anti-zionists, anti-settlement, they are all sheep from the same flock. People like to quote anti-zionists who are Jews as if that bolsters their argument. It is no different than the varied views we have in this country over any issue that people like to argue over. The most vocal anti-zionists are often traced back to some serious conspiracy theory groups who are wrapped up in Illuminati stuff and fears about Jewish domination of money, diamonds, the world, or whatever. Read it all with a grain of salt....

[Happy Monkey]

What's a Zionist, then?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What's a Zionist, then?

Look it up, your fingers broken?

[Happy Monkey]

No, I want your definition. If Anti-Zionist has all those connotations that don't rise from the name, what's a Zionist?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No, I want your definition. If Anti-Zionist has all those connotations that don't rise from the name, what's a Zionist?

Look it up. Make up your own definition. Everyone does it, so can you. Or you can just keep looking til you find one that suits you and refutes one position or supports another.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Better you should listen to someone with fifty years of world experience, over half of which has been spent studying and opposing despotism -- it's why I'm a libertarian in spite of any naysaying the likes of Kitsune or Radar can come up with -- than to two callow youths, one of college age, the other not yet out of high school, who are in the perfect demographic to be seduced by fascism's blandishments -- this type of philosophy has kid-appeal. Heck, I've been in the world longer than both of them put together, and I've a good memory of what undemocracy has wrought over the last century. It's good memory, but the memories themselves aren't nice.

Nondemocracies don't stop misbehaving, and defending and rationalizing the misbehavior is merely disgusting.

Here's a little something citing the fascist model the Baathist Party uses. Some more from the same source right here.

Academic Anatol Lievin gives ammunition to several views of the conflict in this interview, which I will quote one paragraph from in support of my understanding of things:

Now, that is not saying in any way that the Ba'ath regime in Iraq was not a savage and at least would-be totalitarian one. The Ba'ath are a mixture of communism and fascism. They're ultra-nationalists. They're national socialists, if you will. But it's also a modernizing ideology, like communism and fascism. It's all about developing the state as a modern state with modern armies, but also with modern services to the population. And above all, from its inception, Ba'ath nationalism, like Nazism or fascism, by the way, or communism, were savagely anti-religious. The leading founding ideologue of the Ba'ath was a Christian, Michel Aflaq, and like his equivalents in Europe, he hated the world of religion because he saw it as precisely hampering progress, dividing the nation. The most savage repressions by the Ba'ath in the past were not just of Kurds and not just of Shias, but also, based in Iraq and Syria, precisely of religious fundamentalist groups now allied to al Qaeda.

He does however offer something for just about everyone on that page alone, and I suppose on the other pages of the interview as well. It ought to be interesting reading.

It should also be noted that the Ba'athist record on providing those modern services isn't very successful. It takes big piles of nice capitalist capital to make a successful socialist regime, and the best way to make a small fortune in socialism is to begin with a large one.

A little reading on what Zionists themselves say of Zionism will help, I'm sure, to cut down on inaccurate statements.

[TheMercenary]

Here you go:

A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/86/Z0018600.html

[Griff]

Just to be clear, UG is a Neo-Con not a libertarian. I'd hate to see the young people get confused. I wonder if the neo crowd is going back to their Trotskyite roots? Having destroyed the GOP, maybe they want to squish the tiny LP as well.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

So how do you get that someone who opposes that == antisemite == opposition to aggressive settlement of disputed territories?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

So how do you get that someone who opposes that == antisemite == opposition to aggressive settlement of disputed territories?

Most people, IMHO, who claim to be anti-Zionist are in fact also anti-Semitic. They just don't want to be accused of something else so they hide behind this other idea while appearing not to be associated with tacit support of the terrorist policy of the Arabs. The only group of people who support the "Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine" and hence support the modern notion of "the support and development of the state of Israel" are Jews or those who would profit off of such establishment of a Jewish homeland. Hence they are in fact anti-Semitic. The policy of "aggressive settlement of disputed territories" is a policy being pursued by the more radical elements of the Jewish religion and was supported and encouraged by the mainstream government of Israel. Hence they are all related. You cannot divide the issue up because you don't want to appear anti-Semitic (a term which has been oft abused and used). It sounds so much more PC to be anti-Zionist.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The policy of "aggressive settlement of disputed territories" is a policy being pursued by the more radical elements of the Jewish religion and was supported and encouraged by the mainstream government of Israel.

Exactly. So if you oppose that, you are opposing radicals and a particular governmental policy of Israel. No connection to antisemetism there. And it's only partially linked to anti-Zionism, in that if you don't support Israel then you most likely don't support its expansion. But it doesn't go the other way.

Hence they are all related.

"Related" is pretty loose language. Sure, they're related. But antisemetism is also "related" to Zionism, in the same way that plenty of racists were fans of the "back to Africa" movement. "Sheep from the same flock" is wrong, however.

You cannot divide the issue up because you don't want to appear anti-Semitic

No, but you can divide "the issue" up because it is more than one issue in the first place.