Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Zionism

by name Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 02:49:05 PM EST

Yesterday "messy" posted a very weird redefinition of zionism in the thread about the current escalation by the IOF in Palestine and Lebanon. The thread is here:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/7/13/43650/8285

In that thread, "messy" redefined zionism as "The idea that jews are human and should rule themselves".

Now, I have no problem with either of both premises, but I have a big problem with a) the statement as presented  because that was a reframe of the ongoing discussion, and b) with zionism defined that way, because that is not what zionism is, as I'll illustrate below.


But lets start from the start as one should. The statement, apparently innocuous and completely logical (after all, who'd have anything to say against such innocent words ...) is a typical example of destructive rhetoric often used by manipulators to lead astray people who in discourse take contrary (to them) positions. the important thing to notice about this statement is the context. in yesterday's thread, nobody was alleging either that "jews are not human" nor that "jews should not rule themselves". the issue of that thread was a different one altogether. concisely said, the idea of a "reframe" is to derail a discussion about certain issues when it is clear that the outcome of that discussion can only be against the interests of the reframer / manipulator / troll.

destructive rhetoric as above has been used for a long time by the zionist propagandists to squelch any discussion of the murderous and criminal practices of israel against the Palestinians (hint: if anybody calls you an "anti-semite" for criticizing israel, that is manipulation). I will (hopefully) come back to the issue of reframing and other destructive rhetoric techniques, but now I am interested more in the subject of "Zionism".

Zionism is IMO, after all i've seen and read on the subject, pretty much a run-of-the-mill variant of fascism, the usual a blood (theirs) and country (theirs but we'll take it for us) ideology so appealing to psychopaths and other depraved characters. It is, if you will, the jewish version of National Socialism (the german variant). Zionism is a political ideology which mounts itself parasitically on judaism, promoting the usual themes of extreme racism ("arabs are two-legged crocodiles"), "us against them" ("we'll crush them like drugged cocroaches"), terra nullius ("a land without people for a people without land") and somehow justifying its murderous rampages with obscure, pseudo-religious references to the torah ("jahweh gave us all lands between nile and euphrates"). If it was not for the publicistic genius of the mostly jewish/zionist-controlled media worldwide, zionists would inhabit mainly institutions for the criminally insane, and zionism would firmly be where it belongs, in the crap bin of history together with nazism, stalinism and other shits-for-brains psycho ideologies.

Because a discussion of Zionism should not only depend on my opinion, I propose you go and read the large compilation of facts and quotes about Zionism which somebody has put together who has taken far more time than me to inform himself about the issue, here: http://www.serendipity.li/zionism.htm

I quote some of the statements of that page:

Zionism represents itself as a political movement concerned principally with the establishment of a state in Palestine to be controlled by and for Jews. It began in the late 19th Century and attained its stated objective with the creation in 1948 of the state of Israel by the United Nations ...

In its current form Zionism seeks to dominate all of Palestine and the Middle East by means of violence and the threat of violence ... and to maximize its influence in world affairs and in world history, principally by means of control of the government of the USA ... at the expense of the social wellbeing not only of the Palestinians but of the peoples of all lands.

Zionists claim that Jews have the right to possess all land between the Nile and the Euphrates because (they say) this land was given to them by some entity they call "YHWH" as claimed in the Old Testament (Genesis 15:18) ...

Zionism is ... racist, it is nationalist, and it is Biblically inspired (rather than spiritually inspired). Being a fundamentalist movement, Zionism is not categorically different from Nazism. Only when we understand Zionism in its nationalist and racist context will we begin to comprehend the depth of its atrocities. -- Gilad Atzmon

A principal component of Zionism is racism, in the form of the belief held by Zionists that Jews constitute a race (or ethnic group or however they see themselves) superior to all others, and in particular to those, the Palestinians, who lived on the land that the Zionists stole from them in 1948 ... and subsequently.

Zionism rejects the idea of a modern secular state, based on equality of all citizens. Zionism predicates a state where Jews have privileged rights. Thus, according to Israeli law, a person born in London, who has never visited Israel, does not speak Hebrew and professes atheism, is granted automatic Israeli citizenship, if he can produce proof from a rabbi that his mother was considered a Jew, while indigenous Palestinian inhabitants who were born to Christian or Muslim parents are at best tolerated but never considered as full fledged partners in Israeli society. Racial discrimination, as defined in international law, is thus not only reflected in Israeli laws and policies, but is grounded in the very nature of Israel as a Jewish state, in public perception and in the Zionist credo.

And these two will interest the american readers:

The total [transferred from U.S. taxpayers to Israel] for the past five years (1993-1997) was around $6,300,000,000/year ($6.3 BILLION) or over $17 Million/DAY.

The current situation in the United States is the result of an awesome deployment of Jewish power and influence. One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-five years despite Israel's seizing land and engaging in a brutal occupation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories -- an occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete subjugation, degradation, and apartheid. During this same period Jewish organizations in America have been a principal force -- in my view the main force -- for erecting a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities: the culture of the Holocaust.

Now, to illustrate what Zionism is in practice, here are some quotes from famous zionists, for your reading pleasure. The quotes are taken from here: http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm

David Ben-Gurion sez:

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."

Golda Meir sez:

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."

Menachem Begin sez:

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."

Yitzhak Shamir sez:

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."

As I see things, we in Europe don't condone many of the things and attitudes which are totally normal to the average zionist, like bashing heads against walls and boulders, racial segregation, daily crimes against humanity, poisoning wells, killing children (in fact, anybody) for no good reason, destroying houses, bombing civilians, death squads, torture, political imprisonment, desparecidos, ...

because of all this, the million-dollar question is not if zionism is a disgusting and criminally racist ideology (it is), the question to ask is, why are we (Europe) still supporting a blatantly criminal state which shares no civic, moral, political values with us ? What ever does Israel have to do with us anyway ? We owe them nothing, we dont need them, we have no influence on their actions whatsoever, we share no values with them (ok, except our tax money), keeping their company just makes us look bad. Israel is, in resume, a political tar-baby we should dispose of yesterday rather than tomorrow. This should be widely discussed and acted upon by the politicasters of Europe at all levels. And that would be the theme for a follow-up thread.

FYI: TROLLS WILL BE TROLL-RATED.

Poll
Should Zionism be criminalized like National Socialism ?
. 1 - Yes 100%
. 2 - No 0%

Votes: 1
Results | Other Polls
Display:
with this diary.

It may well be eradicated. However I do support your right to say these things, I am not sure if ET is the appropriate place.

I was going to give up reading until the quotes from Israeli leaders. I assume they are genuine. I don't know - the source you quote may be biased.

What IS indisputable, as we have discussed before, is that Jewish terrorism played a part in the founding of Israel.

My personal, uninformed, view is that the ends rarely justify the means, and that the 'collateral damage' inflicted by all sides in the conflict is despicable.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:05:51 PM EST
We're not that good at killing diaries.

This one seems to discuss an ideology, and though I suspect it over-simplifies rather a lot you can only say it attacks a racial/ethnic group if you're willing to identify Zionism with Judaism, which I am not. Not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists.  

I'm not going to recommend it however: I don't like the oversimplifications.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:43:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Me neither

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This one seems to discuss an ideology, and though I suspect it over-simplifies rather a lot you can only say it attacks a racial/ethnic group if you're willing to identify Zionism with Judaism, which I am not.

So, if someone attacks african nationalist movements by:
a)pointing to numerous crimes committed by some of them.
b)repeatedly using sources that say that african nationalism is bad because blacks are inherently stupid and criminal

... you'd see that as an 'oversimplification' and not racist because african nationalism is an ideology and not all africans are african nationalists

Or perhaps more relevantly attacking Muslims/Arabs by:
a) pointing to numerous crimes and human rights abuses committed by and in the name of Islam/Arab nationalism.
b)repeatedly using sources that argue that Muslims/Arabs are inherently evil and dishonest

...you'd react the same way, or would you tell the person to take it to Little Green Footballs or the Free Republic where crap like that belongs

by MarekNYC on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:56:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Marek, would you banish me to Little Green Footballs if I claim that nationalisms are dangerous ideologies and back it up with historical examples of atrocities committed in the name of nations and with quotations by nationalists?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Marek, would you banish me to Little Green Footballs if I claim that nationalisms are dangerous ideologies and back it up with historical examples of atrocities committed in the name of nations and with quotations by nationalists?

I would if you concentrated exclusively on Arabs/Muslims and your arguments were a carbon copy of Oriana Fallaci. Or if you concentrated exclusively on African nationalist movements and liked to use white supremacist sites as your source on Africans and their political elites.

by MarekNYC on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 04:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you provide what you would accept as objective sources about the history and purpose of Zionism?  I'm ignorant about the matter myself, but I find there is a dearth of information out there that is not promoting a specific agenda.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 04:13:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your second case is only relevant if you identify all Muslims or Arabs with Islamic or Arabic nationalist movements.

Attacking an African nationalist movement for the crimes committed by it seems valid enough to me.

I hadn't followed the sources: I was working only on what was posted here. I'd appreciate it if name found some less appalling sources for his quotes, assuming they're valid.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:59:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just want to re-iterate Colman's Golden Rule:

Here's my rule: remarks that generalise to the negative properties of "Arabs","Jews", "Israelis" or other all-encompassing groups will be regarded as trolling by me and I will rate them accordingly. Others may do as they wish. Specific insults to posters here will also be regarded as trolling and rated accordingly. Ok? Open debate, but no personal insults and no racial slanders: this topic starts out hot and gets hotter.


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:22:29 PM EST
(hint: if anybody calls you an "anti-semite" for criticizing israel, that is manipulation)

Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic.

When antisemites criticize Israel it does not magically transform them from the racists that they are. That remains the case even if they mix non-racist arguments with their racism.

You are in the latter category, as you  have made abundantly clear, and as anyone who takes a closer look at the site you linked to can see, with its excerpts from essays like this one

It is foolish to think that a minute desert state and its partisans in America could overthrow the sovereignty of the American government, take control of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and such agencies as the Federal Reserve, IMF, CIA, and launch us on a global war against the Arab world. It takes a vast and very rich Conspiracy and a century. The Conspiracy was described exactly more than a century ago in Europe and by President Wilson, long before this evil little state and its partisans were born.

The world is under siege by a European hierarchy of banking families, at the top largely Jewish, the money changers and money lenders of history. They are already the richest people on earth but it is not enough. They have a Faustian Grand Plan. They mean to own or control everything of value on earth. Their weapons: MONEY and DEBT -- and Washington.

The rise of the Conspiracy over the last two centuries parallels the rise of Zionism. This is not a coincidence. Early on, the Conspiracy realized that it needed a strong political agency, Zionism, and its own country where it would be free from all governmental oversight and create the murderous rogue state (Israel) that menaces the world today through Washington. (The two were joined at the hip decades ago by the Conspiracy.)

The Conspiracy is invisible. It functions through its network of global and central banks and their many subsidized agents, organizations and fronts around the world. It financed the Morgans and the Harrimans. Even the haughty kingpin of the American Petroleum Cartel, David, is its lackey just like his ancestors. It controls the currency of all the major nations including Russia and China. It "takes" hundreds of billions from the American people every year. It has no regard for human life except as a resource for labor, taxes and armies. It has no god; money is its messiah.

If you look further on the site you'll notice a full section devoted to odes to Holocaust deniers.

by MarekNYC on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:43:19 PM EST
Another good reason  not to recommend.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 03:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Problem: from looking at your diaries, you clearly have a different input, which is welcome.

On the other hand, from looking at your diaries, there is an 'obsession' with Fascism.

Personally I don't have any problems with free speech - but, as Marek points out (and I suspected, but didn't check) your quotes are dubious. This is a 'fact-based' site - at least on serious issues.

Track down the real quotes, and you may have an argument on your hands.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 04:00:14 PM EST
Just floating a semi-idea:

For 50 years the Palestinians have been living like an animal in a cage. They are confined to a small space and people keep walking by and banging on the bars. The result: the entire society is in a permanent state of stress.

For 50 years the Israelis have been living like an animal in a cage. They are confined to a small space and people keep walking by and banging on the bars. The result: the entire society is in a permanent state of stress.

People and animals under stress lash out at those who approach them. The stress makes them behave irrationally. There is a need to "de-stress" the situation. The question is who is banging the cage? And, what do those who continue to promote the status quo get out of the situation?

Without understanding who gains from the current conditions there is little chance of meaningful change.

--

As to the premise of the diary. The problem is that three groups of people imbue a certain stretch of sand with magical properties. There have been many cases of people being displaced and starting up elsewhere, usually they adjust. But in this case because of the religious beliefs which underlie the positions of the Jews, Christians and Muslims such resettlement is seen as impossible.

I suggest reading Sam Harris's book "The End of Faith" on the damage done by religious fanaticism. One could ask the question as to why a minority, usually taken to be 20%, of super-orthodox Jews gets so set policy in Israel. And as I mentioned above it is not clear who plays this role on the other side.

"Zionism" does have a precise meaning:

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.

But these days many people take it as a code word for anti-semitism. As I stated above, if one isn't trying to start a fight, it probably would be better to describe those who feel that they have a God-given right to a certain piece of real estate in exactly these terms.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 04:56:55 PM EST
The "banging on the cage" in both cases is by the Moslem world. They wouldn't make peace in the 1920s. The Great Palestinian revolt in the '30s was a reaction to the Palestinian Jews being allowed to bring chairs to the Western wall and to be allowed to repair synagoges.

The entire Arab world attacked Israel in 1948. People forget that, but the armies of at least five countries were fighting on the side of the Arabs. That's Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and some others...this doesn't include the Palestinians.

From 1949-67, the Palestinians were citizens of Jordan and Egypt, and had the ability to go anywhere in those countries.

After 1967, the Arabs pretty much demanded that the territories remain occupied. The UN made sure that they lived in Poverty. The refugee camps? That was a racket, the UN stole millions, the Arabs stole millions more, all the while promising genocide would take place and they could "go home."

The Arab governments throughout the world oppressed their people and used the plight of the Palestinians as a diversion to keep the people from noticing how their leaders were mistreating them.

It's all well documented.

by messy on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 07:43:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Arab governments throughout the world oppressed their people and used the plight of the Palestinians as a diversion to keep the people from noticing how their leaders were mistreating them.

This I can fully agree with.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jul 17th, 2006 at 11:17:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And who propped up those regimes? (In Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq before 1991?) Who tolerated dictatorships in Turkey and Pakistan?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 17th, 2006 at 11:20:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And who propped up those regimes? (In Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq before 1991?)

Iraq's support was remarkably broad based. The primary non-regional supporters were the US, France, and the USSR.

by MarekNYC on Mon Jul 17th, 2006 at 11:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I mean is that it's easy to say the Arab regimes are undemocratic and opress their people, but we are their enablers.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 17th, 2006 at 11:25:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here are a couple of fun quotes from the Arab hate-site quoted above http://www.serendipity.li/zionism.htm:

 

If Zionist claims to a Jewish "homeland" in Palestine, based on Jewish occupation of that area 2000 years ago, are accepted as valid then the claims of North American Indians to their former homeland (all of the United States) and the claims of Australian Aborigines to their former homeland (all of Australia) should also be accepted as valid, and those homelands returned. Not to mention the descendants of the inhabitants of countless mini-states which have risen and fallen over the course of thousands of years of human history. Jews have no more rights than anyone else.

 

(And this "YHWH" appears, from accounts in the Old Testament, to be a particularly repulsive entity, vain, jealous, given to fits of rage and directing his followers to massacre civilian populations -- an entity who, if he existed, would be quite unworthy of the devotion of anyone with a sense of justice and morality.)
by messy on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:00:45 PM EST
So.  If I agreed with those things, would that make me an anti-semite?  

I have a conservative Christian friend with whom I've debated the merits of the Old Testament God.  I just don't think there are many.  I don't feel very good about the New Testament God either.

And, being of Cherokee descent, I think that's true about returning the land.  That is, I think they have the right to it.  Not terribly practical to expect everyone to leave, though.  And then there's the fact that genocide wiped out most of the population to whom it originaly belonged.  Except that they didn't really see things that way, "we own the land"...  They were into living in harmony with it rather than claiming ownership of it.

ooohhh..

There's an idea.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:15:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
then you're pro-zionist! cool.
by messy on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is, I think they have the right to it.

Why? Those who 'owned' it are mostly dead. Those who took it are mostly gone as well.  What should the statute of limitations be on things like this? Do the Greeks have the right to the western coast of Anatolia? What about the Arabs to southern Spain?  Or the Poles to Vilnius - sorry Lithuania, but your capital belongs to us now, nothing personal, just historical fairness.  What obligations do European powers have towards the inhabitants of their former colonies? What about all that land and other property confiscated by the Bolsheviks from those they killed or forced into exile?

by MarekNYC on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Having a right and using it are 2 different things.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, Spain is still demanding Gibralter back, and the Brits have had it longer than the Spanish did.

I've seen maps where Greece has much of western Turkey on it, where China owns Mongolia and most of Eastern Siberia, where Denmark owns a bit of southern Sweden.

In 1990, Poland was shitting bricks wondering if Germany would ask for Silesia back.

Then there were all those Hispanics marching to demand that land in the southwest the US confiscated (with Just compensation) back in 1848...that was just a couple of  months ago...

by messy on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 06:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They had no concept of the ownership of land, so when peope offered goods for it, it was the same as someone today offering you 10.000 bucks for the air you breathe. You say "WTF, dumbass, you wanna pay? So pay"

But when you can't breathe, you regret it.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:59:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Was one of the saddest stories I have read.....

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 06:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.serendipity.li/hr/zundel.htm

Here's some more proof that name is quoting a genuine antisemite of the most repugnant kind.

Now who is Ernest Zundel? He was a holocaust denier who was thrown out of Canada for propagating his disgusting bigotry.

Any Canadians here could tell you more.

by messy on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:07:39 PM EST
Here's an interesting page from the site name cites in his diary:

http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/ziolynx2.htm

Go half way down and you'll see Articles by Edgar J. Steele:

Click on the link called: In Defense of Anti-Semitism
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/antisemite.htm

Now I'm not saying that name is anywhere near as much a lunatic as the bigot who runs the serenipity.li website, but since he did indeed quote heavilly from the thing, s/he must have thought that the stuff on the site was worthwhile. It's not.

by messy on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 05:26:18 PM EST
There are some things professed on that site which might be the subject of debate. For instance that we rarely hear about the other minorities who were persecuted and executed such as the Romany, or the disabled, or the mentally disturbed.

The problem here is that in the post war rush for soundbites and generalizations, the nuanced truth is forgotten. Truth is always nuanced. By persuing only soundbite truth, we allow the bigots purchase on the argument.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 06:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Has, IMHO, always historically boomeranged on the professors...

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jul 14th, 2006 at 06:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

Herd Immunity .. Filling the Gaps

by Oui - Jul 24
7 comments

LQD - Long Term Covid: The Brain

by ATinNM - Jul 13
25 comments

Say No to Racism

by Oui - Jul 12
24 comments

England surrenders to Covid

by IdiotSavant - Jul 9
27 comments