babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Systemic racism within Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Systemic racism within Israel
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 23 June 2003 04:32 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Racism inside Israel

I know that it will be difficult for some on this board to accept. This article discusses the depth of anti-Arab racism within the power structures of the Israeli government.

quote:
All Israeli citizens, including Palestinians, have the right to vote in elections for members of the Knesset (parliament) and for the prime minister. But not all rights are citizenship rights. Other rights are defined as nationality rights, and are reserved for Jews only. If you are a Jew, you have exclusive use of land, privileged access to private and public employment, special educational loans, home mortgages, preferences for admission to universities, and many other things. Many other special privileges are reserved for those who have served in the Israeli military. And military service is compulsory for all Jews (male and female), except for the ultra-Orthodox who get the same privileges as other Jews, but excludes Palestinians, who do not.

Over 80 percent of the land within Israel that was once owned by Palestinians has been confiscated. All told, 93 percent of Israel's land can only be leased or owned by Jews or Jewish agencies. Moreover, despite Israel's booming economy, Palestinian unemployment is skyrocketing--Adalah says it is about 40 percent. In 1996 twice as many Arab citizens (28.3 percent) as Jewish citizens (14.4 percent) lived below the poverty line. Less than five percent of government employees are Arab. And eighty percent of all student drop-outs are Arab.

There are also vast disparities between Arab towns and Jewish towns in government spending on schools, medical systems, roads and electricity, clean water, and social services.

Unlike any other country in the world, Israel does not define itself as a state of its residents, or even a state of its citizens, but as a state of all the Jews in the world. Jews from anywhere in the world, like me, can travel to Israel, declare citizenship, and be granted all the privileges of being Jewish that are denied to Palestinians who have lived in the area for hundreds of years.



From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 23 June 2003 05:24 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It can be argued, though, that Jews are victims of racism in just about every other country in the mideast. Shouldn't that give them the right to be racist themselves?
From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 05:27 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just so it's clear, you weren't referring to Jews everywhere else in the mideast having the right to be racist, right? You were referring to the Israelis who support the occupation, I assume. Just wanted to make that clear so it didn't sound like you were making a blanket statement about all Jews from that area of the world in general.

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 23 June 2003 06:08 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It can be argued, though, that Jews are victims of racism in just about every other country in the mideast. Shouldn't that give them the right to be racist themselves?

In a word, no.

Simultaneously, systematic racism towards Arabs in Israel doesn't give any Arab governments the right to discriminate against Jews. Discrimination can never be justified based on a "but they did it too!" argument. It can never be justified, period.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 23 June 2003 07:31 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't mean to argue that it does give them justification, but I wanted to raise the issue. While no racism is ever justified, its not difficult to see why those in Israel would want to maintain its Jewish character.
From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 June 2003 03:02 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"This," he says, "is the Bible. In the Bible God says Israel is for the Jews. The Palestinians are of a lower order.

Running the sniper's gauntlet

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 June 2003 03:43 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"The whole idea of the Jewish people being in this land is to bring about the redemption of the world," he explains.

"When the Jewish people are fortified and solidified and unified in their land we can continue our mission of teaching the world the basic principles of our morality and our God."


This is insanity pretending to be religion.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 June 2003 04:16 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Systemic racism is a problem being faced by many democracies world wide. Israel is a young nation with much still to work out. With peace there will be efforts, I believe, to reform a number of issues within Isarel polity.

It has taken the USA 200 years and it is still working on issues of systemic racism as are we in Canada.

As for the Settlers, they are not Israel's mainstream and attempts by you to paint them that way Al with your statement above is as fair as your usual rants about Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 27 June 2003 04:29 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, if they're outside of the Israeli mainstream, why is the government elected by the Israeli mainstream supporting them?

This is far beyond what's being worked out in most other democracies. Large amounts of land in Canada and the US are owned by white Christians, for example, but there is no law prohibiting the land from being sold to Jews or Muslims or blacks.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 27 June 2003 11:31 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Systemic racism is a problem being faced by many democracies world wide. Israel is a young nation with much still to work out. With peace there will be efforts, I believe, to reform a number of issues within Isarel polity.

"Quiet please, we're bombing."


quote:
As for the Settlers, they are not Israel's mainstream and attempts by you to paint them that way Al with your statement above is as fair as your usual rants about Israel.


They are bought and paid for by the Israeli state using tax dollars collected from Israeli citizens and the political support of Israeli voters. This makes them 'mainstream', Mishei. They aren't a random abberation, they are state policy. Settlement building has continued unabated since 1967, and virtually no corner of the Israeli electorate has fostered a serious and prolongued protest to this process. Sure, a complaint here and there, some misgivings from time to time, but normally just complacent, complicit, silence.

You wanna talk the 'democracy' talk, then walk the democracy walk. Are the Israeli people responsible for their democratically elected leaders' policy, or not?


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 28 June 2003 12:28 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
I do not think that Israel is a systemic racist country. The Israelis are a mixture of many races. Nodoubt the whites are dispr. richer, maybe some racism in that respect, just like here. Mind you there seems to be religious discrimination as some of you supported with some articles.

Is racism not the wrong word to use in this case? Or is racism more becoming a word to indicate cultural and/or national discrimination?


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 June 2003 04:06 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for the Settlers, they are not Israel's mainstream and attempts by you to paint them that way Al with your statement above is as fair as your usual rants about Israel.

You mean to say you agree with this crazy nonsense Mish? What am I painting? I'm just quoting what they say themselves.

And having the support of the Bulldozer's government is tantamount to "mainstream," I'd say.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 June 2003 09:34 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

You mean to say you agree with this crazy nonsense Mish? What am I painting? I'm just quoting what they say themselves.

And having the support of the Bulldozer's government is tantamount to "mainstream," I'd say.


No, Im suggesting that you misrepresent the country by suggesting that the Settlers are somehow the mainstream. You know they are not; you know that Sharon is in the midst of confronting them and dismantling outposts.

Settlements as a whole are part of the ongoing negotiaitions and is part of the necessary conscessions in the Roadmap.

To suggest that the settlers have the support of the Isareli public is wrong and you know it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 28 June 2003 12:27 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They've had it for over thirty years.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 June 2003 02:06 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're putting words in my mouth Mish. I quoted some religious zealot and said his ideas were "insanity pretending to be religion."

Everything else sprouted from the compost of your own imagination.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 June 2003 03:35 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
They've had it for over thirty years.
Untrue. There was benign indifference in israel to outright hostility towards the settlers. However not enough to back their removal. Now there is. So let's look forward Smith not backwards.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 28 June 2003 03:36 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
You're putting words in my mouth Mish. I quoted some religious zealot and said his ideas were "insanity pretending to be religion."

Everything else sprouted from the compost of your own imagination.



So why quote some non-entity ? What's the purpose? We all know there are extremists on both sides.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 June 2003 03:45 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So why quote some non-entity ?

I'm amazed that you can dismiss the settlers so easily.

They are quite real to those Arab farmers who can't work their fields and orchards because they get sniped at, never mind the Arab families whose lands have been stolen by the settlers.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 28 June 2003 04:22 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The settlers can't be dismissed or excused Sharon's government is not serious and is only playing around.

However this is totally balanced with the way the PA has been handling things. A piece of paper signed by Sharon is not worth anything the settlements have to be dismantled but same goes for the Hamas and other terrorist organizations a cease fire from them isn't worth anything they have to be dismantled immediately too.

Enough is enough there can be no more excuses for the settlers in the west bank, and Gaza the IDF must pull out along with the settlers immediately and there can be no excuse (especially not the Palestinians suffering) for the constant attacks on Israeli civilians.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 29 June 2003 11:15 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Enough is enough there can be no more excuses for the settlers in the west bank, and Gaza the IDF must pull out along with the settlers immediately and there can be no excuse (especially not the Palestinians suffering) for the constant attacks on Israeli civilians

I agree that the settlers and IDF have to pull out of the illegaly occupied lands and also that the suicide bombings have to stop.

It does seem clear however that it is the presence and violence of the settlers and the IDF on Palestinian civilians that is constant, while the attacks on Israeli civilians while ongoing, are not constant. I thought it important to make this minor distinction simply because of its one-sided application in the comment.

As for the dismissing entirely of the decades of Palestinian suffering, well, I don't know what to make of that.


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 30 June 2003 01:44 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It does seem clear however that it is the presence and violence of the settlers and the IDF on Palestinian civilians that is constant, while the attacks on Israeli civilians while ongoing, are not constant. I thought it important to make this minor distinction simply because of its one-sided application in the comment.
As for the dismissing entirely of the decades of Palestinian suffering, well, I don't know what to make of that.

Not quite accurate:
Yes the settlers are a constant sadly if it were up to me the lands conquered in 1967 would have been returned immediately after the war and they should be dealt with now with all possible means.
The IDF however has not been a constant the impact the IDF have had in the west bank and Gaza is directly relative to the suicide bombings and up risings. Funny though when the peace process began in 1993 and things were improving the attacks on Jews increased, Sharon did make it worse but the fact that it even began and manifested itself into what it is today is the real paradox to me.

And I don't dismiss the Palestinian suffering I believe there are many things that have contributed to it much of which Israel is responsible much of which the PA and other Arab countries are responsible for.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 July 2003 11:59 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As long as we are discussing this issue it behooves us to look at all systemic discrimination in the area.

Remember the surrounding Arab states such as Jordan and Egypt are officialli Muslim states and that the official religion of the PA is Islam.

That stated this is an interesting assesment of how the minority Christian community is treated by the PA.

Christians in the PA


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 July 2003 12:08 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Remember the surrounding Arab states such as Jordan and Egypt are officialli Muslim states and that the official religion of the PA is Islam.

I seem to recall that the PA is nominally secular, and in fact, the PLO was at odds with Hamas over the issue of codifying Islam as the official religion, yes?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 July 2003 12:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doc, you may be right . I will look for more info on this

And here is something:

Episcopalian news

And this seems to suggest that Islam as the Official religion of the PA has been placed in the draft of the PA constitution.

Islam to be PA official religion says draft of Constitution

Out of curiosity, those who are so concerned with Israel as a "Jewish " state, how do you feel about the PA, Egypt , Jordan Iran et al as official Islamic states? Is it OK for them but not OK for Israel?

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 03 July 2003 12:27 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think you know the answer to that, Mishei. It's not okay, ever.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 July 2003 12:53 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
I think you know the answer to that, Mishei. It's not okay, ever.
OK then let's look at this article I posted and discuss it with the same vigour and critical detail one would if it were Israel.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 12:59 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
As long as we are discussing this issue it behooves us to look at all systemic discrimination in the area.

Remember the surrounding Arab states such as Jordan and Egypt are officialli Muslim states and that the official religion of the PA is Islam.

That stated this is an interesting assesment of how the minority Christian community is treated by the PA.

Christians in the PA



'US-Israel.org, huh?' That bunch are about as reliable as Larouche in my opinion. Their website is full of all the standard official Israeli apologetics for the (mis)treatment of the local population. Replete with the usual obfuscations, relevent ommissions, and flat out mistruths.

For example, from their 'Myths and Facts Online' section we find that Chaim Weizmann was really interested in a modus vivendi with the Arab population, and that Zionists had no help from imperial powers. The evidence is given as follows:

The website quotes historian Paul Johnson, "“Everywhere in the West, the foreign offices, defense ministries and big business were against the Zionists.” First of all, no contextual date is given for this statement. Does it refer to a short constellation of events? As we will see, the website contradicts itself if we take this statement as it is presented; that is, as a blanket characterisation of Western attitudes toward Zionism. For instance, in the section on the Balfour Declaration, we are told:

quote:
The Mandate for Palestine's purpose was to put into effect the Balfour Declaration. It specifically referred to "the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine" and to the moral validity of "reconstituting their National Home in that country." The term "reconstituting" shows recognition of the fact that Palestine had been the Jews' home. Furthermore, the British were instructed to "use their best endeavors to facilitate" Jewish immigration, to encourage settlement on the land and to "secure" the Jewish National Home. The word "Arab" does not appear in the Mandatory award.

The Mandate was formalized by the 52 governments at the League of Nations on July 24, 1922.


Let us not forget what Balfour himself was to say on the matter in 1919:

quote:
"In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country (the Palestinians)...the four great powers (UK, US, USSR and France) are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhibit that ancient land."

Note here that Balfour puts the lie to the Joan Peters thesis in "From Time Immemorial", that there were essentially no Arabs in Palestine: that they were a product of lax immigration policy on the part of the Mandate authorities, etc.)

Further, if the above is true one could hardly conclude that the British imperial authorities (nor any of the imperial states in the League) were 'against' Zionism. Moreover, one can scarcely believe that these imperial powers thought that accomadation with the Arabs was a necessary precursor to Zionism. It remains to see what Weizmann thought, however.

On the 'US-Israel.org' website, we get Chaim Weizmann championed as a friend of Arabs; a man seeking accomodation with them:

quote:
Chaim Weizmann considered the task important enough to lead a Zionist Commission to Palestine to explain the movement’s aims to the Arabs. Weizmann went first to Cairo in March 1918 and met with Said Shukeir, Dr. Faris Nimr and Suleiman Bey Nassif (Syrian Arab nationalists who had been chosen by the British as representatives).


First of all, what we have here is a meeting arranged by British authorities. This certainly doesn't help the claim that they were uninterested in helping Zionists. Second, if we check into what Weizmann said elsewhere, we get further contradiction of the 'anti-Zionism' thesis. Moreover, we get some evidence of what kind of modus vivendi Weizmann is interested in - flat out Western colonialism:

In a 1916 letter, Weizmann wrote:

quote:
"... The British Cabinet is not only sympathetic toward the Palestinian aspirations of the Jews, but would like to see these aspirations realized ...

England ... would have in the Jews the best possible friends, who would be the best national interpreters of ideas in the eastern countries and would serve as a bridge between the two civilizations. That again is not a material argument, but certainly it ought to carry great weight with any politician who likes to look 50 years ahead."


Lest their be any misunderstanding about what Weizmann considered a 'bridge' between civilisations, some comments of his about Arabs might help clarify:

quote:
"The poor ignorant fellah [Arabic for peasant] does not worry about politics, but when he is told repeatedly by people in whom he has confidence that his livelihood is in danger of being taken away from him by us, he becomes our mortal enemy. . . The Arab is primitive and believes what he is told."

Furthermore, he felt that, "[the indigenous population was akin to] the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." Mere objects the Arabs, it would seem. And what of the idea that the Arabs should be accomodated? Was it sincere negotiation on Weizmann's part? In his own words:

quote:
""We Shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ..... this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years."

And:

quote:
"the country [Palestine] should be Jewish in the same way that France is French and Britain is British."

Unless we are to believe that Weizmann was monumentally delusional, it is clear that his project could not be carried out without some injury to the Arabs already living in Palestine. One could hardly expect them to be amenable to the immigration (colonisation) of the country. In fact, we find that the 'Transfer Committee' of the World Zionist Organisation (of which Weizmann was bossman) was talking in less veiled terms about what 'transfer' meant. Specifically, Yosef Weitz, the head of the committee:

quote:
"...the transfer of [Palestinian] Arab population from the area of the Jewish state does not serve only one aim--to diminish the Arab population. It also serves a second, no less important, aim which is to advocate land presently held and cultivated by the [Palestinian] Arabs and thus to release it for Jewish inhabitants."

And in 1940 he wrote in his diary:

quote:
"it must be clear that there is no room in the country for both [Arab and Jewish] peoples . . . If the [Palestinian] Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us . . . The only solution [after the end of WW II] is a Land of Israel, at least a western land of Israel [i.e. Palestine since Transjordan is the eastern portion], without [Palestinian] Arabs. There is no room here for compromises . . . There is no way but to transfer the [Palestinian] Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer all of them, save perhaps for [the Palestinian Arabs of] Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one [Bedouin] tribe. The transfer must be directed at Iraq, Syria, and even Transjordan [eastern portion of Eretz Yisrael]. For this goal funds will be found . . . An only after this transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers and the Jewish problem will cease to exist. There is no other solution."

Again, this is all under Weizmann's watch. None of this 'spirit of accomodation' is mentioned on the website you linked to. This amounts to a monumental obfuscation - one could hardly believe that they are unaware of these facts. In fact, I think it amounts to a deliberate repression of the simple white supremacist, colonial, imperial facts of Zionism. In my eyes, that makes these guys about as 'credible', as you put it, as Lyndon Larouche. Though, even a stopped watch is right twice a day....

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 July 2003 01:07 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmmm, suddenly concerns with Palestinian Christians arise...and but a day or two after the succession of the Throne of England is questioned....

Former Palestinian Authority bigshot, Hanan Ashwari is an Anglican...the Queen of England is an Anglican...

Could it be that Mish doesn't want Palestinians to rule the British Commonwealth?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 01:09 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Edited on reconsideration....

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 03 July 2003 01:16 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
OK then let's look at this article I posted and discuss it with the same vigour and critical detail one would if it were Israel.

But there's no one to argue with, Mishei. No one has ever claimed that life in the PA is all flowers and smiles and there is no discrimination or racism. No one has claimed that Saudi Arabia is a light unto nations.

Vigour and critical detail isn't necessary if everyone agrees in the first place, and if all you want is for us to say "gee, that's horrible" a hundred times in a row, maybe trot out a few tropes about Arab/Muslim inferiority in relation to the West (including Israel)...sorry, no.

And I agree on us-israel.org, by the way. I trust that about as much as I trust George Dubya Bush, i.e. not much at all.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 01:29 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
No, Im suggesting that you misrepresent the country by suggesting that the Settlers are somehow the mainstream. You know they are not; you know that Sharon is in the midst of confronting them and dismantling outposts.

When the people start leaving and Arabs are invited to swim in the settlement swimming pools, then we can talk about a big change. Moreover, you also forget to mention that the settlements have a very large constituency of support in North America - particularly the U.S.. As anyone knows the support of the U.S. government is critical to the Israeli cause, just as the Zionist lobby groups are quite influential in American foreign policy. These are the simple facts. Until the support for the settlements 'over here' dwindles, I suspect that very little pressure will be put on Sharon to do anything drastic.


quote:
Settlements as a whole are part of the ongoing negotiaitions and is part of the necessary conscessions in the Roadmap.

This is the problem - there should be no negotiation on these: they are illegal and immoral representations of aggressive Zionism. The fact that there can even be any consideration of ANY of them remaining is a sign that Israel is not actually ready to negotiate based on basic principles.

quote:
To suggest that the settlers have the support of the Isareli public is wrong and you know it.[/qb]

Who built those swimming pools? You have heard about the subsidies to settlers, haven't you? The Bills introduced in the Knesset to support these functions have been passed through by Likud AND Labour dominated governments. Are we to believe that the Knesset is not responsible to the Israeli electorate? What of all the talk of the wonders of Israeli 'democracy'...


The mind boggles..

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 01:37 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
As long as we are discussing this issue it behooves us to look at all systemic discrimination in the area.

Remember the surrounding Arab states such as Jordan and Egypt are officialli Muslim states and that the official religion of the PA is Islam.

That stated this is an interesting assesment of how the minority Christian community is treated by the PA.

Christians in the PA


Frankly, asking for peace and tolerance under the terrible conditions that Israel has forced the Palestinians to live in is laughably hipocritical.

It fails to note that the PLO were always secular nationalists and have only been forced into considering the application of Islamic principles by the increase in the influence of Hamas and others. These extremist groups have their succour in the most downtrodden of Palestinian society and have their roots in the most impoverished and brutalised areas: the refugee camps, Gaza, etc. Moreover, this approach obfuscates the very large role that Israel played in the creation and maintainance of Hamas both directly and indirectly. Radical Islam in the PA is the bastard child of Zionist politicide against the Palestinians.

Granted, there is support for radical Islam in the PA from neighbouring states - Iran, Syria, etc. who are pursuing their foreign policies through marginal support of some elements within Hamas and Islamic Jihad. However, this influence is small compared to homegrown factors like poverty, the attempt to 'erase' Palestinian identity, various forms of brutalisation, and ongoing attacks by the IDF. These are the garden in which radical political alternatives take root.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 03 July 2003 01:51 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Frankly, asking for peace and tolerance under the terrible conditions that Israel has forced the Palestinians to live in is laughably hipocritical.

If the blacks could over all retrain themselves in south Africa, if the Tibetans could restrain themselves from attacking occupying powers, if the Jews could over all restrain themselves from attacking Germans.

Then it certainly isn't laughable to request themselves the Palestinians to restrain themselves there situation is no worse then any of the groups I mentioned. None of these groups had such a low disregard for human life that they sacrificed themselves in the process of killing other people, further more they generally didn't attack innocent women and children.

quote:
It fails to note that the PLO were always secular nationalists and have only been forced into considering applying Islamic principles by the increase in the influence of Hamas and others. These extremist groups gain their succour from the most downtrodden of Palestinian society and have their roots in the worst areas: the refugee camps, Gaza, etc. Moreover, this approach obfuscates the very large role that Israel played in the creation and maintainance of Hamas both directly and indirectly. Radical Islam in the PA is the bastard child of Zionist politicide against the Palestinians.

I for one am not going to deny that the Israeli government is partially responsible for creating these radical groups. I already mentioned that in other threads.

However you can not use such a complex philosophy like Zionism and use it in such a derogatory way. There many different kinds of Zionism you want to be critical of one go right ahead but you can't put all forms into the same category. If you would like me to point you to sources I'd be glad too.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 03 July 2003 01:55 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who built those swimming pools? You have heard about the subsidies to settlers, haven't you? The Bills introduced in the Knesset to support these functions have been passed through by Likud AND Labour dominated governments. Are we to believe that the Knesset is not responsible to the Israeli electorate? What of all the talk of the wonders of Israeli 'democracy'...

Yes It's very hard to do anything psoitive when your stuck in between 2 radical groups. The fascist settlers on one hand which since there humans you have a moral obligation to insure their safety even if they don't care about it and the radical Muslim groups on the other they 2 deserve the same moral obligations but it's pretty difficult to treat them decently when all they want to do is kick you out into the sea.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 03 July 2003 01:59 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When the people start leaving and Arabs are invited to swim in the settlement swimming pools, then we can talk about a big change. Moreover, you also forget to mention that the settlements have a very large constituency of support in North America - particularly the U.S.. As anyone knows the support of the U.S. government is critical to the Israeli cause, just as the Zionist lobby groups are quite influential in American foreign policy. These are the simple facts. Until the support for the settlements 'over here' dwindles, I suspect that very little pressure will be put on Sharon to do anything drastic.

Sharon will never do anything drastic lets not kid ourselves but assuming it was some one like Barak how far do you think he could go when no one is really willing to negotiate and the people he is suppose to be responsible for are constantly being attacked.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 03 July 2003 02:03 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is the problem - there should be no negotiation on these: they are illegal and immoral representations of aggressive Zionism. The fact that there can even be any consideration of ANY of them remaining is a sign that Israel is not actually ready to negotiate based on basic principles.

If this can't be negotiated then how can you force upon Israel the right of return???


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 03 July 2003 02:22 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Racism" as I know it is discrimination based on race, colour, or ethnicity. Since Israel is defined as a Jewish state, it is racist by definition.

I think the real argument in this thread isn't whether Israel is racist or not, but why Israel's racism is any more significant than racism anywhere else.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:

If this can't be negotiated then how can you force upon Israel the right of return???


International law supports the right of return.

Specifically, Article 1.C of the UN Refugee Convention (1951) stipulates that international protection for refugees ceases only under the following conditions:


quote:
* once a refugee has "re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality",

* or "having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it",
or he has "voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained",

* or "being a person who has no nationality he is, because of the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence"


Note that 'country' is used here not in the sense of a de jure 'state' and is meant to refer broadly to the geography/territory in which the refugee habitually made his/her residence.


Second, I can support it morally, Justice. In 1948 hundreds of thousands of Arabs were 'transferred' out of what is now Israel by force of arms. These people deserve to be compensated and should be given the choice to return to land they once inhabited or a suitable replacement where it is available. Despite what Zionists and their supporters say, there is a lot of empty space outside the urban centres of Israel. I've walked it: so please don't try to say otherwise. More importantly, a move toward true accomadation with the Arab population of Palestine is a necessary step for Israel. For the health of both societies it is necessary for Israel to abandon her delusional desire for ethnocracy. The policy has brought nothing but suffering to all parties involved. Peace can only come through a radical transformation in Israeli society to a secular, citizenship based polity which guarantees the position of ALL its inhabitants equally, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation. If they want to be a modern 'democracy' they ought to start acting like one. As of now, they are no better than any other state that practices ritual discrimination against entire groups on the basis of supremacist ethics.

Such is the case for the right of return. Their counterpart in the comparison - the settlements- deserve some attention as well to elucidate the difference. The settlements are 1) illegal AND 2) immoral. On the first count, I am in agreement with the moral tenor of international law on this point - I believe that dispossession is a terrible crime that requires urgent redress. Moreover, the settlements are based on a racist policy that cedes possession of territory to Jews by military force through the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs. Daily, houses and businesses are bulldozed to make room for settlements and the ridiculous circuit of 'Jews Only' by-pass roads that connect the settlements to Israel and to each other. These heavily guarded roads take up acres and acres of space on which Palestinians used to, or could today reside. They are part and parcel with the colonial policy of Israel and their continued politicide against the Palestinians - they are a mechanism for pushing the Palestinians into ever-smaller areas, to make them more and more desperate by creating a fait accomplis on the model of the fascist Jabotinsky: the so-called 'Iron Wall' strategy. While effective, they remain a symbol of the brutality and racism of the Zionist colonial movement and as such are morally indefensible.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 02:53 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by satana:
"Racism" as I know it is discrimination based on race, colour, or ethnicity. Since Israel is defined as a Jewish state, it is racist by definition.

I think the real argument in this thread isn't whether Israel is racist or not, but why Israel's racism is any more significant than racism anywhere else.


Though there be racism in the PA, I don't recall there being a dispossesion and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Jews from PA territory. I don't recall the PA setting up shop as an illegal occupying force, expanding Palestinians settlements at the expense of Jews and ritually denigrating Jews daily. I also don't recall the PA enforcing a 'Right of Return' for Arabs who have never actually lived in the territory to be colonised and denying that same right to the previous inhabitants - see above. I also don't recall the PA engaging in a programme to try and deny Jews their subjective political, economic, and cultural agency.

There is 'r'acism, and there is 'R'acism...

In all the whinging and groaning about racism in Palestinian society, the groaners never fail to gloss over these simple facts. That a person who has your boot on his neck should grow to hate you is understandable. In this case, the guy doing the standing is using it as justification for his position. It's cynical and absurd.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 03 July 2003 03:03 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the settlers in the West Bank should be allowed to stay - but the territory they occupy should no longer be marked Jews Only, nor should they retain Israeli nationality rights if they stay there. They should be permitted to apply for citizenship in a secular, democratic Palestinian state.

If they don't want to do that, or if it isn't possible, the Israeli government should help them resettle in Israel proper.

I don't think anyone is going to deny that there is serious racism in the PA or in most Middle Eastern countries, and I think Jews who were driven out of Arab countries upon the founding of Israel richly deserve compensation for their losses. But I don't think it mitigates the criminality or cruelty of the settlements.

Uri Avnery on the dismantling of settlements.

quote:
The Israeli army has already demolished thousands of Palestinian homes in the occupied territories. This is how it goes: early in the morning, hundreds of soldiers surround the land. Behind them come the tanks and bulldozers, and the action starts. When despair drives the inhabitants to resist, the soldiers hit them with sticks, throw tear gas grenades, shoot rubber-coated metal bullets and, if the resistance is stronger, live ammunition, too. Old people are thrown on the ground, women dragged along, young people handcuffed and pushed against the wall. After a few minutes, it's all over.

Well, they'll say, that's done to Arabs. They don't do this to Jews.

Wrong. They certainly do this to Jews. Depends who the Jews are.

I, for example, am a Jew. I have been attacked with tear gas five times so far. Once it was a special gas, and for a few moments I was afraid that I was going to choke to death.

During one of the blockades on Ramallah we decided to bring food to the beleaguered town. We were some three thousand Israeli peace activists, both Jews and Arabs. At the A-Ram checkpoint, north of Jerusalem, a line of policemen and soldiers stopped us. There was an exchange of insults and a lot of shouting. Suddenly we were showered with tear gas canisters. The thousands dispersed in panic, coughing and choking, some were trampled; one of our group, an 82-year old Jew and kibbutznik, was injured.

I have witnessed demonstrations in which rubber-coated bullets were shot at Israeli citizens (generally Arabs). Once I was in the gas-filled rooms of a school at Um-al-Fahem in Israel.

If the army had really wanted to evacuate Mitpe-Yitzhar quickly and efficiently, it would have used tear gas. The whole business would have been over in a few minutes. But then there would not have been dramatic pictures on TV, and George W. would have asked his friend Arik: "Hey, why don't you finish with all the outposts in a week?"

In other words, this was a well-produced show for TV.


Avnery's take is more cynical than I hope is warranted, but still, he has a point.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 July 2003 03:11 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
'US-Israel.org, huh?' That bunch are about as reliable as Larouche in my opinion.
Thank God its just your opinion. And it is exactly this hyperbole which detracts from any argumeny you make. This website may not be to your liking and you can argue with the facts it presents but to compare it to Larouche is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

BTW, do you know Silvio Berlusconi?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 04:09 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Thank God its just your opinion. And it is exactly this hyperbole which detracts from any argumeny you make. This website may not be to your liking and you can argue with the facts it presents but to compare it to Larouche is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

BTW, do you know Silvio Berlusconi?


Hahahaaa....You continue with your garbage. Unlike your blanket refusal to deal with Larouche, I actually took the time to refute, point-for-point the fascist apologetics of the Israel-US shill operation. The facts are simple and there for all to see - they lie, misrepresent facts, and carefully omit relevent information contradictory to their ideas all to support a racist colonial undertaking and a brutal military occupation. Their entire M.O. is to portray Israel as a 'Western Ally' and garner support for the continued oppression of Palestinians through the manipulation of Western feelings of cultural and political superiority. In fact, in this they share in the long tradition of Chaim Weizmann, elucidated above. In other words, they are a sort of white supremacist. And all you can harp about is my 'hyperbole'...Oh and call me 'dumb'. If there anything I ain't dearest, it's 'dumb'. I've demonstrably handed you your argumentative ass on several occaisions. If I'm 'dumb' than you are 'dumber'....

Though you are right, there is a HUGE difference between these guys and Larouche and it is this: These guys are actually getting the job done - they have infiltrated the 'mainstream' and have had significant success in their fascist endeavours. On the other hand, Larouche remains a marginal scapegoat with little or no following, and little or no actual infrastructure whereas these guys have armies, tanks, huge budgets, etc. etc.....So while you stand around and call yourself interested in 'human rights' and the left and point the finger at obscure figures like Larouche you are standing on a big pile of Palestinian suffering.

Hahahahahahaaaaa...

You certainly are good for a laugh, my little foil...

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 July 2003 04:16 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If there anything I ain't dearest, it's 'dumb'.
I am not you "dearest". Frankly, I find such language sexist and patronizing.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 04:21 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
I am not you "dearest". Frankly, I find such language sexist and patronizing.

Patronising, surely, I have little respect for your fascist apologia couched in 'lefty' garb, not to mention your histrionics of righteous indignation....

As for the 'sexism' charge, I have no idea about your sex or your gender, and frankly don't care...

Again, though I note your inability to deal with the prime thrust of any argument directed your way. You simply divert, and divert, and refuse to look at yourself in all your nakedness....

Call me crazy, but as some wise guys once said (and repeat and repeat):

Sometimes, Antisocial...But ALWAYS Anti-fascist...

It's too bad your 'leftism' wavers when placed near the strong magnet of Israeli colonialism...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 03 July 2003 04:37 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If I'm 'dumb' than you are 'dumber'....

I sense a movie in the making...


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 July 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have little respect for your fascist apologia
Again with the hyperbole..now Im a facsist. Courage your attempt at poisoning people's views towards me continues unabated. I have been an anti-fascist before you were a thought in anyone's mind. I resent this bullshit outright. Nonetheless I am not surprised because for you anyone who supports the Jewish state of Israel is a fascist. You are to be pitied.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 04:43 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
[QB]If the blacks could over all retrain themselves in south Africa, if the Tibetans could restrain themselves from attacking occupying powers, if the Jews could over all restrain themselves from attacking Germans.

QB]


The blacks were constantly fighting with the police in South Africa. The situation in Tibet is different, there is a deeply-rooted tradition of pacifism there which is not normal - why should we ask Arabs to adopt a policy of pacifism when it is neither culturally 'normal' for them, nor accepted as a norm of behaviour on most of the planet? I wish the world were more pacifist, however, to expect such grandiose behaviour out of the Palestinians is cynical.

As for Jews, they DID attack Germans - the entire weight of the WZO and other organisations was put into the Allied war cause against Nazi Germany. Jews served in Allied armies against German troops. Moreover, we have the Warsaw Ghetto uprisings, and other incidents of armed Jewish violence against German soldiers. Furthermore, it is often cited as justification for Israel's behaviour that Jews have finally stood up for themselves and joined the world of power politics. Why should the Palestinians do otherwise?

Do as I say, not as I do? In fact, however, this actually covers up an important fact: that the greatest proportion of Palestinian society HAS BEEN pacifist toward Israeli troops. Few fought against Israeli troops in 1948 when they were being driven out. Few fight with Israeli troops today. Most just try to get by, though one sees absurd scenes of small children tossing stones at heavily armoured battle tanks. There are always going to be extremists in extreme situations. In this situation, in particular, the extremism could be mitigated by altered behaviour on the Israeli side. The extremism in the PA is a direct product of Israeli policy which Israel should take responsibility for. Not just on an ephemeral level, but by acknowledging the scope and depth of their crimes against the Palestinian people. They have nearly all the bargaining chips.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 04:54 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
[QB]Again with the hyperbole..now Im a facsist.

No, I suggested that you apologise for fascists... My wording was incorrect and I apologise.

quote:
Courage your attempt at poisoning people s views towards me continues unabated.

I am no wizard, I respect that they will look at the evidence presented and make up their own minds. I have made no appeal to irrational judgements of your character, I have simply directed stringent criticism toward your arguments.

quote:
I have been an ant-fascist before you were a thought in anyone's mind. I resnt this bullshit outright.

There's that self-righteous indignation again. Not suprising, I don't expect you to be able to right the gross and paradoxical contradictions in this statement with your apologetics for Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing. Note that you do not refute the above mentioned propositions, you simply divert to a personal level.

quote:
Nonetheless I am not surprised because for you anyone who supports the Jewish state of Israel is a fascist. You are to be pitied.

Not true. I have pointed it out before and I will point it out again, and again, and again. The question for me is not WHITHER ISRAEL? It is WHAT ISRAEL? There are many, many bright lights in Israeli society who deserve all our respect for their efforts to oppose the racism and militaristic fascism of the Israeli state. There are many Israelis who I have (and will again) stood with arm-in-arm against the brutality of the occupation and the daily humiliation of Palestinians. I've been punched, kicked, and shot at for this cause. I've watched Palestinians lineup to be harrassed, beaten and strip-searched. I have looked from terraced settlements with swimming pools across the fences to see Palestinians living in squalor. I stand with great Jews and Israelis like Hannah Arendt, Judah Magnes, Uri Avnery, Martin Buber, Ahad HaAm, and still more in opposition to the ethnocratic delusions of much of the Israeli body politic.

Your 'antifascist' credibility doesn't just cling to you like stink - you have to reassess everyday what is facing you - fascism creeps in under, around and through the strangest places. When you defend the ongoing policies of Israeli discrimination and colonialism you provide fertiliser for this creeping weed, regardless of how you might imagine yourself.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 July 2003 05:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Courage: *applause*

(Just to let you know that some are reading. That was beautifully said.)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 July 2003 05:14 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Courage and of course your fan club... we will not agree ever...I support the Jewish state of Israel. Whatever that makes me in your books I will live with.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 05:15 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Courage: *applause*

(Just to let you know that some are reading. That was beautifully said.)


Thanks. It's nice to know that there is even one person who is emboldened by anything I do. There's a lot on this chest that I'm trying to peel off.....


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 05:18 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Courage and of course your fan club... we will not agree ever...I support the Jewish state of Israel. Whatever that makes me in your books I will live with.

You're giving up on *us* already?

But I thought I felt some sparks?

And here I was just about to make my big 'move'...

I guess I should've taken the hint at 'dearest', huh?

Well, 'no' means 'no'...

Sooo, skdadl...how YOU doin'?

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 July 2003 05:26 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

You're giving up on *us* already?

But I thought I felt some sparks?

And here I was just about to make my big 'move'...

I guess I should've taken the hint at 'dearest', huh?

Well, 'no' means 'no'...

Sooo, skdadl...how YOU doin'?

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


No Im just giving up on you. I will always be here to defend Israel from boneheaded critisism. I will also critisize Israel when necessary as I have done here when warranted. Hmm how many assinine replies to that should i expect?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 05:28 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
No Im just giving up on you. I will always be here to defend Israel from boneheaded critisism. I will also critisize Israel when necessary as I have done here when warranted. Hmm how many assinine replies to that should i expect?



42? Do I get anything for guessing right?

Anyway, while you see yourself as your own personal Israeli Defense Force, I'm absolutely enamoured with your ability to never actually do either of these self-appointed tasks in any meaningful way...

It's so cute...

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 July 2003 05:36 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:


42? Do I get anything for guessing right?

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


No I have every intention of being here. As for your continued hyperbolic targeting of anyone who supports a Jewish state..well I guess I will continue to be with the majority of Jews and non-Jews who believe in and support the Jewish state of Israel. Keep on tilting at your windmills and when Palestine becomes a state I hope to God it doesnt have people of your ilk giving advice.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 05:49 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
[QB]No I have every intention of being here.

I never suggested you should leave. You are highly useful to me and others.

quote:
As for your continued hyperbolic targeting of anyone who supports a Jewish state..

Again with this meaningless epithet 'hyperbole'...Observers will note well that you never make any attempt to refute any of my bold - e.g. hyperbolic - claims. This is the usual with you. Bold and strident I may be, but sometimes you have to shout loud to get through all the noise....Radical political imagination lives on.

Keep up your argumentative style, though; it provides an adequate demonstration of the inadequacy of your position.

quote:
well I guess I will continue to be with the majority of Jews and non-Jews who believe in and support the Jewish state of Israel.

Who cares what the majority think? The majority often support fascism - fascism is the 'new thing' all over the place - check out our neighbours to the south.... In the case of Israel, quite unfortunately the majority have supported the creation of an ethnocratic polity that has lead to the current, dreadful, situation. The herd goes where the herd goes, like it did in South Africa, like it did in Serbia, like it is in the U.S....My kind of democracy involves faith in individual conscience, not in the groupthink of a herd. Unfortunately our notion of 'democracy' has deteriorated from that envisioned by Enlightenment thinkers from the idea that each man's conscience be fostered and consulted in the movements of his own life to a mere deference to media-ocrity and ideological fashion.

quote:
Keep on tilting at your windmills and when Palestine becomes a state I hope to God it doesnt have people of your ilk giving advice.

You mean you don't want anyone in the Palestinian state clamouring for a secular citizenship-based republic that disavows both religion and ethnicity as relevent political catagories? No one clamouring to make sure that Palestine doesn't occupy and colonise Israeli territory? No one clamouring for the dismantling of ideological edifices - no matter how benign-seeming - that support various forms of racism and discrimination?

I guess you want ethnocentrist states everywhere - at least you are consistent on this point.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 July 2003 07:32 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
[QB

However you can not use such a complex philosophy like Zionism and use it in such a derogatory way. There many different kinds of Zionism you want to be critical of one go right ahead but you can't put all forms into the same category. If you would like me to point you to sources I'd be glad too.[/QB]


Thanks for the offer, but I'm well-versed in the various ideas that sometimes (now, for instance) get conveniently packaged under the heading 'Zionism'.

In this regard, I am actually an unabashed Zionist. Specifically, while agreeing with certain aspects of Ahad HaAm's 'cultural Zionism', I don't like it's quasi-superstitious/spiritual nationalism feel. However, he and his followers were quick off the mark in criticising the lack of regard many mainstream 'nationalist' Zionists of the Herzl and Marxist-Labour factions had for the Arab population. Moreover, he maintained that only a truly sincere and humble appeal to the Arab population recognising their quite natural claim to their home could achieve any of Zionism's orginal goals - i.e. to create a situation which could revivify Jewish culture worldwide and give the basis for some kind of political arrangement for the immigration of Jews to Israel.

Similarly, I find some of Martin Buber's early writings about spiritual/blood connections among nations to be a little romantic and proto-fascist in certain regards, but they were part of their time and he made considerable efforts to not allow these 'blood and soil' ideas to take on the exclusivist tinge that they were coloured with in much Zionist discussion. Along the lines of his monumental work in "I and Thou" one can detect a distinct colour to his views: he recognised that a healthy Israel could not arise without a proper 'Thou' relationship to the Arabs rather than the kind of 'It' relationship fostered by organisations like the WZO. He too felt that the question of what to do with the Arabs had never been properly phrased, nor addressed to the right people; namely, the Arabs themselves.

Additionally, I have always held affinity for Hannah Arendt's attempts to deal directly with the growing currents of fascism after she fled Nazi Germany: First in the Zionist movement generally, and later in Israel specifically. She remained very consistent in her criticism of this bend in Israeli/Jewish society and always advocated a secular citizenship based model over the ethnocracy proposed by the Ben-Gurion socialists the rest of the WZO who came under the increasing influence of Jabotinsky. She was among many who campaigned openly against the Freedom (Herut) party headed by Begin and including Shamir and others which later became Likud. The militaristic and religious-romantic nationalism of their mindset, modelled after Jabotinsky as much as Herzl, bore too much resemblence to Nazism and various other exclusivist fascist nationalisms in Europe generally for her to accept. She sensed that this tack would result in the degeneration of the Zionist project into little more than a colonial enterprise, propped-up from outside, and permanently mired in conflict and strife internally and with her neighbours. She and others felt that this would actually put Jews in a much more perilous position than before and solve none of their quite sincere desire for a modicum of security. Given the history we all know to well, it is clear that she was right on the mark, in fact. her objections were always of a part with her political theory. One of her most interesting tropes is the modern confusion of violence with power and authority. She suggests this is a common error in much of our political thinking, and that at its worst it leads to brutal and violent policies being used in order to effect 'peace and tranquility': the paradox of the IDF tanks in the West Bank, or American tanks in Bagdhad, for example.

However, many of these Zionist currents were swallowed up - now just called 'dissident' as if they were ever-marginal - in the panic that followed WWII and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. For various reasons, these kinds of thinkers were shunned, attacked, or just plain ignored. Increasingly, Revisionist Zionist thinking came to be at the heart of Israeli policy - the reliance on brute force to scare the neighbour's into accepting Israel (remember Arendt's theory?), the use of any and all threats to justify Israeli expansion, the continued creation of a territorial and ideological fait accomplit for the Palestinians. Even Labour came to parrot their extremist line - Golda Meir infamously claiming that the Palestinians 'did not exist', being just one golden example of how far the Labourist had strayed into the camp of their supposed enemies. Since 1967, the colonial practices of the Israeli state have been unabashedly of the Revisionist model, and successive PMs, both Likud and Labour, have adhered to a very strict script of marginalising and denigrating the Palestinians in body, mind, and soul in order to destroy their claim to the territory which is now Israel. I focus on this particular strain of Zionist thinking, because it is the one which has the most currency for the current situation - it is the animating factor for much of Israel's current policy. Even many of the so-called 'Doves' never actually question the fundamental premises of this ideological fetish for violence, militarism, and exclusionary politics. And even when they do flap their gums, they have taken little action to stop settlement building and the atrocities that have accompanied it. In fact, under Barak and under the guise of the 'Oslo Peace', settlement building was more pronounced than under Netanyahu - the so-called 'Hawk'.

So, all in all, I am very familiar with the currents of Zionist thinking, however there is one dominant set of ideological coordinates which is virtually unchanging and which dominates Israeli politics. It is these coordinates and their history which have had the most 'real life' effects in the lives of Palestinians and Israelis alike. So while I may use 'Zionism' as shorthand for certain racist colonial practices, it is not out of ignorance of other kinds of 'Zionism', but because it is this colonial Zionism that for all its proclaimed good intentions which has lead the State of Israel into the tremendous and terrible quagmire which it now finds itself.

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 03 July 2003 08:14 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You mean you don't want anyone in the Palestinian state clamouring for a secular citizenship-based republic that disavows both religion and ethnicity as relevent political catagories?

Is this the type of state that Palestinians are clamouring for? I know that it's next to impossible to speak for the "Palestinians" as a people, but at the very least, is this the type of state that the Palestinian Authority or any of the groups involved in the infitada, envision for an independent Palestine?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 03 July 2003 08:36 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know that was the vision set out in the PLO charter. *shrug*
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 July 2003 08:48 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Courage, I am speechless. I am awed.

I wish I knew who you were. I wish you answered your PMs. I quite understand if you don't want to, but perhaps you could humour me once?

Otherwise: blessings upon you, and have a good night.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 03 July 2003 09:11 PM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Defiant Israel blind to what it has become

quote:

By Antony Loewenstein

July 3 2003: (SMH) The distinguished Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibovitz said in 1968 about the then recent occupation: "A state governing a hostile population of 1.5 to 2 million foreigners is bound to become a security service state, with all this implies for the spirit of education, freedom of speech and thought and democracy. Israel will be infected with corruption, characteristic of any colonial regime."

Thirty-five years on, these words have become tragically prophetic. Many Jews can no longer sit by and watch the continuing catastrophe without comment, and look in shame at the ways in which successive Israeli governments have behaved in the occupied territories. The reasons behind this deep denial, I believe, lie in the history of the Jewish people.

Amin Saikal argued ("To be a peacemaker, America must denounce all violence in the Middle East", Herald, July 1) that the Bush Administration should condemn Israeli defence force actions in the West Bank and Gaza as terrorism, and persuade the Jewish state to ease restrictions on Palestinians in these areas. He touched on the pro-Israel, neo-conservatives in Washington, and highlighted the double standards when dealing with Israel. I believe the ability of the Sharon Government to convince Washington that it is similarly fighting a war on terrorism stems from a misguided belief that the Jewish state is besieged by fundamentalists who want to see its destruction, and an unspoken acceptance that Jews are like "us", defenceless and cowering.

The "road map to peace" has been praised and criticised. Jewish writers have talked about the optimism felt by the possible cessation of the intifada. Palestinian writers have been more cautious, never forgetting the failed Oslo peace talks in the early 1990s and Sharon's constantly bellicose pronouncements on the size and nature of Israel. It is the Jewish writers, though, with whom I take issue. The debate has moved so far to the right that any kind of rational or human response is shouted down as giving in to terrorism or, worse, threatening the continued existence of the Jewish state.

Most Jewish communities are still coming to terms with the Holocaust and are defensive of Israel. Perhaps this explains why many Jews are not prepared to recognise that many of Israeli's actions parallel apartheid-like policies. Is it not possible that the basis upon which Palestinians have been treated by successive Israeli governments is centred on racist ideology? One has only to recall the openly racist comments of some Israeli prime ministers.


[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: majorvictory ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 03 July 2003 09:44 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm. Reminds me of this passage from Amira Hass:

quote:
A Palestinian is a terrorist when he attacks Israeli civilians on both sides of the Green Line - in Israel and the territories - and when he attacks Israeli soldiers at the gates of a Palestinian city. A Palestinian is a terrorist when an army unit breaks into his neighborhood with tanks and he shoots at a soldier who gets out of a tank for a moment, and he is a terrorist when he is hit by helicopter fire and is holding a rifle. Palestinians are terrorists whether they kill civilians or soldiers.

The Israeli soldier is a fighter when he shoots a missile from a helicopter or a shell from a tank at a group of people who gather in Khan Yunis, after the fighter or one of his colleagues fires a shell or a missile at a house - from which the army says a Qassam rocket was fired - and kills a man and woman. He is a fighter when he encounters two armed Palestinians in the brush. The Israeli soldier kills armed people and kills civilians. He kills senior commanders of battalions of murderous terrorists and he kills kindergarten-aged children and the elderly in their homes. More accurately, they are killed by IDF fire. Most accurately, they are killed, claim Palestinian sources.

The security authorities and the legal authorities chase down every single Palestinian terrorist. Hundreds are arrested and interrogated for information about a single person. This is war, but the Palestinians are not arrested as prisoners of war who have immunity from interrogation and trial. Their names are known, every detail of the investigation and the charge sheets against them are open and can be published. If and when a weak investigation actually identifies an Israeli soldier who deviated (meaning he killed or used his weapon improperly, or looted, or abused people at checkpoints), his identity remains concealed. In hundreds of other cases, the army says "we are unfamiliar with the complaint." In thousands of other cases, nobody bothers anymore to ask the IDF.

Thousands of Palestinians are under arrest in detention centers. Israel is a lawful state, but it deals them a more severe punishment than denial of personal liberty: it denies them family visits before their trial. Dozens of other terrorists have been convicted and sentenced to death without ever having been brought to trial. Them and the civilians who are near them. That is self defense by a lawful state attacked by a terrorist entity. Hundreds of Israelis are involved in these extra-judicial executions and are glorified. In the last two years, Palestinians killed dozens of suspected collaborators without trial or after kangaroo courts. That is despicable murder by animals, living in an entity that does not respect the law and human rights.


[ 03 July 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 04 July 2003 07:12 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Courage, I am speechless. I am awed.

I wish I knew who you were. I wish you answered your PMs. I quite understand if you don't want to, but perhaps you could humour me once?

Otherwise: blessings upon you, and have a good night.



Sorry if I haven't responded to any messages you've sent me. I haven't thought to use that function. I'll check them and respond accordingly.

Thanks for the kind words, my blessings upon you to.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 July 2003 09:13 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back to the issue of Israelis vs. Christian and Muslims Arabs for a sec.:

Divide and Destroy

quote:
Several local observers believed that Sharon may be hoping the destruction of the mosque will revive sectarian differences in the city, which have been forgotten during the Intifada, in time for the municipal elections in October. Control of Nazareth's council is split between Abu Ahmed's Islamic faction and the Communist mayor, Ramez Jeraisi.

"Sharon has everything to gain from showing that Palestinian Muslims and Christians cannot live together in harmony," said Mohammed Zeidan, director of the Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA) in Nazareth.



From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 July 2003 09:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A wonderful, infuriating report, al-Q.

So impale the Pope and George W. Bush, fer crissakes! (And I mean that imprecation to be taken literally -- for Christ's sake.)

Look, I am a Christian, and I say it's ok to build the mosque right next to the church. Ok? Ok. Who the hell does the Pope think he is???

The article makes very clear the kind of international imperialist collusion with Sharon that goes on behind the news we see in our mainstream media.

Christ. He would be so ashamed of these people. He would turn over a few tables in the Temple, let me tell you!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 05 July 2003 01:19 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Christ. He would be so ashamed of these people. He would turn over a few tables in the Temple, let me tell you!


Skdadl I understand your passion, but with respect, this analogy is terribly patronizing if not religiously inappropriate.

[ 05 July 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 05 July 2003 02:17 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How so?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 05 July 2003 10:38 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The use of the Christ story of the Temple actions, a Christian parabal to admonish a Jew, is simply inappropraite.

Over the centuries Jews were admonished and villified as Christ killers and antithetical to Christian values. It lead to untold suffering. I am not suggesting whatsoever that Skdadl has done so with malice or even consciously. I am simply saying that while her admonishment is fair game the tool she used to admonish was inappropriate.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 July 2003 10:54 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pill off, Mishei!!!!

I was not admonishing a Jew. I was admonishing the bleeding Pope and the bleeding president of the United States, as both my post and the linked article make clear.

I, a Christian, am calling them on un-Christian behaviour and corruption. Got it?

I am forbidden to use my own symbols in my own posts? Watch it, Mishei.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 05 July 2003 11:25 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The hell?

First of all, as skdadl said, she was admonishing Christians with the story.

Secondly, I really don't think your interpretation of that story is warranted. I don't doubt that many, many people over the years have used it as flimsy justification for anti-Semitic thoughts and actions, but I have never heard that interpretation before and I really don't think it works in context.

quote:
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

This is from Matthew 21. I don't see how this, in and of itself, is at all anti-Jewish. Jesus was opposed to some of the practices that went on in the temple, but the general consensus is that he did not see himself as starting a new religion; he saw himself as a Jew.

On the similar passage in the gospel of John, from here:

quote:
John’s description may not be based on historical facts, but it is clear that the reaction of the Johannine Jesus to the arrangements in the temple was reasonable for a pious Jew. Had the quadrupeds been brought inside the temple area, every devout Jew would have had a reason to protest. As Ekkehard W. Stegemann notes, “The mere presence [of oxen and sheep in the temple] is so provocative that it does not need a particularly strong aspiration for the purity of the temple to understand Jesus’ action. Every Jew at every time should consider this action appropriate.” The citation of the psalm, “Zeal for your house will consume me” emphasizes that Jesus’ furious attack against the vendors of the animals and the money-changers is an expression of his zeal for the temple and its holiness. Jesus is presented thus far in the story as a keen reformer of the cult that is upset by the corruption of the present temple and wants to restore its sanctity.

[ 05 July 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 July 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you, Smith.

I have only ever read that parable as a lesson about two things: corruption/spirituality, and Christ's boldness.

Smith has done an excellent gloss on the first score. As for Christ's boldness, it has been important for many Christians in maturity to get over the saccharine-sentimental Victorian Christ they learn about in Sunday school; and the Temple parables are an important part of a mature reading of the Gospels, I think. They are important to me.

As Smith says, we can all well believe that the superstitious through the ages have used the Gospels to attack Jews. That doesn't, however, make the Gospels in themselves anti-semitic, and I am deeply distressed that any reader of babble could think they were.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 05 July 2003 12:11 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
[QB]The use of the Christ story of the Temple actions, a Christian parabal to admonish a Jew, is simply inappropraite.

What a load of bung. From all accounts, Jesus of Nazareth WAS an observant Jew.

quote:
Over the centuries Jews were admonished and villified as Christ killers and antithetical to Christian values.

That isn't the case here. And you accuse me of hyperbole? Skdadl's comments seem largely directed at the actions of the Holy See and perhaps Sharon, not Jews generally. You need stop yourself from typing and read things over a few times and think about their intent.


quote:
I am simply saying that while her admonishment is fair game the tool she used to admonish was inappropriate.

Ethical principles of any weight at all are addressed universally regardless of how they are enunciated - take the Golden Rule, for example. They are addressed to everyone, and do not take sides. The basis of skdadl's admonishment seems to be an appeal to this universal principle. Seperating this aspect of Jesus' teaching from the acts of so-called 'Christians' over the course of centuries ought not to be that difficult. Leave it to you to have a problem...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 July 2003 02:12 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Besides, a lot of what Jesus said bashed rich people.

"Come now, ye rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you! (...) Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts."

And turning over the tables of money changers sounds a bit like the kind of direct action statica always likes to tell us about.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 05 July 2003 04:01 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Besides, a lot of what Jesus said bashed rich people.

"Come now, ye rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you! (...) Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts."

And turning over the tables of money changers sounds a bit like the kind of direct action statica always likes to tell us about.


Precisely. Further, allegorically speaking - in terms of lessons in spiritual growth - I have always found it interesting that the first action taken by the boy Jesus is to throw the money changers out of the temple. You know, those parts of us that grub and muck about with material things, meanly haggling and beggering each other over bits of cloth and metal.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 05 July 2003 06:33 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From my quick reading on the subject, I discovered (to my surprise, not having been brought up with this information) that the money-changing in the temple was a legitimate part of temple activities - they were collecting tributes of some sort.

However, Jesus probably objected to that activity taking place within the temple itself.

I wonder what he would have thought of church collection plates...of course, those are passed around silently with no haggling or the like...


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 July 2003 06:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, it absolutely was sanctioned by the religious leaders, to have the money-changing and sellers there. From what I have read, it is also suggested that the money-changers were also charging usurious rates for changing the money. Because the money at the time had the likeness of Caesar on it, they had to trade it for temple coins since the image of Caesar was considered idolatrous. So basically it was a captive market, people didn't have the choice to just use their own coins in the temple.

It seems to me that what Jesus was ticked about (and he was ticked about it as a Jew from what I understand) is that they were turning worship into a financial hardship for people, and all for personal financial gain on the part of the sellers.

And yet, you know, so many Christians haven't learned a thing from that parable, have they? Ever gone into a "Christian book store" lately and seen the gold-tooled Bibles, and all the dorky little trinkets and baubles and "keepsakes" with trite little religious quotes on them? The $1-3 bookmarks with a Psalm verse written on them - so necessary for our spiritual edification.

It's all crap. It adds to the landfill, and it is a way of getting Christians to part with their money while feeling a fine spiritual "high" while doing so.

And what this has to do with racism in Israel is beyond me, but I just had to add my two cents to this discussion since this one particular Christian foible drives me batshit.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 July 2003 07:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It had to do with al-Q's link, which is about some unholy collusion on the part of the Pope and the Shrub to stir up trouble in Nazareth.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 July 2003 08:10 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...a Christian parabal to admonish a Jew, is simply inappropraite.

I dunno, I've always imagined Mish's antisemite detectors as looking something like this:

I suppose a parabolic antenna makes more sense.

Weren't the parables Issa's way of telling a story to make a point, though, and not any story to describe his own actions?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 06 July 2003 08:36 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. It's not a parable in this case, just a story.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 07 July 2003 02:12 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Such is the case for the right of return. Their counterpart in the comparison - the settlements- deserve some attention as well to elucidate the difference. The settlements are 1) illegal AND 2) immoral. On the first count, I am in agreement with the moral tenor of international law on this point - I believe that dispossession is a terrible crime that requires urgent redress. Moreover, the settlements are based on a racist policy that cedes possession of territory to Jews by military force through the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs. Daily, houses and businesses are bulldozed to make room for settlements and the ridiculous circuit of 'Jews Only' by-pass roads that connect the settlements to Israel and to each other. These heavily guarded roads take up acres and acres of space on which Palestinians used to, or could today reside. They are part and parcel with the colonial policy of Israel and their continued politicide against the Palestinians - they are a mechanism for pushing the Palestinians into ever-smaller areas, to make them more and more desperate by creating a fait accomplis on the model of the fascist Jabotinsky: the so-called 'Iron Wall' strategy. While effective, they remain a symbol of the brutality and racism of the Zionist colonial movement and as such are morally indefensible.

Hey I don't support any settlements but there were none before 1967. The tragedy was that this wasn't settled immediately after the war.

quote:
Second, I can support it morally, Justice. In 1948 hundreds of thousands of Arabs were 'transferred' out of what is now Israel by force of arms. These people deserve to be compensated and should be given the choice to return to land they once inhabited or a suitable replacement where it is available. Despite what Zionists and their supporters say, there is a lot of empty space outside the urban centres of Israel. I've walked it: so please don't try to say otherwise. More importantly, a move toward true accomadation with the Arab population of Palestine is a necessary step for Israel. For the health of both societies it is necessary for Israel to abandon her delusional desire for ethnocracy. The policy has brought nothing but suffering to all parties involved. Peace can only come through a radical transformation in Israeli society to a secular, citizenship based polity which guarantees the position of ALL its inhabitants equally, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation. If they want to be a modern 'democracy' they ought to start acting like one. As of now, they are no better than any other state that practices ritual discrimination against entire groups on the basis of supremacist ethics.

Hey if the Palestinians wanted to settle in the Negev desert I don't think you'd find many Israeli's that would object although I lived there the majority of my life and I've long been claiming that settlers should head to the Negev rather then provoking the Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza. I was born in the Golan heights lived there a short portion of my life I know many people who live there and like me the too would give it up for the sake of true peace. I've traveled the Sinai I'm happy there is peace with Egypt but I'm a little disappointed on how they've maintained such a beautiful piece of land. Some places Israel has also failed in conservation but it's done better for all of it's inhabitants then Egypt, but this is a price I am willing to pay for peace.

I hope that some day we can corporate and benefit all the countries of the region.

They should be allowed to return but not at the expense of the current inhabitants 2 wrongs don't make a right.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 07 July 2003 09:08 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Smith says, we can all well believe that the superstitious through the ages have used the Gospels to attack Jews. That doesn't, however, make the Gospels in themselves anti-semitic, and I am deeply distressed that any reader of babble could think they were.

I for one NEVER said the Gospels werer antisemitic.

You see what happens I post, others make up what I say and claim I called something antisemitic and the accusations begin.

Ah well now at least we have an understanding of bearing false witness.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 July 2003 11:22 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh boo hoo. Do you need to be reminded whose initial false accusation started all this?

At worst, I'd say you're even on this point.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 07 July 2003 11:50 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Oh boo hoo. Do you need to be reminded whose initial false accusation started all this?

At worst, I'd say you're even on this point.



What are you talking about??

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 08 July 2003 12:02 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You were the one who said it was "inappropriate" to use a Gospel story. And then you broke into a paragraph about anti-Semitic vilification through the years. Are we to presume your two paragraphs were completely unconnected? That would be pretty bizarre.

quote:
The use of the Christ story of the Temple actions, a Christian parabal to admonish a Jew, is simply inappropraite.

Over the centuries Jews were admonished and villified as Christ killers and antithetical to Christian values. It lead to untold suffering. I am not suggesting whatsoever that Skdadl has done so with malice or even consciously. I am simply saying that while her admonishment is fair game the tool she used to admonish was inappropriate.


We pointed out that the story is not being used to admonish a Jew and is not intended for such use.

[ 08 July 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 08 July 2003 12:44 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I found this:
quote:
Semitic is an adjective that describes things originating from the Asian Middle East. Most commonly, it is used to refer to speakers of Semitic languages such as Arabic, Hebrew, or Amharic.


These people are brothers. They are strangers because of religion. There is also the feeling among the Israelis how they have made the land bloom and the Palestinians have done fuck all.
My neighbour keeps a house where you can eat off the floor.
In my house you would develop hairball.
It is different but not inferior. There is a culture there. An old culture, older than the Israeli culture.

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca