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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Tales from the Israeli race war - II

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Tales from the Israeli race war - II
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 September 2005 03:51 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
From a distance of 70 metres and through the sight of his machine gun, Assaf could tell that the Palestinian man was aged between 20 and 30, unarmed and trying to get away from an Israeli tank. But the details didn't matter much, because Assaf's orders were to "fire at anything that moved".

culture of impunity


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 11 September 2005 05:47 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The real uprooting is taking place in Hebron

By Gideon Levy

Israel cannot be considered a state ruled by law, or a democracy, as long as the pogroms continue in Hebron. A state is judged by what takes place in its own backyard, and in the case of the "City of the Patriarchs" this is a particularly dark yard. What is involved here is not a political-diplomatic issue touching upon the existence or nonexistence of a particular settlement, but rather the character of the regime in Israel. This abscess should be uprooted immediately, unconditionally, before its malignancy spreads.

What is happening in Hebron is different than everything else in the occupied territories. In Hebron, the most severe atrocities of the settlement enterprise are being perpetrated. While the settlers are lamenting "their uprooting" from Gush Katif and the knights of sorrowful tears are preaching for reconciliation with them and empathy for their plight, the expulsion of Palestinians from Hebron is continuing at an alarming rate. There can be no reconciliation with these people, kin and kindred of the settlement enterprise, who treat their neighbors this way. . . .

It is a bit difficult to believe that the reality in Hebron is hidden from the eyes of most Israelis and is not rocking Israel to its very core. During the past five years, some 25,000 residents have been transferred from their homes, less than an hour's drive from Israel's capital. And daily harassment continues under the auspices of the IDF and Israel Police, disregarded by the media. This harassment is aimed at expelling the remaining Palestinian residents from an area that until recently had a population of about 35,000 Palestinians and 500 Jews.

Those who have not visited the city in recent years would not believe their eyes. In the territory under Israeli control - H2, or Israeli territory, according to the Hebron accord - they will discover a ghost town. Hundreds of abandoned homes, like after a war, dozens of destroyed stores, burned or shuttered, their gates welded closed by the settlers, and an all-pervasive, deadly silence. According to unofficial assessments, no more than 10,000 residents remain in this place. The rest have left their homes and property after no longer being able to bear the harassment from the settlers and their children. This is the largest disengagement in recent years; this is the real expulsion.


The naked face of Zionism is on display in Hebron. This is state-sponsored ethnic cleansing, and it is going on all over Israel, and it has been, in one form or another, since the day these rapists and murderers and thieves abandoned their homes to seek greener pastures for their dreams of empire.

Ethnic cleansing, murder, and theft. No less. Those who send them money, or lend them political support, or send their children to be educated there, are equally to blame. One of the few things we, outsiders, can do to promote peace, and it is a great and important thing, is to treat each and everyone one of those people as if they were a settler in Hebron. Those Westerners who channel money to Islamic Jihad go to prison. Those who send money to Israel deserve the same -- deserve worse, in fact. As we used to say at the fire department: if you condone it, you own it.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 11 September 2005 07:54 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Last Monday, Colonel Atef Zaher was found guilty of indecent sexual acts and illegal intercourse, and was acquitted of the crime of rape. Zaher's defense attorney, Avigdor Feldman, said in a radio interview that had the story not gone out to the media, the defendant would have emerged without anything. There is no doubt that the media play an important role in leading social changes in Israel, but it is a long way from that to the conviction of Zaher for criminal acts.

Zaher's conviction will be credited to the courageous female soldier who complained (despite her introverted personality, as evidenced during the handing down of the verdict), testified, and decided to go through the process for the sake of her own justice and that of all women. In Zaher's conviction the court showed that it believed the plaintiff's testimony and determined that it was very reliable. However, the court negated the defendant's testimony and called it false and groundless. Because of his false testimony and the reliability of the plaintiff's, the military court convicted Colonel Zaher.

The court ruled that on many occasions Zaher took soldier M., his 18-year-old secretary (who was his direct subordinate) into various places, undressed her and himself, and penetrated her body while cursing, humiliating and insulting her. On a number of other occasions he undressed her and himself, held her by force and committed sexual acts on himself until he achieved climax, demanding that she watch him and cursing her when she refused to accede.


Forcing himself on an unwilling person in his power while "cursing, humiliating and insulting" her? Who ever heard of an Israeli solider behaving like that?

Seriously though, isn't the court violating his right to exist as a rapist scumbag?


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/623583.html


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 September 2005 09:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What does that have to do with the "race war"? I'm asking sincerely. Sounds like this guy was rapist scum, of course, but I don't see how the race element comes into it.

Also, I'm sorry, but rsfarrell, you can't go on this forum saying that everyone who sends money to an Israeli charity is a murderer and ethnic cleanser. Nor can you generalize about Israelis as "rapists and murderers and thieves" even if you feel that they are all complicit in the colonization of Palestine.

I realize you feel strongly about this issue, but that's not acceptable. Please moderate your tone. Second warning.

[ 11 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 12 September 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[QB]What does that have to do with the "race war"? I'm asking sincerely. Sounds like this guy was rapist scum, of course, but I don't see how the race element comes into it.

I would say it is signifigant because, and this is not a thought original to me, that the way that Jewish Israelis treat Palestinians has begun to affect how they treat one another. The violence and brutality, the tyrrany and corruption, cannot be hemetically sealed within inter-race relations and corrupt society as a whole. Hence, this unfortunate woman may also, to an unknowable extent, be a victim of Israel's war on the Palestinians.

quote:
Also, I'm sorry, but rsfarrell, you can't go on this forum saying that everyone who sends money to an Israeli charity is a murderer and ethnic cleanser.

Begging your pardon, that is not what I said. The passage reads:

quote:
Ethnic cleansing, murder, and theft. No less. Those who send them money, or lend them political support, or send their children to be educated there, are equally to blame.

What I a saying is that the people who support it are accessories to the crime, and are equally responsible. This concept has a strong basis in morality and in law. I develop it further:

quote:
Those Westerners who channel money to Islamic Jihad go to prison. Those who send money to Israel deserve the same -- deserve worse, in fact. As we used to say at the fire department: if you condone it, you own it.

Clearly those who fund Islamic Jihad are not suicide bombers. Nevertheless they get 25 to life for supporting them. "You condone it, you own it" means that you didn't do it, but you allowed it to happen, and didn't protest, and so you are implicated. I thought I developed this thought pretty clearly.

quote:
Nor can you generalize about Israelis as "rapists and murderers and thieves" even if you feel that they are all complicit in the colonization of Palestine.

Actually I was taking about the original colonists, and I could make a fairly strong argument they were all theives. At least, that is what I was thinking when I wrote it. The truth is it was over the line. I'm sorry. I was angry.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 September 2005 12:08 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank-you.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 12 September 2005 12:11 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So do I get to call for imprisonment "or worse" now for anyone who willingly sends dollars to Washington? No, no need to answer thanks.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 September 2005 12:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, you don't. That's why rsfarrell got the warning. Please feel free to read the whole thread. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask the question, especially since it's already been dealt with. That's called "trolling" and it's completely unnecessary.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 12 September 2005 08:13 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
rsfarrell, "Jewish Israelis" are as diverse and different as any other faith/nationality. I believe we are all better off not generalizing negative traits to an entire group of people.

quote:
I would say it is signifigant because, and this is not a thought original to me, that the way that Jewish Israelis treat Palestinians has begun to affect how they treat one another. The violence and brutality, the tyrrany and corruption, cannot be hemetically sealed within inter-race relations and corrupt society as a whole. Hence, this unfortunate woman may also, to an unknowable extent, be a victim of Israel's war on the Palestinians.


[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: ohara ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 September 2005 08:59 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I didn't catch that part. I'm sorry, rsfarrell, but you're really going to have to be more careful about generalizing about "Jewish Israelis" or "Israelis". It's just not allowed. I know it seems nitpicky, but language is important.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 September 2005 02:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is pretty clear to me that Farrel is making a distinction between Arab-Israelis and Jewish-Israelis, and not simply engaging in ethnic stereotyping. This idea, the idea that the occupation is having a direct impact on the psychological and cultural morality of the entire Jewish community within Israel, as Jews, Zionist and Israelis is quite common among Israeli anti-occupation movement. It describes the impact that some feel continued brutalization of Palestinians is having on Jewish-Israeli civil society, as a specific cultural entity within Israel, exclusive of Arab-Israelis.

I think the use of the classification "Jewish-Israeli" as a disticnt cultrual group in this context is completely fair, as for instance saying "Israeli" pure and simple would unfairly include Arab-Israelis whose relationship to the Zionist enterprise is seperate and different from the other main cultural groups involved.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 12 September 2005 04:00 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
“… the idea of the occupation (and not the fact of what’s actually going on) is having a direct impact on the psychological and cultural morality” of Cueball it seems, so he stereotypes based on race, nationality and religion. Isn’t it a race war segment, coming from a canadian?
Once again, as said by ohara above: “Jewish Israelis" are as diverse and different as any other faith/nationality.” And, I would add, as diverse, complex and unique as every individual regardless of anything. Same goes to saying Israeli- a citizen of Israel. I know some people just need to have an outside enemy (as a result of inner fear and anger-psychology 101), a person or a group of people represented as one, blank. That should never be done for its rather inhumane and regressive then progressive.
And I’m saying that to stress the point.

From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 12 September 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It is pretty clear to me that Farrel is making a distinction between Arab-Israelis and Jewish-Israelis, and not simply engaging in ethnic stereotyping. This idea, the idea that the occupation is having a direct impact on the psychological and cultural morality of the entire Jewish community within Israel, as Jews, Zionist and Israelis is quite common among Israeli anti-occupation movement. It describes the impact that some feel continued brutalization of Palestinians is having on Jewish-Israeli civil society, as a specific cultural entity within Israel, exclusive of Arab-Israelis.

I think the use of the classification "Jewish-Israeli" as a disticnt cultrual group in this context is completely fair, as for instance saying "Israeli" pure and simple would unfairly include Arab-Israelis whose relationship to the Zionist enterprise is seperate and different from the other main cultural groups involved.


Thank you, that is what I meant. It's hard to find the right terminology to use here, not wanting to generalize, and not wanting to assist in the "disappearing" of one-fifth of Israel's citizens that happens when we say "Israelis" are up against "Palestinians."

I recognize that, for whatever reason, "Jewish Israelis" sounds more like an inclusive generalization than simply saying "Israelis." Perhaps this is because we so often talk about what Americans are doing or Russians are doing that we are accustomed to the fine print of this usage which says "Caution; refers to the actions of the state and the will of the people as expressed by its representatives; does not refer to all people of that nationality."

But there is a difference, unfortunately, in how it sounds to say "Egyptians are inflexible on matters of soveignity" as opposed to "Egyptian Copts are inflexible in matters of soveignity." One is understood to allow for exceptions; the other sounds more like a sterotype.

I guess I'm going to have to go back to "Israeli Zionists" even though it's clumsy and sounds like low-grade Arab-League-diplomat-speak.

I apprieciate the effort Michelle is making to keep this forum a racism-free enviroment.

Thanks, Cue, for understanding where I was coming from.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 September 2005 09:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
“… the idea of the occupation (and not the fact of what’s actually going on) is having a direct impact on the psychological and cultural morality” of Cueball it seems, so he stereotypes based on race, nationality and religion. Isn’t it a race war segment, coming from a canadian?
Once again, as said by ohara above: “Jewish Israelis" are as diverse and different as any other faith/nationality.” And, I would add, as diverse, complex and unique as every individual regardless of anything. Same goes to saying Israeli- a citizen of Israel. I know some people just need to have an outside enemy (as a result of inner fear and anger-psychology 101), a person or a group of people represented as one, blank. That should never be done for its rather inhumane and regressive then progressive.
And I’m saying that to stress the point.

Yes, actually the occupation has a direct impact on me psychologically. The idea that there is a particular segment of the Jewish people who have taken it upon themselves to commit gross breaches of international law and a moral code that I hold dearly, in my name, irritates me quite a bit.

In fact I am very happy when people make distinctions such as "Jewish Israelis," as opposed to "Jews," in general, because it exempts me from being included perforce in the Zionist enterprise, because I reject as imperialist, not as the just realization of my cultutral and religious heritage, by fact of birth into a diaspora many thousands of years old.

Thanks very much for defending my people, but you can take your middle class pedantry and fuck off.

Your silly anger management 101 psychologizing is so much hot air, especially in the light of your obtuse presidisposition to presumptious and uninformed lecturing, which has only been further revealed by your assumption that I do not share the cultural and religious history of those you are defending.

In doing so, you have revealed a deep racist ingnorance by implying that one could not possibly be part of the "diverse and different... ... faith/nationality," and oppose the policies of the state of Israel, and presumes to speak in my name, and likewise choose to speak for me and deligitimize my views on Israel, and presuming that I am a "Canadian" and not a "Jewish Canadian."

The idea that Jews can not hold a position directly opposed to Zionism is far more stereotypical than anything Farrel discussed, which are, in fact, fairly current ideas about the impact of the occupation upon the Israeli-Jewish ideals that the society is founded, discussed internally within Israels by Israeli Jews.

So please, if you are going to engage people in sophmoric discussions based in identity politics, you could at least bother to find out something about their identity.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 September 2005 09:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For example, while 81 percent of the Jews support complete equality before the law, only 47 percent support complete equality between Jews and Arabs and only 23 percent support making the Arabs partner to decisions crucial to the state. In another example, 56 percent of the Israeli population support "strong leaders" (only in India and Romania is there higher support for this) and only 84 percent believe democracy is desireable (the lowest place among all the countries polled).

[SNIP]

Moreover, focused questions on the Jewish majority's attitude toward the Arab minority indicate that less than a third (31 percent) support having Arab parties in the cabinet (compared to 56 percent in 1999), and more than half the public (57 percent) thinks the government should encourage Arabs to migrate from the country (compared to a majority of public opposition in 1999). This means that the majority finds the transfer idea acceptable.

[SNIP]

It is not hard to trace the reasons for these dangerous positions: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is perpetuated by the ongoing occupation, is destroying the foundations of Israeli democracy. The study shows a direct relation between the threat felt by the Israeli public and the extent to which it is willing to grant equal rights to the Arab minority. From here the way to the next central finding isshort: The public's commitment to democratic values is unstable and conditioned on the political circumstances. Here is a crucial reason for the prime minister, if the state's future is dear to him, to reach a binding agreement with President Bush the day after tomorrow to jump-start the process which will bring, as soon as possible, an end to the occupation and to settling the conflict with the Palestinians.


Democracy in Israel

By Uzi Benziman
Haaretz, Opinion
May 18, 2003

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 September 2005 09:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But there is one longer term ramification of the Israeli-Palestinian encounter that the survey ignored. Quite understandably, it looked at how Israeli democracy works for Israelis. The broader question is how long Israel can continue to be a democracy if we remain in an open-ended occupation of another people that will soon outnumber us, and if we continue to narrow the options for a two state solution by forcibly integrating the Jewish and Arab populations between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea through virtually unrestricted settlement. -Published 19/5/03©bitterlemons.org

Democracy begins at home

Yossi Alpher was Director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, and was a Senior Advisor to Prime Minister Barak.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 September 2005 10:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Venus man, here is am e-mail adress of an Israeli who has taken the non-violent message you have been spreading around as so mcuh lard on "sausage rolls" seriously: yehuda@shovrimshtika.org. He runs a web site called refusing to kill. It is about Israelis who have taken in your message and are appplying it, mostly former Israeli soldiers tired of being the opressor of the legitimate rights of Palestinians imprisoned by the occupation. They have a project called: "Breaking the Silence."

His message as a former IDF soldier is: IF YOU SERVED IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES DURING THE PAST FOUR YEARS, AND YOU WISH TO BREAK YOUR SILENCE, WE ARE HERE FOR YOU.

http://www.refusingtokill.net/Israel/breakingthesilence.htm

If you are really so concerned about the issue of non-violent conflict resolutions send him an e-mail., and tell him what you think.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 September 2005 10:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
“… the idea of the occupation (and not the fact of what’s actually going on) is having a direct impact on the psychological and cultural morality” of Cueball it seems, so he stereotypes based on race, nationality and religion.

Okay, this is a clear cut personal attack and trolling. Warning number one. And if you continue what appears to be a manipulative effort to troll others into giving you a reaction that goes counter to the forum rules, your second and third warning will be simultaneous, and the next person you troll into giving you a bad reaction will get a pass. That's more than enough.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Thanks very much for defending my people, but you can take your middle class pedantry and fuck off.

While I understand that you were responding to the above trolling by venus_man, the rules apply to you as much as to him, Cueball. Warning number two.

Come on, folks, can we not discuss this without making generalizations and taking potshots at each other?

As for the distinction between Israelis and Jewish Israelis, or even "Israeli Zionists" - I mean, isn't an Israeli a Zionist by definition just by living there? Jewish Israelis are diverse. You can't generalize about how "Jewish Israelis" or even "Zionist Israelis" treat Palestinians. There are a lot of progressive Zionist Jews in Israel who want peace. We have had threads dedicated to those who protest in their own ways against the occupation. There are Zionist Israelis of all political stripes and ideologies. If you want to say that racism is entrenched in Israeli society due to the occupation, fine, go for it. If you want to say that those Israelis who are actively participating in murder and rape and ethnic cleansing are murderers, rapists, and ethnic cleansers, please feel free. If you want to say the Israeli government is supporting murder and ethnic cleansing, I have no problem with that.

Thanks, rsfarrell, for understanding where I'm coming from. I really appreciate the effort on your part. It's a bit of a balancing act here, and I don't want to see generalizations made about either side, even though it may be more convenient to use them as a kind of shorthand. It wouldn't be a problem to do so if it didn't have the predictable result every time of offending people who see themselves or loved ones as part of a certain group (e.g. Zionist Jews, Zionist Israelis, Palestinians) having certain attributes stuck to them which might not fit.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 September 2005 10:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Every once in a while opposition arises from within the monster. Hence the Courage to Refuse movement, the letter last September signed by 27 pilots who refused to attack civilian populations in the Occupied Territories, the letter in December from an elite commando unit that refused to fight, and so on. A society living in the past as if it were the present is vulnerable: the past/present becomes a double-edged sword. You may be sued if you call anybody here a "Nazi," but one hears it a lot. It would be more appropriate to compare Israeli brutality with the French in Algeria, or the British in Sudan or Malaysia, but we are taken up with the notion of "our past turning into our present."

Breaking the Silence: Israeli Soldiers Reflect on Patrolling Hebron


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 13 September 2005 11:21 AM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
The peaceful resolution is not my concern really, but my approach to any situation in life. I don’t like violence of any form, and prefer respect and common sense. I believe it’s more human to respect other human of whatever background. It’s simple really.
There are many conflicts in life. Family conflicts, group conflicts, personal conflicts, race conflicts etc. I am not denying that as a fact. I am not that naïve and I’m not a sky-high hippie who dreams of peace, though I was that back in a day. I’ve seen myself what national/race hate can lead to and I took part in peaceful movements with positive results. It is the method of dealing with these issues and general approach to such situations is what I’m talking about.

“Your silly anger management 101 psychologizing is so much hot air, especially in the light of your obtuse presidisposition to presumptious and uninformed lecturing, which has only been further revealed by your assumption that I do not share the cultural and religious history of those you are defending.”
“...presidisposition to presumptious and uninformed lecturing” sounds kinda too academic and lifeless to me. Though the language…ah, what’s in words?

Anger management however is real, for such strong emotions rule our neuro-linguistic abilities (or patterns), or simply put-our everyday behavior, whether you want it or not, it is a scientific fact backed by many experiments. The benefits of forgiveness and peaceful resolution are also a scientific fact backed by research and field work. These emotions of anger etc. (that are rather blockages) do trigger our unconscious reactions that are not even though about, realized or rationalized.

I am not defending anyone here. Are you reading what I’m saying? It takes two to tango, right. Any conflict, including the inner one, involves two or sometimes more participants. And if you blame one and picturing another as an angel, then it is rather unfair and unprofessional, ask conflict resolution dudes. Yes you can provide hundreds of tales form the Israeli race war. So, I’ve heard many before, and i do not doubt them. It may make me even angrier at Israel and imagine Palestine as a holy land of some sort which is simply not true.
And that is my approach.

P.S. “but you can take your middle class pedantry and fuck off.” Are you a lower class then, or an upper class or some other class? Yet another stereotype.

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 September 2005 01:26 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I mean, isn't an Israeli a Zionist by definition just by living there?

Good question, and the answer is yes and no, but mostly no.

Zionism is the state ideology in Israel. It is taught in the school, assumed from the pulpits, and adored by mainstream politicians of all stripes. Thus it functions much like the idea of "democracy" in America or "socialism" in the Soviet Union (as just as in America and the former Soviet Union, what is taught and promoted is often a narrow, intolerent, ahistorical and self-interested distortion of the real thing.)

Zionism is not so much celebrated is Israel as assumed. "What is the proper Zionist approach?" one often hears. "We are advancing the cause of Zionism" one hears from both the settlers and the refusniks.

That said, it is not a universally shared ideology. Israel's 1.4 million Palestinian citizens are excluded almost by definition (although many Druze and some Christians might be considered attached enough to the state to be reguarded as Zionists.

Also there is a signifigant (about a half a million, or 10% of the Jewish population) and growing ultra-Orthodox minority in Israel, people who have actually read the Talmud and have noticed that, funnily enough, the whole concept of creating a Jewish state is a violation of Jewish teachings (and not just the ones about treating others as you wish to be treated). There was a time when most of them supported Palestinian rights, but today most of them are violently anti-Palestinian. Kach is making great inroads.

Despite the apparent contradiction, they don't recognise the authority of the state, don't serve in the army and don't pay taxes.

There are also anti-Zionists like Amari Hass who reject the state ideology.

Some Zionists are more progressive than others; but you can say that about any ideology. In my opinion, and person who accepts Zionism is supporting evil and injustice. If there is a better place to draw the line, I would be happy to do so. What description would you use?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 September 2005 01:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am absolutelly very closely "reading what you are saying," for among other things what Skdadl calls the deep structures, and amid what is apparently a call for balance I find extreme amounts of very traditional Zionist and European biases based in very traditional racist stereotypes, almost certainly unitentionally absorbed by you through your exposure to an overdose of western media.

Rather than argue with you, though, I have reffered you to other sources for your edification.

To speak plainly, I am in fact somewhat supportive of your general message about peaceful conflict resolution, yet am appalled by the manner in which it is applied by you, because the fundamental historical background knowledge which you evidence in your statements is so obviously tainted by bias, and false history of a political tendency that reinforces the modes of social relations that recreate the causes of violence, not remove them.

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 13 September 2005 01:48 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In my opinion, and person who accepts Zionism is supporting evil and injustice.
I believe such a statement to be intolerant in and of itself. By your own words you label the vast majority of Israelis and I would add Jews al over the world as "supporting evil". Such labeling ca in itself produce hatred towards jews and Israelis and should not be tolerated on this board.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 13 September 2005 03:16 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
What description would you use?

Zionism is the same as extremism. It is rather a movement comprised of a certain group that doesn’t represent a nation, citizens or whole state. Zionism today generaly stands for aggression and for the use of force (though these tactics are now less popular then use to), and the keynote is seems to be permission to take what you want irrespective of other people or of their inalienable rights. That off course is as bad as acts of urban terrorism committed by various known groups. And I believe that the UN should’ve deal tougher with the Zionism back in days of its origins. But “it is the Zionists (or rather their leaders) who have perpetrated the major act of aggression since the formation of the United Nations, and who were clever enough to gain the endorsement of the United Nations, turning the original "recommendation" of the United Nations into an order.”
Once again, enter the old enemy of humanity-aggression.
And once again, a bunch of people, a few, were able to lure many into this nonsense. An old Bible allegory of the sheep and a shepherd applies here well.
There is no justification for such actions, I agree.

Yet, I’m not denying the right for the state of Israel to exist, and there are many good and useful prospects and deeds coming from this country.

But I don’t agree with responding to the actions of some morons with even greater violence. I’ve talked about it just above though.

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 September 2005 05:04 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Some Zionists are more progressive than others; but you can say that about any ideology. In my opinion, and person who accepts Zionism is supporting evil and injustice. If there is a better place to draw the line, I would be happy to do so. What description would you use?

I'm sorry, but if I've read your post correctly, you've just labelled 90% of Israel's Jews as "evil" (or I guess more accurately, "supporting evil") because they support Zionism. And then to support this opinion, you write that "any person who accepts Zionism is supporting evil and injustice."

I understand the logic behind it - Zionism is a political belief and the way it's being carried out is flawed. But I have a hard time believing that all Zionists are "supporting evil" when they are from all political backgrounds and there is a wide variety of them who support resolutions that many anti-Zionists also support (e.g. the "two state solution").

I've had complaints, and I think they're valid. We may not like it, but we are debating this issue with Zionists on this board. It is possible that some of these Zionists support certain Israeli government actions that others would consider oppressive or "evil". On the other hand, maybe they don't. The problem is, they're reading these generalizations by rsfarrell (and yes, saying that all Zionists "support evil" is a generalization), and they are seeing these labels stuck to THEM, no matter which solution they might personally support in Israel, simply because they are Zionists, which I see as meaning supporting the existence of the Israeli state. There's a wide range of opinions among Zionists about what that state should look like and how Palestinians fit into that.

I guess what this is going to come down to is whether babble is going to allow Zionists (and therefore the vast majority of Jews in Israel, and a large majority of Jews around the world) to be called "evil" or "supporters of evil". The answer is no. It's not allowed. I've been trying to make that more clear (with my post about making generalizations about Jewish Israelis, or "Israeli Zionists"), but rsfarrell is clearly pushing past the line here, and I can even respect that it's for ideological reasons. But the sentiment that all Zionists are supporters of evil is not appropriate here, on a board where self-described Zionists are debating the issue, which everyone clearly knows.

I don't like to do it, but this is rsfarrell's third warning, and it's accompanied by a week-long time-out.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 September 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this suspension is out of line for two reasons.

1) Farell's statement about Zionism was not a personal attack, as defined by the special rules that govern this forume.

2) Farell is clearly talking about Zionism as a political movement.

One needs only to think of some of the more comprehensive analysis of the NSDAP's take over of Germany and a case can be made that the whole society of Germany shared responsibility, and tacit approval and even active support for the NSDAP's program existed far outside of the NSDAP, and its attendant organizations. I think you and I have discussed this and agreed that the holocaust was not just engineered by a few idealogues.

I don't think anyone would argue that point out the Nazis extensive control of Germany at all levels of society amounted to "racism," expecially in the case where one makes clear that Nazism was not in and of itself part of being German, in as much as there were also notable exceptions, as Farell does in the case of Israel by stating clearly that there is opposition to Zionism by Israel Jews, nor does Farell suggest that "Jewishness" and Zionismo are one in the same.

The fact is that whole societies do become enamoured of the reigning ideology, and Israel is more likely than not to be this way, because it was formed at the behest of that ideology and then populated by people who shared this philosophy.

Israel presupposes a process of ideological purification, as a matter of course, in the manner that it has come into existance. The fact is that Jews who don't support Zionismo, mostly ignore it, are often embarrassed by it, and certianly don't live there.

Also, as others on this web site have noted before, the softer edged versions of Zionism have increasingly been weeded out of the Israel, by successive lurches to the right by the Zionist movement, and there has been a solidification of the harder-line Lukudinik idea at all levels of society.

Farrel, if you check into the site, please feel free to E-mail me at: cueballraball@yahoo.ca

[ 15 September 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 16 September 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
One needs only to think of some of the more comprehensive analysis of the NSDAP's take over of Germany and a case can be made that the whole society of Germany shared responsibility, and tacit approval and even active support for the NSDAP's program existed far outside of the NSDAP, and its attendant organizations. I think you and I have discussed this and agreed that the holocaust was not just engineered by a few idealogues.


I must take strong exception to this post. While it may be true to say that Zionism as a political entity is open today to much debate and discussion to compare it to nazism, even obliquely, is dead wrong and hurtful to the many many Jews around the world that believe in its concepts.

rsfarrell was properly suspended and to argue his suspension by invoking the "nazi card" only magnifies why he was suspened.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 September 2005 02:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you for bringing this up. Yours is an exact example of how this suspension over Farrel's political/sociological critique is extrapolated from the idea that anti-Zionism is racism.

Saying for instance that all persons who settled in North America knowing full well that such was at the unjust expense of the native peoples were engaged in evil, and exponents of an evil ideology, is not anti-european racism, but simply allowing for the principle of joint social resposibility.

Saying that the great majority Afikaners supported Apartheid, at least because of their tacit acceptance of Apartheid through co-operation, is not racism either. Apartheid was the ideology that was taught, and understood, and accepted to a greater or lesser extent by the great majority of white South Africans. To make a political analysis of Apratheid which identifies it as "evil" and then attributing that characteristic to the actions (if not the intent) of the whole is not racism. Just as saying that German society as a whole bears at least partial responsibility for the Holocaust is not racsim, especially when one notes the possibility of exceptions, as Farrel clearly did, in his assertion about Israeli-Jews.

He did not say at anytime that the inherent "evil" of Zionism was atributable to Israeli Jews because they were Israeli-Jews, but because of the political ideology, which is by and large accepted by 9/10th of Israeli-Jews.

Is stating that communism is evil, racism against North Koreans?

[ 16 September 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 16 September 2005 02:19 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
RSF said a person who accepts Zionism is supporting evil and injustice. I have no problem with the second part, or at least don't believe it is worthy of a reprimand, but to turn George Bushesque and refer to "evil," after you have been given two previous warnings, is worthy of a brief time-out.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 September 2005 02:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't use the word "evil," either. I don't think it exists.

People use the word "evil" on this site all the time. They don't get banned. Yes, there are rules here in this forumwhich differ from the rest of the site, but those are defined around "personal attacks." Farrel's statement was not specifically directed at anyone here but against an ideology as a whole.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 16 September 2005 02:39 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
but when you wrongly suggest that ideology is "evil" knowing that millions of Jews around the world adhere to that ideology, well that seems pretty personal.
From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 September 2005 02:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Venus_man on another thread:

quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
Iraqi Insurgents, apart form any political games etc. are mass murderers and therefore in my view no better then street gangs, but with the ideology. And off course every group needs a leader. That could be Zarqawi or anybody else. These people have their well defined purposes and act accordingly…by killing hundreds and thousands of civilians. I’m not defending American actions here, for I was against the war from the beginning. Nobody knows exact political motives and moves behind the scenes. What I see is brutality and usage of Iraqis as scapegoats for selfish ambitions of some power-thirsty freaks whom I would never call a resistance.

All Iraqi insurgents are "Mass Murderers" does not get one banned but saying that Zionism is "evil" does?

Again, Farrel's statement is clearly about Zionism in the general, not as a specific personal attack, which is the manner of the rule here.

Saying Zionism is racism, is not a personal attack upon an individual, but upon an ideology.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 16 September 2005 03:59 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
no it is a personal attack against millions of individuals. the zionism is racism theme was expunged by the un many years ago. many people consider themselves zionists and reject any implication that it is a racist philosophy.

[ 16 September 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 September 2005 04:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
no it is a personal attack against millions of individuals. the zionism is racism theme was expunged by the un many years ago. many people consider themselves zionists and reject your implication that it is a racist philosophy.

And there you go Michelle, as JPJ has deftly pointed out Farrel's statement was not a personal attack, of the nature of calling someone on this board a racist, but has been construed as such through extreme extrapolation. It was a social/political analysis, quite carefully made, if stated histrionically.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 September 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have let this go on for a while for two reasons:

1. Because I knew that what I did was controversial and people would need to vent about it, and

2. I haven't really had enough time or energy over the last few days to sit down and give this the attention it needs.

I don't really have a lot of time to do that now either, but I'm reading what folks are saying, and it's josh who has hit closest to my position.

First of all, jpj, if people want to say that they have philosophical objections to Zionism, and talk about it in terms of racism, that's fine with me. I don't want you to take what I've said above and expand it into "nobody gets to criticize Zionism anymore," or "no one gets to say that Zionism is racist," or "no one gets to compare Zionism to (insert bad political system here)." That's not what I was saying.

I understand the argument being made here against my action. I know people are saying that the political philosophy of Zionism shouldn't be a sacred cow, and it should be as open to criticism as any other philosophy. So if someone wants to say that the political philosophy of Zionism can be racist, then they are free to make that argument.

But what we were seeing here wasn't a critique of Zionism as a philosophy. It was an attack on everyone who considers themselves to be a Zionist as "supporting evil". As I said above, there are a lot of progressive Jews who identify as Zionists, who want to see an end to the occupation, and for Palestinians to be treated as equals. Some of the Zionists who read this forum might be among that number. I realize I'm taking an unpopular stand here, but if this issue is to be debated in this forum with any civility at all, people can't go around labelling each other with terms like "evil" and claiming that they are equally guilty of murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing for supporting Israeli charities, when they could very well be supporters of progressive peacemaking in Israel.

If we were to say that every communist is evil and is the moral equivalent of a murderer, rapist, and oppressor because they identify with communism, and I were to do it in a forum where an established group of babblers self-identified as communists, I think we WOULD see a lot of protest against people pulling that kind of red-baiting. Or as another example, if we were to say that the Catholic church as an institution is misogynist, homophobic, etc., then we're okay with that. But if you start labelling all Catholics as misogynist and homophobic, then that's a problem, because we know that Catholicism spans a huge political and social spectrum of believers.

If you want to talk about Zionism and discuss it as a political philosophy, and talk about ways in which you feel it is racist and oppressive, please feel free. If you want to come on babble and start ranting about how all Zionists are supporting evil and morally equivalent to murderers and rapists, then no, sorry, that's just not allowed.

Cueball says that rsfarrell was clearly talking about Zionism as a political movement. I disagree. He was not clearly talking about Zionism, he was clearly talking about Zionists, even after I repeatedly asked him to stop generalizing about people. If he were talking about problems with the political philosophy, that would be fine, but he was stepping over that line and generalizing about everyone who identifies as a Zionist, which includes a large majority of the world's Jews. And there is no one "Zionism" or set of Zionist principles that every Zionist in the world agrees upon, so I'm sorry, but you are just not allowed to generalize about all Zionists supporting evil and murder and oppression.

I know I am taking an unpopular stand here. I want you to feel free to go over my head on this one and send an e-mail to Audra about it, or even the publisher of rabble if you feel that I have not decided this one properly. But I have thought about it (a lot) and I feel that my decision is justified, so I'm not going to change my mind on this one unless I am directed to do so by Audra or Judy.

I'm going to close this thread now, because it's not on topic and probably not going to get back on topic. But please feel free to start a new thread in "rabble reactions" if you want to continue to discuss this issue. I don't want to stifle opposition to what I've written.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca