I don't think all Zionists view the West Bank and Gaza as part of 'the promised land' the Jews are 'entitled to'. Religious Zionists tend to think that, but that was never the dominant strain of Zionism. The Kahanists, adherents of an extreme form of Zionism (as you point out), are banned in Israel.CameronPoe wrote:
Zionists view the West Bank and Gaza as part of 'the promised land' the jews are supposedly 'entitled to' according to the Torah (which obviously contravenes international law). There are more extreme Zionists such as the Kahanists who have ludicrous ideas about the 'Greater Land of Israel' stretching from the Nile to the Tigris.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Why do Born Again Christians love Jews so much?
OMFG... Start buffing up on your history books. You'll NEVER EVER pass a history exam if you don't know how the state of Israel was formed.Turquoise wrote:
I just wish people would stop believing so strongly in religious prophecy. More often than not, actions that result from these beliefs lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. In other words, such prophecies would not even come true if people did not act like they will occur.
For example, we could have avoided a lot of pain and suffering over the last 60 years or so if America had taken in more Jews after WW2. We had plenty of land to spare here. So, a huge amount of Jews poured into Israel, and now, America seems to think that we must protect Israel at all costs partly because of the Rapture. If we just put that silly prophecy aside, we could maybe come up with some sort of compromise to help defuse the situation.
As for the actual question: I have no idea. I'm not catholic, and protestants dont give money to send jews to Israel. They want to go, they can damn well work for the fare.
There's no need to be a little bitch about things. I'm quite aware that Britain occupied Palestine a few decades before the modern creation of Israel, allowing many of Europe's Jews to immigrate there. A few decades later, we had to deal with the repercussions of the holocaust, so the surviving Jews had to go somewhere. Many of them willingly went to Israel because they wanted to live in their homeland. Still, plenty of them would have liked to have moved to America, but the anti-Semitism here only allowed a relatively small number of them to immigrate here.Twist wrote:
OMFG... Start buffing up on your history books. You'll NEVER EVER pass a history exam if you don't know how the state of Israel was formed.Turquoise wrote:
I just wish people would stop believing so strongly in religious prophecy. More often than not, actions that result from these beliefs lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. In other words, such prophecies would not even come true if people did not act like they will occur.
For example, we could have avoided a lot of pain and suffering over the last 60 years or so if America had taken in more Jews after WW2. We had plenty of land to spare here. So, a huge amount of Jews poured into Israel, and now, America seems to think that we must protect Israel at all costs partly because of the Rapture. If we just put that silly prophecy aside, we could maybe come up with some sort of compromise to help defuse the situation.
By the way, I have a B.A. in Economics, and I could have gotten a minor in History if I had taken a few extra courses. So yes, I have passed several history exams.
Then watch the Girls Gone Wild ads instead.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I hate seeing Pat Robertson begging for money so early in the morning.
There are two primary reasons why born-again Christians support the Jews to Israel.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
But, Im wondering, whats with the obsession of born again christians to send Jews to Israel?
(1) Temple Reconstruction. The most prominent reason was alluded to by Turquoise in the first response, and it has to do with the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple. This is a widely popularized interpretation of the Bible that is promoted in the Christian marketplace, and it has been adopted by the laity of the Christian church (not most scholars, theologians, and pastors ... just the laity). In this interpretation, the Temple of God must be rebuilt (the fourth temple) on the original site in Jerusalem (near the Wailing Wall, where the Islamic Dome of the Rock now stands). The rebuilding of the Temple is a key in the end times progression, leading to the end of the world. Christians who hold to this understanding, see the Jewish state of Israel as critical to making this a reality.
Like Turquoise said, this is a bit of a cartoonish interpretation. A minority of serious scholars & theologians give it any credence, yet 99% of all Christians follow a popular line of teaching about things like the rapture, the anti-Christ, a 7-year tribulation, the rebuilding of the Temple, etc. simply because it sells books, makes for good movies, and draws audiences for TV evangelists.
(2) Fear. Though not as powerful, the second reason was mentioned by ph4s3r, namely, that there is an understanding by Christians that God views the Jews as special - a chosen people - and that gentile Christians are adopted sons/daughters of Israel. In biblical history, those who oppose Israel might incur the wrath of God, so Christians tend to take a friendly stance toward the Jewish people.
Closely associated with this relationship is the "promised land" of Israel.
Turquoise,Turquoise wrote:
Still, plenty of them would have liked to have moved to America, but the anti-Semitism here only allowed a relatively small number of them to immigrate here.
By the way, I have a B.A. in Economics, and I could have gotten a minor in History if I had taken a few extra courses. So yes, I have passed several history exams.
That's a bit disingenuous, isn't it? America had its share of antisemitism to be sure, but you're ignoring a few things, seemingly to paint the US in a bad light for some reason. Some of the things your comments ignore are...
- America has never been one to openly embrace a large wave of immigrants -- see the recent immigration bill issue about that.
- No country readily accepts huge waves of immigrants. It's the nature of nationalism, protectionism and isolationism.
- No other country offered sanctuary to the masses either.
- No other country offered up its own land for Jewish settlement.
- The majority of European Jewry wanted their own land, not to settle in someone else's.
- The Roosevelt administration relaxed tight, arguably racist, immigration rules regarding European refugees in 1944 with the establishment of the War Refugee Board and, consequently, the post-WWII era saw a large ingress of Jewish Holocaust survivors.
You seem to paint America as this place that could have and should have done more, as if other countries made better efforts. I agree, we should have done more, however I think we've done far better than anyone else.
I don't know where to find the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that America had more Jewish immigrants from 1945-1955 than any other country except for Israel and probably for the entire time from the end of WWII to now.
PS - For all your historical education, you seem to have lost one important point from the Holocaust. "anti-Semitism" is largely derided as incorrect verbiage in regards to the discussion of hatred of the Jewish people. Your incarnation lends credence to a lot of race based pseudo-science that came about in the late 1800s and early 1900s that has since been completely discredited. The term is "antisemitism." And yes, it makes a difference.
Considering how many Eastern and Southern European immigrants we let in only a few decades before that, I'd say we didn't have much of an excuse economically to not open things more to the Jews.ph4s3 wrote:
America has never been one to openly embrace a large wave of immigrants -- see the recent immigration bill issue about that.
America is one of the few exceptions to this, and despite the current conflict we experience with illegals nowadays, most polls show that a majority of American citizens support "amnesty."ph4s3 wrote:
No country readily accepts huge waves of immigrants. It's the nature of nationalism, protectionism and isolationism.
Granted, I personally prefer to keep immigration more tight these days. Still, looking at the economic situation of the U.S. right after the war, that was the ideal time to let in the Jews. We were one of the few countries experiencing an economic boom after the war.
True. I can't dispute that, and sadly, prejudice against Jews in Europe remained high after the war.ph4s3 wrote:
No other country offered sanctuary to the masses either.
Agreed again, but ironically, they did end up settling on someone else's land -- the Palestinians'.ph4s3 wrote:
No other country offered up its own land for Jewish settlement. The majority of European Jewry wanted their own land, not to settle in someone else's.
True again... I just question if it was enough. Compared to the rest of the world, we did do more. I'm sorry if I came off as putting America down, but I'm just saying mistakes were made.ph4s3 wrote:
The Roosevelt administration relaxed tight, arguably racist, immigration rules regarding European refugees in 1944 with the establishment of the War Refugee Board and, consequently, the post-WWII era saw a large ingress of Jewish Holocaust survivors.
Agreed....ph4s3 wrote:
You seem to paint America as this place that could have and should have done more, as if other countries made better efforts. I agree, we should have done more, however I think we've done far better than anyone else.
Good points, and that's probably true.ph4s3 wrote:
I don't know where to find the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that America had more Jewish immigrants from 1945-1955 than any other country except for Israel and probably for the entire time from the end of WWII to now.
Sorry about that... That was just a grammatical thing, because honestly, I didn't even know that.ph4s3 wrote:
PS - For all your historical education, you seem to have lost one important point from the Holocaust. "anti-Semitism" is largely derided as incorrect verbiage in regards to the discussion of hatred of the Jewish people. Your incarnation lends credence to a lot of race based pseudo-science that came about in the late 1800s and early 1900s that has since been completely discredited. The term is "antisemitism." And yes, it makes a difference.
Most of my historical knowledge is based on North American and South American history, primarily in reference to colonization and economic trends.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-07-01 21:00:39)
Hit the nail on the head...there will always be a very common, deep connection between the two even though they have basic differences.CameronPoe wrote:
It's because they believe in a literal translation of the bible and the Old Testament states that the Israelites are 'God's chosen people'.
Very good points....I don't disagree with one point.ph4s3 wrote:
Turquoise,Turquoise wrote:
Still, plenty of them would have liked to have moved to America, but the anti-Semitism here only allowed a relatively small number of them to immigrate here.
By the way, I have a B.A. in Economics, and I could have gotten a minor in History if I had taken a few extra courses. So yes, I have passed several history exams.
That's a bit disingenuous, isn't it? America had its share of antisemitism to be sure, but you're ignoring a few things, seemingly to paint the US in a bad light for some reason. Some of the things your comments ignore are...
- America has never been one to openly embrace a large wave of immigrants -- see the recent immigration bill issue about that.
- No country readily accepts huge waves of immigrants. It's the nature of nationalism, protectionism and isolationism.
- No other country offered sanctuary to the masses either.
- No other country offered up its own land for Jewish settlement.
- The majority of European Jewry wanted their own land, not to settle in someone else's.
- The Roosevelt administration relaxed tight, arguably racist, immigration rules regarding European refugees in 1944 with the establishment of the War Refugee Board and, consequently, the post-WWII era saw a large ingress of Jewish Holocaust survivors.
You seem to paint America as this place that could have and should have done more, as if other countries made better efforts. I agree, we should have done more, however I think we've done far better than anyone else.
I don't know where to find the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that America had more Jewish immigrants from 1945-1955 than any other country except for Israel and probably for the entire time from the end of WWII to now.
PS - For all your historical education, you seem to have lost one important point from the Holocaust. "anti-Semitism" is largely derided as incorrect verbiage in regards to the discussion of hatred of the Jewish people. Your incarnation lends credence to a lot of race based pseudo-science that came about in the late 1800s and early 1900s that has since been completely discredited. The term is "antisemitism." And yes, it makes a difference.
Turquoise,
Thanks for the reply.
Regards,
ph4s3
Thanks for the reply.
Yah... That's another discussion thread topic I'm sure. Something about the west screwing the Arabs because they could and so they didn't have to sacrifice any real assets of their own... Something about how it started the current Middle East crisis... Something about how despite the crisis it may have been the only way to avert another holocaust in the Middle East due to the mass emigration of Jews from Europe to the former land of Judea/Judah (now Israel) prior to the formal creation of the nation of Israel... etc, etc, etc...Turquoise wrote:
... ironically, they did end up settling on someone else's land -- the Palestinians'.
That was likely just my interpretation. I guess I'm a bit sensitive to all the America bashing I see lately and I probably read something into your post that wasn't actually there. I certainly don't hear that tone in your other posts on the board.Turquoise wrote:
... I'm sorry if I came off as putting America down, but I'm just saying mistakes were made.
To be honest I only know it because I made the mistake on a paper in a religion course... Taught by a Holocaust scholar. I suppose "history" is a rather immense subject for something so esoteric as the proper usage/spelling of "antisemitism." Probably wasn't fair to beat you over the head with it.Turquoise wrote:
Sorry about that... That was just a grammatical thing, because honestly, I didn't even know that.ph4s3 wrote:
... "anti-Semitism" ... lends credence to a lot of race based pseudo-science that came about in the late 1800s and early 1900s that has since been completely discredited. The term is "antisemitism."
Regards,
ph4s3
I'd never thought of that....Turquoise wrote:
It has to do with the Rapture. Apparently, the Rapture is directly connected to the fate of Israel and Jews in general. This is why we have so many evangelical Zionists in America.
Yet another reason to blindly support Israel, gotta be Rapture Ready.
The Canaanites and the Hebrew people are two different things. The Israelites invaded Canaan and drove the Canaanites out, then called it Israel and claimed God had given it to them.Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
The ROMANS killed jesus it was the jewish congrigation in canan that ratted him out to the romans. As for the whole love things. Its 2 things. one they believe that the isrealites (canan) are gods chosen people. Two they actually realise the Judiasm is the root of chrisitanity.
But Zionism is a supremacist, religious belief. All offers of land other than what was at the time the British mandate of Palestine, were rejected. An international agreement that Jewish immigration to Palestine should be permitted was reached at the San Remo conference by the league of nations. This was enacted through the Balfour declaration.san4 wrote:
I don't think all Zionists view the West Bank and Gaza as part of 'the promised land' the Jews are 'entitled to'. Religious Zionists tend to think that, but that was never the dominant strain of Zionism. The Kahanists, adherents of an extreme form of Zionism (as you point out), are banned in Israel.CameronPoe wrote:
Zionists view the West Bank and Gaza as part of 'the promised land' the jews are supposedly 'entitled to' according to the Torah (which obviously contravenes international law). There are more extreme Zionists such as the Kahanists who have ludicrous ideas about the 'Greater Land of Israel' stretching from the Nile to the Tigris.
There was never any real chance of the Zionist movement establishing a homeland for Jews anywhere other than Israel, because of religous ideals at the heart of the movement.
Zionism, especially at it's modern inception, was fundamentally based in the religous belief that the land of Israel is the god given right of the Jewish people. A belief that is fundamentally flawed and has led to the deaths and systematic deprivation of many millions through acts of ethnic cleansing and expulsion as well as terrorism campaigns.
Not really the west screwing the Arabs. More the Zionists screwing the Arabs. The British put a framework in place, that was fair - it was naive to think it would actually work, but it was fair. The British forces actually became some of the primary targets for Zionist terror groups due to the ever growing attempts to prevent Zionist domination of the region, which was prohibited under the terms they had laid down. Naval blockades to stem immigration and laws preventing Jews from buying land in many cases, were put in place as suggested by official reports in response to the Jewish agencys policy of economic deprivation. The US commissioned similar reports, with similar findings, what was very different about them were the suggestions they gave, which were anti-Arab and pro-Zionist, they wished that the Jewish people would gain dominance in the region and establish a state, a desire that Truman made very clear to the leaders of the Jewish agency. Without this support, it is unlikely the modern nation of Israel would have come to exist. Which I think would've been a good thing. The whole concept of a nation for a single race of people is inherently racist, stemming from xenophobic, religious and supremacist ideals that I find abhorent.ph4s3 wrote:
Turquoise,
Thanks for the reply.Yah... That's another discussion thread topic I'm sure. Something about the west screwing the Arabs because they could and so they didn't have to sacrifice any real assets of their own... Something about how it started the current Middle East crisis... Something about how despite the crisis it may have been the only way to avert another holocaust in the Middle East due to the mass emigration of Jews from Europe to the former land of Judea/Judah (now Israel) prior to the formal creation of the nation of Israel... etc, etc, etc...Turquoise wrote:
... ironically, they did end up settling on someone else's land -- the Palestinians'.
Wow, what a narrow perspective.Bertster7 wrote:
The whole concept of a nation for a single race of people is inherently racist, stemming from xenophobic, religious and supremacist ideals that I find abhorent.
Calling the establishment of a Jewish homeland xenophobic and supremacist is a pretty clear reflection of a perspective that is blind to the millennium prior to the establishment of Israel. Over and over, in dozens of countries, non-Jews persecute and physically assault Jews for a thousand years and when Jews finally flee you call them xenophobic? Xenophobia is an irrational fear of others, but Jews have an entirely rational fear of others, grounded in centuries of history.
And supremacist? Is it supremacist to want to have a homeland that is as homogeneous as say, Sweden was in 1948? As homogeneous as Japan is today? Israel was not established because Jews have a religious belief that they are the Chosen People (many of the founders were non-religious socialists), it was established because Jews were tired of getting the shit kicked out of them everywhere else in the world. That's not supremacist, that's survival.
Last edited by san4 (2007-07-02 19:26:22)
Possibly something to do with the Arabs sympathising and in some cases helping the Germans in North Africa.....something like a little "revenge" for the Brits?ph4s3 wrote:
Something about the west screwing the Arabs because they could and so they didn't have to sacrifice any real assets of their own... Something about how it started the current Middle East crisis... ."
That couldn't be further from the truth. The situation began long before WWII for a start (about 1917) and the British were far more pissed off at the Jewish immigrants to Palestine conducting terrorist attacks, often against British targets by that point. They also owed the Palestinians big time (for the Arab revolt instigated by Lawrence of Arabia), which is constantly refered to in the official documents. The British wanted to do the right thing by the Palestinians, but the Jewish immigrants and the actions of the Jewish agency made their job impossible.Ratzinger wrote:
Possibly something to do with the Arabs sympathising and in some cases helping the Germans in North Africa.....something like a little "revenge" for the Brits?ph4s3 wrote:
Something about the west screwing the Arabs because they could and so they didn't have to sacrifice any real assets of their own... Something about how it started the current Middle East crisis... ."
What a load of rubbish.san4 wrote:
Wow, what a narrow perspective.Bertster7 wrote:
The whole concept of a nation for a single race of people is inherently racist, stemming from xenophobic, religious and supremacist ideals that I find abhorent.
Calling the establishment of a Jewish homeland xenophobic and supremacist is a pretty clear reflection of a perspective that is blind to the millennium prior to the establishment of Israel. Over and over, in dozens of countries, non-Jews persecute and physically assault Jews for a thousand years and when Jews finally flee you call them xenophobic? Xenophobia is an irrational fear of others, but Jews have an entirely rational fear of others, grounded in centuries of history.
And supremacist? Is it supremacist to want to have a homeland that is as homogeneous as say, Sweden was in 1948? As homogeneous as Japan is today? Israel was not established because Jews have a religious belief that they are the Chosen People (many of the founders were non-religious socialists), it was established because Jews were tired of getting the shit kicked out of them everywhere else in the world. That's not supremacist, that's survival.
It is very much xenophobic and supremacist, as well as based upon the belief that Israel is their homeland chosen by God (whilst not all Zionists believed this as some, as you say, were socialists - many in fact had very reasonable ideas about Zionism, like Herzl, who was later criticised for his suggestions that a Jewish homeland could be established outside of Israel). There can be no justification for a state where the ethnicity and religion of a person determine their rights, as is the case in Israel. The whole notion of two different sets of rules, one for Jews and one for everyone else, is supremacist and racist - there can be no denying that. I suppose it can be argued that xenophobic attitudes amongst most of Jewry can in some way be justified, but that is no justification for the reactionary measures taken.
This view, which focuses on the condemnation of the establishment of the state of Israel, the history of expulsions and ethnic cleansing and the policy therein, is not thought up by me, but is the product of Jewish academics in Israel.
Carter has aptly called the situation inside Israel apartheid, which is exactly what it is. It is no different to what happened in South Africa. A dominant immigrant race has taken over a nation and subjugated the indigenous populous, giving them fewer rights than the "superior" race.
UN resolution 3379 in 1975 concluded that Zionism is a form of racism.
The resolution was later recinded, but the fact it was ever passed says a lot.3379 (XXX). Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination
The General Assemby,
Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous" and its expression of alarm at "the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures",
Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,
Taking note of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace 1975, proclaimed by the World Conference of the International Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that "international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination",
Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being",
Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperalist ideology,
Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-03 06:03:50)
"It is no different to what happened in South Africa"? Are you joking? You continue to ignore the centuries of extraordinarily persistent anti-Jewish violence and persecution that preceded the establishment of Israel. That is the crucial distinction between South Africa and Israel. It justifies having a homogeneous state because the alternative is continued persecution. It is like temporarily segregating a prison after a race riot--it is the only way to stop the violence.Bertster7 wrote:
What a load of rubbish.san4 wrote:
Wow, what a narrow perspective.Bertster7 wrote:
The whole concept of a nation for a single race of people is inherently racist, stemming from xenophobic, religious and supremacist ideals that I find abhorent.
Calling the establishment of a Jewish homeland xenophobic and supremacist is a pretty clear reflection of a perspective that is blind to the millennium prior to the establishment of Israel. Over and over, in dozens of countries, non-Jews persecute and physically assault Jews for a thousand years and when Jews finally flee you call them xenophobic? Xenophobia is an irrational fear of others, but Jews have an entirely rational fear of others, grounded in centuries of history.
And supremacist? Is it supremacist to want to have a homeland that is as homogeneous as say, Sweden was in 1948? As homogeneous as Japan is today? Israel was not established because Jews have a religious belief that they are the Chosen People (many of the founders were non-religious socialists), it was established because Jews were tired of getting the shit kicked out of them everywhere else in the world. That's not supremacist, that's survival.
It is very much xenophobic and supremacist, as well as based upon the belief that Israel is their homeland chosen by God (whilst not all Zionists believed this as some, as you say, were socialists - many in fact had very reasonable ideas about Zionism, like Herzl, who was later criticised for his suggestions that a Jewish homeland could be established outside of Israel). There can be no justification for a state where the ethnicity and religion of a person determine their rights, as is the case in Israel. The whole notion of two different sets of rules, one for Jews and one for everyone else, is supremacist and racist - there can be no denying that. I suppose it can be argued that xenophobic attitudes amongst most of Jewry can in some way be justified, but that is no justification for the reactionary measures taken.
This view, which focuses on the condemnation of the establishment of the state of Israel, the history of expulsions and ethnic cleansing and the policy therein, is not thought up by me, but is the product of Jewish academics in Israel.
Carter has aptly called the situation inside Israel apartheid, which is exactly what it is. It is no different to what happened in South Africa. A dominant immigrant race has taken over a nation and subjugated the indigenous populous, giving them fewer rights than the "superior" race.
For what it's worth, I can agree that Israeli settlements on the west bank and the current brutal treatment of Palestinians are not justified (and also not helpful), but that doesn't undermine the justification for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
That's such a bullshit excuse.san4 wrote:
"It is no different to what happened in South Africa"? Are you joking? You continue to ignore the centuries of extraordinarily persistent anti-Jewish violence and persecution that preceded the establishment of Israel. That is the crucial distinction between South Africa and Israel. It justifies having a homogeneous state because the alternative is continued persecution. It is like temporarily segregating a prison after a race riot--it is the only way to stop the violence.Bertster7 wrote:
What a load of rubbish.san4 wrote:
Wow, what a narrow perspective.
Calling the establishment of a Jewish homeland xenophobic and supremacist is a pretty clear reflection of a perspective that is blind to the millennium prior to the establishment of Israel. Over and over, in dozens of countries, non-Jews persecute and physically assault Jews for a thousand years and when Jews finally flee you call them xenophobic? Xenophobia is an irrational fear of others, but Jews have an entirely rational fear of others, grounded in centuries of history.
And supremacist? Is it supremacist to want to have a homeland that is as homogeneous as say, Sweden was in 1948? As homogeneous as Japan is today? Israel was not established because Jews have a religious belief that they are the Chosen People (many of the founders were non-religious socialists), it was established because Jews were tired of getting the shit kicked out of them everywhere else in the world. That's not supremacist, that's survival.
It is very much xenophobic and supremacist, as well as based upon the belief that Israel is their homeland chosen by God (whilst not all Zionists believed this as some, as you say, were socialists - many in fact had very reasonable ideas about Zionism, like Herzl, who was later criticised for his suggestions that a Jewish homeland could be established outside of Israel). There can be no justification for a state where the ethnicity and religion of a person determine their rights, as is the case in Israel. The whole notion of two different sets of rules, one for Jews and one for everyone else, is supremacist and racist - there can be no denying that. I suppose it can be argued that xenophobic attitudes amongst most of Jewry can in some way be justified, but that is no justification for the reactionary measures taken.
This view, which focuses on the condemnation of the establishment of the state of Israel, the history of expulsions and ethnic cleansing and the policy therein, is not thought up by me, but is the product of Jewish academics in Israel.
Carter has aptly called the situation inside Israel apartheid, which is exactly what it is. It is no different to what happened in South Africa. A dominant immigrant race has taken over a nation and subjugated the indigenous populous, giving them fewer rights than the "superior" race.
For what it's worth, I can agree that Israeli settlements on the west bank and the current brutal treatment of Palestinians are not justified (and also not helpful), but that doesn't undermine the justification for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
We were persecuted by racist cunts, so now it's our turn to act like racist cunts and persecute others.
What a great mentality.
It doesn't change a damned thing about the current situation. The only justification ever given is that the Jews had a really hard time. That give them no right to completly ignore international law. It is no excuse and I maintain that the whole idea of a Jewish state which legally differentiates between Jews and non-Jews, is a racist and supremacist society - because by pure definition, that is what it is.
Your response is phrased as if a Jewish homeland is some sort of reward or compensation for past harms. It isn't. The purpose of a Jewish homeland is to prevent future persecution of Jews. History is relevant as evidence that future persecution will occur. The role Israel plays in protecting Jews from future persecution changes the current situation. Eliminate Israel and you expose Jews to more centuries of persecution. "We are going to be persecuted if we don't have a homeland" strikes me as a pretty good justification for having a homeland.Bertster7 wrote:
That's such a bullshit excuse.san4 wrote:
"It is no different to what happened in South Africa"? Are you joking? You continue to ignore the centuries of extraordinarily persistent anti-Jewish violence and persecution that preceded the establishment of Israel. That is the crucial distinction between South Africa and Israel. It justifies having a homogeneous state because the alternative is continued persecution. It is like temporarily segregating a prison after a race riot--it is the only way to stop the violence.Bertster7 wrote:
What a load of rubbish.
It is very much xenophobic and supremacist, as well as based upon the belief that Israel is their homeland chosen by God (whilst not all Zionists believed this as some, as you say, were socialists - many in fact had very reasonable ideas about Zionism, like Herzl, who was later criticised for his suggestions that a Jewish homeland could be established outside of Israel). There can be no justification for a state where the ethnicity and religion of a person determine their rights, as is the case in Israel. The whole notion of two different sets of rules, one for Jews and one for everyone else, is supremacist and racist - there can be no denying that. I suppose it can be argued that xenophobic attitudes amongst most of Jewry can in some way be justified, but that is no justification for the reactionary measures taken.
This view, which focuses on the condemnation of the establishment of the state of Israel, the history of expulsions and ethnic cleansing and the policy therein, is not thought up by me, but is the product of Jewish academics in Israel.
Carter has aptly called the situation inside Israel apartheid, which is exactly what it is. It is no different to what happened in South Africa. A dominant immigrant race has taken over a nation and subjugated the indigenous populous, giving them fewer rights than the "superior" race.
For what it's worth, I can agree that Israeli settlements on the west bank and the current brutal treatment of Palestinians are not justified (and also not helpful), but that doesn't undermine the justification for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
We were persecuted by racist cunts, so now it's our turn to act like racist cunts and persecute others.
What a great mentality.
It doesn't change a damned thing about the current situation. The only justification ever given is that the Jews had a really hard time. That give them no right to completly ignore international law. It is no excuse and I maintain that the whole idea of a Jewish state which legally differentiates between Jews and non-Jews, is a racist and supremacist society - because by pure definition, that is what it is.
I don't talk as if a Jewish homeland is a reward or compensation, because I am well aware that it is not.san4 wrote:
Your response is phrased as if a Jewish homeland is some sort of reward or compensation for past harms. It isn't. The purpose of a Jewish homeland is to prevent future persecution of Jews. History is relevant as evidence that future persecution will occur. The role Israel plays in protecting Jews from future persecution changes the current situation. Eliminate Israel and you expose Jews to more centuries of persecution. "We are going to be persecuted if we don't have a homeland" strikes me as a pretty good justification for having a homeland.Bertster7 wrote:
That's such a bullshit excuse.san4 wrote:
"It is no different to what happened in South Africa"? Are you joking? You continue to ignore the centuries of extraordinarily persistent anti-Jewish violence and persecution that preceded the establishment of Israel. That is the crucial distinction between South Africa and Israel. It justifies having a homogeneous state because the alternative is continued persecution. It is like temporarily segregating a prison after a race riot--it is the only way to stop the violence.
For what it's worth, I can agree that Israeli settlements on the west bank and the current brutal treatment of Palestinians are not justified (and also not helpful), but that doesn't undermine the justification for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
We were persecuted by racist cunts, so now it's our turn to act like racist cunts and persecute others.
What a great mentality.
It doesn't change a damned thing about the current situation. The only justification ever given is that the Jews had a really hard time. That give them no right to completly ignore international law. It is no excuse and I maintain that the whole idea of a Jewish state which legally differentiates between Jews and non-Jews, is a racist and supremacist society - because by pure definition, that is what it is.
Who gave them a Jewish state?
Nobody - they took it. They weren't ever given it in the first place. Go and read the text of the Balfour declaration. There's a very important bit in it:
They had to share it. Those were the rules.it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Why do Born Again Christians love Jews so much?