Fucked up kids

[nino_savatte]

I'm not accusing you of this but it is something I noticed in socialists in the late 70's to mid 80's. I always though it incongruous that socialists were backing a group that would quite happily have northern ireland forcibly merged with the Republic of Ireland that many of us saw as a theocracy at the time. Its not a theocracy now but the Irish Govt was heavily influenced by the catholic church for many years.

Not quite sure I agree with you on this one. Yes there was an interest in a stable levant because the Ottoman empire was collapsing.



In the case of Iraq, Iran, Lebanon etc I would agree with you but the Balfour Declaration specifically called for the Jews to be allowed to return to their anscestral home that they had been forcibly removed from.

The declaration also called for equality between the religious and ethinic groups in Israel.

Personally my opinion is things will not move forward in Israel until both sides sideline the religious extremists. The Palestinians will have to dump Hamas and the other loons and the Israelis will have to reduce the power of Ultra Orthodox Judaism in the Israeli state.

I support the concept of a united Ireland (36 counties), does that make me one who "lionises the PIRA"? I don't think it does. The partitioning of Ireland was wrong.

Its not a theocracy now but the Irish Govt was heavily influenced by the catholic church for many years.

While the CofE never took an active role in the affairs of the British state? I don't think so. However, that isn't the point: Ireland was partitioned along religious lines and this has been the source of the trouble ever since. many of those who fought for Irish independence in the 18th and 19th centuries were Protestants: Theobald Wolfe Tone, Isaac Butt, Charles Stewart Parnell et al. Indeed, Ireland could have been a worker's stat if it had not been for Fianna Fail allying itself with the Church.

the Balfour Declaration specifically called for the Jews to be allowed to return to their anscestral home that they had been forcibly removed from.

"Ancestral home"? Most of Israel's settlers came from Europe; they were literally dumped on the Levant. You realise other places were discussed with regards to a 'Jewish homeland"? One such country mooted was Argentina.

The declaration also called for equality between the religious and ethinic groups in Israel.

Noble words on a bit of paper are ultimately meaningless without action to back it up. The British were quite content to see ethnic conflict as it meant it was easier to dominate the population (divide and conquer).

Personally my opinion is things will not move forward in Israel until both sides sideline the religious extremists. The Palestinians will have to dump Hamas and the other loons and the Israelis will have to reduce the power of Ultra Orthodox Judaism in the Israeli state

My personal opinion is that Israel have constantly blocked any moves towards peace. I have seen this repeated over and over again over a period of thirty odd years. As for Israel reducing the power of the ultra Orthodox factions, that won't happen simply because they act as power brokers; they can make or break governments.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Yossarian;


Brrrrrrrrrrr.

You, like the other tosser, Jockey, have no concept of what the Zionists want, what they would do to get it or even what they are guilty of to date. You strike me as a sponge for Zionist propaganda as disseminated by the BBC according to Lord Levy's insistences in Tone's ear.

To deny that the invader and occupier is the guilty party is the mouthings of a moron, or a Zionist sympathiser, perhaps both. No way is it anywhere close to an armature for the construction of a just solution.

The fact that you have an inability to see the situation as it exists and to contribute in any positive way to those seeking a just settlement to both ordinary Palestinians and Israelis seems to indicate that you should be kept away from anything important and maybe shouldn't be allowed out on your own.

I was reluctant to bring up the issue of anti semitism as I do know that there is a difference between being anti semitic and anti extreme nationalist zionism. However, as much as I distrust Lord Levy that fact that you have brought him up in such an unrelated way is reminiscent of those arseholes who say 'the Jews control this and that behind the scenes'. I've had fascists in the family and I've heard similar bollocks being spouted by them.

I'm quite aware of what propaganda looks like and I'm seeing loads of it being spouted by yourself.

Of course Israel is guilty of abuses in occupied Judea and Samaria I never said they were not. The occupation is corrosive to Israeli society and it contributes to fear and a deadening of the soul amongst ordinary Israelis.

As regards the BBC you will be aware that the BBC's output has been criticised as being anti Israeli as well as anti Palestinian. This is a good thing if you are being criticised by both sides then you are obviously doing something right.

Yes I am a Zionist. I'm a socialist Zionist who believes that Israel should be a national home for the Jews and that the state should have a Jewish character but it should not oppress the stranger or the neighbour and that it should take into account of the diverse views within it.

I want a just peace you seem to want the Israelis pushed into the med.

You still haven't answered my question about why you care about these issues so much. Debating with you would be more fruitful if you would do this.

I'm practicing fanatical moderation which is a positive thing you are just spouting propaganda and are showing an inability to learn or see others points of view which is sadly negative.

 

[nino_savatte]

The BJP want to see India turned into a Hindu homeland. Is this right?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I support the concept of a united Ireland (36 counties), does that make me one who "lionises the PIRA"? I don't think it does. The partitioning of Ireland was wrong.

The partition of Ireland was handled very badly and for that reason was wrong. If the partition had been set up with cross border institutions in the first place then some degree of co existence would have been a given.

While the CofE never took an active role in the affairs of the British state? I don't think so. However, that isn't the point: Ireland was partitioned along religious lines and this has been the source of the trouble ever since. many of those who fought for Irish independence in the 18th and 19th centuries were Protestants: Theobald Wolfe Tone, Isaac Butt, Charles Stewart Parnell et al. Indeed, Ireland could have been a worker's stat if it had not been for Fianna Fail allying itself with the Church.

Of course the c of e has taken an active part in politics in the UK.

"Ancestral home"? Most of Israel's settlers came from Europe; they were literally dumped on the Levant. You realise other places were discussed with regards to a 'Jewish homeland"? One such country mooted was Argentina.

Not dumped in the Levant. A lot of people went voluntarily escaping Russian pogroms in the First Aliyah in the late 19th Century.

Noble words on a bit of paper are ultimately meaningless without action to back it up. The British were quite content to see ethnic conflict as it meant it was easier to dominate the population (divide and conquer).

Some of the root of the growth of groups like Irgun was the fact that the British were not protecting the Jewish population. Not all but a factor.

My personal opinion is that Israel have constantly blocked any moves towards peace. I have seen this repeated over and over again over a period of thirty odd years. As for Israel reducing the power of the ultra Orthodox factions, that won't happen simply because they act as power brokers; they can make or break governments.

The sidelining of the Orthodox establishment is slowly happening. The move towards legalising LGBT civil partnerships is one way this is happening. Remember Israel is a country with no civil marriage.

As to the subject of blocking peace moves some of that is fear on the part of the Israeli people and govt. If you remove a portion of that fear of attack then things will improve.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The BJP want to see India turned into a Hindu homeland. Is this right?

Nice try but there are big differences between the BJP and various Israeli governments.

The BJP and their supporters want to remove all 'taint' of other faiths from India. That has never been the position of the majority of Israelis to my knowledge.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nice try but there are big differences between the BJP and various Israeli governments.

The BJP and their supporters want to remove all 'taint' of other faiths from India. That has never been the position of the majority of Israelis to my knowledge.

I see no difference. They both operate from a position of ethnic superioruty.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I see no difference. They both operate from a position of ethnic superioruty.

No strongly disagree with you there. You can have an ethnically homogenous state that doesn't have ethnic superiority. The two don't have to go hand in hand.

 

[nino_savatte]

The partition of Ireland was handled very badly and for that reason was wrong. If the partition had been set up with cross border institutions in the first place then some degree of co existence would have been a given.


Of course the c of e has taken an active part in politics in the UK.



Not dumped in the Levant. A lot of people went voluntarily escaping Russian pogroms in the First Aliyah in the late 19th Century.



Some of the root of the growth of groups like Irgun was the fact that the British were not protecting the Jewish population. Not all but a factor.



The sidelining of the Orthodox establishment is slowly happening. The move towards legalising LGBT civil partnerships is one way this is happening. Remember Israel is a country with no civil marriage.

As to the subject of blocking peace moves some of that is fear on the part of the Israeli people and govt. If you remove a portion of that fear of attack then things will improve.

You are aware that Irgun later became Likud.

The sidelining of the Orthodox establishment is slowly happening. The move towards legalising LGBT civil partnerships is one way this is happening. Remember Israel is a country with no civil marriage.

I don't see how this affects the already militarised mindset of the dominant ideology.

Not dumped in the Levant. A lot of people went voluntarily escaping Russian pogroms in the First Aliyah in the late 19th Century.

Many of those Russians (as well as Lithuanians, Poles and Ukranians) went to countries like Britain and the US (and even Ireland) rather than the Levant. The numbers going to Palestine were a trickle.

Revisionist Zionism remains in control.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

You are aware that Irgun later became Likud..

Some of the elements of Irgun became Likud. For your info I'm not a supporter of Likud.

I don't see how this affects the already militarised mindset of the dominant ideology..

Maybe the militarisation is partly because of the fear of attack.

Many of those Russians (as well as Lithuanians, Poles and Ukranians) went to countries like Britain and the US (and even Ireland) rather than the Levant. The numbers going to Palestine were a trickle.

.

Agreed that the vast majority of those who escaped from Eastern Europe at that time went to areas other than Israel but that changed with the Forth and Fifth Aliayahs between 1923 and 1940

 

[ViolentPanda]

Some of the elements of Irgun became Likud. For your info I'm not a supporter of Likud.




Maybe the militarisation is partly because of the fear of attack.


Agreed that the vast majority of those who escaped from Eastern Europe at that time went to areas other than Israel but that changed with the Forth and Fifth Aliayahs between 1923 and 1940

Which wasn't what you originally claimed.
And the "between the wars" emigration to Israel is arguably what was at the root of the current problems, along with the mandate authorities not treating the Palestinians and immigrant Jews equally.

This may seem harsh (and I apologise in advance if I'm wrong), but I get the distinct impression, given that your views have markedly changed, that you're cutting your political cloth to suit your new cultural attchment, trying to be more "middle of the road Jew" than any other "middle of the road Jew"..

 

[nino_savatte]

Some of the elements of Irgun became Likud. For your info I'm not a supporter of Likud.




Maybe the militarisation is partly because of the fear of attack.


Agreed that the vast majority of those who escaped from Eastern Europe at that time went to areas other than Israel but that changed with the Forth and Fifth Aliayahs between 1923 and 1940

No, I don't agree that the militarisation of Israeli society stems entirely from a "fear of attack". Don't the Palestinians also fear attack? The deaths of Palestinians far outnumbers the deaths on the other side.

For your info I'm not a supporter of Likud.

I never said that you were but it is their version of Zionism which now dominates Israeli mainstream political life.

 

[nino_savatte]

Intractability equally applied to the Republicans.

I missed this. The Republicans responded to the Protestant hegemony by organising civil rights marches in the 60's. It wasn't until the very early 70's that the whole struggle became violent. But then, there always has been an organised Unionist/Loyalist paramilitary since the days of Carson.

 

[nino_savatte]

No strongly disagree with you there. You can have an ethnically homogenous state that doesn't have ethnic superiority. The two don't have to go hand in hand.

Well, I didn't expect you to agree with me and I suspect that this disagreement stems from your new cultural attachment. However, the sad truth is that the Israeli state sees itself as ethnically superior to its Palestinian neighbours. In this regard the BJP and Likud/Kadimah/the other religious-nationalist zealots are similar. That is the nature of nationalism; it demands that one ethnic group is superior to all others.

 

[JoePolitix]

Well, I didn't expect you to agree with me and I suspect that this disagreement stems from your new cultural attachment. However, the sad truth is that the Israeli state sees itself as ethnically superior to its Palestinian neighbours.

Probably not unconected to the fact that the Palestinian neigbours used to live in "Israel" before they were expelled en masse.

 

[nino_savatte]

Probably not unconected to the fact that the Palestinian neigbours used to live in "Israel" before they were expelled en masse.

Justement.

 

[moono]

keyboardJockey;

The fact that you have an inability to see the situation as it exists and to contribute in any positive way to those seeking a just settlement to both ordinary Palestinians and Israelis seems to indicate that you should be kept away from anything important and maybe shouldn't be allowed out on your own.

Well, somebody has to save the world from Zionists in Dumpty's clothing.

Take a look at yourself;

Democracy in the arab world - an oxymoron if ever I saw one.

I can see problems with the way the State of Israel relates to its neighbours

At best you're a well-meaning social Zionist twat who wants to do the 'right' thing by everybody, except when it comes to actually respecting international law .

Your ploy, because a ploy is what it is, is to attempt to normalise Zionist atrocity and banditry by false comparisons with other conflicts and a transparently false insistence that the 'other side' is in some way equally guilty . They are not equally guilty. They have been terribly wronged by a fascist regime. This is demonstrable , not simply an opinion. The Palestinian 'guilt, on the other hand is in refusing to die and be forgotten after six decades of torment.

You can snivel about a bomb here, a bomb there, the occasional murder of a settler or a Qassam claiming a victim but these are nothing compared to Zionist atrocity, atrocity condemned by the international community time after time without effective solution. This is the reality that self-appointed 'reasonable' Zionists, such as yourself, ignore in the hope that nobody will notice .

A little 'anti-semite' slur here, another there, all in the best possible taste, of course, and you hope to present the filthy Israeli occupation as something acceptable and soluble by discussion.
Fuck you, Jockey. You're sussed. You don't have an argument other than 'Israel exists and there's nothing anybody can do about it'.

In fact, your phoney comparisons are worse than that suggested by the jerk in the OP.

 

[ymu]

You can have an ethnically homogenous state that doesn't have ethnic superiority. The two don't have to go hand in hand.

They don't have to, for sure. Perhaps also worth noting that they often do, but no, you have a point, they don't have to.

Palestine was around 85% non-Jewish before partition. The area granted a Jewish mandate started off with a population that was far less than 50% Jewish. The area eventually occupied by Israel had an overwhelming Arab majority prior to 1947/8.

Nowadays the population of Israel is just over 70% Jewish (the lowest level for decades - many young Jewish Israelis are leaving and a large proportion of the population are temporary immigrant labour). Not counting the Palestinian diaspora, there are approximately equal numbers of Jews and non-Jews living in historic Palestine. Including the diaspora it's about 2:1.

It should be somewhat obvious that you can't achieve these sorts of population shifts without genocide (or, if you prefer the politer term, "ethnic cleansing"). Those Zionists who would have settled for a binational state as the Homeland for the Jews lost out to those who declared that the Jewish state must be at least 80% Jewish. If you have a state which explicitly sets these sorts of population targets despite their being very different from the indigenous makeup of the population and uses discriminatory laws, housing, education, taxation and income redistribution - and of course violence - to achieve and maintain them, you cannot in any way claim that it is not discriminatory.



Your position in this thread appears to be sincere, but it's desperately naive. The French Resistance committed some terrible atrocities and were undoubtedly terrorists - as did and were the ANC - but to equate their actions with those of Nazi Germany or the Apartheid regime is completely ludicrous. It is nowhere near a neutral position and it's very disingenuous to claim that it is.

There's a good article from Counterpunch on this: http://www.counterpunch.org/christison07102004.html

Neutrality in any conflict in which there is a gross imbalance of power is probably an impossibility and certainly immoral. Treading a middle path between one utterly powerless party and another party with total power, effectively removes all restraints on behavior by the powerful party. Yet this is the posture of those American peace groups that put themselves forward as advocates for Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation. They take no position between the Palestinians and Israel, but only promote peace plans such as the unofficial Geneva Accord. without also taking action or even speaking out forcefully against Israel's occupation. The consequence is that these groups have given Israel the time and the license to devastate the land, begin its ethnic cleansing, and destroy any prospect for Palestinian independence. Their refusal to take a clear stand against Israel's oppressive policies is a statement that might makes right, that oppressive policies are acceptable, and most particularly that justice for Palestinians is less important than power for Israel.

But when in history have decent people seriously accepted balance and neutrality as a proper response in moral conflicts or national conflicts that pit one very powerful party against a powerless party?

Consider this analogy: a group of well-meaning activists in late 1850s America hope to bring an end to the horrors of slavery without war. They propose that the two sides strive for reconciliation, that slaves sit down at the negotiating table with slave owners and attempt to work out their differences through negotiation. The activists believe that the institution of slavery is oppressive, a violation of human rights, and that it must end, but they also recognize the property rights of owners to their slaves, as well as the owners' right to their lives and their livelihoods * their right to exist and not be murdered in a slave uprising. The activists propose a middle way between the two sides, recognizing that both are responsible for the conflict (slaves have shown a propensity to rebel, causing the slave owners to tighten their oppressive grip) but believing that both slaves and owners have a right to free, peaceful, and secure lives and that the only way to achieve this is to avoid blaming either side.

 

[Yossarian]

To deny that the invader and occupier is the guilty party is the mouthings of a moron, or a Zionist sympathiser, perhaps both. No way is it anywhere close to an armature for the construction of a just solution.

You’re just a hysterical twat who thinks everybody who disagrees with you is a Zionist, and I’m starting to suspect you’re about 13 years old.

 

[moono]

You're typical of the Zionist hand-job club that has no argument other than 'possession rules'. You can't stand on law so you wheedle and fume. Fuckwit.

 

[derf]

You're typical of the Zionist hand-job club that has no argument other than 'possession rules'. You can't stand on law so you wheedle and fume. Fuckwit.

I'm working on the assumption that moono is some sort of nut job.
Now what is it called when you think the whole world is out to get you.

Bet moono's shrink knows only too well.

Or is he out to get you as well moono?

 

[moono]

It's the Zionist position that they are ' victimized', fool. This might stem from a succession of UN condemnations of their actions. And a succession of human rights groups' condemnation of their actions.

I'm sure you're aware of this already though. You've got the smirk.

IDF conducts repeated takeover drills in Palestinian villages

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/838630.html