Israel to declare Gaza 'hostile'

[Wookster]

It's those that don't take care to explain the specifics of the comparison that are "well sad". There may be an easily understood underlying point, but casually referring to Zionists as Nazis just makes you look like a teenage moron who heard it somewhere and thought it sounded well radical.

Where have I equated Zionists and Nazis? I have said they they have similar aims, but different methods. If I said that all Zionists and all Nazis needed food and water would I be equating them as well?

It's also doing absolutely nothing positive for the Palestinian cause. They do not need their de facto supporters in the West getting themselves dismissed as extremist nutters or validating any of the usual avalanche of charges of anti-semitism from Israel. And at a point when millions of moderate Zionists are becoming more willing to listen to criticism, it's fucking stupid to be making lazy offensive comparisons like this. Palestinians understand the Israeli condition very well; many are astonishingly sympathetic and are critical of these sorts of offensive comments.

Its neither lazy and its only offensive to apologists of Israel. Neither is it anti semitic to draw comparisons between Israeli & Nazi objectives. Zionists are not moderate. Zionists seek to establish a Jewish state in all land west of the Jordan river. By its very definition, a jewish state is one where jews remain in the majority and therefore decisions have to be made solely on demographics. In any other nation this would be called pure racism. Why do you think Israel's case is any different?
Do you draw a distinction between a Jew and a Zionist?

It's particularly ludicrous to appear to claim that a Final Solution is being carried out when it clearly isn't. Better to point out that there is political support in the Knesset for such a Solution (yes, they call it that) and that Palestinians endure a living death under occupation whilst their land slowly dissolves into Israel.

Israel is clearly wanting to absorb as much land as possible, without absorbing the ethnic undesireables on that land. Denial of the refugees right of return is a continuing form of ethnic cleansing.

 

[ymu]

I wasn't criticising anything you said. I was explaining the general point.

 

[ymu]

Do you draw a distinction between a Jew and a Zionist?

Well duh! About half of all Jews are anti-Zionist or a-Zionist these days, and the vast majority of all Jews were passionately anti-Zionist pre-1930 for both political and religious reasons. You'd have to be one ignorant fucker or an agent of the Israeli state to claim that they were synonyms.


E2A: I do like to draw a distinction between different sorts of Zionists though. There are people who call themselves Zionists who take a more extreme position than other people who call themselves anti-Zionist. It's not a well defined term because it can simply mean the belief that Jews should have a homeland (no Jewish majority required) right through to a fullscale 100% Jewish colonolisation of ME lands well beyond the current borders of Israel/Palestine. It's perfectly possible to be a Zionist one-stater or an anti-Zionist two-stater for example. People attach different meanings to the word, so it helps to be clear what you mean.

 

[Wookster]

You'd have to be one ignorant fucker or an agent of the Israeli state to claim that they were synonyms.

Agree, though you seem to accept there is such a thing as a moderate Zionist. I think by its very definition, a zionist is an ethnic nationalist - certainly not moderate by any stretch.

 

[ymu]

Agree, though you seem to accept there is such a thing as a moderate Zionist. I think by its very definition, a zionist is an ethnic nationalist - certainly not moderate by any stretch.

Hot topic.

Zionism is all things to all people. To some, it is the noblest of causes. To others, it is a curse.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary offers a tersely neutral definition: "A movement for [originally] the reestablishment of a Jewish nationhood in Palestine, and [since 1948] the development of the State of Israel."

Even after the bloody birth of the state of Israel in 1948, Zionism has continued to elude an exact definition. As the Political Dictionary puts it: "Since 1948 Zionism has been broadened to imply the identification of world Jewry with Israel ... Zionism has also given financial, political and moral support to the Jewish state."

To blur matters still further, there have always been Jews who are not Zionist. Many orthodox religious Jews, even in Israel, believe that the creation by man of a Jewish state is an implicit usurpation of God's role. And there are many liberal Jews, both in Israel and the diaspora, who are distinctly queasy about the 1967 conquest and subsequent occupation and colonisation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and who dislike the equation of Zionism with Israeli expansionism.

Anti-Zionism is also an ambiguous term, and of course depends on which view of Zionism is being opposed.

 

[Wookster]

I don't see what your point is - do you think that a Zionist could support a secular state with a significant non Jewish population?

And there are many liberal Jews, both in Israel and the diaspora, who are distinctly queasy about the 1967 conquest and subsequent occupation and colonisation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and who dislike the equation of Zionism with Israeli expansionism.

I would certainly argue with the notion that Israel is a liberal state. In the elections before those that brought "Kadima" to power ~35% of the electorate voted for Likud (which is a fairly right wing party, opposed to the establishment of a palestinian state west of the Jordan River), ~35% of the electorate voted for parties to the right of Likud, some of which openly favour "population transfer" and the remainder voted for parties to the left of Likud. Says a lot don't you think?

 

[ymu]

I would certainly argue with the notion that Israel is a liberal state. In the elections before those that brought "Kadima" to power ~35% of the electorate voted for Likud (which is a fairly right wing party, opposed to the establishment of a palestinian state west of the Jordan River), ~35% of the electorate voted for parties to the right of Likud, some of which openly favour "population transfer" and the remainder voted for parties to the left of Likud. Says a lot don't you think?

Yeah ... I posted that and a whole lot more from Asaf Oron earlier.

I'm just saying that there are some extremely active pro-Palestinian activists who regard as one state binational solution as strongly preferable but nevertheless feel that Jews should be allowed to regard this state as a homeland. They are entitled to self-define as Zionists and they're frankly a lot more radical than a lot of two staters who self-define as anti-Zionists. More obviously, there are big differences between standard minimal land-grab two-staters through the spectrum to the uber-colonialist types.

It is not a well-defined term and it's thus useful, at times, to use more expressive terms when you intend to refer only to the more extreme groups.
That's all. You don't need to interrogate my politics, really. I'm not on the Israeli soft-left.

 

[Wookster]

You still haven't answered - do you think that a zionist could be comfortable with Israel not being a Jewish state?

 

[ymu]

You still haven't answered - do you think that a zionist could be comfortable with Israel not being a Jewish state?

That depends entirely on how you define it. As I have already stated several times - in answer to your question - I know self-identified Zionists, who Israel considers self-hating Jews, who want a binational state with a Jewish minority. That is not a "Jewish state" as uber-Zionists define it, but it is still a state for the Jews.

The word does not mean solely what you define it to mean - no word does. If you acknowledge that others may have a different understanding of the term it can avoid long pointless arguments bickering over the words instead of the meaning. ie it promotes the novel idea of listening to what people say instead of seeing red mist because they "misuse" a term that you place far too much importance on.

Ya get mi?

 

[Wookster]

That depends entirely on how you define it. As I have already stated several times - in answer to your question - I know self-identified Zionists, who Israel considers self-hating Jews, who want a binational state with a Jewish minority. That is not a "Jewish state" as uber-Zionists define it, but it is still a state for the Jews.

I am a meat popsicle (to quote Bruce Willis from the Fifth Element)

Does that make me a meat popsicle? I doubt it.

The point is, what is generally regarded to be the meaning of the word Zionist?

 

[Spion]

I know self-identified Zionists, who Israel considers self-hating Jews, who want a binational state with a Jewish minority. That is not a "Jewish state" as uber-Zionists define it, but it is still a state for the Jews.

How is it 'a state for the jews' if it is a state that does not privilege or is not identified with one ethnicity/culture/nation over another?

To my mind the only workable mainstream definition is that a zionist is a supporter of there being a jewish state.

E2A, although there were/are also 'cultural zionists' who don't believe there needs to be a specifically jewish state in Palestine to achieve their religious/cultural duties/aims, eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Magnes

 

[Wookster]

How is it 'a state for the jews' if it is a state that does not privilege or is not identified with one ethnicity/culture/nation over another?

Or make decisions regarding its population demographics based on ethnicity?

 

[Detroit City]

As I have already stated several times - in answer to your question - I know self-identified Zionists, who Israel considers self-hating Jews, who want a binational state with a Jewish minority. That is not a "Jewish state" as uber-Zionists define it, but it is still a state for the Jews.

hard to run a "democracy" if you're in the minority, innit?

 

[ymu]

How is it 'a state for the jews' if it is a state that does not privilege or is not identified with one ethnicity/culture/nation over another?

To my mind the only workable mainstream definition is that a zionist is a supporter of there being a jewish state.

E2A, although there were/are also 'cultural zionists' who don't believe there needs to be a specifically jewish state in Palestine to achieve their religious/cultural duties/aims, eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Magnes

There are plenty of rather pleasant successful bi-national states. Canada and Belgium spring to mind. Iraq was less successful, but that was hardly their fault.

A Jewish state suggests an overwhelming Jewish demographic majority; a state (homeland) for the Jewish people (to not be persecuted as a minority in) does not.

 

[ymu]

The point is, what is generally regarded to be the meaning of the word Zionist?

Why, that depends who you're talking to young man! How about you ask them?

 

[ymu]

hard to run a "democracy" if you're in the minority, innit?

Quebec certainly has tensions with the rest of Canada, but I'm not sure they're exactly excluded from the democratic process?

Generally speaking, as long as the majority of citizens are people, it's usually possible for them to run a democratic system. If too many are pineapples, it obviously causes problems because they don't vote and are a bit tricky to handle. But people are usually quite up to the job. As long as the idiot nationalists fuck off.

 

[Spion]

A Jewish state suggests an overwhelming Jewish demographic majority;

A jewish state to me suggests nothing necessarily about the demographics, but that the state has policies that favour the interests of a particular national group. There is no doubt in my mind that apartheid SA was a white state but it was not majority white

a state (homeland) for the Jewish people (to not be persecuted as a minority in) does not.

Y'see I don't think a homeland is necessarily a state. As you say, a people could consider a state as a homeland but they could easily share that with others so the state (ie, the armed forces, the public sector) wouldn't have a specific national character to it

 

[Detroit City]

Quebec certainly has tensions with the rest of Canada, but I'm not sure they're exactly excluded from the democratic process?

comparing the mideast situation to the mid-east situation is a waste of time....

Generally speaking, as long as the majority of citizens are people, it's usually possible for them to run a democratic system. If too many are pineapples, it obviously causes problems because they don't vote and are a bit tricky to handle. But people are usually quite up to the job. As long as the idiot nationalists fuck off.

I don't agree at all....the most stable nation-states tend to be the most homogenous ones. At least from what I can see, although i'm sure there are some exceptions.

 

[goldenecitrone]

There are plenty of rather pleasant successful bi-national states. Canada and Belgium spring to mind. Iraq was less successful, but that was hardly their fault.

The same Belgium that's about to split into two countries?

 

[ymu]

A jewish state to me suggests nothing necessarily about the demographics, but that the state has policies that favour the interests of a particular national group. There is no doubt in my mind that apartheid SA was a white state but it was not majority white


Y'see I don't think a homeland is necessarily a state. As you say, a people could consider a state as a homeland but they could easily share that with others so the state wouldn't have a specific national character to it

Well exactly. Semantics innit. Just like making comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, it's best to make your meaning clear.

Traditionally Zionism has been seen as requiring a Jewish demographic majority, historically targeted at 85%. There was near demographic panic at the last census ~5 years ago because it was down to just over 70% when everyone assumed it would be hovering around 80%.

There are shedloads of different groups calling themselves different things, and now post-Zionism to boot. Without getting stupidly wordy about it o) it's not a bad thing to make your meaning clear when it may be ambiguous.

It's no different to avoiding the standard jargon of one vs two states when talking to moderate Israelis - not because they wouldn't be open to the idea of a one state solution but because "one state" automatically means "Israeli Jews only" or ""Palestinian Arabs only" in the Israeli discourse, so you get off to a bad start by accident.

 

[Detroit City]

Traditionally Zionism has been seen as requiring a Jewish demographic majority, historically targeted at 85%. There was near demographic panic at the last census ~5 years ago because it was down to just over 70% when everyone assumed it would be hovering around 80%.

many nation-states were formed because they wanted like-minded individuals to run them and live in them...

 

[ymu]

many nation-states were formed because they wanted like-minded individuals to run them and live in them...

I'm pretty sure they resulted from the break up of the old empires last century.

But yes, the theory behind the more aggro forms of Zionism was that Jews could only find freedom from persecution in a state where they formed an overwhelming demographic majority. AFAIK Herzl was the first (or best known) to propose this in his search for an end to the persection of Jews in Europe. One of his earlier ideas was mass conversion to Christianity; he was kind of throwing the net pretty wide ...

 

[Spion]

Well exactly. Semantics innit. Just like making comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, it's best to make your meaning clear.

Traditionally Zionism has been seen as requiring a Jewish demographic majority, historically targeted at 85%. There was near demographic panic at the last census ~5 years ago because it was down to just over 70% when everyone assumed it would be hovering around 80%.

There are shedloads of different groups calling themselves different things, and now post-Zionism to boot. Without getting stupidly wordy about it () it's not a bad thing to make your meaning clear when it may be ambiguous.

It's no different to avoiding the standard jargon of one vs two states when talking to moderate Israelis - not because they wouldn't be open to the idea of a one state solution but because "one state" automatically means "Israeli Jews only" or ""Palestinian Arabs only" in the Israeli discourse, so you get off to a bad start by accident.

Err, you've lost me a bit. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say

I know that a Jewish majority is seen as necessary for Israel to survive, but I don't agree that demographics defines the state - the policies of the state do that in terms of laws that favour one group against others, such as the law of return, the laws on land ownership etc in Israel.

I think what we may possibly disagree about what defines 'a state' (and am aware we may be going off topic somewhat )

 

[Wookster]

Traditionally Zionism has been seen as requiring a Jewish demographic majority, historically targeted at 85%.

So why were we arguing about the meaning of the term Zionism earlier? You knew that I was correct.

Backtracking to your comparison of Canada with Israel/ Palestine - it is totally irrelevant. Canada is a western democracy, with no need to maintain a certain population demographic where as Israel is a Jewish state which aims to maintain its status as a Jewish state.

 

[ymu]

Err, you've lost me a bit. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say

All I'm trying to say is that Canada and Belgium seem like perfectly reasonable binational states to me. There is no need to think about the dominance of one ethnic group over another.

It's not necessary to label people by their ethnic group as if it defines their beliefs/desires, and it's unhelpful to use Zionism as a swearword if you're trying to communicate with people who have a very different image of what it is.

And I have no idea why it took so long to say it! Sorry.

 

[Detroit City]

Backtracking to your comparison of Canada with Israel/ Palestine - it is totally irrelevant. Canada is a western democracy, with no need to maintain a certain population demographic where as Israel is a Jewish state which aims to maintain its status as a Jewish state.

thats what i thought too...

 

[ymu]

So why were we arguing about the meaning of the term Zionism earlier? You knew that I was correct.

Backtracking to your comparison of Canada with Israel/ Palestine - it is totally irrelevant. Canada is a western democracy, with no need to maintain a certain population demographic where as Israel is a Jewish state which aims to maintain its status as a Jewish state.

OK. I don't need to be "correct", I was just trying to get a point across which you are not interested in. That's fine.

 

[ymu]

thats what i thought too...

I'm in favour of a one-state solution, which means either ethnic cleansing or some kind of binational solution. I favour the latter. It can't be that tough to comprehend, surely?

http://www.one-democratic-state.org/articles/index.html

 

[Detroit City]

I'm in favour of a one-state solution, which means either ethnic cleansing or some kind of binational solution. I favour the latter.

it won't work in this situation, there's too much bad blood...

 

[Wookster]

All I'm trying to say is that Canada and Belgium seem like perfectly reasonable binational states to me. There is no need to think about the dominance of one ethnic group over another.

Thats because Canada and Belguim are democracies where the rights of all individuals are equal. Israel is a Jewish state, therefore it preserves its status as such and Jews enjoy benefits that others (non Jews) do not.

It's not necessary to label people by their ethnic group as if it defines their beliefs/desires, and it's unhelpful to use Zionism as a swearword if you're trying to communicate with people who have a very different image of what it is.

and

Traditionally Zionism has been seen as requiring a Jewish demographic majority, historically targeted at 85%.

Isn't there a contradiction here? First you say Zionism is grey, murky and undefined, then you give a traditional definition. Which is it?

If you do accept that Zionism is about requiring a Jewish demographic majority (or preserving Israel as a Jewish state) then dam right it is a swear word. Its rascist and ethnically nationalist. The concept is offensive to me.