Zionism Terorism & Israels Roots In Terrorism

[ViolentPanda]

Does the fact that you've put Noam Chomsky in brackets at the end of your ridiculous statement make it true then?

In my opinion, any state which constitutionally elevates one cultural, ethnic, political or religious group over the rest of the population is a "racist" state, and shouldn't exist, especially when it claims to be a democracy, regardless of any other factors, and I don't only include the state of Israel on this roll of shame.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There wasn't terrorism in the middle east before Zionists used it.

So house demolitions by the mandate authorities weren't terrorism against the Palestinian people (and Palestinians suffered a massively larger burden of demolitions compared to Jewish settlers) in "the middle east"?
Palestinian assaults on Jewish kibbutz and other properties (bearing in mind the existence of a pre-Zionist and pre-Zionism Jewish minority in Palestine at least as far back as the 11th century) weren't "terrorism in the middle east"?
I can't work out whether you're attempting to make a semantic point about the word "terrorism", whether you're confused as to history or whether you believe any violent acts intended to cause fear and despair to a particular part of the population that happen to pre-date the 1940s in Palestine don't constitute "terrorism".

 

[gavman]

Does the fact that you've put Noam Chomsky in brackets at the end of your ridiculous statement make it true then?

just means he said it before me

 

[Bunjaj Pali]

just means he said it before me

Yeah but I wouldn't take anything too seriously from a man who claimed in the 1970s that the Khmer Rouge's atrocities in Cambodia had been greatly exaggerated.

 

[Bunjaj Pali]

In my opinion, any state which constitutionally elevates one cultural, ethnic, political or religious group over the rest of the population is a "racist" state, and shouldn't exist, especially when it claims to be a democracy, regardless of any other factors, and I don't only include the state of Israel on this roll of shame.

Actually I agree but I don't think comparing it to South Africa in the 1960s is useful or valid as the circumstances in the two states is/was vastly different. In Israel there are two separate issues; the Palestinians who live in Israel (patronizingly referred to as 'Israeli-Arabs' by Israelis who don't like to acknowledge the term Palestinian) who undoubtedly suffer discrimination but do have the vote, access to state services and representatives in Parliament. There was nothing like this in Apartheid South Africa. Then there is the appalling situation suffered by the Palestinians in the occupied territories which in my view is indefensible but the Israelis will claim it's nothing to do with them, blaming their conditions on Hamas or to a lesser extent Fatah (and quietly ignoring their role, alongside Egypt, in the economic strangulation of Gaza).

I also think Chomsky's a twat.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

So house demolitions by the mandate authorities weren't terrorism against the Palestinian people (and Palestinians suffered a massively larger burden of demolitions compared to Jewish settlers) in "the middle east"?
Palestinian assaults on Jewish kibbutz and other properties (bearing in mind the existence of a pre-Zionist and pre-Zionism Jewish minority in Palestine at least as far back as the 11th century) weren't "terrorism in the middle east"?
I can't work out whether you're attempting to make a semantic point about the word "terrorism", whether you're confused as to history or whether you believe any violent acts intended to cause fear and despair to a particular part of the population that happen to pre-date the 1940s in Palestine don't constitute "terrorism".

Not just any violent acts, no.

I consider terrorism to be a distinctly modern structure.

 

[gavman]

I also think Chomsky's a twat.

i'm sure that keeps him awake at night

 

[gavman]

Yeah but I wouldn't take anything too seriously from a man who claimed in the 1970s that the Khmer Rouge's atrocities in Cambodia had been greatly exaggerated.

fallibility is human

also it's pretty much guaranteed that anything that makes the left look bad will be exaggerated in the us, even when it doesn't need to be.
just like the role of the us in ww2 is exaggerated by the yanks. they were there, they helped, but they didn't 'win the war' as claimed.
that was done by the russians

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not just any violent acts, no.

I consider terrorism to be a distinctly modern structure.

While that looks like a pretty statement when on the screen, it doesn't tell us much, does it?
For example, what do you mean by "modern"? Do you mean "post-war", "post-industrialisation", or something else?
What do you mean by "structure" (given the often fragmented nature of connections between bodies/groupings that practice "terrorism"?

 

[Bunjaj Pali]

just like the role of the us in ww2 is exaggerated by the yanks. they were there, they helped, but they didn't 'win the war' as claimed. that was done by the russians

who claimed they won the war? I never heard that. I think it's fairly common knowledge that the Russians were responsible for the Allied victory.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

While that looks like a pretty statement when on the screen, it doesn't tell us much, does it?
For example, what do you mean by "modern"? Do you mean "post-war", "post-industrialisation", or something else?
What do you mean by "structure" (given the often fragmented nature of connections between bodies/groupings that practice "terrorism"?

By this I mean that, as a form of political violence, terrorism is made possible by modernity - its state, forms of identity, logic and so-on.

Terrorism corresponds to our epoch and is, more and more, structured by capital. Even the processes engaged in by operations themselves mimic aspects of capitalist production.

 

[Pickman's model]

By this I mean that, as a form of political violence, terrorism is made possible by modernity - its state, forms of identity, logic and so-on.

Terrorism corresponds to our epoch and is, more and more, structured by capital. Even the processes engaged in by operations themselves mimic aspects of capitalist production.

oi oi

what about the fucking zealots then you fucker

not part of our fucking epoch, but terrorist nonetheless

or the assassins

 

[Pickman's model]

Even the processes engaged in by operations themselves mimic aspects of capitalist production.

source/link/bin/ban etc

 

[Pickman's model]

who claimed they won the war? I never heard that. I think it's fairly common knowledge that the Russians were responsible for the Allied victory.

i thought it was fairly common knowledge it was a joint effort.

 

[Pickman's model]

I also think Chomsky's a twat.

i'm sure the feeling's mutual.

 

[ViolentPanda]

By this I mean that, as a form of political violence, terrorism is made possible by modernity - its state, forms of identity, logic and so-on.

Terrorism corresponds to our epoch and is, more and more, structured by capital. Even the processes engaged in by operations themselves mimic aspects of capitalist production.

So, would you say that terrorism, as a practice, a tactic and an ideology pre-existed Zionism?
Oh, and by Zionism, I mean Herzlite practices, not the ethereal "we will one day return to Israel, when the Messiah comes" stuff we've been burbling about for 2,000 years.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

So, would you say that terrorism, as a practice, a tactic and an ideology pre-existed Zionism?

Certainly. Many years before.

 

[TomUS]

The Irgun targeted the wing housing the Brit admin & military HQ. Terrorism is usually defined as attacks on innocent civilians. It was pretty much a legitimate target for those trying to drive out the Brits & establish their homeland.

My problem isn't so much with how Israel was created (with some exceptions), but with how it treats the Palestinians now. The Jews needed their state then & the Palestinians are long overdue for theirs now.

 

[Spion]

Terrorism is usually defined as attacks on innocent civilians. It was pretty much a legitimate target for those trying to drive out the Brits & establish their homeland.

That definition legitimates a massive chunk of what the IRA did to British targets in their campaigns and a lot of what the Iraqi and Afghan resistance have done. Not that I disagree, but I'm surprised you voice that opinion.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Certainly. Many years before.

And yet you contend that "There wasn't terrorism in the middle east before Zionists used it." which, all other things being equal, is palpably incorrect,
Zionist terror was Zionist terror, and generally on a larger, more organised scale than the scattered, piecemeal terror occasionally practiced by locals during and before the mandate, but both fit most contemporary-to-the-times and modern definitions of "terrorism".

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

What are you calling 'terror' here?

 

[kyser_soze]

I consider terrorism to be a distinctly modern structure.

Then you're an idiot

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Then you're an idiot

Oh yeah. Great argument there. 'I'm an idiot.'

You obviously have no familiarity with this topic and the arguments involved.

 

[kyser_soze]

I do as it happens. I have a long standing interest in the various ways 'terrorism' has been used by both states, armies and smaller entities such as groups of non-linear comabants, and you're talking bollocks when you say terrorism is a modern 'structure' (whatever you mean by that).

You could qualify your statement with 'post-ww2 era' terrorism, which could be argued has a different character to terrorism in previous epochs, but using terror, or more accurately using methods of coercion that as a weapon against military and civilian populations has been around since humans started fighting each other.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

It's subject to much wider debate than that.

That definition of the terrorism of yours is rather nebulous - nay, useless...

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Where would I date it back to? Just to keep it simple I'll say the late nineteenth century.

Terrorism targets civil society, relying on capitalist means of distribution in order to form part of a political strategy. Not to mention the distinctions between 'terrorist' and other violence were irrelevant before modern states.

 

[Pickman's model]

Where would I date it back to? Just to keep it simple I'll say the late nineteenth century.

Terrorism targets civil society, relying on capitalist means of distribution in order to form part of a political strategy. Not to mention the distinctions between 'terrorist' and other violence were irrelevant before modern states.

so the people described as terrorists round the time of the french revolution weren't in fact terrorists? how's that done?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The reign of terror certainly built in the possibility - but it's problematic. Let's call it 'proto-terrorism'.

 

[Pickman's model]

The reign of terror certainly built in the possibility - but it's problematic. Let's call it 'proto-terrorism'.

but they were described at the time as terrorists. are you saying that the people of the time didn't know what they were talking about?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

It was overbearingly eager of them.