Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is. All Zionism says is Jews have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It's a central tenet of Judaism.

Anti-Zionism says they have no right to self-defense and denies the historical connection to Israel.

So when people say I'm not against Judaism, just Zionism...they make no sense. Zionism and Judaism are inseparable.

I agree. And I will add that you can be a Zionist and against Netanyahu and settlements. That’s probably the most common position in the US, and many Israelis think the same.

But if Netanyahu is the current Prime Minister of Israel and you are against him and the settlements, how are you not against Israel? Because the current policies of the state of Israel are - unfortunately - that (a) settlements are okay and (b) continuing to kill (and harm and starve) women and children in Gaza is also okay.

BTW, I am Jewish and I am not a Zionist. I believe in theory in the right of a Jewish homeland...but in practice this displaced/displaces others and that is in contraction to my personal faith of being a decent person.

Same way I hated Trump but was not against the US existing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is. All Zionism says is Jews have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It's a central tenet of Judaism.

Anti-Zionism says they have no right to self-defense and denies the historical connection to Israel.

So when people say I'm not against Judaism, just Zionism...they make no sense. Zionism and Judaism are inseparable.

I agree. And I will add that you can be a Zionist and against Netanyahu and settlements. That’s probably the most common position in the US, and many Israelis think the same.

But if Netanyahu is the current Prime Minister of Israel and you are against him and the settlements, how are you not against Israel? Because the current policies of the state of Israel are - unfortunately - that (a) settlements are okay and (b) continuing to kill (and harm and starve) women and children in Gaza is also okay.

BTW, I am Jewish and I am not a Zionist. I believe in theory in the right of a Jewish homeland...but in practice this displaced/displaces others and that is in contraction to my personal faith of being a decent person.

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is. All Zionism says is Jews have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It's a central tenet of Judaism.

Anti-Zionism says they have no right to self-defense and denies the historical connection to Israel.

So when people say I'm not against Judaism, just Zionism...they make no sense. Zionism and Judaism are inseparable.

Why does it matter that it is a central tenet of Judaism? I mean if Muslims did something because it was a central tenet of Islam, would you be just as understanding?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reply to the poster who said Zionism as expressed originally is an ideology that says 1) Jews are a nation; 2) Jews cannot integrate, whether for their own reasons or widespread anti-semitism, into other societies; 3) therefore a homeland is necessary; and 4) all Jews should emigrate to that homeland. Certainly, assimilation helps Jews avoid antisemitism for a while, but eventually not so much. And Zionism does not require moving to the homeland. Zionism does require supporting the existence of that homeland so it'll be there when push comes to shove, as it inevitably does.

Fair point on emmigration. I just don't see anything unique about Judaism or anti-Semitism that makes integration impossible and discrimination inevitable. But, I'm an American and that's a very American mentality.

The Babylonians, Romans, Persians and Russians exiled lots of different people throughout history. Genocide has also sadly happened on more than one occassion. Heck, it wasn't even new for the Germans who did it to the Herero first.

For whatever reason, Jews keep getting persecuted everywhere they go. We even created a few words for it: Holocaust, pogrom, and antisemitism. We can speculate on why it keeps happening, but Jews have a long history of it. The desire to have their own land where Jews are in control is not a surprise.

Do you understand the problem with applying this mindset to a land where another people currently happens to live?

What are you planning to do with the natives to put and keep Jews in control?

What HAVE you done with the natives?

Israel has successfully promulgated a series of myths to explain why there are now Jews where there used to be Arabs. Including:

- they attacked us so we had to expel them

- they fled at their leaders' request to come back after the Arab victory but we won so they never came back

- little brave Israel fought and won the unwashed hateful Arab hordes so here we are.

All of this mythmaking was necessary to cover the ugly truth. Israel's downfall is that it was formed in the time where it was no longer acceptable to voice it. Here is the truth: a Jewish state must have a Jewish majority and a Jewish rule. We had to create both in a place that didn't have it originally. It doesn't matter how we created it. What matters is that it had to be created, and it was. The end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

It was answered here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1208658.page#27623410

I agree with that post. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks to freedom, not control. In contrast, the Likud charter says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Netanyahu recently reiterated this statement. Whereas Palestinians want "freedom", Netanyahu and his ruling party want "sovereignty". The Palestinian slogan doesn't describe the auspices under which they will have freedom, but just the desire for freedom.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is. All Zionism says is Jews have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It's a central tenet of Judaism.

Anti-Zionism says they have no right to self-defense and denies the historical connection to Israel.

So when people say I'm not against Judaism, just Zionism...they make no sense. Zionism and Judaism are inseparable.

I agree. And I will add that you can be a Zionist and against Netanyahu and settlements. That’s probably the most common position in the US, and many Israelis think the same.

agreed- a government exists with the consent of the governed and this is more like a civil war, hence the Nakba and ongoing ethnic cleansing of those who dont consent to the Israeli government. the truth is that as a western liberal democracy we should be encouraging the end of this civil war, the entire area that was mandatory Palestine should be one country and everyone in it should have equal rights to vote, sell/purchase property, education, etc etc regardless of their ethnicity, religion, race or sexual identity. If that means that jewish/muslim fundamentalists won't get their own state well ... why are we propping religious fundies still? that was our/USA's MO in the 20th century but we should've learned our lesson by now.

Religious crazies anywhere of any stripe shouldn't be getting US tax payer funding. Even if we stick to a 2 state solution- why should we be spending tax money setting up a religious fundamentalist (Hamas) influenced state when the majority of Palestinians were never that religious? We keep supporting the Saudi/wahabi axis b.c we've decided the Shiite Iranis are the worst but in many ways they arent. Im from a sunni background and its alarming how less tolerant the Muslim world has grown bc the Americans kept sending money to the right wing/military wings b.c they were so against the socialist/athiest/secularist (read commie) forces.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reply to the poster who said Zionism as expressed originally is an ideology that says 1) Jews are a nation; 2) Jews cannot integrate, whether for their own reasons or widespread anti-semitism, into other societies; 3) therefore a homeland is necessary; and 4) all Jews should emigrate to that homeland. Certainly, assimilation helps Jews avoid antisemitism for a while, but eventually not so much. And Zionism does not require moving to the homeland. Zionism does require supporting the existence of that homeland so it'll be there when push comes to shove, as it inevitably does.

Fair point on emmigration. I just don't see anything unique about Judaism or anti-Semitism that makes integration impossible and discrimination inevitable. But, I'm an American and that's a very American mentality.

The Babylonians, Romans, Persians and Russians exiled lots of different people throughout history. Genocide has also sadly happened on more than one occassion. Heck, it wasn't even new for the Germans who did it to the Herero first.

For whatever reason, Jews keep getting persecuted everywhere they go. We even created a few words for it: Holocaust, pogrom, and antisemitism. We can speculate on why it keeps happening, but Jews have a long history of it. The desire to have their own land where Jews are in control is not a surprise.

Anonymous wrote:In reply to the poster who said Zionism as expressed originally is an ideology that says 1) Jews are a nation; 2) Jews cannot integrate, whether for their own reasons or widespread anti-semitism, into other societies; 3) therefore a homeland is necessary; and 4) all Jews should emigrate to that homeland. Certainly, assimilation helps Jews avoid antisemitism for a while, but eventually not so much. And Zionism does not require moving to the homeland. Zionism does require supporting the existence of that homeland so it'll be there when push comes to shove, as it inevitably does.

Fair point on emmigration. I just don't see anything unique about Judaism or anti-Semitism that makes integration impossible and discrimination inevitable. But, I'm an American and that's a very American mentality.

The Babylonians, Romans, Persians and Russians exiled lots of different people throughout history. Genocide has also sadly happened on more than one occassion. Heck, it wasn't even new for the Germans who did it to the Herero first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Antisemitism centers around 3 Ds. Demonization:
When Israel and its leaders are made to seem
completely evil; when Israel’s actions are blown
out of all sensible proportion; when Israel and
Israelis are equated with Nazi Germany and Nazis;
when Israel is seen as the sole cause for the
situation in the Middle East—this is considered
antisemitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
Double Standards: When criticism of Israel is applied selectively and
in a grossly unfair manner and Israel is singled
out when clearly immoral behavior of other
nation-states is ignored—for example, when Israel
is criticized by the United Nations for human rights
abuses while the behavior of known and major
abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is
ignored—this is considered antisemitism. Delegitimization:
When Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied
alone among all peoples of the world—this too is
considered antisemitism.

I don’t understand the fundamentality of Israel’s right to exist. Dozens of ethnic groups worldwide are striving for a state of their own. Some get it, some don’t. What makes the Jewish aspirations for a state of their own qualitatively different from, say, Kurds or Palestinians? Why is theirs fundamental and other people’s conditional?

There are 25+ Muslim states in the world, a bunch of Christian ones. There can't be ONE Jewish one?

Again - fundamental? What makes it fundamental?

As opposed to which country? Which do you think don't have/have a fundamental right to exist?

Personally I don’t think any country has the fundamental right to exist. A state and a government exist with the consent of the governed (those within their borders). That consent is gained through a mixture of carrots and sticks to the population. In some cases, consent is gained through democracy and voting. In some cases, authoritarian forces force adherence to a government until the stricture becomes unstable (like the French Revolution). In some cases, there are external forces that try to destabilize a country. But no government has a right to exist if it can’t handle the stresses that exist in the country.

My argument with modern Zionism i that it seeks to establish an *exclusively* Jewish state at the expense of all others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Antisemitism centers around 3 Ds. Demonization:
When Israel and its leaders are made to seem
completely evil; when Israel’s actions are blown
out of all sensible proportion; when Israel and
Israelis are equated with Nazi Germany and Nazis;
when Israel is seen as the sole cause for the
situation in the Middle East—this is considered
antisemitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
Double Standards: When criticism of Israel is applied selectively and
in a grossly unfair manner and Israel is singled
out when clearly immoral behavior of other
nation-states is ignored—for example, when Israel
is criticized by the United Nations for human rights
abuses while the behavior of known and major
abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is
ignored—this is considered antisemitism. Delegitimization:
When Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied
alone among all peoples of the world—this too is
considered antisemitism.

I don’t understand the fundamentality of Israel’s right to exist. Dozens of ethnic groups worldwide are striving for a state of their own. Some get it, some don’t. What makes the Jewish aspirations for a state of their own qualitatively different from, say, Kurds or Palestinians? Why is theirs fundamental and other people’s conditional?

There are 25+ Muslim states in the world, a bunch of Christian ones. There can't be ONE Jewish one?

Again - fundamental? What makes it fundamental?

As opposed to which country? Which do you think don't have/have a fundamental right to exist?

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

Read about Herzl yourself. Nothing I said was either controversial or in dispute.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

Don’t attack people. They won’t have to retaliate. Don’t elect terrorists - that never ends well.

1. Irgun, Stern Gang, Lehi, etc.

2. David Ben-Gurion, Gold Meir, etc.

The End.