[TheHansa]

Actually, what's with this and the whole the Jews cause immigration thing?

[prog2djent]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Actually, what's with this and the whole the Jews cause immigration thing?

Something to do with that jibberish white power nationalists accross europe call cultural marxism, that after the jews created communism, and the most advanced western nations would have revolutions, and that failed, they created the neo-marxist fankfurt ideology that instead of revolution, as marx prediceted, western capitalism needed to be taken down by crumbling the pillars of western liberal society and patriotism.

Edit: Mass immigration from Muslim countries (the jews greatest enemies) is a part of this.

Edit 2: NOT MY THOUGHTS!!!

[bob12321]

This could go on for ages (the debate i mean)

So instead i invite you to read the works of Norman Finklestein

...That is all...

[TheGrinningSkull]

(Original post by prog2djent)
You expect me to take all this is in? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...inian_conflict

Hardly anyone can give precise and objective information about who precisely started the war (like I said, it was pre-20th century) and what happened when and where etc etc without putting personal spins on it.

YOu said the Arabs accepted it, back that claim up.

[abdiz12]

(Original post by prog2djent)
You expect me to take all this is in? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...inian_conflict

Hardly anyone can geive precide information about who precisely started the war (like I said, it was pre-20th century) and what happened when and where etc etc without putting personal spins on it.

How was all this the fault of the mother watching her child starve to death (remember the Gaza flotilla raid). Always trying to find a scapegoat for these murderer. Why the Zionists get away with this is because of individuals like you, on your knees sucking every inch of it.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by TheGrinningSkull)
YOu said the Arabs accepted it, back that claim up.

I can't and I don't know, its just a vague memory from watching documentaries or reading into it slightly.

Sketchy is the key word.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by abdiz12)
How was all this the fault of the mother watching her child starve to death (remember the Gaza flotilla raid).
Always trying to find a scapegoat for these murderer.
Why the Zionists get away with this is because of individuals like you, on your knees sucking every inch of it.

1. Is this in reference to a possible cause to the war or is it an event to the GT raid? (when I said that personal opinions skew objective information, I think you may be representing that, i.e, Palestine can never do anything good, ignore the horrendous social situation in palestine, focus on Israel etc etc)
2. Who? What? Me? Someone else?
3. Erm how? I don't defend zionism and I don't support it, much like arab nationalism or islamism. Israel's foreign policy is terrible, but their social situation is among the best in the world, Palestine is vice versa.

[Maxima]

A great series I saw was Ross Kemp in the Middle East. 2 episodes to watch, one in Israel and the next in Palestine. It outlines everything that goes on, the outrageousness of the Israeli government and how they keep claiming more and more land and how the Palestinians have turned to an extremist group (Hamas) to try and solve their problems, which is the complete wrong way of going about it, but in times of desperate need people turn to extremism.

The situation has got too out of hand for much to be done about it. I actually firmly believe that the next major war will be caused due to something happening regarding Israel/Palestine

[anarchism101]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Its a question palestinianphiles can never answer, what else was supposed to be done about all the displaced, and in danger Jews?

What should have been done was what most of the Jewish refugees actually wanted, which was not to go anywhere near the Middle East. Most of them wanted to either go back to their homes, or to immigrate west, usually to North America. But the Zionists that ran the refugee camps and had a lot of influence with the Allies (for example, most American Jewish pressure groups were anti-Zionist and wanted US borders opened to Jewish refugees. But the rich and powerful among the American Jewish community, who had the ear of the government were largely Zionists, and so American immigration restrictions were tightened to force Jews to move to Palestine), often coerced and blackmailed them into moving to Palestine, where they would be, in the Israeli government's words, 'good human material' - in other words, they'd be conscripted into the IDF to be cannon fodder in the war that the Zionist leaders knew they would have to fight to establish Israel.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by anarchism101)
1. But the Zionists that ran the refugee camps and had a lot of influence with the Allies.
2. But the rich and powerful among the American Jewish community, who had the ear of the government were largely Zionists,
3. in the Israeli government's words, 'good human material' - in other words, they'd be conscripted into the IDF to be cannon fodder in the war that the Zionist leaders knew they would have to fight to establish Israel.

1. How did they get to that position.
2. But why were they just zionists?
3. Is this for religious regions? economic? political?

I often find that a lot of zionists seem to be at oposing ends of the scale, rich men who are only Jewish by name, aren't praticising, and are doners and lobbyist to the US government and Dem/Rep parties, or just wealthy businessmen known to support Israel, and then, of course, there are plenty of videos' showing insanse zionist Rabbi's saying everyone should die but themselves. I think some conservative/othodox Jews in israel seem to be like this also, which implies zionism can be both religious based and economic?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by prog2djent)
1. How did they get to that position.
2. But why were they just zionists?

In short, because they were rich and because they would benefit from American intervention in the region for several reasons. Apart from the obvious oil, there's the benefit from the US being so militaristic, the benefit US power in the region has to American brands and American financial institutions, etc.

3. Is this for religious regions? economic? political?

Don't say how this relates to the point.

I often find that a lot of zionists seem to be at oposing ends of the scale, rich men who are only Jewish by name, aren't praticising, and are doners and lobbyist to the US government and Dem/Rep parties, or just wealthy businessmen known to support Israel, and then, of course, there are plenty of videos' showing insanse zionist Rabbi's saying everyone should die but themselves. I think some conservative/othodox Jews in israel seem to be like this also, which implies zionism can be both religious based and economic?

Well, Israeli politics has a lot of odd things about it. For years, the main 'right' and 'left' parties had practically the same economic policies and only really differed on foreign or military policy. Even today they're about as distinct as Democrats and Republicans are.

One interesting anomaly about Israeli politics is that Mizrahi Jews, who tend to be poorer and more religious than Ashkenazi Jews, tend to support Likud over Labor. The reason generally given is that Labor are seen as the party of the rich and big business, but it's still an oddity, because Likud have never really been seen particularly as a party of the poor, or of Mizrahis, or of the religious.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by anarchism101)
were rich and because they would benefit from American intervention in the region for several reasons.

Don't say how this relates to the point.

Well, Israeli politics has a lot of odd things about it. For years, the main 'right' and 'left' parties had practically the same economic policies and only really differed on foreign or military policy. Even today they're about as distinct as Democrats and Republicans are.

Well, why did they have to be jewish zionists, couldn't christian/secular european rich people have had that same influence?

I'm saying that zionism seems to be economically viable to big business, so rich zionists aren't religious at all (because wealthier people/societies are more secular by nature, imo), but poor zionists, Jewish Conservatives, support zionism for religious regions, returning to the promised land, promised people blah blah all that superficial nonsense. Same with Christian zionists in the US as well, people that would have been previously isolationist and very chrisitian/conservative, like The John Birch types, are now zionists because they believe all the jews in Israel is a sign of the second coming of Jesus, revelation, therfore the rapture, apocalypse, Jesus kills all the jews (the christian zionists happy with this due to the "JOOOS KILLED JEZUZ, JOOS BAD" and all that Jazz. Or something along those lines.

[TheGrinningSkull]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I can't and I don't know, its just a vague memory from watching documentaries or reading into it slightly.

Sketchy is the key word.

Right, I think they accepted something in 1924 and even then it was iffy, but nothing about 1948 to my knowledge.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
I have little time to trawl through an extensive wall of text, especially in the TSR-style of debating where you take a line at a time and refute it, taking most of what is said out of context. I consider the claim that Ashkenazi Jews have no connection to the land of Israel as a void point. Not only does it not concern me that many of them were converts (read: not a majority - this is a myth related to the theory that Jews are the descendants of Khazars), but whether they can prove a genealogical connection to the land is pointless. The only valid comparison of the results would be the current inhabitants of the land (the Palestinians) who are the descendants of the Arab conquerors of many centuries ago. Members of the Jewish faith have a religious and historical attachment to Israel. Eretz Israel was the most logical place for a Jewish state - not Uganda or Madagascar, where Jews had no ties to. It was a shame that the land was inhabited, but at that time a sovereign Palestinian nation did not exist and the British Empire was in control of the land. It would have been national suicide for the Jews not to move there en masse and try and establish a state.

It is correct what you have said about the Jewish Khazar link, which is nothing more than a nasty anti-semitic myth, but you forget, the Palestinians too have both a religious and historic link to the land, why does the religion of Judaism take precedence over the religion of Islam? Secondly I'm not sure your claim that the Palestinians are the descendants of Arab conquerers is entirely accurate, the first time the Syrian-Palestian people were mentioned was by a Greek 2,500 years ago, this quite clearly predates settlers from the gulf of Arabia.

Anglo-Saxon Protestants have ethnic, historical and perhaps even religious ties to parts of Germany and Denmark, but they sure ain't charging back there to collonise and make war.

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
I've noticed that you are a member of the TSR Communist Society, yet although I am totally opposed to communism I am not expecting you to distance yourself from the ideology. Why? Because I realise there is a difference between the conception and the practice. The idea itself does not become tainted by whatever those professing to believe in the idea do towards others. I have already explained that Zionism as an idea did not necessitate the expulsion of the Palestinians. The only reason that the ideology seems to have brought war and death to many is because of Arab rejectionism - the rejection of a Jewish state and of a Palestinian state. If anything, it was pan-Arabism/Arab nationalism and not Zionism that caused many of the problems we see today. Zionism as a national liberation movement was not any more violent than other nationalistic movements of its time - indeed, it was probably less so. The 20,000 Palestinians who have died in the sixty-four years since Israel's founding are negligible compared to the hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans who've died in that civil war, the hundreds of thousands of political prisoners executed by Iran, the tens of thousands killed in the few years before and after Algerian independence, etc. Zionism is no more inherently violent than any other ideology. It requires a land to put it into practice and an armed force to defend it from enemies. It may, in your eyes, have been immoral for the early settlers to exterminate the Native Americans, but for those of us who usually take a 'means justify the ends' policy to statecraft it is clear that without the expulsion of the Native Americans we would not have the flourishing democracies in North America that we do today. Likewise with Palestine. When faced with a choice of seeing your own people killed or driving out another people, most would choose the latter - it fits with our ideas of identity and it avoids too much bloodshed. Sure, it may seem immoral, but it is very hard to imagine any state existing at all in the absence of such acts.

Prior to the recent world population boom it would not have been too difficult to find a piece of land on which to create a state for the Jews without causing harm to people who had already put down roots and this was the Territorialist movement which was a good thing, but Zionism treads all over the Palestinian people, we have two possible options, help the Jews, hurt the Palestinians or help the Jews without hurting the Palestinians, which one would a person who cares for the whole of humanity choose?

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
There may well be flourishing Jewish communities in the USA and elsewhere, I'm not denying that. What I would say is that liberal democracies like the USA do not require Jews to become Christians like the old European states used to do. In this sense, adhering to the idea of the state is enough, which may lead Jews to forget about the Mosaic law (as is happening in America right now - intermarriage rates are ever increasing). When the power of Christianity declined there was not a decline in anti-Jewish feeling. In many countries the end of legal inequality gave rise to social inequalities that were often much worse. Full social equality in liberal democracies required the end of primordial senses of identity - and the Jews were an example of the most insular kind of primordial people. Thus, social equality required the end of Judaism as the Jews' first sense of identity; it required us to part with our past. Now why should we, with such a heroic past behind and within us, deny or forget it? In the words of Strauss, "assimilation proved to require inner enslavement as the price of external freedom." The European Jews who came to see that assimilationism was just another threat to the Jewish people, they turned to political Zionism, which has done more to rescue Jews than the United States ever has.

and this folks is moral-particularism in its purest form

Every culture, every people has a unique past and many of these cultures are being swamped and destroyed (albeit with the consent of the people themselves) by Americas' cultural and political dominance, why should some Jews go maraudering through another's land just to preserve a cultural identity which they are afraid of losing because the rest of their people are quite happy to intergrate, when in doing so they are spitting on the cultural heritage of another people?

[thisisnew]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Secondly I'm not sure your claim that the Palestinians are the descendants of Arab conquerers is entirely accurate, the first time the Syrian-Palestian people were mentioned was by a Greek 2,500 years ago, this quite clearly predates settlers from the gulf of Arabia.

'Modern' Palestinians (the ones we identify today as being 'Palestinian' - majority being Arab-Muslims with a few Christians) are exactly that. Not sure what you're referring to by 'Syrian-Palestinian' people but niether the Assyrians or the Philistines were Arabs. The Philistines (which is where 'Palestine' comes from) were an Aegaen people from in and around the Greek Islands which is why they were known as 'Sea People' and as mentioned, the ancient Assyrians were not Arabs. If anything, historic 'Palestinians' or 'Syrian-Palestinian' people as you put it, would have been in fact Jewish. After all, Jews were worshipping in the temple whilst actual Arabs were still worshipping idols in the desert - only after the rise of Islam and the subsequent conquests did they establish a good and proper presence.

This is the reason why the Jewish-ties-to-the-land narrative holds so much weight. Arab-Muslims tried to establish Islam in place of Judaism by building a dome over the holiest site in Judaism, claiming that the al-Aqsa mosque was the farthest mosque, the fact that they pray with their backs to Jerusalem, Archaeological finds, the fact that 'Historic Palestine' stamps have Hebrew on them and the Palestinian Pound was entirely in Hebrew, the fact that Palestinian kids play football on what is meant to be one of the holiest sights in Islam and so on - I'm not complaining, this is just what used to happen but the way many Jews and Israelis see it is that the land is Jewish good and proper and that the Arab 'ties' are not genuine and only served to establish Islam in place of all else. I'm not even Jewish or Israeli but this is the way I see it.

I'm not saying Arabs and Muslims don't have a place there because the fact is they did arrive and they did establish a presence so they do have some 'right' to be there however, they don't have the right to claim the land in its entirety and deny any and all Jewish ties and presence (something which they have continously done and do to this day) - I understand that many Jews will also deny any Arab ties but this is no where near as big as a problem as it is with Arabs denying Jewish ties. In fact, denying Jewish ties is the very foundation of what it means to be a modern Palestinian, it's deeply woven into their national psyche which is why spineless Palestinian leaders are so coy and petrified about accepting the existence of Israel - at most they say to the western world, we 'recognize' Israel yet in Arabic they say all of Palestine (including Israel) must be reclaimed and that they must not concede a single inch and armed resistance is the only way etc - they'd be lynched if they sincerely admitted otherwise and this is exactly why this conflict will not end and this is exactly why whilst I don't condone Israeli settlements, I'm not exactly bothered about them either. This conflict can't be solved but it can be managed and I support anything that will strengthen the state of Israel.

[abdiz12]

(Original post by thisisnew)
'Modern' Palestinians (the ones we identify today as being 'Palestinian' - majority being Arab-Muslims with a few Christians) are exactly that. Not sure what you're referring to by 'Syrian-Palestinian' people but niether the Assyrians or the Philistines were Arabs. The Philistines (which is where 'Palestine' comes from) were an Aegaen people from in and around the Greek Islands which is why they were known as 'Sea People' and as mentioned, the ancient Assyrians were not Arabs. If anything, historic 'Palestinians' or 'Syrian-Palestinian' people as you put it, would have been in fact Jewish. After all, Jews were worshipping in the temple whilst actual Arabs were still worshipping idols in the desert - only after the rise of Islam and the subsequent conquests did they establish a good and proper presence.

This is the reason why the Jewish-ties-to-the-land narrative holds so much weight. Arab-Muslims tried to establish Islam in place of Judaism by building a dome over the holiest site in Judaism, claiming that the al-Aqsa mosque was the farthest mosque, the fact that they pray with their backs to Jerusalem, Archaeological finds, the fact that 'Historic Palestine' stamps have Hebrew on them and the Palestinian Pound was entirely in Hebrew, the fact that Palestinian kids play football on what is meant to be one of the holiest sights in Islam and so on - I'm not complaining, this is just what used to happen but the way many Jews and Israelis see it is that the land is Jewish good and proper and that the Arab 'ties' are not genuine and only served to establish Islam in place of all else. I'm not even Jewish or Israeli but this is the way I see it.

I'm not saying Arabs and Muslims don't have a place there because the fact is they did arrive and they did establish a presence so they do have some 'right' to be there however, they don't have the right to claim the land in its entirety and deny any and all Jewish ties and presence (something which they have continously done and do to this day) - I understand that many Jews will also deny any Arab ties but this is no where near as big as a problem as it is with Arabs denying Jewish ties. In fact, denying Jewish ties is the very foundation of what it means to be a modern Palestinian, it's deeply woven into their national psyche which is why spineless Palestinian leaders are so coy and petrified about accepting the existence of Israel - at most they say to the western world, we 'recognize' Israel yet in Arabic they say all of Palestine (including Israel) must be reclaimed and that they must not concede a single inch and armed resistance is the only way etc - they'd be lynched if they sincerely admitted otherwise and this is exactly why this conflict will not end and this is exactly why whilst I don't condone Israeli settlements, I'm not exactly bothered about them either. This conflict can't be solved but it can be managed and I support anything that will strengthen the state of Israel.

All Bulls**t! The Jews today aren't nearly related to the ancient Israelites. Ashkenazi Jews today are descendants of Turkic Khazars that converted to Judaism in the 8th century. Jesus was not white, then how can then can you say Ashkenazis are descendants of them. Just like the egyptians today are decsendants of ancient egyptians, but they've been arabised (Arabic became their main language). This is the same with the Palestinians today. Real Rabbis aren't zionists.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Pitt1988)
Hahaha. Yeah to be fair I had no idea who he was and didn't bother with researching it.

Although, to answer someone else's point above, I'm by no means anti-Jew, I'm not against any race, religion, colour etc. I'm just against aggressive foreign policies in general, including ours.

No, you're not anti-Jewish, you just think that Israel gets away with what they do because organised Jewry in the USA somehow controls party politics and effectively silences opposition to Israel. Tell me, why did you feel the need to mention in the same argument that a) Jews are a large voting bloc, and b) that you are against 'aggressive foreign policies'? Do you believe that Jews push for these policies (which, by the way, are aggressive only in asserting the rule of law and a distaste for dictatorships)? If you're seriously going to indulge the depraved rantings of a former KKK Grand Wizard, a Holocaust denier and a close buddy of the Iranian president then re-thinking this association of Jews with control of foreign policy would be recommended.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by ak137)
You mean the one's in europe, after WW2? They should've stayed there seeing it was Germany who started the problem and not ethnically cleanse another population. Jews didnt migrate to Palestine as immigrants, but rather as colonialist pigs - bit like the British in Palestine, Aus, America etc.

This Helen Thomas-esque answer displays exactly how little you know about the Holocaust and the attitude of Europeans towards Jews. Anyone who has done even the most elementary research knows how Jews were treated as they returned to their homes in Poland and Germany after the Nazis were defeated. Mass killings, even by law enforcement, took place long after the end of the war. Years after the war a poll was conducted of Germans to test their attitudes towards the Nazis and Hitler (at the time when many former Nazis slithered back into public life without much outcry from the German people) and found that a great deal of Germans condoned Hitler's actions.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Actually, what's with this and the whole the Jews cause immigration thing?

Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists allude some kind of link between the history of Jewish population movement (i.e. Jews moving from Israel after the Roman conquest to Russia and Europe, then to the USA - driven by persecution mostly) and Jewish support for immigration as a whole.

(Original post by TheHansa)
It is correct what you have said about the Jewish Khazar link, which is nothing more than a nasty anti-semitic myth, but you forget, the Palestinians too have both a religious and historic link to the land, why does the religion of Judaism take precedence over the religion of Islam? Secondly I'm not sure your claim that the Palestinians are the descendants of Arab conquerers is entirely accurate, the first time the Syrian-Palestian people were mentioned was by a Greek 2,500 years ago, this quite clearly predates settlers from the gulf of Arabia.

When the Syrian-Palestinians were mentioned the author was referring to the people who inhabited the part of the land that was previously known as Assyria and the parts that were settled by the Philistines, a people stemming from the islands of the Mediterranean. Around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt the Romans named the area they had conquered Syria Palaestina after the Jewish inhabitants of the land. The Palestinian people today (who are Arabs) are descended from the Arab conquerers after the advent of Islam. To put it succinctly, the modern Palestinians are named after the region they settled (not the other way about), and this region was named after the 'sea people' (the Philistines) who originally settled it before the year AD.

Anglo-Saxon Protestants have ethnic, historical and perhaps even religious ties to parts of Germany and Denmark, but they sure ain't charging back there to collonise and make war.

Do they need to? Are they being exterminated and are in need of a homeland?

Prior to the recent world population boom it would not have been too difficult to find a piece of land on which to create a state for the Jews without causing harm to people who had already put down roots and this was the Territorialist movement which was a good thing, but Zionism treads all over the Palestinian people, we have two possible options, help the Jews, hurt the Palestinians or help the Jews without hurting the Palestinians, which one would a person who cares for the whole of humanity choose?

If a Jewish state was created in Uganda or Madagascar, like the Territorialists suggested, then the argument that Jews are colonisers in an alien land would have even more credence. Jews do not have cultural, religious, spiritual, ethical or genetic links to Madagascar. I've already elaborated on why Zionism did not necessitate the expulsion of the Arab inhabitants of the land. Your analogy of 'help the Jews and hurt the Palestinians or help the Jews and not hurt the Palestinians' is therefore flawed. Jeffrey Goldberg once came up with a metaphor of what happened when the Jews tried to save themselves and ended up displacing Arabs. He implored us to think of a man leaping from a burning building (anti-Semitic and Holocaust Europe) and landing on an innocent bystander (a Palestinian), crushing him. But the metaphor is faulty, as is yours. In fact, as the leaping man nears the ground he offers the bystander a compromise - he offers to share the pavement with the man he is going to land on. The bystander refuses and tries, again and again (1920, 1921, 1929, the Arab Revolt of 1936-39 and the 1947-48 War of Independence), to kill the falling man as he falls to the pavement. So the leaping man lands on the bystander, inevitably crushing him. Later, again and again, the leaping man, now firmly ensconced on the pavement, offers the crushed bystander a compromise (autonomy in 1978, a two-state solution in 2000 and in 2008), and again and again the bystander refuses. The falling man (the Jew) may have somewhat wronged the bystander, as you say, but the bystander was never innocent. In fact, he was an active agent in and a party to his own demise.

and this folks is moral-particularism in its purest form

Every culture, every people has a unique past and many of these cultures are being swamped and destroyed (albeit with the consent of the people themselves) by Americas' cultural and political dominance, why should some Jews go maraudering through another's land just to preserve a cultural identity which they are afraid of losing because the rest of their people are quite happy to intergrate, when in doing so they are spitting on the cultural heritage of another people?

The 'destruction' of cultures across the globe by the United States' dominance is not remotely comparable to the destruction of European Jewry by centuries of religiously-motivated statesmen in Spain, Russia, imperial Germany, France, and later the secular-racists of Nazi Germany. Firstly American dominance in today's world is not imperial, it is hegemonic. The Americanisation (or Americanization) of cultures across the globe is precisely that - cultural. It is not militarily enforced, but rather stems from a recognition that the American form of government (which is based on Westminster parliamentarianism) is efficient and just, and that the free culture of America is very popular amongst developing peoples. Furthermore, the advent of the global consumer culture and the technology boom has made it possible for people to meet their needs without abandoning too much of their ancient cultural practices. But, alas, these people have lands in which to seek their self-determination. The Iranians, who some say are becoming far to Westernised, still have Iran. The state-sponsored persecution of the Jews was a reaction to the particularist moral code of the Jews, who when the outside world would refuse to let them follow this code resorted to restricting them to ghettos and repeatedly slaughtering them to keep at bay the mass populace who were overwhelmingly anti-Semitic. When the ghettos were liberated by Napoleon and Jews were free to become citizens, they were not expected to continue following their religious codes in the larger society. They were expected to abandon their 'tribal' mentalities and assimilate themselves into the larger culture. What ghetto-era Europe tried to do through pogroms and inquisitions, post-ghetto Europe attempted to do through telling Jews that they had been granted 'freedom' from their ancient faith and had better be thankful for it. Why should they have accepted this?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Well, why did they have to be jewish zionists, couldn't christian/secular european rich people have had that same influence?

I presume they did.