Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Mar 25th, 2004, 11:04 PM       
Quote:
Zukhov: To even theorize that Yassin was a pacifist is insane.
Abcdex, get a grip. "Compared to a Tyranosaurus rex, the elephant is a mouse!" Do you get it?
Quote:
He WAS Hamas
Killing him ended Hamas. Hamas is a collection of angry youth, not old preachers.
Quote:
...and acted as a combatant...
Yeah, the PLO Wheelchair assault team.

Quote:
Obviusly . the IDF exists like all national armies, to defend it's borders, it's purpose is not to "create terrorists" or "strangle it's people".
Like all capitalist armies, the IDF acts to defend the Israeli ruling class. It does this by creating a terrorist threat to legitimise the killing of personal freedoms.
Quote:
At it's core the IDF is already a peoples army.
Just because they conscript every one they can get their hands on doesn't make it a "peoples army".
Quote:
Hamas teaches sing alongs to four year olds, who aren't old enough to even comprehend the concept of "revenge" on their own, about killing Jews. Not Israelis, Jews.
"Palestinian “leaders” may spout death to all Jews and other rubbish..." beat you to it. Try another.
Quote:
there were several Socialist Zionist parties, and some of them were actually Marxists.
Mate, if you believe that "the Socialist Revolution wasn't going to solve the needs of the Jewish Diaspora", you are no Marxist. The socialists and labour Zionist parties mirrored 'normal' Zionists, except that they used the workers movement to prevent the use of Arab labor, even for exploitation. Their objective was still usurpation.
ALOT of people have called themseves "Socialist" parties to gain favour. National Socialists anyone? PASOK in Greece? PSOE in Spain? To name some mentioned recently in headlines. Names mean nothing.
If you are going to say : "Israel and Zionism was initially founded on Socialist, and Communist principles..." Then you are going to have to show me those Socialist and Communist principles, because I still think 'the basic ideal that Zionism stemmed from was that anti-Semitism could only be eliminated by the creation of a Jewish state.' While Socialists would sympathise with the Jews at the time, I hardly see it as a "Socialist principle". Especialy when the old Zionist saying of “A land without a people for a people without a land” is so god damned ignorant.
Quote:
Most of Israel's Settlements movements grew out of the Socialist party, which also gave way to the aptly named Labor political party, where every Prime Minister up till 1977 came out of. David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Moshe Sharett, Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, Abba Eban, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak all represented the Labor party.
Labor in Britain and Labor in Australia were both founded on Socalist principles. I can accept that labour and parties in Israel sprang from Socialist principles. But I can't see the same thing in Zionism unless you show me. I am asking for specific informaton here.

The intent of Zionism was to replace the indigenous population with a new settler community, the labor and socialist Zionists embraced the same idea.

Your whole Zionism=Socialist principles idea is really pointlss to the rest of the discussion, so if no specific information pops up, I'll just leave it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 26th, 2004, 02:45 AM       
Don't lecture me on the legitemacy of Socialist Zionism when five minutes ago you had never heard of it. Right, "they're not real marxists". Do some research on how it applies to the subject "specifically" before you just debate on terminology alone. Why are you arguing a point based on your on desire to disbelieve it? Don't ask me for an education, go do the research yourself and come back when you're qualified to discuss it. Look up what Socialist principles have been integrated into Israel... or go ask some Arab Bedouin women how they were getting free medical care in 1968. I never said Zionism = Socialism, you moron, I said that amongst the many types of Zionists, there were Socialists, and that these Socialists had the biggest influence on what became Israel, and the programs in place. I know it flips your frail little world around and threatens some counterculture identity you've built up in your head, but Israel was started by a lot of lefty Jews.

Zuk - "Like all capitalist armies, the IDF acts to defend the Israeli ruling class. It does this by creating a terrorist threat to legitimise the killing of personal freedoms. "

Is that what you call defendig the farming communes under the Golan Heights that are subject to daily missile fire? I guess in your eyes every terrorist threat is just a fictional tool for oppression, and armies exist solely to clamp down on personal freedoms....that makes you sound pretty dumb.


Zuk "The intent of Zionism was to replace the indigenous population with a new settler community, the labor and socialist Zionists embraced the same idea. "

Then why didn't they pick a more denseley populated area, with more greenery, and prettier buildings?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Mar 26th, 2004, 07:40 AM       
Quote:
Don't lecture me on the legitemacy of Socialist Zionism when five minutes ago you had never heard of it.
No, five minutes ago I was saying that I didn't know how: "Zionism was initially founded on Socialist, and Communist principles..."
I still don't know, Zionism to me was initially founded on nationalistic principles, but I don't care anymore, because you are obviously not willing to explain yourself. Very Vince of you.

Also, I didn't mention the Legitamacy of 'Socialist Zionism', I was lecturing on 'Socialist Zionist' parties, the "Socialist" in their name is used for the same reason it is used in "National Socialist". (Don't even think of saying that I am calling them Nazis.)


I take it you agree with me that the main principle of Zionism is the creation of a Jewish state? You haven't said otherwise.
Quote:
Is that what you call defendig the farming communes under the Golan Heights that are subject to daily missile fire? I guess in your eyes every terrorist threat is just a fictional tool for oppression, and armies exist solely to clamp down on personal freedoms....that makes you sound pretty dumb.
I don't believe that. The army is like the police, they have other jobs.
Quote:
Don't ask me for an education, go do the research yourself...
Right, right. Sorry, you're not Lexus/Nexus.
Quote:
Look up what Socialist principles have been integrated into Israel
First of all, I am not asking about Israel, I am asking you about Zionism. Second of all, "Integrated into" is not the same same as "founded on".
Quote:
I never said Zionism = Socialism, you moron,
I never said you did, moron
Quote:
I said that amongst the many types of Zionists, there were Socialists,
You originaly said: "Israel and Zionism was initially founded on Socialist, and Communist principles..." .......................
Quote:
Right, "they're not real marxists"
Yeah, see, one condition of being a Marxist is to realise that Socialist Revolution leads to the emancipation of mankind. If you think that forcing Arabs out of Palestine does this, then you are not a Marxist. The blokes you mentioned may be some kind of utopian communists, but not Marxists.
Quote:
Then why didn't they pick a more denseley populated area, with more greenery, and prettier buildings?
Because god says that the land of Palestine was for the Jews. Because any land with pretty buildings and dense population is bound to be tougher to purge of people than the sparsely populated Palestine. "A land without a people for a people without a land" Because from the very beginning the Zionists pretended that the country was empty and waiting for the dispersed Jews to return to their ancient home. In essence this was the same attitude of all the colonialists who claimed the doctrine of "discovery" over "empty" lands. The Zionists had for the Palestinians the same solution the Europeans had for the Indians who they saw as a savage obstacle. Because while Herzl believed that the concentration of Jews into a "Jewish centre" need not necessary be Palestine, Haim Weitzman managed to secure the "Balfour Declaration" not from Kaiser Wilhelm, Sultan Abdul or the Pope, but from the British. I'm sure you know the rest.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 26th, 2004, 03:48 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Quote:
Israel and Zionism was initially founded on Socialist, and Communist principles within a Democratic context.
I don't consider Herzl or Jabotinsky to have socialist or communist principles, (these are the only guys I know) so you will have to walk me through what you mean.

If all you know of Zionism is Herzl and Jabotinsky, then you don't know much about Zionism. My statement above still stands despite your misunderstandings, and narrow minded limitations to comprehend it. It's even more ridiculous for you to attempt to claim they were just borrowing the Socialism title because it doesn't fit within your simplistic understanding of the terminology.

Ber Borochov had Marxist ideals. Po'alei-Tzion was their founding labor party and was the Zionist wing of worldwide revolutionary Marxism. David Ben Gurion even used Marxist phrasing at first, to argue that the true owners of land were the workers, and not the political or legal authority. If you can't differentiate between Hitler's youth camps, and a Kibbutz, then you're lost. Constructivism, the integration of building Socialism into institutions adopted the classic Marxist theme of a universal class. These Socialized programs continue today. If they didn't come from Socialists, then where did they come from?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 26th, 2004, 04:55 PM       
Why won't you post in my roadmap thread?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 26th, 2004, 06:54 PM       
Because I think the biggest step towards peace will come once we stop calling it a "road map".

Also, I've posted my idea of how to handle it at least twice when challenged, and it went un-noticed. Something along the lines of returning land to the last soveriegn nations to hold it before Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, because they have established treaties and non-violent mediations. Then they're not being "oppressed" by Israel anymore, and they can establish some form of trade beyond being refugees, and fighting against Jews. At that point they can apply for soveriegnty like any upstart nation, and establish a national anthem, a national food, an olympic team, whatever. Jews within these territories should be tranfered to Israel, or be given citizenship with full rights into Egypt, and eventually a Palestine if created. A little more complex then that, but it's the jist of my solution.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 26th, 2004, 10:14 PM       
This Guardian piece actually outlines a fairly solid argument in favor of Yassin's assassination. I like the idea of running out Hamas in order to empower those In Palestine who really want their own state. However, I feel it sets a dangerous precedent to say "well hey, Hamas will crumble because we have show them that top officials are fair game in this war." Hmmm, that couldn't come back to bite them in the ass, huh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...179211,00.html

Sharon sees Hamas as too weak now to threaten plan

Militants' failure to attack rapidly after death of sheikh is sign of reduced capacity, PM told

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Saturday March 27, 2004
The Guardian

Israel's intelligence and military chiefs have told Ariel Sharon that Hamas is on the retreat in the wake of the assassination of its founder and spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. They have said that the organisation no longer poses a major obstacle to the prime minister's plans to carve out a Palestinian state on his terms.
Intelligence officials have concluded that Hamas's failure to carry out its threat of bloody vengeance, nearly a week after the sheikh's assassination by a guided missile as he was wheeled from morning prayers, is evidence of its greatly reduced military capacity. They still expect an attack to come, but say Hamas is clearly having great difficulty launching it.

The thinking behind Israel's strategy, which drew international condemnation, has become clearer. Sheikh Yassin could have been killed at any time in the past three years, and the timing suggests motives beyond the prime minister's claim to have removed an arch-terrorist.

Israeli political analysts believe that the removal of such a towering figure, who was second only to Yasser Arafat in standing among Palestinians, diminishes Hamas as a political force and the prospects of it taking control of Gaza if Mr Sharon follows through on his pledge to withdraw Jewish settlers.

The decision to kill the Hamas leader appears to have been prompted by a number of considerations. With Hamas claiming that the Israelis are retreating from Gaza in defeat, Mr Sharon was determined that the pullout should not be seen as weakness under fire. He was also keen to placate the rightwing of his government, which is strongly opposed to removing the settlers from the Gaza Strip, by offering it Sheikh Yassin's head.

But there were also longer-term considerations voiced by the army chief of staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, who said that wiping out the Hamas leadership was designed to prevent the organisation seizing power in the Gaza Strip after an Israeli pullout and turning it into "Hamas-land".

Officials say that is an important part of Mr Sharon's plan for unilateral disengagement. "The government is not prepared to pull back from Gaza or parts of the West Bank and see them handed over to Hamas or any of the groups like it," said one senior official. "The plan for unilateral disengagement requires a strengthened Palestinian Authority and everything being thrown at Hamas by us is designed to help that, as well as to deal with the immediate issue of stopping terrorism."

Israel's finance minister and former prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, said the assassination might provoke a bloody response, but would bring long-term gains. "There could be harsh responses by Hamas ... in the short term. But in the long term Hamas will be constrained, because its leaders will know that they face the threat of assassination."

But some Israeli intelligence officials see it the other way around - that there are short-term gains, but the longer term may see a revival in Hamas's fortunes. The Shin Bet says that the army's unrelenting pursuit of high- and mid-level Hamas commanders has greatly weakened the organisation's ability to launch attacks. But there has never been a shortage of foot soldiers, intelligence officials say, and Sheikh Yassin's death may prompt a new flood of volunteers for suicide missions, or to join the street fighters in Gaza.

What Hamas lacks now are the expert bomb makers and planners who have been picked off in West Bank cities in the past months. The Shin Bet says that the higher proportion of attacks run jointly by Hamas and Islamic Jihad or the Al-Aqsa martyrs brigades is evidence of each organisation's diminishing capacity to launch operations on its own. However, the Israeli military says there is evidence of a new generation of Hamas bomb-makers in Nablus.

Barry Rubin, director of Jerusalem's centre for global research in international affairs, said that the loss of Sheikh Yassin was a severe blow to Hamas because he drew support from far beyond the confines of the organisation. He said the blow to Hamas was compounded by the choice of Abdel-Aziz-al-Rantissi as its new leader. "Rantissi is not a strong figure, he's not a unifying figure. I don't think his authority is going to be accepted. He certainly doesn't have any religious stature. Hamas is factionalised with differing views on whether to work with the Palestinian Authority or not," he said.

"Israel certainly doesn't want to go into a situation where Hamas is strong and united and has a charismatic leader who is going to take over a large share of power. Hamas is not broken, but it is greatly weakened and its forward movement is stopped. It's a major setback for them and their ability to act strategically."

But Ghazi Hamed, editor of the Hamas newspaper, Al-Resala, says the Israelis misunderstand support for Hamas. "Support for Hamas is built on several things, but one of them is the weakness of the Palestinian Authority and the belief of many Palestinians that not only can it not defend them from the Israelis, but that it collaborates with the Israelis," he said. "Sharon's plans will weaken, not strengthen, the Palestinian Authority - and that will strengthen Hamas."
###
Reply With Quote
  #58  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 27th, 2004, 12:07 PM       
Abdcthdte; I appreciatte you re-outlining your basic idea, and I think it's a fairly good one, actually. I'm not sure exactly how you'd move in that direction and who has the authority to return the occupied lands. Can Israel do that, assuming the other countries could be leveraged to co-operate?

Would this need to take place in the absolute absence of violence? I ask not because I'm pro terrorist, just to be clear here, but becuase I think one of Israels great policy failures is that they are looking for a complete cessation of violence prior to negotiation. As I've sid, thsi places control of the future on any motivated individual to make a pipe bomb.

Are there any plans like this currently supported by anyone?

I don't mean any of this as sarcastic or provocative. I'm interested in anything that might tunr out to be something besides this hellish stalemate and attrition.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 27th, 2004, 05:01 PM       
Well I can't say anything I'm talking about is an original thought on my part. There has been talk of a Sharon plan that was along these lines, and his current move for a full seperation is along the same lines. Ultimately, Egypt and Jordan do not want the Palestinians either, and both countries expelled the PA in the past.

Violence has been indoctrinated into Palestinian society, and frankly, I don't see it going away soon, but dealing with Egypt allows for more effective diplomacy, and would be slightly more effectual then the PA who sponsors that same violence. Israel's response would also be slightly more limited (though Jordan's solution to dealing with their Arafat problem was inviting Israel to bomb). See with this provocation level, war is inevitable, but neither Egypt nor Jordan want to go to war because of the Pals. If they're going to war, it's to finish what they started in '48. So it's likely they would rejoice in being given the spotlight in reigning in Islamic Jihad, etc. that threaten their governments as well. The only problem is, while Egypt cries that these groups must be stopped, they provide them with the weaponry and sponsorship to keep them going.

The Palestinains are claiming land is broken up by Israel that was never connected to begin with. Legally there is more precedance to return Gaza to Egypt, then to a people who never had soveriegn control over it. Nobody claimed these areas between 1948 and 1967 because they were intended to act as a buffer between nations. When Israel attempted to build there (housing meant for Palestinians actually) the UN stopped it. Meanwhile the fighting itself never really stopped and it became clear Israel needed it for strategic reasons. So right before the Yom Kippur war in 1973 you have a clumb of IDF troops watching the Egyptian border for activity, and eventually the theory was "why stand here, let's put some structures up, and once we build it will be irreversable". So legally, if you're going to call for a return of land, it MUST be to the last recognized entity to own it, not the moral landlords or whatever champions of the Palestinian cause might think. The truth is that there was less violence, and a more peacefull living standard for Palestinians and Jews BEFORE any of the Rabin/Arafat talks, before Israel negotiated at all, and before the Palestinians had autonomous land. These experiments didn't work, the PA didn't act in good faith, and truth be told, NOBODY not even the Palestinians really want Gaza.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 27th, 2004, 05:35 PM       
Well, I'm passionate enough I suppose I have to rad up.

I certainly agree it would be both more appropriate and more efficient to have Egypt being the occupying nation, and then they could figure out what the hell to do, and it wouldn't be an Islamic/Jewish conflict any longer.

But I doubt Egypt wants any part of that.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 27th, 2004, 06:52 PM       
Well now you're hitting on something else. Before there was a Jewish-Palestinian conflict, there was a Jewish-Arab conflict, and really it never went away. The other side of this is that Egypt and the others didn't take in the Palistinians as is customary with population transfers, in accordance with international law. They left them at the borders to stew, and used them as pawns. It's also interesting that there was no Palistinian solidarity movement until the Popular Liberation Front (Egyptians like Arafat) became the Palestinian Liberation Organization and coopted whatever claims actual Palesinian Arabs had to the land. Peace with the Palestinians means little without the support of the Arab League that refused a two state partition in the first place. Educated supporters of Israel see this as Israel against the Arab world as a whole, and view Israel as the minority.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Mar 28th, 2004, 11:40 AM       
Quote:
If all you know of Zionism is Herzl and Jabotinsky, then you don't know much about Zionism.
I admit that you probably know more history than I, but the above are the only NAMES I know. However, you mentioned Ber Borochov, and the memories flood back. I recall that he met with Lenin, and during the Russian civil war the Borochov Regiment participated in the struggles of the Red Army.

So that is four names I can drop. If you include Hess.
Quote:
Ber Borochov had Marxist ideals. Po'alei-Tzion was their founding labor party and was the Zionist wing of worldwide revolutionary Marxism. David Ben Gurion even used Marxist phrasing at first, to argue that the true owners of land were the workers, and not the political or legal authority.
You are not looking at the larger picture, the true owners of the land are all workers, not just Jewish. So Gurion was only socialist, marxist, communist etc within his Zionist, nationalist, and isolated outlook. Hence, not Marxists etc.

Contrary to the Jewish socialists, active in the non-Jewish workers' parties or the Bund, the "lefty" Zionists (including The Workers of Zion) despaired over working class solidarity and found a solution by deserting the class struggle. They took up the reformist dogma of the two stage revolution in order to be Zionists ans still claim to be socialists. So, yes I will admit that the Zionist Socialists were "socialists", but I use the term as loosley as I do with the Stalinists, based on their two stage theory. (Nothing to do wih gulags Abcde!!!)

Two stage theory for the Stalinists is based on Stalins 'Socalism in One Counrty' "theory", which basicaly means they would build Russian socialism first and then worldwid socialism (a lie, of course). The Zionist first stage is the building the Jewish sate. Please note that I am not relating Socialist Zionists to Stalinists apart from their love of two stage revolutions.

Borochov met Lenin and asked him what he thought of his theory. Lenin told him that it must be very difficult to sit between two chairs. What Lenin meant by this is Borochovs theoretical schemes are really a rationalization and an attempt to harmonize socialism and nationalism. (Nothing to do with Nazis Abcd!!!!) When in fact the two are not compatible. Sorry about my simplistic uderstanding of the terminology, but they aren't.

Borochov was also the author of "Class and Nation", of which I have only encountered quotes from. But the title kind of gives it away, right? He correctly pointed out the problem of the relationship of the masses to the productive sectors of the economy. Unfortunatey for all involved, he only theorised this as a "Jewish problem". Wht is involved here is a much larger question: the need of the workers of the oppressed nations to be part of the general working class movement.

While all this is terribly interesting (Abcdx, you have indeed caused me to go and look things up) Socialist Zionist parties still did not 'invent' Zionism.

Zionism was born as the expression of the crisis and inabilty of the Jewish middle class to be integrated with the East European ruling class and at the same time rejecting the working class solution for the oppression of the Jews. The early Zionists took the anti-semitism of the rising bourgeoise in their chosen countries and combated it with their own Jewish nationalism. The Zionists took from the anti-semites the argument of the incombatibiliy of the Jews and the Gentiles, hence the desire to create massive migration of Jews to their own Jewish state.

So, Zioism was not formed on Socialist or Communist ideas, it was created on a nationalist base. No matter how many "lefty Jews" or socialist theoriticians were drawn to it. All nationalists serve the same rotten order that continue to exist while the masses suffer terribly. The Zionists are as bad as all other nationalists.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 28th, 2004, 10:17 PM       
Okay Zukhov, I told you to come back once you were qualified to discuss it...spending an hour on google checking up on antisemetic rhetoric to protect whatever Socialist wet dream you have doesn't cut it. I don't have time to answer in full.... but I'll say this much, a good portion of Israel was founded by card carrying members of the Communist party, with roots linking them to the very beginnings of the movement. While the current wave of Socialist dopes like yourself might like to distance themselves, or discredit how legit a left leaning Zionist was , in order to feel like you're still down with the "oppressed" and "downtrodden", there is no difference between Socialist Zionism, or Zionist Socialism. In fact, you didn't even know it existed until It was pointed out to you on this board. You can't decide if you want to claim they weren't good Socialists, or that they weren't Socialists at all. Meanwhile, it's suspect of you to Argue their integrity when you've already demonstrated an inability to comprehend how something like Marxist theory could every apply to Jews, or those with Nationalistic tendencies. Let's remember that slighting Jews for being "nationalistic" is the original basis for antisemetism itself. How does Socialist poster boy Fidel Castro fair under such scrutiny? Or h'bout we get real here, because Karl Marx himself wasn't much of a Marxist if you weigh him against his realized ideals. Since you're simple minded, I'll spell it out... their key involvement and inspiration from working within the Socialist movement itself was enough of a basis to have influence on the creation of a Jewish State.

A Kibbutz where Israeli citizens live off land provided by the State, while sharing the duties of raising each others children comes from real Socialist ideals, and might very well be the best example of these theories in practice today.

"Socialist Zionist parties still did not 'invent' Zionism. "

Zionism's initial foundations were based on the influences of Socialist principles. Moses Hess was a founding father of Revolutionary Socialism in Germany, he was one of the firsts, if not the first, to promote Marx, and he penned the book that would go on to inspire the Zionist movement.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 28th, 2004, 11:06 PM       
To reinforce ABC's point on this, I'd suggest that Zukov, you go and read the platform of the far-right platforms in the United States during the first half of the 20th Century. Look at the platform of the Christian Nationalist Party of 1948, who equate Communism, Zionism, and internationalism all as being a part of the same "jewish cabal." It isn't merely a coincidence that their platform rhetoric is particularly harsh in 1948.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Mar 28th, 2004, 11:58 PM       
national and racial identities are a plague upon humanity.
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 04:36 AM       
Some more fun facts about Socialism and Zionism to keep folks like Zuhkov up at night.....


Israel's biggest military supporter was Socialist France (under Guy Mollet). They built Israel's nuclear reactor, and provided arms for every war fought up to '67 (and the Czechoslovakian Socialist/ Anarchist blackmarket provided the majority of weapons for the Indepedence war).

40% of Israel's economy is State owned, with another 20% run by cooperatives affiliated with the Israeli trade union organization, Histadrut. By all rights, Israel should be seen as a model of Democratic Social development.

Jews in the US formed a quarter to a third of the membership of the Socialist Labor Party. the Socialist Party, and the Communist Party. In 1966, at the SDS radicalist convention, 46% who declared themselves as having a religious background were Jewish (according to "Jews and the Left" by Arthur Liebman), and Jewish immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe have been the mainstay of the left in America since the 1880's. The role Trostky and the Jews played was more then 25% of the membership of all Revolutionary parties in Russia during this period. Of the political prisoners deported to Siberia after the defeat of the Revolution in 1905, 37% were Jewish. Israel was financed in large part from the private donations of liberal Jews in the US.

It was the pogroms in Russia and Poland that led to Socialist agricultural settlements for Russian Jews in 1870, with the first proper Aliyah in 1882.

Even a right wing Zionist like Jabotinsky had origins in the Marxist movement.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 09:20 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
(and the Czechoslovakian Socialist/ Anarchist blackmarket provided the majority of weapons for the Indepedence war).
Didn't Stalin essentially endorse the Czech bloc nation's support for Israel??? You'd figure he would've had to have given the green light on it. I've heard that his intentions were to speed up the creation of the Israeli state in order to pull the disgruntled Arab nations into the Soviet bloc.....
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 09:50 PM       
Well it's no secret that Stalin didn't like Jews. It's true, he did support the Zionest (with contradictory periods where he outlawed it as well) so he must have given Czechoslovakia a green light, since they were just a puppet regime. Apparently he doubted Zionism would work, but saw the potential of an anti-collonialist yet capatilist ally who weaken British Imperialism. Russia commited fully to supporting Zionism around 1939, only to do an about face, and condemn it by 1948, causing a whole new wave of reactionary antisemetism in Russia that forced even more Jews to look towards the Zionist Party for help. By this point the Communist Parties within the Arab League had all but lost hope, and Muslims grew hostile towards the movement. I've never heard that Stalin was supporting Zionism as part of a wider strategy, but it's possible... it's not like his motives were ever to better Jewish people.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 11:16 PM       
Reporter's Notebook: Dead Man Talking

Monday, March 29, 2004

By Mike Tobin

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - It had been nearly two years since last I interviewed Abdel Aziz Rantissi. His lifestyle has changed dramatically. His standing in the political landscape has changed somewhat. The things he has to say have not changed at all.

On Tuesday, the day after Sheikh Yassin was killed, my assignment was to find Rantissi and/or Mahmoud Al Zahar, another prominent leader in HAMAS. This is easier assigned than done, and my superiors were aware of that. Zahar and Rantissi have both been the targets assassination attempts. On June 10th last year, Rantissi was in a car that was struck by a missile fired from an Israeli gunship. His bodyguard was killed. Rantissi crawled out the window of the vehicle and escaped with minor injuries.

Two years ago I wanted to interview Rantissi, so I went to his house in Gaza City. Now he lives on the move, in secret, and doesn't answer a phone for fear the Israeli Air force can use the telephone signal to track him and kill him. My best bet was to bump into him.

He still appears in public, but only where there is a thick crowd.
Nearly every air strike produces unintended victims, and Israel does not want to be held accountable for firing into a crowd. So, by standing in a sea of Palestinians, the people Rantissi claims to represent become his human shields. He likely would be appearing at the mourning tent erected in the Al Yarmouk soccer stadium in Gaza City for the three days of mourning declared by the Palestinian Authority. After the mourning period, Rantissi would go deep underground. We would get him at the mourning tent, or miss him all together.

Andrew Psarianos, my cameraman, and I were working with Nael Ghabnoun, a local Gazan, when we arrived at the stadium. At first glance we found a sea of mourners being received by relatives of Sheikh Yassin. There were plenty of HAMAS militants, but it appeared I was out of luck in terms of finding the evolving leadership of HAMAS. Suddenly, Nael piped up, "He is here." Rantissi travels on foot these days because, as he knows better than most cars make good targets for missile strikes. That's how he arrived and apparently approached the mourning tent through a back alley.

It would be nice to have the freedom to submit interview requests in a calm, professional manner all the time, but this crowded and disorganized environment mandated an ambush interview. Andrew and I hustled to connect the microphone cables to the camera and came up on Rantissi with tape rolling. He would either talk or we would have a shot of him telling us to stick it. He did something in the middle. He talked, but didn't say anything; certainly not anything very new.

As far as his security he said, "It is Ariel Sharon who should fear for
his security." The dialogue was the same old defiance I had heard from Rantissi before. He would not commit to any designs or desire to fill the void at the head of HAMAS created by Yassin's assassination. The only statement that made my ears perk up was when he tried to capitalize on any anti-Semitism, which may have been created by Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" saying "They killed Jesus."

What struck me, however, was the way the rest of HAMAS seemed to accept him as having already ascended to the leadership position. Rantissi had long been HAMAS' number two in Gaza. Sheikh Yassin was number one, but only in a motivational sense. Yassin was the founder of HAMAS and called "the spiritual leader," but it has been the impression of many that Rantissi did the heavy lifting in terms of running the extremist organization. Here at the tent Rantissi walked in a mobile platoon of faithful who seemed to hang on his every word. The men gathered to face Mecca and pray. Rantissi was put out in front of their ranks. When he stood, the men stood. When he bowed, the men bowed. When Rantissi said "Allah Akbar" (God is great) the men said "Allah Akbar."

I was able to find Mahmoud Zahar and ask him if he would support
Rantissi at the helm of HAMAS. Zahar said he would. That wasn't a political endorsement, but there was no doubt HAMAS was lining up behind Rantissi.

There was a brief moment of tension at the mourning tent when a couple of fixed wing aircraft were spotted flying overhead. The only aircraft that fly over the Gaza strip are Israeli. My best guess was that they were drone aircraft keeping an eye on the HAMAS leadership. Israel was not backing off the promise to assassinate the leaders of HAMAS and Islamic Jihad. Military sources have been quoted in a number of publications saying things like "We'll hit them at every opportunity." I believe those drones were watching to see if one of them would walk out into the open and create such an opportunity.

Later that evening HAMAS would make the announcement official. Rantissi is the leader in the Gaza strip. The chief of the organization responsible for the deaths of 377 Israeli civilians, calling for an "open war" on Jews, he had just moved to the top of Israel's hit list.

Late at night I was back at the Gaza media center deep in the throes of wrestling Rantissi's interview into a series of live reports. Aside from Rantissi's reluctance to give a straight answer to a question, his English is terrible. Granted, it's better than my Arabic and when you're interviewing him in the long form, you understand what he is talking about, but between his metaphors and bad sentences, salvaging a sound bite fromthis guy was proving to be quite a challenge. When you do ambush interviews like that you get one crack at them and then you're done, most of the time anyway.

Abed el Salaam Abu Askar runs the Gaza Media Center. He is one of those guys who has the Gaza Strip wired up, and he's a tremendous resource. Abed was able to get a call through to one of Rantissi's bodyguards and was told:

"Expect us in the coming hours."

"When will you be here" he asked.

"When we arrive, we will let you know."

Rantissi and his security detail walked up 14 floors to the office. For some reason, he doesn't like elevators. We had a couple of chairs set up for an interview in one of the rooms from which I had been doing my live reports.
Rantissi's security detail immediately vetoed that location because it was next to a window. He was afraid Israeli aircraft could target him through a window. In fact, at one point he made Abed close a door, two rooms away,because he spotted a window. It seems like paranoid behavior, but it doesn't count as paranoia when they really are out to get you.

Sitting down for the interview I was racking my brain for ways to get Rantissi to say something new. In my experience, he has two techniques:
1) He blames everything from bloodshed to Palestinian corruption on Israel. 2) When you pin him down on a question he says he doesn't understand you.

Here are just a few snippets from the interview:

Tobin: Where will you take the Palestinian People?

Rantissi: No one can decide for the movement, but all of us for the
movement in Gaza.

Tobin: But you're their leader. The People will look to you to take them in a direction.

Rantissi: I take them to the end of their suffering, the end of their tragedy.

Tobin: How can you stop the bloodshed?

Rantissi: I think the international community can do that, if the international community says to the Israelis "stop the aggression."

Tobin: What can YOU do to stop the bloodshed?

Rantissi: No one in the world say to Sharon stop your terror action.

Tobin: How will you prevent anarchy after an Israeli pullout from the Gaza strip?

Rantissi: I don't understand.

Tobin: Do you anticipate that you will be killed while you hold this job?

Rantissi: It doesn't make any difference to die for the sake of my goals.

Tobin: Yes or no?

Rantissi: Never mind.

I was thinking this guy risked his life to come here and talk to me and he won't say anything. If I had a hammer, I would bang myself in the head with it. At least that way we'd have Rantissi on tape saying "What the hell are you doing?" and that would be new. Through a series of follow up questions, bordering on rudeness, I was able to get him to say his first step as the leader of HAMAS would be to get all the Islamic groups in the Gaza Strip tounify and to respect Yasser Arafat's Fatah party, but not when it came to ending the violence. Abed noticed something new about Rantissi. "This is the first time I have seen him speak softly. In all the years I have seen him, he yells and screams." Maybe Rantissi is now trying to play the role of a leader. Maybe he's just tired. But we had an interview with the most prominent target marked for death by Israel.

The next night, Rantissi was back in a crowd of militants. Normally
contentious, Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Islamic Jihad and HAMAS were all unified under the same tent. The different militant groups offered their support to Rantissi. Armed HAMAS fighters pledged their loyalty to their new leader, but if the Israeli military makes good on its promise, that pledge is not a long-term commitment.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 31st, 2004, 03:18 AM       
I've said this before but...The interesting thing about the whole Road Map to Peace period is that it elevated Hamas to a point where people were forced to negotiate with them. It stopped mattering if the PA agreed to peace, everyone was waiting on Hamas, and suddenly then had their own spokesperson appearing on TV commenting as if they were a diplomat. What other underground militant group with a genocidal doctrine has someone speaking on Fox News giving a counterpoint opinion?

Rantisi doesn't come off all that bright in the above article.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Mar 31st, 2004, 11:39 AM       
I'l say again, abce, that I am tryng to 'discuss' the formation of Zionism, not Israel. Keep this in mind when reading my posts or posting yours.

Nothing I have said contains anything that defames Jewish people, or supports their oppression. Your sole basis for thinking that I am an anti-semite is my anti-Zionist stance. I have a clear distinction between my opposition to Zionism and my support for the legitimate struggle of the Jews, of all oppressed people, against any form of racism. The only people that seem to think the Jews and Zionism are one and the same are the new wave of Islamic terrorists and the Zionist suporters. Saying that m opinions are anti-semetic is really the lowest you can go, since you haven't found anything that I have said to be anti-semetic. This is because nothing of the sort exists.

Quote:
In fact, you didn't even know it existed until It was pointed out to you on this board.
No, you assumed I didn't know about Zionist Socialist parties, because you thought that their existance would somehow prove that Zionism was born of Socialist and Communist principles. You convineintly dodged my question on "How can Zionism be based on Socialism and Communism", and instead dropped names and reffered to Zionist Socialist parties. I am a firm believer that Socialist Zionist parties were not responsible for the creation of Zionism. I believe this just as much as I believe that no single person was responsible for Zionism, you aggree with me, but still find the time to drop more names.

What you need to show is what led to the formation of Zionism, and what it's purpose was. You don't have to show Socialist leanings in Israel, or how many "card carrying communists" (Which Communist party??) were part of the creation of Israel, because these things didn't have any input into the creation of Zionism.
I have stated that Zionism came from the nationalistic sentiments of Jews under attack from anti-semites, mainly in Eastern Europe. I have stated that Zionism's purpose was to unite Jews into their own homeland.

You dissagree with me on the first point, you say that Zionism came from Socialist and Communist sentiments. However, I guess that you agree with me on the Zionist purpose.

Since the ceation of a 'Jewish state', or a 'Dutch state' in Sth Africa, or any other kind of state based upon race, religion, or colour can be considered nationalistic, then the aim of the Zionists is a Nationalist one. I again guess that you agree with this, because you jump to the defense of Nationalism.

How can Communism be related at all to Nationalism? It can't be. The break down of borders, equality of race and classless society can only be seen through an internationalist light.

Communism can never be achieved while the workers are not united on the basis of false differences, such as believing ones state is the road to worker freedom.

Nationalists support their own bourgeoise and middle classes, instead of suppoting their own class in other countries. Class collaboration is not a principle of Communism or Socialism, be it in the form seen in Spain during the 1930s by the Stalinists, or in normal everyday Capitalism.

The Zionist aim is to create a 'Jewish state', the creation of a state - Jewish or otherwise - cannot be considered a communist principle. Nevermind the fact that this 'Jewish state' is not even required to be a proletarian dictatorship, (hence, not Socialist) but Communism is another stateless stage of human history. There will be no state in a Communist society, just as there has never been a "Communist state/nation/country", because there never can be. The existance of states, even workers states, negates the existance of Communism. The ruling class creates/inherits the state to supress other classes, be it Proletarian or Bourgeois. Since there are no classes in a clasless society, there is no state.

Quote:
While the current wave of Socialist dopes like yourself might like to distance themselves, or discredit how legit a left leaning Zionist was , in order to feel like you're still down with the "oppressed" and "downtrodden", there is no difference between Socialist Zionism, or Zionist Socialism.
What the hell does this mean? Have I said that there was a difference between the two? I might have been using one or the other at random, so if I gave you the impression that there was a differenec, I apologise. I don't discredit the revolutionary Marxism of Leftist Zionists based on differences in "Zionist Socialist" and "Socialist Zionist", I discredit them based on their support for reactionary two step theories, the likes of which Stalin "theorised". If you want to legitimise the Zionist Socialist movement then you are going to have to defend their two step theory, their support for their own middle and bourgeois classes over the proletarians of neighbouring states, and their support of "trade unions" such as Histadrut.
Quote:
You can't decide if you want to claim they weren't good Socialists, or that they weren't Socialists at all
The leaders use socialism as an excuse to proport Zionism, the rank and file that believe in Zionism, but also Socialism are misguided utopian Socialists. The main theoritists of early Zonism were misguided as well. I tried to keep it straight forward in earlier posts.
Quote:
Meanwhile, it's suspect of you to Argue their integrity when you've already demonstrated an inability to comprehend how something like Marxist theory could every apply to Jews, or those with Nationalistic tendencies
Marxist theory applies to Jews, Christians, Hindus, black, white, male, female, everyone. This is what it means to be internationalist. I have never said that Marxist theory does not apply to Jews. You are trying to portray me as anti-semetic. Is this your only defense? I can't comprehend how you would think that "Nationalistic tendencies" belong in Marxist theory, nor have you given me a reason to believe otherwise.

Fidel Castro is hardly a Socialist "poster boy", and he has nothing to do with anything.
Quote:
slighting Jews for being "nationalistic" is the original basis for antisemetism itself
Jewish nationalism followed anti-semitism, not the other way around. It is the decline of the capitalist world system from the end of the 19th century that has produced the racism of anti-semitism. The abolishment of Serfdom in Russia in the 1860s (or round about) caused Eastern Europe to drift ino continual crisis. The old feudal order was in decay, but there was no expanding capitalism to take its place, as there had been in Western Europe. Eastern captalism was weak, stunted and unable to attain the position once held by feudalism. The influx of peasants into the cities looking for jobs during the decay of feudalism came into conflict with the urban Jews because of the highly competitive labour market. The traditional positions of Jews such a moneylenders, artisans and small merchants were lost to them with the fall of Feudalism. The inability of Eastern Europe to intergrate milions of displaced Jews, the competition for jobs, institutionalised blaming of the Jews for the problems with society, (Which was fine for the non-jews in competition with them) and the worsening conditions of the middle class in Western Europe or the US (wich was blammed on the newly arriving Jews who fled E. Europe) all contributed to the rise of anti-semitsm. Jewish nationalism and Zionism sought to defend against this racism by taking the anti-semites argument that Jew and Gentile can't live together, and aiming to create a Jewish state for all Jews to live in. The creation of a Jewish state their way of combating anti-semitism, to no avail.

Moses Hess' book was "Rome and Jerusalem", which turned out to be a Zionist manifesto where he called for the return of the Jewish people to their "ancestral homeland". I've said earlier that Hess was an assosciate of Marx. However, he then changed his mind, and went from Marxism to Zionism.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/hess.html
Five minutes on google agrees with me.

"Following the unification of Italy, the rise of nationalism in that country and the emergence of German antisemitism, Hess returned to his Jewish roots."

While your here, check out http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

"Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals"

Class colaboration if ever I saw it. Socialists don't put many goals in front of social revolution, least of all the creation of a state based not on class, or even on language, territory, economic life, and psychological make up, but based on a religion!

Here is what Lenin had to say about the national question:

"The awakening of the masses from feudal slumber, their struggle against all national oppression, for the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of nations is progressive. Hence, it is the bounded duty of a Marxist to uphold the most resolute and consistent democracy on all points of the national question. The task is mainly a negative one. But the proletariat cannot go beyond this in supporting nationalism, for beyond it begins the 'positive' activity of the bourgeoisie striving to fortify nationalism." (My emphasis.)

Also:

"That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving any guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation."

Lenin writes of the harmful influence of nationalism in the workers' movement: "The conclusion is that all liberal-bourgeois nationalism causes the greatest corruption among the workers and does immense harm to the cause of freedom and the proletarian class struggle. It is all the more dangerous because the bourgeois (and bourgeois-serf-owning) tendency is hidden by the 'national culture' slogan. In the name of national culture—Great Russian, Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, and others—the Black Hundreds reactionaries and clericals, and also the bourgeoisie of all nations, do their dirty work. "


BTW: I use "Nationalism" in regards to the Jews for lack of a better word, since Judaism is not a nation.


Regarding your second post:

State ownership does not equal Socialism unless it goes hand in hand with proletarian dictatorship, easy to understand because alot of states have public industry and are, suprisingly, not socialist.

The reality of Histadrut is that they are not a trade union, but an investment wing of large capital. The first company established by Histadrut, Soleh Boneh (sp?), developed ito the largest corporation in Israel, building luxury hotels thoughout Africa and military bases throughout Asia.

Histadrut controlled all health insurance in Israel, until recenty.

Two key companies behind Histadrut were AMPAL (American Israel Corporation - a finance company that directed US capital investment in Irael) and Koor, a majorcompany in the field of constrution and manufacture. These companies were not cotrolled by wrkers, but were privately owned, profit driven enteprises.
Kibbutzim affiliated with Histadrut have their goods produced sold for a profit. The profit ends up in the hands of Histadrut companies. Wage-labour is prominent in Kibbutzim and Histadrut companies.

The French socilaist party are "Democratic Socialists", France was like Sweeden etc - Capitalists. The attempt to nationalize the Suez Canal was a progressive move, and any revolutionary socialist, French or Israeli, would have supported it, instead of invading and bombing the place.

I am not saying Jews don't join socialist parties! I am not saying Jews can't be socialists.Are you trying to portray all Jews as Zionist? Trotsky, Luxemburg, Zinoviev and many other prominent communists and socialists had Jewish heritage. Why are you providing these statements that have nothing to do with Zionism? What is the reason for your inability to post anything regarding the forming of Zionism?

I am asking you about the foundation of Zionism, not how 'socialist' you think Israel is! You are only keeping yourself up, abcde, if you don't provide an answer or argument, this thread will never end.

Your post on Stalin I agree with, it is a perfect example of the opportunist nature of the beuracracy who were willing to lean left when it suited them, and right when it suited them. However, 'Marxism and the National Question' by uncle Joe is still relevant, (he wrote it before the degeneration of the Russian socialist movement) if anybody was interested...

(My post is too long, I think, sorry.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Mar 31st, 2004, 04:00 PM       
Rantisi doesn't come off all that bright in the above article.

Yeah but Bush never comes off all that bright, doesn't make him any less dangerous though

Now, if only the propincity for destruction was directly linked to intellegence. . .Hell, we'd have some important people here at the Mock
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 31st, 2004, 07:25 PM       
Okay Zukhov you're really dense. I'm not saying you're antisemetic, I'm saying your arguments against the existance and legitmacy of Socialist Zionism recalls some of the same antisemetic rhetoric used against Jews for as long as antisemetism has existed.

Obviously Zionism and Jewishness are two different things, which is why there were even Muslim Zionists, and Christian Zionists. With that said, the word Zionist has become code for "oppotunistic Jew", and when people speak of Zionists, they are most certainly talking about Jews. My problem is with people like yourself demonizing Zionism when you have such a narrow view. It's false to say that "Jewish Nationalism followed Anti-Semetism". Even under Marxist terms, the Jews have always been a nation, and every bit of Judaic teachings speak of creating an inclusive nation of Israel. I'll say it again, The Romans of Ancient times viewed Jews and their adherance to the Torah above their own laws as Nationalistic, and this resulted in the birth of what we now call antisemetism. To be critical of Jewish Nationalism is to be critical of the religion itself. Even under Marxist terms, Judaism is a nation, and confirms the existance of a diaspora.

Who was responsible for Zionism if not the various names and parties I dropped? How did these socialist style programs become a part of daily life in Israel if they had no part in the formation of Zionism or the State of Israel? Zionism was made up of many theories, but the most prevelant were the Socialists, REGARDLESS of their purpose. They could have brough Socialist ideals to cooking school and it would not matter WHY they did it. They still did it. What you're not understanding is there were Socialists within the Zionist party who would agree with some of the things you're saying.... but they ended up leaving the Socialist Labor movement and becoming the Jabotinsky's of the world. They still retained many of their original ideas originated while active Marxists, Socialists, whatevers. Look, really I'm sorry this is too complex for you.

Your information on the Histadrut is false, and full of simplistic and misleading claims. Israel has began to shift away from it's Socialist roots, and embrace a more Capatilist Democracy at the insistance of the US. This is recent, and with controversy.

Zukhov: "Nationalists support their own bourgeoise and middle classes, instead of suppoting their own class in other countries. Class collaboration is not a principle of Communism or Socialism, be it in the form seen in Spain during the 1930s by the Stalinists, or in normal everyday Capitalism."

Right well, Marxist Zionists believed in a reverse pyramid. Socialist Zionists didn't do anything to support the bourgeoise or middle class, and sought out their own land to be classless. Antisemetism played a part in that Jews realized they were being percieved as different, to their disliking, and prevented their inclusion into a universal class. The book that inspired Zionism came from a Socialist while he was a Socialist. There were many versions of Zionism, including the one that intended to make one land for all peoples, so it's shallow of you to believe Zionism discounts any other theories. Zionism wasn't a theory of itself. Is that clear to you? Even your cutting and pasting backs up what I'm saying. One can and has applied Socialist principles to forming Statehood. Where Socialists like yourself look stupid is to "negate" every actual application of Socialism in a practical sense, declaring it as not really Socialism. Under that naivety nothing is Communist, nothing is Socialist, and nothing truly represents these ideals except for some annoying utopian dream derived from dated theories created by the bourgeoise itself, and known racists, for personal gain.
Oh and as for Lenin... even he never succeeded in implimenting the types of social programs found in Israel, so it's all hot air.

(edited for typos)
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Apr 3rd, 2004, 09:03 AM       
I wont be able to reply to your post for a few days.

One thing stuck out though:

Quote:
Even under Marxist terms, the Jews have always been a nation
Under Marxist terms, the Jews have not "always been a nation".

In Marxist terms a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

None of these above characteristics by istself is sufficient to constitute a nation. If you can show me that world Jewry contains all the above, then I will take back what I said about Jews not being a nation. Until then, not only are Jews not a nation (it sounds absurd, and it is absurd) but they can not have "always been a nation". You try to state that it is "under Marxist terms" that Jews are a nation, but you are incorrect, since these very terms classify that a "nation" is not merely a category of the characteristics already pointed out, but a category that belongs to a definite epoch - the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of eliminating feudalism and developing capitalism is also the process that drags peoples into nations.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Apr 9th, 2004, 04:25 PM       
Okay, so we've established you don't know much about Judaism, I'm still waiting for the full response you promised. Otherwise you're just trying to swirve past a real rebutal. Kinda like when you insist we're talking about the creation of Israel/Zionism and then bring up the States recent capatilistic leanings to disprove the existance of idealogical mingling that happened over 100 years ago. Anyway, now you're not talking about Israel, you're talking about Jews, as a whole, and as a Nation. So watch your step.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.