The "unconditional support for Israel" cult

Post Reply New Topic

How about unconditional support for one's liberty to think freely?

ruveyn

Support and criticism topic

In threads like these I find when there is legitimate criticism ( like speaking out against settlers) in one post then a bunch of posts following that border on antisemitism. I am against further settlements because it interferes with the peace process, not because I question the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

Criticism and debate, yes, without condemnation. Antisemitism is like a personal attack against a poster. The word "cult" is loaded.

It adds nothing legitimate to the discussion.

What a foolish debate stopper.

Few posts (with the exception of Ruveyn's) contain the word "Jew" - most simply discuss the moronic, CULTISH, NEE-JERK support for Israel's every (self-destructive) action.

And what the hell does the "legitimacy" issue even mean? Is any state "legitimate" in the sense of being founded by a peaceful process? No - and Israel isn't an exception. It EXISTS and will continue to EXIST, the pertinent question being in what form (i.e. as a nation with two classes of people or as a nation with equality for all).

meh, israel should have just finished the job 50 years ago.

No it isn't and no it wouldn't be. There would be no standoff from the Palestinian side. The religious militants don't care about getting themselves or any of their people killed, pretty much because they believe in a heaven.

The clear vicious record of Zionistic behavior in establishing Israel and advancing it's territory is nothing to be proud of in advancing human ideals of decency and fairness. The have brought on themselves the random insane horrors of suicide bombing and rocket attacks who's casualties cannot compare to the casualties suffered by Palestinians in body counts. There is a centuries long history of the Jews in compassion for their fellow man, in learning and excellence in intellectual accomplishments and general decent behavior. On that basis the execrable behavior of Israel throughout its short history totally disqualifies Israel from that fine tradition. The Israelis are no longer Jews.

There's an even worse cult out there though, it's the "unconditional support of Palastinians" cult.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ1945WsNWk[/youtube]

But most of the international community don't support Hamas. Groups like AIPAC have no problem supporting everything Israel does.

The problem with this conflict is that there are peace-loving or peace-seeking individuals on both sides. I do not consider groups like AIPAC to be peace-seeking. They say that they interpret the Bible in such a way that Jerusalem must be the capital of Israel and that all occupied territories are legit for settlers to move in. Fair enough, if thats what they want to believe but they shouldn't claim to be peace-seeking when they are not.

Are the denizens of the Internet not part of the "International community", or is there some specific group who is so designated which is non-inclusive? Nobody here is a mere observer, unless they do not post. Those who post are providing their opinions, politicking, and advocating just as much in any other communications outlet.

To be blind to the open and obvious fact that the state of Israel was founded on the basic principle of kicking out the local inhabitants and discriminating against those remaining is worse than stupid and ignorant. It is outright viciousness. And to claim that a long time inhabitant is a cultist for wanting to remain in his own home indicates no comprehension of the term "cult".

So you're comparing the unconditional support some of the most powerful people in the most powerful nations on the planet utter for Israel to the unconditional support shoe-string activists offer to Palestinians?

The story goes that all those people aren't native but moved there in reaction to Israel and just because they hated Jews that much that they had to get down there and live in squalor while they oppose the will of empires.

BS. Read http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pappe ... eview.html

The Palestinians lived there for centuries and had documentation from the British occupation as to their valid ownership of their land.

I doubt that peace in the holy land is happening any time soon. When both sides claim God gave them the land, what can you possibly do reconcile them?

Also, If the US did withdraw all support form Israel, would that really reconcile the US's reputation with the various Muslim countries of the middle east? While that's definitely the big one, there are certainly other issues that rally them against us.

That is an interesting opinion. Why do you feel all religions are evil? If there is a God, is it not a possibility that said God made contact with his creations at some point and a religion sprung up around this event?

and yet where is this faux-outrage when it comes to the turks? or even the iranian and the chinese?

it is outright hypocrisy to wag your finger at one group while completely giving a blind eye to the others. you have celebrities who boycott israel yet have no problem performing in countries that executes hundreds a year, that have denied the rights of people and removed their independent status.

you're being obtuse to the fact that jews also lived in that area. did they get preferential treatment? of course they did. the founding of israel is based on lifting the status of the jews. jews were given some of the land, they bought some of the land, and they fought for some of the land. wheres the problem here? should the palestinians be in a constant struggle until one of the groups is wiped out or accept the fact that israel is not going to go anywhere? is it horrible what happened to the palestinians? of course, but at one point you're going to have to realize that you're not getting your land back. the natives of america sure as hell figured that out a long time ago.

Master_Pendant, i think your comment here provides a good segue into some observations I've had about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:

I think to most Israelis and their supporters 'legitimate' means recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, a Jewish homeland, and a place of safety for Jewish refugees. The ideological underpinnings of these concepts are rooted in the idea that Jews are not safe anywhere they are a minority (let the endless debate as to the historical and current validity of this idea begin!). This is actually what Zionism is, or at least how most of the self-described Zionists that I've met define it.

I actually think a lot of the argument that 'anti-Zionism is actually Antisemitism' (and no, that's not an invitation to start a debate the semantic appropriateness of the term 'Antisemitism' as a synonym for 'anti-Jewish') may stem from the discrepancy between how self-described Zionists define 'Zionism' and how many people who are opposed to Israel's policies towards the Palestinians use the term as meaning 'Israeli expansionism.'

As an example, let's say two people, Person A and Person B share an opposition to the continuing Israeli presence in the west bank. A chooses to express this opposition to B by saying that she is an anti-Zionist and assumes that B shares her definition of the term as meaning Israeli expansionism. Unfortunately for an hopes of a productive discussion, B does not share this definition, instead viewing Zionism as being about a safe haven in a world dangerous to Jews, and B becomes concerned with her counterpart's apparent opposition to such a haven. It's not a large stretch for B to arrive at the conclusion that A's apparent views are rooted in anti-Jewish sentiment ("Maybe A doesn't want a Jewish haven because that would make it harder to persecute Jews!"). One of the more perverse aspect of this schism of definitions is that in addition to killing any chance for two like minded people to get together and work towards a cause they both believe in, it also feeds into the defensive mentality that the Jews are a people under siege, a mentality that lies at the core of many of Israel's more callous policies.

I think I've rambled on enough here, but I would like to impress one thing upon anyone wishing to enter the fray of Israeli-Palestinian relations: this is an intense and closely fought conflict, and both parties have a deep, and often existential, emotional investment in their causes. The rhetorical and semantic battles in particular are fought on a razor's-kiss margin, with intense skirmishes over something as small as the order of names on a piece of paper at a Peace Summit. This is no place for sloppy language; if you wish to participate, be specific and clear when you express your views, rather than trying to reduce a complex position on the policies of one side or the other to a single term; otherwise, the situation will continue to be just a bunch of people shouting past each other.