(Ed) General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You may not have said it, but your argument still requires that assumption.

What? No it doesn't.

There are three sets of understanding under discussion; the terrorists, their victims, and ours. Our understanding of the phrase's meaning should be tempered by the knowledge that both the terrorist and their victim could use the same phrase in different ways, and thus associating it with being the phrase of 'murderous douchebags' for our understanding is counter-productive.

Not that we can't understand the negative connotations are possible with the phrase, many phrases are red flags even if not inherently negative, but that it's not just that. The use by the terrorist and the victim don't have to be the same for us to understand that, nor does it make the understanding worthless.

Quote:

Not really. They can confuse people about your true objective, and that can be very counterproductive to efforts to find common ground.

I guess I don't understand what you're saying then. My objective really doesn't matter much. The arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Knowing my motivations might help communication of course, but that leaves me not understanding your use of the term 'firewall' then.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

"parasitic pejorative" is a wonderful turn of phrase, but you seem to have completely misunderstood its meaning. It does not mean that YOU are describing Zionists as parasites, it means that Roofgardener is describing the pejoratives you allegedly use as parasites, with the word "Zionist" as the host that the pejorative infects. So whether or not you have talked about parasites is quite irrelevant to the claim.

He accused me of habitually using such terms in association with the word "Zionist", which clearly to everybody is not true. You give his lexicographic talents too much credit, I think; since the word I used was "rot", as in "Zionism rots the brain", "corruption" would be the appropriate reference, not parasitism. That would work for "Zionism infests the mind", but I'm hardly about to say something like that.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

He accused me of habitually using such terms in association with the word "Zionist"

What are "such terms" that he accused you of using? That is what you have fundamentally misunderstood. The terms he's accusing you of using are pejoratives. Not pejoratives associated with parasitism, but merely pejoratives, ANY pejoratives, which you associate with Zionism.

Quote:

You give his lexicographic talents too much credit, I think;

No, I don't. Evidently I gave you too much, since you can't understand it even after it's explained.

Quote:

since the word I used was "rot", as in "Zionism rots the brain", "corruption" would be the appropriate reference, not parasitism. That would work for "Zionism infests the mind", but I'm hardly about to say something like that.

No. You are trying to make this about literal parasitism, but it obviously isn't. It's about the relationship between the pejorative and the word "Zionism", and what the use of the pejorative with the word "Zionism" does to your use of "Zionism". And for that, any pejorative will do, if you're attaching it to "Zionism". If you want to refute him, then you need to argue that you do NOT use pejoratives attached to "Zionism" with significant frequency.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

What? No it doesn't.

There are three sets of understanding under discussion; the terrorists, their victims, and ours. Our understanding of the phrase's meaning should be tempered by the knowledge that both the terrorist and their victim could use the same phrase in different ways,

I don't recall anyone contesting that.

Quote:

I guess I don't understand what you're saying then. My objective really doesn't matter much. The arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Knowing my motivations might help communication of course, but that leaves me not understanding your use of the term 'firewall' then.

You want to stop anti-muslim bigotry. I do not object to this goal. You have argued that not viewing suicide bomber's use of "allahu akbar" in a manner you feel is oversimplified will help achieve that. You intend it as a firewall: block anti-muslim bigotry here, and you won't have to work as hard to fight it where it could be doing more damage. Islamic terrorist generates considerable antipathy towards the terrorists. That's the fire. And you want to block the fire from spreading to hatred towards other muslims, so you want to put up a firewall : block the antipathy from spreading.

But that's not what's going to happen. In fact, we've already seen that. theprestige obviously didn't understand your goal, and when he asked you about it, you didn't even give him the right answer, you only gave it to me, almost by accident since I wasn't even asking.

It will not work to try to defend ordinary muslims by creating nuance around the actions of terrorists. Even to the extent that you may be right about the complexity of their motives, it just doesn't matter. People aren't going to spend a lot of time trying to do what seems like sympathizing with terrorists. If you want to stop anti-muslim bigotry, erect the defense closer to those non-terrorist muslims, because the firewall won't hold.

[CapelDodger]

I can't help remembering that when Mujahadeen were shouting "Allahu Akbar" and throwing themselves on Russian outposts in Afghanistan that was a good thing, and to be encouraged. What changed? Or if nothing has changed and Islam was always inimical to the West what exactly were people thinking when they armed the most benighted, fanatical and casually violent Muslims you could hope to find outside the Caucasus, in the most remote and unmanageable place on the planet? While smiling on the medievalist Saudi regimes global patronage of Wahabbism, the perfect conservative theology to mate with those throwbacks in the hills.

How did people miss that Islam is always like this back before it was discovered to be like this? Which is to say, since 9/11 and the remarkable new Koranic exegesis which reveals it to be, to the astonishment and confusion of academia, nothing more nor less than a Jew-killers manual and injunctions to get right stuck into it straight away.

There's a great saying of Groucho Marx's : "I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin". I remember when both camps in Palestine were agreed that the confict was not about religion and never had been about religion. That, after all, would be anachronistic, and nobody wants to be thought old-fashioned. Now it's all about religion and it's always been about religion. The things you'll see if you just keep breathing.

I never expected to see an Israeli Prime Minister actually try to shift the blame for the Holocaust from its roots in Christendom to the Muslim world, which has always been accomodating to minority groups in a way completely alien to Graeco-Roman Christianity. Quite astonishing.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What are "such terms" that he accused you of using? That is what you have fundamentally misunderstood. The terms he's accusing you of using are pejoratives. Not pejoratives associated with parasitism, but merely pejoratives, ANY pejoratives, which you associate with Zionism.

Let me explain this to you.

Roofgarden is not describing my "pejoratives" as being parasitical on the rest of what I'm saying. That is at least one layer of reference too deep for him. He reaches for a descriptive term for my "pejorative" and, being lexicographically challenged, comes up with "parasitical", meaning I'm trying to associate Zionism with parasites. The appropriate descriptive in reference to "rot" would be "corruption".

Roofgarden does recognise the technique of subliminal association, and accuses me of engaging in it or thinks that I make this association in my wn mind. Whatever he might be thinking he's lying when he says I associate pejorative words with Zionism habitually. If I recall correctly he suggested I always do qt, but that's of no great import. The obvious truth is that I use the words "Zionist" and "Zionism" a great deal in perfectly neutral contexts, not a pejorative in sight.

I think it's fair to say that Roofgarden won't find your explanation of what he meant at all easy to parse. That would be my expectation, anyway.

Quote:

No, I don't. Evidently I gave you too much, since you can't understand it even after it's explained.



No. You are trying to make this about literal parasitism, but it obviously isn't.

Of course I'm not. If I was I wouldn't have brought "corruption" into the matter, would I?

Quote:

It's about the relationship between the pejorative and the word "Zionism", and what the use of the pejorative with the word "Zionism" does to your use of "Zionism". And for that, any pejorative will do, if you're attaching it to "Zionism". If you want to refute him, then you need to argue that you do NOT use pejoratives attached to "Zionism" with significant frequency.

You or he need to show that I do. Anyone can look and see so good luck with that. I'll often say that Zionism rots the mind, and your efforts here demonstrate why. Unlike Roofgarden you're not an innately stupid person, but you feel obliged to go through contortions like these and it does damage. Ballet-dancers start off with great bodies and end up crocked by unnatural strains. The same principle applies.

Yup, mixed metaphors. Past caring.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

'What it means to his victims' certainly does change is the victim is a Muslim who will then be saying the same thing as they try to stop the bleeding.

I thought we already agreed that context is important, and that the same phrase can mean different things in different contexts.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

There are three sets of understanding under discussion; the terrorists, their victims, and ours. Our understanding of the phrase's meaning should be tempered by the knowledge that both the terrorist and their victim could use the same phrase in different ways, and thus associating it with being the phrase of 'murderous douchebags' for our understanding is counter-productive.

We already covered this. At least twice. Context is important. The same phrase can mean different things in different contexts. In the context of terrorism, it can mean "I'm a murdering douchebag," without infringing on its meaning in other contexts. I think this is now the third time we've been over this. Is there any part of it you don't understand? Is there any part of it you still think I don't understand?

Because it seems to me that we're saying the exact same thing: What we understand the terrorist to be saying is different from what we understand the pacifist to be saying, because of the different contexts.

Damn, that's like four times now. Please don't make it have to be five.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I can't help remembering that when Mujahadeen were shouting "Allahu Akbar" and throwing themselves on Russian outposts in Afghanistan that was a good thing, and to be encouraged. What changed?

Probably the context.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't recall anyone contesting that.

Then why did you say my argument required they be the same?

Quote:

You want to stop anti-muslim bigotry. I do not object to this goal. You have argued that not viewing suicide bomber's use of "allahu akbar" in a manner you feel is oversimplified will help achieve that. You intend it as a firewall: block anti-muslim bigotry here, and you won't have to work as hard to fight it where it could be doing more damage. Islamic terrorist generates considerable antipathy towards the terrorists. That's the fire. And you want to block the fire from spreading to hatred towards other muslims, so you want to put up a firewall : block the antipathy from spreading.

But that's not what's going to happen. In fact, we've already seen that. theprestige obviously didn't understand your goal, and when he asked you about it, you didn't even give him the right answer, you only gave it to me, almost by accident since I wasn't even asking.

It will not work to try to defend ordinary muslims by creating nuance around the actions of terrorists. Even to the extent that you may be right about the complexity of their motives, it just doesn't matter. People aren't going to spend a lot of time trying to do what seems like sympathizing with terrorists. If you want to stop anti-muslim bigotry, erect the defense closer to those non-terrorist muslims, because the firewall won't hold.

Umm, yeah, no. I don't know why you think linking to the posts rather than quoting them helps clear things up, but it certainly does not.

My orginial response to theprestige was 'the right one'. I disagree with his conclusion. It isn't that I think the phrase means the same thing or only that others will conflate everyone who uses the phrase with terrorists. But more below on clearing up things a bit more.

Originally Posted by theprestige

We already covered this. At least twice. Context is important. The same phrase can mean different things in different contexts. In the context of terrorism, it can mean "I'm a murdering douchebag," without infringing on its meaning in other contexts. I think this is now the third time we've been over this. Is there any part of it you don't understand? Is there any part of it you still think I don't understand?

Because it seems to me that we're saying the exact same thing: What we understand the terrorist to be saying is different from what we understand the pacifist to be saying, because of the different contexts.

Damn, that's like four times now. Please don't make it have to be five.

Alright, you're still not getting my full objection. Let me try to be more explicit.

Knowing that the same phrase is used as a simple ejaculation in many different situations and the other information around it means that both of your conclusions I find fault with. Those conclusions as I see them are 1) in the context of terrorism the phrase means 'I'm a murdering douchebag', and 2) that this understanding is all we or the victims need to know about the terrorist's use of it.

Of course I'm not arguing that the conclusion that the terrorist is a murdering douchebag. That's of course the case. What I'm saying is that his use of the phrase doesn't boil it down to that meaning. It means the terrorist believes the act is religiously righteous, and is much more like 'God's on my side!' Of course this does make them even more of a douchebag, but the phrase doesn't mean that. I could also mean, 'common exclamation for my culture!', like '****' or '****' or 'damn'. (Auto-censor should make this fun.)

And why is it important to know why they say that and not some other phrase? Well, see the stuff Zig about says about motivations above. Knowing the that the other side believes their actions are righteous and supported by their society is rather important in knowing how to combat it.

To bring it back around to Israel, knowing the various ways the conflict is framed can help win 'the war for hearts and minds' and bring more lasting peace. Not going to work if you play into the enemy's hands. Unlike some, I don't think the absolves the Palestinians for having a culture and government that glorifies and encourages the use of terrorist tactics like suicide bombings and knifings, but it certainly helps everyone if we, victims and all, seek to understand the nature of the violent.

[Jules Galen]

Quit stealing land. Quit the Apartheid and the open-air concentration camps.

These are the first steps toward peace.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen

Quit stealing land. Quit the Apartheid and the open-air concentration camps.

These are the first steps toward peace.

Yes, the Palestinians should do that.

[Jules Galen]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Yes, the Palestinians should do that.

Good try. Stupid Post.

One day, when all the Israelis are in Palestinian Gas Chambers experiencing the Final Solution, you'll understand what I mean.

[applecorped]

Pavlov would be proud

[Jules Galen]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Pavlov would be proud

The Israelis asked for it. And they are going to get it.

It may take a while...but they are going to get it.

[applecorped]

[Roofgardener]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

You must surely have noticed that "Zionist" and "Zionism" are words I use extensively while words associated with parasites are pretty sparse. And yet you ask this. You are strange.

Since you bring it up, and with regard to the fantasy that the Jewish State was for sharing but the other children wouldn't play nice, the letters and diaries and articles and books from pre-Israel Zionism were replete with associations of infection, infestation and corruption with the Palestinians, imagery very familiar to anyone who's looked into Nazi propaganda.

The term "parasitic pejorative" is a grammatical term, meaning an attached word or term that serves to demean the subject of the sentence without actually contributing to the clause.

It is not implying the actual physical existence of a biological parasite.
[/quote]

Quote:

Read the things they said.....

Why should I ? It was YOU who proposed that they where racist; surely the onus is on YOU to substantiate/support that position ?

Quote:

Be aware that in the original German context "race" and "nation" are synonymous. You should also be aware that in the intellectual environment of the time, and right up to WW2, notions of race were prominent and acceptable in polite society.

So you are saying that the early Zionist philosophers where writing in the context of their times ? My GOD... burn them ALL lest the Evil Persist.

If the concept of "race" and "nation" where synonymous, then why aren't you calling them "Nationalist" instead of "Racist" ?

Quote:

You're speaking of the displacement of the Palestinians, blaming it on the Arab Nations not the Euopean colonialists who wanted their land but not them. I'm calling it for what it was - an expulsion.

You can call it an Octopuss if you want to, but it doesn't make it true.

Quote:

The expulsions took place behind the Israeli lines, and went on into the early 50's.

No.. that is deliberately muddling up separate events with different causes. The primary "Nakhba" was the flight in 1948. (although it is sometimes used to refer to a second - smaller - on in 1967 when the PLO was ejected from the West Bank). And of COURSE it was behind Israeli lines; they wouldn't be refugees otherwise.

Quote:

All these Palestinians, if left in place, would have had a vote in a democrtatic Israel. And you're saying that the Israelis just lucked out when they turned out to be displaced. One of those amazing coincidences.

Yup... they happen.

Quote:

You are projecting (as Zionists so often do) the Ashkenazi experience onto the wider Jewish world. In the Muslim world Jews prospered, had a great degree of self-government under the Dhimmi system, had freedom of movement, ....

... and where occasionally butchered if they attempted to rise above their station. Dhimmi's are second class citizens. This was institutionalised racism, and I'm amazed you seem to be approving of it.

Quote:

All through the war the Israelis had the opposition ounumbered, outgunnned, out-trained (thank the British for that) and unprepared.

Out-trained ? Perhaps. But not outnumbered or outgunned. As I said, at the start of the invasion Israel had no combat aircraft, no artillery, and no armour. The Arabs had all of these in spades, along with much larger armies.

Quote:

Not so. The Jordanians didn't operate beyond the territory mandated to the Palestinians, and the Zionists attacked Jerusalem from the start. Who else were the Jordanians supposed to be attacking?

I note that you are focusing on the Jordanians ? King Adbdullah did indeed make assurances to the British government that he would not invade Israel. THAT task was to be left to the Egyptians and Syrians (with support from several other Arab nations). I notice you ommitted that bit ? And it was Jordan that invaded Jerusalem, not "the Zionists".

Quote:

You now seem to be suggesting that the Zionists would have been happy with a Jewish State that didn't include Jerusalem.....

Truly ? I don't recall suggesting that ? Could you remind me where I suggested that ?

Quote:

.... but by another fortunate coincidence were handed a good reason to attack it. In which they failed that time. They've got it now, and will tell anybody who asks how important it is to them. A deal-breaker to end them all, from what I hear.

For hundreds of years, the Jewish Passover ritual has terminated with the phrase "Next Year... In Jerusalem".

The Arabs didn't care about Jerusalem one way or the other, nor is it mentioned in the Koran. They only cared about it when they realised that the Jews wanted it as their capital city.

The Jews want it badly. The Arabs don't care about it, other than to spite the Jews. So yes, its a deal breaker; it is the Capital City of Israel. Deal with it

Quote:

Done and done. Knock yourself out.

Thank you waiter. However, the soup is cold and the Salad is undercooked. Please take it away, and try again ?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Roofgardener

The term "parasitic pejorative" is a grammatical term, meaning an attached word or term that serves to demean the subject of the sentence without actually contributing to the clause.

That can't possibly be right. He told me you weren't smart enough to mean that. Surely he wouldn't lie to me about something like that. Would he?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I can't help remembering that when Mujahadeen were shouting "Allahu Akbar" and throwing themselves on Russian outposts in Afghanistan that was a good thing, and to be encouraged. What changed?

The motive and circumstances were quite a bit different.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen

Good try. Stupid Post.

One day, when all the Israelis are in Palestinian Gas Chambers experiencing the Final Solution, you'll understand what I mean.

Quoted for evidence that the people opposed to the existence of Israel know full well what would happen to Jewish Israelis if they ever lost a war with the Arabs.

[Jules Galen]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Quoted for evidence that the people opposed to the existence of Israel know full well what would happen to Jewish Israelis if they ever lost a war with the Arabs.

And the Israelis will have brought down on themselves. By abusing the Arabs as they do, Israel is helping to create the nightmare they so fear...for they are making an enemy (The Palestinians) who are hateful, vengeful and utterly insane.

[applecorped]

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen

And the Israelis will have brought down on themselves. By abusing the Arabs as they do, Israel is helping to create the nightmare they so fear...for they are making an enemy (The Palestinians) who are hateful, vengeful and utterly insane.

Right now, nobody gives a **** about Palestinians aside from political points. There's bigger things like Syria/Iraq commanding their attention. And besides, the ME response to something like the Palestinians would have been WMD, like Halabja or Ghouta. Or ask the Iraqi Marsh Arabs about how they fared.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen

And the Israelis will have brought down on themselves. By abusing the Arabs as they do, Israel is helping to create the nightmare they so fear...for they are making an enemy (The Palestinians) who are hateful, vengeful and utterly insane.

And this abuse started in 1948?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Right now, nobody gives a **** about Palestinians aside from political points. There's bigger things like Syria/Iraq commanding their attention. And besides, the ME response to something like the Palestinians would have been WMD, like Halabja or Ghouta. Or ask the Iraqi Marsh Arabs about how they fared.

Nobody cares about those other Arabs because there's no Jews involved.

[Roofgardener]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Let me explain this to you.

Roofgarden is not describing my "pejoratives" as being parasitical on the rest of what I'm saying. That is at least one layer of reference too deep for him. He reaches for a descriptive term for my "pejorative" and, being lexicographically challenged, comes up with "parasitical", meaning I'm trying to associate Zionism with parasites. The appropriate descriptive in reference to "rot" would be "corruption".

Hmm... I thought the term "parasitic pejorative" was a common and well-understood term ? Clearly not in this case, and I appear to have caused confusion by using it. In pure gramatical terms, the phrase merely describes an pejorative adjective. In debate terms, it is a rhetorical technique to suggest to the reader that the adjective represents established fact, rather than opinion. It is a technique beloved of propagandists throughout history.

Quote:

Roofgarden does recognise the technique of subliminal association, and accuses me of engaging in it or thinks that I make this association in my wn mind. Whatever he might be thinking he's lying when he says I associate pejorative words with Zionism habitually.

Lying am I ? Curious.. because if you actually READ my post, I merely posed the question to you. Unfortunately, I used a grammatical/rhetorical term that you where unfamiliar with, and triggered a parasitical discussion on parasites.

[/quote]

Quote:

.....Unlike Roofgarden you're not an innately stupid person,

And hence we bring up ANOTHER rhetorical term: the logical fallacy of "ad hominem". If you can't hold up an argument, simply attack and/or insult the person you are debating with.

Good work CapelDodger.

[Roofgardener]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen

And the Israelis will have brought down on themselves. By abusing the Arabs as they do, Israel is helping to create the nightmare they so fear...for they are making an enemy (The Palestinians) who are hateful, vengeful and utterly insane.

Truly ? "abusing The Arabs" ? What, all of them ? Israeli's routinely abuse Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudi's, Kuwaitis etcetera ?

Curiously, those Arabs that are Israeli citizens have a higher standard of living, greater social, political and judicial freedoms, and greater political representation than Arabs in ANY other Arab nation.

So it appears - in the absence of repression of Arab citizens of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Libya (pre revolution), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc - it would appear that only Arabs in the "occupied territories" (e.g. the West Bank and East Jerusalem) are "abused".

I wonder why that might be ?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Roofgardener

Hmm... I thought the term "parasitic pejorative" was a common and well-understood term ?

The Dunning-Kruger effect is actually two-sided: CapelDoger wasn't clever enough to realize he didn't understand the term, and you were too clever to anticipate that he wouldn't.

[Roofgardener]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The Dunning-Kruger effect is actually two-sided: CapelDoger wasn't clever enough to realize he didn't understand the term, and you were too clever to anticipate that he wouldn't.

Thanks for the clarification Ziggurat; I shall endeavour to bear that in mind in future

[Jules Galen]

Originally Posted by Roofgardener

Truly ? "abusing The Arabs" ? What, all of them ? Israeli's routinely abuse Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudi's, Kuwaitis etcetera ?

Curiously, those Arabs that are Israeli citizens have a higher standard of living, greater social, political and judicial freedoms, and greater political representation than Arabs in ANY other Arab nation.

So it appears - in the absence of repression of Arab citizens of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Libya (pre revolution), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc - it would appear that only Arabs in the "occupied territories" (e.g. the West Bank and East Jerusalem) are "abused".

I wonder why that might be ?

Yeah....Right. Keep telling yourself this Fairy Story - you might even believe it yourself some day. But don't try to blow smoke smoke up my arse.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Roofgardener

The term "parasitic pejorative" is a grammatical term, meaning an attached word or term that serves to demean the subject of the sentence without actually contributing to the clause.

I stand corrected. I now have a term to describe the "Many people use criticism of Zionism to conceal anti-semitism" response to criticism of Zionism. It is a parasitic response, associating anti-semitism and the critic while not contributing to the discussion.

Parasitic. Useful word.

So that aside, you claimed that I habitually produce such pejoratives when I use the terms "Zionism" and "Zionist" to make said associations, which is evidently not true, by examination.

Quote:

It is not implying the actual physical existence of a biological parasite.

The Zionist association of Palestinians with images of disease and uncleanliness are revelatory, not parasitic. And not with regard to Palestinians, obviously. Foreigness was a big thing as well, in logical disregard for the Palestinians native status. They were, of course, thoroughly foreign to Ashkenazi immigrants, including the Palestinian Jews. In fact Palestinian Jews were particularly disappointing.

Not much has changed apart from the addition of "violent" to the associations.

Quote:

Why should I ? It was YOU who proposed that they where racist; surely the onus is on YOU to substantiate/support that position ?

I'm challenging you to read what they said and wrote. Not what you've been told they said and wrote.

Are you aware that Herzl justified anti-semitism as the natural human response to an alien presence?

Quote:

So you are saying that the early Zionist philosophers where writing in the context of their times ? My GOD... burn them ALL lest the Evil Persist.

Can you find any discontinuity in the philosophy of Zionism between then and now?

I'm not criticising those European racists for being European racists in their day. I am pointing out that reality, though. And that reality is the foundation of Israel today, not the need for a bolt-hole from ever-imminent annihilation becuase Dreyfuss. It wasn't based on Project Fear or the need to preserve Jewish tradition, which the early Zionists thought was archaic and the result of Jews' alien status. It was based on Project Jewish Pride, in which a nation-state of their own would enable the Jewish Race to drag itself out of superstition and non-Western dress into the modern world. Something very akin to the Israel of today, which makes so much of its modernity and Zionist Pride. Zionists : the "uppity Jews". The "Jews who started fighting back". The Redeemed Jew, not by righteousness (as Jewish tradition has it) but by force of will.

Zionism is nothing unless it's about modernity.

Quote:

If the concept of "race" and "nation" where synonymous, then why aren't you calling them "Nationalist" instead of "Racist" ?

Because in modern terms both mean "Racist". Scotland is Natonalist, but not racist. Israel is racist because the Jewish State always meant racially Jewish.

Quote:

You can call it an Octopuss if you want to, but it doesn't make it true.

Truth makes things true.

Quote:

No.. that is deliberately muddling up separate events with different causes. The primary "Nakhba" was the flight in 1948. (although it is sometimes used to refer to a second - smaller - on in 1967 when the PLO was ejected from the West Bank). And of COURSE it was behind Israeli lines; they wouldn't be refugees otherwise.

Without the expulsion there'd have been no Jewish State. No Jewish majority, no Jewish State. And it was clear by the mid-20's that the "yearning to return" that Zionists thought to be a Jewish racial characteristic was a fantasy. "Next year in Jerusalem" is a a toast, not an aspiration, let alone a plan Herzl's "spiriting" of the population across the border by creating jobs for them in a satellite economic zone with an appropriate economic relationship to the Jewish State (a subservient one, naturally, since they were being brought along with modernisation went south as soon as the number of Palestinians and their degree of urbanisation became apparent to Zionists.

Expulsion was necessary, and recognised by all concerned. Expulsion happened. And you claim that it was a happy accident that these people just went away and weren't allowed back.

Why weren't they allowed back, you ask? Because they only went away in the first place in order to come back and Kill All The Jews! Again!

Do you people ever listen to yourselves?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The Dunning-Kruger effect is actually two-sided: CapelDoger wasn't clever enough to realize he didn't understand the term, and you were too clever to anticipate that he wouldn't.

I stand again corrected, and in possession of a useful new term. When, for instance, people say that my posts may be concealing anti-semitism they are employing a parasitic pejorative.

Do you still not buy that I'm not an anti-semite?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I stand again corrected, and in possession of a useful new term. When, for instance, people say that my posts may be concealing anti-semitism they are employing a parasitic pejorative.

Do you still not buy that I'm not an anti-semite?

Do you still think I'm a racist?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen

And the Israelis will have brought down on themselves. By abusing the Arabs as they do, Israel is helping to create the nightmare they so fear...for they are making an enemy (The Palestinians) who are hateful, vengeful and utterly insane.

You are, as is frequent I'm afraid, missing the larger picture.

Israel will collapse through its own contradictions, not any efforts of the Palestinians. However stabby they get through frustration, where the PLO failed they won't make progress.

It doesn't matter what the Palestinians feel or do. What matters is simply that they're there, inside the Historic Claim. It can't be denied, nor can it be accomodated by Zionism. Rabin tried to accomodate, and look what happened. When you saddle up nationalism you choose to ride a tiger; religion enrages the beast.

Modernist Zionism, of the original tie-wearing end of the movement and of the equally secular collectivists that usurped their leadership, died when the very secular Likud mobiilised the Mizrahim vote against the godless socialists of the Labour Party. Ironically, the Labour Party neglected the Mizrahim vote because they assumed that second and subsequent Mizrahim generations would assimilate by example.

Herzl said, when asked about the influence of religious Jews on the proposed Jewish State, said "We shall know how to keep them in their synagogues". Well if anyone ever did know how they've long missed their chance.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Do you still think I'm a racist?

Absolutely. Been there, said it, just said it again.

[Roofgardener]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen

Yeah....Right. Keep telling yourself this Fairy Story - you might even believe it yourself some day. But don't try to blow smoke smoke up my arse.

Thank you for burdening me with that HORRIBLE mental image.

Which part of my statement do you actually disagree with ?

[Roofgardener]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I stand again corrected, and in possession of a useful new term. When, for instance, people say that my posts may be concealing anti-semitism they are employing a parasitic pejorative.

Do you still not buy that I'm not an anti-semite?

Not in the current sense of the term. The example you cite is merely a proposition; it contains neither pejoratives nor, indeed, adjectives.

Having said that, there is nothing to stop you creating your own terminology or neologisms; but please do try and avoid confusion by duplication of existing germs... I mean... terms.

In regards anti-semitism; I have neither evidence to suggest, nor any reason to believe, that you are an anti-semite.

A Bigot, perhaps (as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary), but not an anti-semite.

[Roofgardener]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I'm challenging you to read what they said and wrote. Not what you've been told they said and wrote.

That's a tad presumptions CapelDodger, because you have NO idea what "I've been told they said and wrote".

Quote:

Are you aware that Herzl justified anti-semitism as the natural human response to an alien presence?

It sounds like he was describing xenophobia in general ?

Quote:

Can you find any discontinuity in the philosophy of Zionism between then and now?

Thats a tricky question to answer, as the concept of Zionism has split into multiple different offshoots. As a political phillosophy, it has also declined in importance (and certainly relevance), insofar as its primary gaol has already been accomplished. It's kinda like asking ".. can you find any discountinuity in the philosophy of the Suffragette Movement between then and now ? ".

Quote:

I'm not criticising those European racists for being European racists in their day.....

Then why use the adjective "racist" AT ALL, when you seem to be agreeing that the meaning of the term (or at least, its perception within societal norms) has changed significantly since the early-mid 20th century ? why not just call them "Europeans" ?

This begs an interesting question. Do you regard the modern-day state of Israel to be racist ?

Quote:

Expulsion was necessary, and recognised by all concerned. Expulsion happened. And you claim that it was a happy accident that these people just went away and weren't allowed back.

In VERY broad terms.... YES.

CapelDodger, there was a lot of civil unrest on the run up to the decleration of the state of Israel. There was then an outright civil war between the Israelis and Arab Palestinians. There was SOME emmigration (mostly of the Palestinian Arab middle classes), but the large-scale exodus of the Arabs ONLY occured slightly later, when the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan (and several others) attacked. There is a basic causual link here.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Absolutely. Been there, said it, just said it again.

Then why do you even care about the answer to your question?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Roofgardener

Not in the current sense of the term. The example you cite is merely a proposition; it contains neither pejoratives nor, indeed, adjectives.

Dunning-Kruger strikes again!