Pro-Israel, Anti-Zionist

Sure sure, whatever you say.

Maybe you should use your claim of being pro-israel anti- zionist as a signature on P.ie

Think of what it would do to your reputation

Dan you have all the subtilty of a sledgehammer.

He mistakes himself for a whole wit.

You stole my joke Ibis. I have used that old line about a wit and a half wit either here or on P.ie, I can't remember which. I have a good mind to steal your excellent skit of the monty python argument scene.

View Single Post

22nd July 2008, 10:56 PM

youngdan vbmenu_register("postmenu_1126123", true); Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: massachusetts Posts: 3,267

Re: Fox News excludes Ron Paul from Televised Debate Leave Bertie a www.politics.ie/1126123-post18.html+youngdan+half-wit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us#" class="postlink" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Loan. What is the matter with you, you lug. You come here trying to be a wit. You got it half right at least because you are no doubt a half-wit.

I'm with ibis more or less on this, youngdan and marvel at your simplification of the facts the foundation of the current state of Israel.

Pro-Israel in accepting its physical presence - and to do or wish otherwise is a very dangerous road to go down; Anti-zionist in that I cannot condone or accept the philosophy that underlies the wall, the degradation and dehumanization of Palestine, the rotting food, the deprivation of water, the destruction of once-fertile land.

The current Zionist philosophy (and remember, like all philosophies, it is organic and mutable over time as contexts and external circumstances change) reminds me rather ironically of the quote from Shylock in the Merchant of Venice in which he complains about the punishment he receives at the hands of the Christians. I have sympathy for Shylock in the play, but the lines below seem to underline the Zionist attitude towards Palestine. And they clearly don't care whether a Palestinian bleeds.

'You take my house when you do take that prop
That doth sustain my house; you take my life
When you do take the means whereby I live.'

I am firmly anti-zionist but cannot wish there were no state of Israel, much as I abhor the way it behaves and the shifting of its borders.

It is contagous. Now there are 2 pro israel anti zionists on Earth

Kate P wrote:

I am firmly anti-zionist

Why ? I'm learning about these things from ye all so be gentle.

youngdan wrote:

It is contagous. Now there are 2 pro israel anti zionists on Earth

You'll find, I think, that there's quite a lot of us. It doesn't fit a worldview that divides people into "uncritical of Israel" and "anti-Semitic", I'll grant you - but you know what they say about any system that divides the world into two types of people.

Tell us ibis.

Why are you anti-zionist ?

Anti Zionist:

- Against Israel's policy of militaristic expansion in the region which forces Palestinians into refugee camps.
- Against Israeli settlors establishing settlements in the Palestiniant territories in direct contravention of UNSC Resolution 446 which states:
"the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the
Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no
legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a
comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"


Pro Israel:

- Support Israel's right to exist as a State.
- Support Israel's right to defend its de jure borders from unjust attack in a proportionate manner. This does not extend to the de facto borders which is, as above, in contravention of a United Nations Resolution.
- Support the maintenance of Israel's borders by means of an agreed border under a sustainable two state solution.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Tell us ibis.

Why are you anti-zionist ?

Zionism has achieved its primary objective - the State of Israel. It's now surplus to requirements - ordinary nationalism is quite sufficient without Zionism. It was always a pretty aggressive policy, racially/religiously exclusive and without even any mention of the rights of others - it even endeavours to eradicate the non-Jewish archaeology of Israel. What's to like?

Audi, you are wasting your time with these guys. In trying to win an argument they are misleading you. Ibis says it himself above.

Zionism's primary objective was the the State of Israel.

So don't enter into a discussion with anyone in real life and say that you are pro-israel and anti-zionist or the person with whom you are conversing will just laugh at you.

All 3 of them should be ashamed of themselves.

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Tell us ibis.

Why are you anti-zionist ?

Zionism has achieved its primary objective - the State of Israel. It's now surplus to requirements - ordinary nationalism is quite sufficient without Zionism. It was always a pretty aggressive policy, racially/religiously exclusive and without even any mention of the rights of others - it even endeavours to eradicate the non-Jewish archaeology of Israel. What's to like?

So Zionism has achieved its objective .. isn't it then a contradiction to say you are "anti-Zionist" if you support Israel ? You'll have to distinguish between "ordinary Nationalism" and Zionism but I think it's inherently a contradiction because if you oppose militant nationalism (Zionism?) they weren't granted the land around there after long peaceful negotiations - they had been squabbling with the Arabs long before 1947.

I think it might be an absurdity to say you are "anti-Zionist" because it's like saying "anti-Stalinist" ? If this is where youngdan might be coming from then I get him.

johnfás wrote:

Anti Zionist:

- Against Israel's policy of militaristic expansion in the region which forces Palestinians into refugee camps.
- Against Israeli settlors establishing settlements in the Palestiniant territories in direct contravention of UNSC Resolution 446 which states:
"the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the
Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no
legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a
comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

Again it sounds like a historical term - an aspirant, idealist nationistic movement - and not necessarily through forceful means either (?) - which is now a bit of an anachronism since the State of Israel was given to them after WWII.

Israeli expansion is another thing - who defines how much it should grow or not grow ? I know they've been steadily encroaching in the land area occupied by Palestinians which would be like midlanders saying Dublin shouldn't' grow, wouldn't it?

It's not easy when they are liable throw bombs at each other because of land either.

It is not easy and anyone who attempts to categorise Israeli-Palestinian relations in simplistic terms will fall sadly short.

Stop misleading the man with jive talk.

Ignore them Audi because Ibis misspoke and isn't man enough to admit it.

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Tell us ibis.

Why are you anti-zionist ?

Zionism has achieved its primary objective - the State of Israel. It's now surplus to requirements - ordinary nationalism is quite sufficient without Zionism. It was always a pretty aggressive policy, racially/religiously exclusive and without even any mention of the rights of others - it even endeavours to eradicate the non-Jewish archaeology of Israel. What's to like?

So Zionism has achieved its objective .. isn't it then a contradiction to say you are "anti-Zionist" if you support Israel ? You'll have to distinguish between "ordinary Nationalism" and Zionism but I think it's inherently a contradiction because if you oppose militant nationalism (Zionism?) they weren't granted the land around there after long peaceful negotiations - they had been squabbling with the Arabs long before 1947.

I think it might be an absurdity to say you are "anti-Zionist" because it's like saying "anti-Stalinist" ? If this is where youngdan might be coming from then I get him.

johnfás wrote:

Anti Zionist:

- Against Israel's policy of militaristic expansion in the region which forces Palestinians into refugee camps.
- Against Israeli settlors establishing settlements in the Palestiniant territories in direct contravention of UNSC Resolution 446 which states:
"the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the
Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no
legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a
comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

Again it sounds like a historical term - an aspirant, idealist nationistic movement - and not necessarily through forceful means either (?) - which is now a bit of an anachronism since the State of Israel was given to them after WWII.

Israeli expansion is another thing - who defines how much it should grow or not grow ? I know they've been steadily encroaching in the land area occupied by Palestinians which would be like midlanders saying Dublin shouldn't' grow, wouldn't it?

It's not easy when they are liable throw bombs at each other because of land either.

Hmm. The problem is that parties like Likud describe themselves as 'Zionist'. If all that there was to Zionism was the establishment of Israel, then those parties cannot be Zionist. However, I think we'll have to accept that if major political parties in Israel want to describe themselves as Zionist, they're probably in a better position to make the call than we are.

However, we're dealing here with modern Zionism and historical Zionism - much as in Ireland we have historical republicanism and modern republicanism. I would have supported the majority of the aims of the original republican movement, but I don't support modern republicanism. So it is quite possible for someone to support the historical aims of Zionism, but not the current aims of Zionism (as evidenced and determined by 'Zionist' parties).

While I do have a certain amount of sympathy with the historical aims of Zionism, I wouldn't have supported historical Zionism either - as I said, it's a racially/religiously exclusive philosophy with no mention of the rights of non-Jews.

I support the current State of Israel on the basis that it exists, which to me is quite sufficient justification for a State. I support their right to self-defence and freedom from terrorism on the same basis that I support the right of any other state to the same. I decry their bloody and brutal actions against their neighbours and their foul policies of apartheid on the same basis that I would decry them in any other state. They have no special place amongst the nations, and I see no reason for them to be accorded one. That's the long and the short of it - it makes me pro-Israel in the same sense that I am, say, pro-French. youngdan may be confused because for him "pro-Israeli" means "anti-Palestinian". I am not, for the reasons given above, anti-Palestinian.

ibis wrote:

While I do have a certain amount of sympathy with the historical aims of Zionism, I wouldn't have supported historical Zionism either - as I said, it's a racially/religiously exclusive philosophy with no mention of the rights of non-Jews.

I somehow ignored that - it's very hard to believe although other religions tend to be exclusive too.

Is this really coming from the 12 tribes of israel and do the latter day Zionists really believe that shite if that's where their arrogance derives from?

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

While I do have a certain amount of sympathy with the historical aims of Zionism, I wouldn't have supported historical Zionism either - as I said, it's a racially/religiously exclusive philosophy with no mention of the rights of non-Jews.

I somehow ignored that - it's very hard to believe although other religions tend to be exclusive too.

Is this really coming from the 12 tribes of israel and do the latter day Zionists really believe that shite if that's where their arrogance derives from?

Religions may tend to be exclusive but what distinguishes Israel is the religious exclusivity of the State. There is no State in the world where you are automatically entitled to be a citizen of by virtue of your Christian or Islamic faith.

See how he will waffle for ever. Audi, just pull out a dictionary because Ibis wants to talk about the Easter Rising.

He really is a remarkable fellow.

Now John Fas is waffling about religion. Ignore him as well Audi because you do not need to be Jewish to be a Zionist. The Christien right here are zionists.

The 3 of them are a disgrace to the site

Who said you had to be Jewish to be a Zionist? I made the point that if you are Jewish you are automatically entitled to be a citizen of Israel. I further stated that being a Christian will not automatically entitle you to be a citizen of any state. Would you like to contradict this statement?

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

While I do have a certain amount of sympathy with the historical aims of Zionism, I wouldn't have supported historical Zionism either - as I said, it's a racially/religiously exclusive philosophy with no mention of the rights of non-Jews.

I somehow ignored that - it's very hard to believe although other religions tend to be exclusive too.

Is this really coming from the 12 tribes of israel and do the latter day Zionists really believe that shite if that's where their arrogance derives from?

Well, Zionism isn't Judaism. Zionism is a movement that uses Judaism as a marker to define the group it cares about.

Say someone decided to set up a movement that espoused a pure Catholic Ireland (let's call them Veritas), and which didn't mention the rights of anyone except Catholics. We would, I think, regard them (and quite rightly) as fringe nutters. However, would that mean (as they would undoubtedly claim) that we were either anti-Irish or anti-Catholic - would we not just be anti-Veritas?

Everyone knows that. Why did you introduce religion into the conversation about Zionism. All 3 of you are trying to confuse Audi. You could have told Audi that religon and zionism are distinct but waffling suited you better

Audi. Zionism is a non religous term.

youngdan wrote:

Everyone knows that. Why did you introduce religion into the conversation about Zionism. All 3 of you are trying to confuse Audi. You could have told Audi that religon and zionism are distinct but waffling suited you better

Audi. Zionism is a non religous term.

That's not even accurate. Zionism is not a religion, but it uses religion/ethnicity as a basis, which makes it a term with religious overtones alright. That's like claiming Opus Dei aren't a religious group.

Now they are beginning to pull the piss Audi. Ibis now wants to talk about Ganley. Just ignore them.