Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    21 Dec '16 10:29
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/opinion/liberal-zionism-in-the-age-of-trump.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region%C2%AEion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=2

    A startlilng read. Very coherent. I may return to copy and paste for those unable to read the source (New York times).
  2. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    21 Dec '16 11:15
    e.g.
    "by denying liberal principles, Zionism immediately becomes continuous with — rather than contradictory to — the anti-Semitic politics of the sort promoted by the alt-right…
    insofar as Israel is concerned, every liberal Zionist has not just tolerated the denial of this minimum liberal standard, but avowed this denial as core to their innermost convictions. Whereas liberalism depends on the idea that states must remain neutral on matters of religion and race, Zionism consists in the idea that the State of Israel is not Israeli, but Jewish. As such, the country belongs first and foremost not to its citizens, but to the Jewish people — a group that’s defined by ethnic affiliation or religious conversion…"
  3. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    21 Dec '16 11:18
    Also from a blog discussing this NYT article:
    The inherent tensions between Zionism and liberalism were similarly highlighted by a recent meeting between white nationalist leader Richard Spencer and a Texas rabbi, Matt Rosenberg. When the rabbi asked Spencer to pray with him for “love and inclusion”, Spencer replied:

    Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel? And by that I mean radical inclusion. Maybe all of the Middle East could go move in to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Would you really want that?

    The rabbi could not answer. His bogus liberal credentials had been stripped from him. Boehm points out:
    Opposition to the Palestinians’ “right of return” is a matter of consensus among left and right Zionists because also liberal Zionists insist that Israel has the right to ensure that Jews constitute the ethnic majority in their country. That’s the reason for which Rabbi Rosenberg could not answer Spencer.

    - See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2016-12-21/zionism-exposed-in-pages-of-new-york-times/#sthash.OFWoAkZU.dpuf
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    21 Dec '16 15:34
    It's interesting that the right has traditional held a strong pro-Israeli bias, largely due to their own religious convictions; yet, this wave of right-wing controlled government has become a platform for outspoken anti-Semites.

    However, if the alt-right promoted a state run by whites, that would draw some harsh backlash. Yet, Israel's drive to preserve a Jewish-run state continues under the guise of self-preservation. The Palestinian Apartheid is at the very least understandable (even if not excusable), since Palestinians will never relent in seeking land they feel belongs to them. But, the rampant denial of Syrian refugees makes it hard to criticize Israel right now. I don't just mean European nations, I'm including the U.S. as well, which still has strong opposition to Syrian and Muslim integration from the right.

    I think liberals in the U.S. should just start calling Zionism what it is: Jewish supremacy. After all, Judaism not only holds that their land was god-given to them, but also that the Jews are the "apple" of God's eye. We'd abhor this in the U.S. if whites believed God gave them the U.S., and were God's favored people. But then again, this is exactly what the U.S. has done since the Pilgrims, with the Native Americans being treated like Palestinians.
  5. 21 Dec '16 17:34
    Israel has two choices. They can either preserve their religious heritage or let them be absorbed by a Muslim government that can treat them as they like.

    After leaving the ovens of Europe, I don't think that will go over to well, do you?
  6. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    21 Dec '16 17:39
    Originally posted by whodey
    Israel has two choices. They can either preserve their religious heritage or let them be absorbed by a Muslim government that can treat them as they like.

    After leaving the ovens of Europe, I don't think that will go over to well, do you?
    You know? The old testament is all about the Hebrews being punished for their behaviour.

    Maybe rhe nazis were just another heavenly punishment, and that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is just another Godly fist-shag in the making...

    Too soon?
  7. 21 Dec '16 17:44
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    You know? The old testament is all about the Hebrews being punished for their behaviour.

    Maybe rhe nazis were just another heavenly punishment, and that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is just another Godly fist-shag in the making...

    Too soon?
    God help us all. Shav has read the Bible?

    Say it ain't so Shav!!
  8. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    21 Dec '16 17:48
    Originally posted by whodey
    God help us all. Shav has read the Bible?

    Say it ain't so Shav!!
    I've read a lot of sci-fi and fantasy.
  9. 21 Dec '16 19:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    It's interesting that the right has traditional held a strong pro-Israeli bias, largely due to their own religious convictions; yet, this wave of right-wing controlled government has become a platform for outspoken anti-Semites.

    However, if the alt-right promoted a state run by whites, that would draw some harsh backlash. Yet, Israel's drive to preserve ...[text shortened]... the U.S. has done since the Pilgrims, with the Native Americans being treated like Palestinians.
    The jews need a one tiny patch of land where they are not threatened with extermination on a daily basis.

    This would have been so much easier if they had just given a piece of Germany to the Jews.
  10. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    21 Dec '16 20:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    The jews need a one tiny patch of land where they are not threatened with extermination on a daily basis.

    This would have been so much easier if they had just given a piece of Germany to the Jews.
    Or Poland? Or Russia? Or Ukraine? Or France? Or Romania? Or Italy?

    Or we could try the Danish approach - aka integration. They declined to allow the Nazis to oppress the Jews.

    Let's stop threatening people with extermination on grounds of ethnicity, race, religion.
  11. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    21 Dec '16 20:51
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Or Poland? Or Russia? Or Ukraine? Or France? Or Romania? Or Italy?

    Or we could try the Danish approach - aka integration. They declined to allow the Nazis to oppress the Jews.

    Let's stop threatening people with extermination on grounds of ethnicity, race, religion.
    Get with 2017 man!

    The age of Aquarius has passed; 'tis now the age of trailer trash white guy.

    By Summer there'll be fascists in Washington, Paris and the Hague.

    It's gonna get funny and violent! Woooo hooooooooo
  12. 21 Dec '16 21:11
    There'll be Facists?

    Open your eyes. Facists have been in control for about 30 years at least.
  13. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    21 Dec '16 21:31
    Originally posted by Eladar
    There'll be Facists?

    Open your eyes. Facists have been in control for about 30 years at least.
    In the USA you are not wrong.
  14. 22 Dec '16 00:31
    Originally posted by finnegan
    In the USA you are not wrong.
    He's entirely wrong. Fascism is defined by the subjugation of the private market by the State. Mussolini didn't let business into government, he controlled business through government, instituting strict price controls and dividing the economy into 6 "corporazioni," with the heads of those directly appointed by himself.

    The US has had nothing in common with Fascism over the past 30 years.
  15. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    22 Dec '16 10:34 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    He's entirely wrong. Fascism is defined by the subjugation of the private market by the State. Mussolini didn't let business into government, he controlled business through government, instituting strict price controls and dividing the economy into 6 "corporazioni," with the heads of those directly appointed by himself.

    The US has had nothing in common with Fascism over the past 30 years.
    Who gets to define Fascism here?

    I think there is room for some diversity in the implementation of a general concept of identifying the needs of the state with the needs of corporations, big business at the expense of small business, the suppression of dissent starting with trade unions, the mobilization of mass support through extreme, flag waving nationalism and identifying scapegoats in the community, the buildup of military power in the hands of an unaccountable leadership hiding behind the flag, the pursuit of foreign adventure in the interests of corporate greed as well as plain arrogance.

    If there is any single marker for Fascism I suggest it is typically ultra nationalism and the excessive use of the national flag in political life.

    European Fascism took many of its ideas from the USA, not least the displacement of more traditional models for capitalism with the emergence of a corporate state - with the methods developed to manage corporations proving eminently applicable to political management. William Appleman Williams is a good source describing this. Other debts to the USA include its applications of eugenic principles in immigration control, the racist uses of segregation, and genocide. As for ideological control and the totalitarian state, look no further than World War One and the birth of the PR industry, again with many political applications.