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

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    06 Feb '10 01:22
    There. I have coined a term for a new, as yet undefined approach.

    Many Zionists and Anti-Zionists might possibly agree - if asked to reflect - that both fervent Zionism and fervent Anti-Zionism are barriers to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

    Almost everybody would also agree that Zionism has changed facts on the ground and created a new reality.

    So what might Post Zionism be? Can we generate an agenda here that to some extent liberates opposing proponents from their partisan paralysis and unites them on some feasible forward looking middle ground?
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    06 Feb '10 03:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    There. I have coined a term for a new, as yet undefined approach.

    Many Zionists and Anti-Zionists might possibly agree - if asked to reflect - that both fervent Zionism and fervent Anti-Zionism are barriers to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

    Almost everybody would also agree that Zionism has changed facts on the ground and created a new reality. ...[text shortened]... ts from their partisan paralysis and unites them on some feasible forward looking middle ground?
    "Post-Zionism" suggests Zionism no longer exists.
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    06 Feb '10 06:49
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    "Post-Zionism" suggests Zionism no longer exists.
    So? Did you not understand the OP?
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    06 Feb '10 07:24
    So the name you have chosen makes no sense and is politically charged to boot. Therefore it's a very poor name.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    06 Feb '10 08:09
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    So the name you have chosen makes no sense and is politically charged to boot. Therefore it's a very poor name.
    Ah I see, so you didn't understand the OP. As I thought.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    06 Feb '10 08:24 / 2 edits
    sh76 is one of the staunchest supporters of Israel on this Forum. He wants to see security and peace. And compromise. And justice. [...each of these words being still furiously debated notwithstanding].

    And yet he said this a day or two ago on another thread:

    FWIW, I abhor Zionism as a concept; i.e, that there "ought to" be a Jewish state in Israel based on some sort of Biblical directive. I don't think anyone should be bound by someone else's interpretation of their scripture.

    I do not equate this concept of Zionism with supporting Israel, however.

    As I see it, the Jewish people living in Israel (regardless of when or why they arrived) had every right to self-determination and the UN compromise in 1947 was a perfectly fair and equitable solution. It was primarily the Arab states that rejected the partition and warred on the newly formed state in an attempt to strangle it in its cradle. Everything that's happened thereafter can be debated, but that's the genesis.

    This may surprise people, but I agree that "Zionism" per se, is an obstacle to peace the same way Islamic fundamentalism is. Any doctrine that says "My God says this" or "My scripture says that" or "My forefather did this" or "My belief system dictates that"... and so YOU have to capitulate to my doctrine, is an obstacle to peace.


    If this is the view of a commentator like sh76, then clearly there is potential for something that might be called "Post Zionism" as a key to security, peace, compromise and justice.

    Zionism has placed a large population of Jews/Israelis in the Levant and they have now been there - in the form of a nation - for generations. That is a reality. And it will need to be accommodated, unless someone proposes mass deportations a.k.a. ethnic cleaning - the ideological domain of feckless nitwits.

    So now the region has to move beyond the concept of Zionism and find a new paradigm that brings peace between those who have benefitted from Zionism and those who have been harmed by it.

    sh76's words are what triggered the idea of framing that settlement as "Post Zionism".
  7. 06 Feb '10 15:28
    So now the region has to move beyond the concept of Zionism and find a new paradigm that brings peace between those who have benefitted from Zionism and those who have been harmed by it.
    Isael has moved beyond zionism decades ago. Guess who hasn't?

    Nobody wants to say this, but the Arabs hate jews. How can you benefit from a neighbour you won't recognize?

    Anytime Israel has supported their infrastructure Arabs blow it up so it doesn't seem like Israel is trying to improve their quality of life.

    There's nothing Israel can do to "stop harming" their neighbours aside from mass suicide.
  8. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    06 Feb '10 16:44
    Originally posted by FMF
    Many Zionists and Anti-Zionists might possibly agree - if asked to reflect - that both fervent Zionism and fervent Anti-Zionism are barriers to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.
    This might parallel the ecumenical movement which has demonstrated a decidedly post protestant outlook to Christian ideology and experience, where the dogma of difference has been overlooked in favor of the bond of similarity. As a result of this a world wide church from as diverse a range of traditions as one can imagine has emerged and merged to articulate a unifying voice within the Christian Church as each denomination is challenged to rally around the central theme of the Gospel's, the Good News of Christ's love for us.

    Whether a strong central theme of shared cultural experience could be promoted that would transcend the pro and anti factionalism to usher in a post zionist era is a very good question. How what why and who might provide the leadership needed to precipitate the ideological exodus that will take the nation to this new promised land of cooperation and mutual respect will surely be worthy of being awarded the Nobel peace prize in perpetuity.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Feb '10 01:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    There. I have coined a term for a new, as yet undefined approach.

    Many Zionists and Anti-Zionists might possibly agree - if asked to reflect - that both fervent Zionism and fervent Anti-Zionism are barriers to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

    Almost everybody would also agree that Zionism has changed facts on the ground and created a new reality. ...[text shortened]... ts from their partisan paralysis and unites them on some feasible forward looking middle ground?
    All hail post Zionism.

    All hail post Islamic fundamentalism.

    All hail an era where people believe what they want to believe, but recognize:

    a) Other people's rights to believe what they want to believe; and

    b) That their beliefs are not binding on other people

    Secular Zionism was based on the concept that Jews needed a country of their own so they wouldn't be persecuted or massacred. Unfortunately, the opposite may have turned out to be the case. A Jew in Israel is in more danger of being killed by a terrorist attack than, say, an American Jew of being killed in an anti-Semitic incident. I would also like to think that the World has moved passed the stage that Israel is necessary to prevent a second Holocaust. A little voice in the back of my mind whispers to me that my great grandfather, who was later gassed at Auschwitz, might have been thinking the same thing while witting in his Berlin apartment in 1928. But, still, if there is a clear and present danger of another Holocaust in the present, it's the danger of Israel losing a war.

    My cousin, himself a religious Zionist, insists that reason for the historically low anti-Semitism rates in Western countries (albeit rising in Europe) is that the existence of Israel and its strength causes people to look at Jews with respect rather than contempt and dismissiveness, even if they condemn Israeli actions. Self-serving though his statement is, I do not discount the possibility of its being a factor. Still, if Israel can exist at peace, that's the best scenario for everyone.

    In all, I support Israel, but am not convinced that the concepts behind secular Zionism have been vindicated.

    I reject religious Zionism because I reject all religious doctrine that adversely affects other people.

    I will say that post Zionism is unachievable and unenviable so long as it's not matched by an elimination of Islamic religious dogma calling for the destruction of Israel.
  10. 07 Feb '10 03:22
    Originally posted by sh76
    My cousin, himself a religious Zionist, insists that reason for the historically low anti-Semitism rates in Western countries (albeit rising in Europe) is that the existence of Israel and its strength causes people to look at Jews with respect rather than contempt and dismissiveness, even if they condemn Israeli actions. Self-serving though his statement is, I do not discount the possibility of its being a factor.
    i kinda doubt the anti-semites are thinkin' "i better change my way o' thinkin' or Israel's gonna come kick my @ss."
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Feb '10 03:28
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    i kinda doubt the anti-semites are thinkin' "i better change my way o' thinkin' or Israel's gonna come kick my @ss."
    On a micro level, probably not.

    On a macro level... well, do you think Hitler might have thought twice about going after the Jews if Israel was sitting there with one of the World's most effective air forces just over the hill?

    I'm not saying it's a fact; but I think it's a possibility.
  12. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    07 Feb '10 07:18
    Originally posted by sh76
    [b]On a macro level... well, do you think Hitler might have thought twice about going after the Jews if Israel was sitting there with one of the World's most effective air forces just over the hill?/b]
    It may be one of the most effective air forces relative to the context within which it operates.

    Relatively speaking if that Hitler were an Ahmedinajan then your observation has merit, but if that Hitleresque machine had a first strike capacity similar to that of Germany relative to the Allies at the start of WW2 then your argument is problematic. Given that an anti-semitic power with that disproportionately greater relative advantage to Israel currently or is likely to exist in the foreseeable future, Israel being this muscled up hardly makes any sense either
  13. 07 Feb '10 16:17
    Originally posted by FMF
    There. I have coined a term for a new, as yet undefined approach.

    Many Zionists and Anti-Zionists might possibly agree - if asked to reflect - that both fervent Zionism and fervent Anti-Zionism are barriers to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

    Almost everybody would also agree that Zionism has changed facts on the ground and created a new reality. ...[text shortened]... ts from their partisan paralysis and unites them on some feasible forward looking middle ground?
    You tell me. You coined it.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Feb '10 16:51
    Originally posted by scherzo
    You tell me. You coined it.
    Those who don't understand the OP most likely have little to offer the debate.
  15. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    07 Feb '10 17:27
    Originally posted by sh76
    Secular Zionism was based on the concept that Jews needed a country of their own so they wouldn't be persecuted or massacred. Unfortunately, the opposite may have turned out to be the case. ...if there is a clear and present danger of another Holocaust in the present, it's the danger of Israel losing a war.

    My cousin, himself a religious Zionist, insists th ...[text shortened]... matched by an elimination of Islamic religious dogma calling for the destruction of Israel.
    Yes. Ironic, isn't it? If the Jews had NOT established Israel, anti-Semitism would be practically extinct today.