I doubt it was unintentional, though. That’s what I’ve been seeing from Zionists for years and years and years – smearing people for attacking Israel, attacking people who legitimately criticize Israel, Zionism, Zionist politics as “enemies”. You’re no different. You’ve been doing the same thing. I’m not letting you get away with this. I am not the enemy. I am not the one who wants to put AMERICANS in JAIL for BOYCOTTING A FOREIGN COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH THEIR POLITICS!!!
It wasn’t an accident. This is what Zionists do, and now we have the evidence.
I’m not interested in putting anyone in jail for political disagreements. I prefer they remain free to exercise their first amendment rights, to stand on public street corners screaming insane gibberish at passers by.
He’s on to us, comrades! The jig is up! Everybody, back to the spaceship. Next stop, planet Zion.
So are the laws that punish freedom of expression about keeping Jews safe? Are they about survival? Should protection of the Jew mean the loss of freedom for the American? Funny, I don’t remember sending a tax return to Israel. I’ve never had an Israeli passport or birth certificate. But asking these questions makes me a Jew hater, right? If Saudi Arabia hijacks American foreign policy, which they do, I can’t criticize Saudi Arabia without hating Islam, is that it?
Yes. Particularly applicable to those who shoot up a synagogue.
Oh, don’t worry. You have. About $30B+ most recently.
Must have been lost in the mail.
You have every right to hate whomever you want. You don’t need my permission.
What the hell does anything I’ve said have to do with synagogue shootings? You’re just being ridiculous now, unable to refute anything I’ve said and instead resort to shouting "JEW HATER! JEW HATER! JEW HATER!
Good grief.
clairobscur:
If it was “my” country, I might have a right to have an issue with it, though of course if the government didn’t agree with me, I’d be SOL in my wishes.
I never said it wasn’t a colonial enterprise. But that was the order of the day back then. The idea of native self-government as a universal ideal is a new one on the world scene. World history is full of empires and conquests, displacements and annexations. The winners controlled the land and doled it out to whomever they wished. Israel is hardly the only modern country created in this way. Why just next door, the British set up a Saudi prince as absolute monarch of his own newly-minted country full of natives who were never consulted about who would rule over them.
But there’s no reasonable way, nor is there any international will, to somehow rewind the clock of history until we can somehow tie every clan since Cro-Magnon wanderings to the virgin territory it was the first to occupy. That way lies madness. For every country, there is the understanding that the local sovereignty begins where the most recent imperial or colonial sovereignty from the times that borders were considered re-writable and conquest was considered acceptable ended. To single out Israel as the one exception to this rule, the one country whose existence is problematic because its presence was allowed by the most recent imperial/colonial power rather than by consultation of natives with no say over their political futures is not a valid line of reasoning.
Now is different, and I have no issue with this reasonable criticism (aside from the pointless shot at Zionism).
How about “We tend to support another country over our own citizens.”? Because that’s what punishing Americans who criticize Israel’s government and exercise their right to not do business with them is.
A baker can boycott a gay couple, but not an Israeli one.
Just, wow.
Just wow nothing. What QuickSilver wrote was exactly the reason this thread exists in the first place, because it’s why we’ve had the “controversies” surrounding what Reps Omar and Tlaib said. People who criticize Israel and Zionism are immediately suspected of harboring deep anti-Jewish sentiment. People need to stop putting up with this crap.
I walk by synagogues from time to time, just like I walk by churches and mosques. I don’t think “OMG, the Jews!” I really don’t care. I’m fine with people being religious and praying or doing whatever it is they do in their houses of worship and in their communities. But when religious people (of any stripe) become politically active, I’m going to have opinions about it, whether we’re talking about Zionists trying to silence critics of Israel or Christians trying to shove their “family values” down our throats.
And a powerful state didn’t sponsor migration for, if not wealth, power? The UK wasn’t motivated by its own self-interest? You can’t point only at one aspect of the issue (desperate Jews) and completely ignore the other (a colonial power imposing immigration on a subjugated population because it was expected to serve UK interests).
Ignoring it, on top of hiding under the carpet a significant element of the issue (Zionism being implemented thanks to colonial domination), allows to ignore the other side of the dispute : the locals who had every reason to feel wronged.
As I already wrote (besides the fact that survival wasn’t guaranteed by the creation of a Jewish state in palestine, which wasn’t by far the safest option, as I already pointed out), this survival could have been ensured by creating an independant Jewish state in Wales and Jews and Welsh sharing the land. For some reason that escapes me, the UK didn’t consider this option. While it considered African colonies and mandate Palestine as valid ones. Why would that be?
Criticize the UK all you want. I have no issue with criticism of the UK. But that doesn’t make desperate Jews colonists, or their efforts to carve out a home colonialism.
No it didn’t. When the UN was involved, immigration had already taken place and it was a done deal.
Besides, even if the UN had somehow allowed immigration in Palestine, it wouldn’t make it right. If your wealthiest neighbors gathered and decided that you’ll share your house with Syrian refugees even though they know that you don’t want to, you probably wouldn’t find it right.
Could it be because most of these nations nations weren’t formed to become the homeland of immigrants against the will of the local population?
Could it be also because Israel is discussed in the news every other day? If Sri Lanka was making the headlines on a regular basis and Israel almost never, we’d probably talk a lot more about Tamils and a lot less about Jews. Could it be also because people start threads related to Israel, and then wonder why Isreal history is discussed only when someone is critical of this history?
Because it’s a very significant point. A colonial power has imposed the migration of European settlers against the will of the local population. If they hadn’t been Jews, I’m pretty sure that pretty much nobody on this board would argue in support of this action, and pretty much everybody would agree that Palestinians have been seriously wronged in this instance. But instead, most people in this thread are trying to find any possible argument to whitewash what happened and make it appears as perfectly justified.
First, immigration didn’t start after WWII, so you can’t use the Shoah (which is what I assume you mean with “lost everything and everyone”) as a post ex facto justification. Second, as I already pointed out, even after WWII, emigrating to Palestine was neither a simple nor a safe move. Palestine was by then already a pressure cooker that pretty much everybody expected to explode. Jews moving to Canada did what you say. Jews moving to Palestine knew that they would likely have to fight Palestinians for the land. It makes a difference. They put their own self-interest over that of the locals, and were willing to fight them to further these interests, which you could argue is an usual human behavior (although, again, Jews opposed to moving to Palestine on ideological grounds weren’t rare), but it doesn’t make it right and laudable.
Once again, if desperate Syrian refugees settled in your house, would you be happy with it? What if your supposedly well meaning neighbor had forced you at gunpoint to take them in?
You’re free to think that I guess. Do you assume that European Jews were somehow free of prejudice wrt Arabs? Do you think that people who established Israel just had immediate survival in their mind? In other words, do you think that these people weren’t Zionists, but just random refugees?
A question : do you think that early immigrants to Palestine are typically presented as helpless victims who had no other choice (as you think they were) in Israel’s national legend/ historical narrative?
Because being a Polish Jew makes you exempt of any human flaw or is a “get out of scrutinization free” card?
I think you believe the later and as a result can’t accept claims of Arabs having been victimized because it would imply that “Polish Jews” might have been victimizers, which doesn’t fit in your worldview. So, you will fight tooth and nail to promote the idea that an European moving to a subjugated Arab nation because he feels that he deserves the land more than the locals do is on the good and moral side.
An idea that, once again, you’d dismiss immediately and without any “scrutinization” whatsoever if it was applied to a Spanish catholic or whoever.
Enough. I’ve stopped taking you seriously multiple posts ago. I thought that was self evident.
Fine, I’m not going to dispute that. What I have an issue with is the constant whitewashing of Israel’s history, as if it was uniquely exempt of all criticism on this basis.
Did I suggest to rewind anything?
And I didn’t follow this reasoning. I simply asserted that Israel isn’t a pure lamb born from a virgin, a concept that a lot of people have an issue with. Some (both on the conservative and progressive side) because they’ve brainwashed themselves into reflexively rejecting any statement critical of Israel (or of Jews, Isreal being seen as an extension), and others (on the Isreali side) for tactical reasons, because admiting that the Arabs have been wronged and that there’s an original sin in the history of Israel is tantamount to admit that Palestinians might have a point, and aren’t just bloodthirsty simpletons who never had any good reason to complain about anything, which they’d rather have everybody believe.
Nobody has disputed this. It started well before WWII and it increased dramatically post WWII.
Israel is the most recent such example, but hardly unique in history.
It’s fair to criticize Israel on multiple fronts. It not fair to perpetuate a one sided view of that history.
Without a doubt, Palestinians got the short end of the stick in a deal which was imposed on them by their colonial rulers. I suppose that grievance must extend back to their Ottoman rulers as well as forward to their Israeli rulers. They are justified in their grievances.
So what are we talking about if we want to address those grievances? Dismantling of the state of Israel? Reparations? I know! How about a two state solution?
It makes it human. No different than any other migratory event in history. No more, no less.
Wrong analogy. Your colonialist landlord is the one forcing you to share your home with a new family.
Zionism predates WWII. Early immigrants, prior to the formal formation of the state of Israel, moved there in part for religious reasons and in part because of the persistent anti-semitic European history. Zionism, seems to me, was largely based on a premise that if Jews had their own homeland, they would at least be safe there. Also, generational religious teachings and texts lead them to believe Israel (Palestine) was their god granted homeland. Many, not just Jews, believe it to this day. History does not dispute this.
It’s not as simple as Jews capriciously deciding one day that moving to some dusty rocks in the Middle East might be a nice place to settle down. The fact that there was already an indigenous population living there (some of whom were Jews as well) is not in dispute. The fact that colonialism and tragic circumstances of that time combined and resulted in the migration of Jews and the formation of the State of Israel is also not in dispute.
I’ve not seem much disagreement from anyone on the above. What I find disingenuous in these discussions, which happen frequently enough, is the criticism and accusatory finger pointing without perspective and the vitriolic accusations of “AIPAC rubber stampers”, “Zionists”, and “Holocaust shaming/guilting”. Hard to view that as anything other than anti-semitic stereotyping, whether it’s intentional or not.
Let’s agree to keep your words out of my mouth, 'k?
I dismiss none of the above. I specifically state that there is nothing special or unusual about the circumstances under which this has occurred throughout human history.
Does one excuse the other? No. So what are you prepared to do or suggest be done about this injustice, other than offering your high moral ground critique?
Of course you don’t have an issue with me criticizing the UK. You never have an issue with putting blame on a group or on members of a group that you have categorized as oppressors. What you have consistently an issue with is putting the blame for anything, criticizing in any way, or disputing the claims for any reason of a group that you have categorized as oppressed.
The problem arises when you have two oppressed groups, with competing claims, at which point you play favorite, and deny that the oppressed group you favor most could be wrong in any way while skilfully avoiding to say that the oppressed group you favor less isn’t right, and trying to deflect the blame entirely towards an oppressor group passing by.
I’m sure that you’ll be willing to say that a 1920 Palestinian Arab had good reasons to feel wronged. But only as long as the 1920 Jewish immigrant will be kept exempt of any kind of criticism, and the blame will be entirely put on the shoulder of some 1920 British official.
The British government didn’t force Jews to emigrate to Palestine. And it didn’t come up suddenly with the idea of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine and proposed it to Jews, who then answered : “It never occured to us, but what a great idea!”. Jews tried hard to establish this homeland. You can’t blame solely the British as if Zionists had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with what happened, and no responsibility altogether for what happened.
And you keep presenting them solely as helpless and desperate victims forced by the circumstances. Ignoring that, besides fear, they were, like other Europeans of this era, motivated by nationalism and the idea that as a people, they were entitled to a homeland. And that, like other Europeans of this era, they couldn’t give a shit about the colonized populations.