Just as it is silly to assume all the democrats are left wingers or liberals, one has to realize the poll never asked what punishment or solutions should be applied. Frankly I would assume most of the minorities of the parties that came saying that just had an opinion and not much of an appetite to do something underhanded about it.
The OP is related mostly to Spain so that is why I’m going for the Catholic angle.
Anti-semitism and anti-Zionism are different things. There are anti-Zionist Jews. The American people have been strongly pro-Israel since the 6 day war. As I’ve noted elsewhere, Americans tend to support people who fight for their freedom, as long as they’re not fighting us. Both anti-semitism and anti-Zionism have never been the exclusive positions of either the ‘right’ or the ‘left’, and in the US over the past 50 years neither side has endorsed such a position. In addition there are pro-Israelis who are anti-Semites too.
To show how ludicrous this concept of right/left political orientation is consider that both Hitler and Stalin murdered Jews en masse. In addition consider Nixon, an overt anti-Semite considered a hero by some Jews for his effort to allow the emigration of Jews from the USSR, and stabilize the Middle East, all with the help (or actually the primary effort) of Henry Kissinger.
The hallmarks of anti-Semitism are the belief that Jews are a ‘race’, that Jews conspire to control the world through the finance and the media, that Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own countries, and of course the classic ‘Jews killed Jesus’ meme. In the Arab and Moslem world there is anti-Semitism that derives from the ancient battles with Jewish clans during the formation of Islam.
Anti-Zionism is primarily a political issue having to do with the creation of a Jewish State we call Israel, which is essentially colonialism, and the political issues which have grown from that.
With that straightened out, their are idiots along all points of the political spectrum who have been anti-Zionist in recent times. And it has been common for anyone expressing negative opinions of Israeli conduct to be called anti-Semitic. So you will not find any shortage of people characterized as left wing as anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist. Usually the basis for their position is Israel’s disregard for human rights among their own non-Jewish populations and the Arab/Moslem countries in the Middle East. Others have noted the hyprocrisy of such a position because it doesn’t acknowledge the human rights abuses of the other side (which are far worse IMHO). Another factor is the predominance of Jews within the left wing of American politics and in other parts of the world at times. Here, the anti-Semitic concept of Jews being a different kind of people who have more loyalty to each other than a political movement. Currently the right wing has a strong pro-Israel stance, usually based on religious and political positions. This in itself provokes some left wingers to take the opposing stance.
Piffle.
When Saddam Hussein was captured newscasts did found a very enthusiastic group that celebrated very openly his capture.. It was the Iraqi communists. You see, what happened was that the “left wing” Ba’athists, just like the Nazis also prosecuted the communists, of course, for the American consumer of news that was too much to swallow, “you mean we fought and invaded to free people like that?!?” Seeing with my own eyes the images of red flags and communist logos cropped from the images of the celebrators (showing to me that newscasters had a hard time finding a good crowd in the Iraqi capital that celebrated the event) was like watching Noam Chomski’s “manufacturing consent” in real life.
Look, really, once you get to the point of someone like Saddam Hussein, you’re no longer talking about left wing and right wing. You’re talking about, basically, a king. This is true of Castro, it is true of Kim Jong Il, it is true of Robert Mugabe and many others. These are not left wingers or right wingers. They are power hungry despots who have consolidated their political power and use any means at their disposal to enrich themselves. The circumstances by which they arrived at their position of power are largely irrelevant.
Oh good lord, you really don’t understand Iraq or the Middle East do you.
The Ba’athists were and are lots of things, but they’re not right-wingers by any stretch of the imagination. They’re proud socialists and always have been and calling them right-wingers is like calling Hugo Chavez a right-winger.
Now yes, just as various left-wing factions in the West are at each others throats(I.E. Trotskyites, social Democrats etc.) the same is true with the Middle East.
Beyond that, you completely ignored the fact that virtually all the Iraqi Communists were Shia.
In the Middle East, Nationality or tribal affiliation generally trumps and effectively determines political orientation.
Anyway, stop talking about a region you clearly know nothing about.
You obviously don’t know shit about the Ba’athists or their like.
That said, I’ll humor you and give you one more shot.
Please explain to me why Michel Aflaq, George Habbash, Nasser, and Havez Assad weren’t left-wingers.
BTW, I really hope you don’t have to scurry over to wikipedia to look up those people and if you do you really have no business expressing such strong opinions about the region.
We’re really sick and tired of pompous westerners making pronouncements about us so please stop.
And what does that have to do in showing if the Ba’athists were left wing or not? That 's right nothing. The reality is what Agent Towers mentioned, the dictators are power hungry despots who have consolidated their political power and use any means at their disposal to enrich themselves. Left or right wing labels are not very important, what it is important then is to point out that trying to call the Ba’athists leftists does run contrary to what they did to the communists and other secular groups that opposed Saddam.
I think past American administrations did make Iraq their business.
None of that fine example of verbal diarrhea you just spewed out gives any evidence of the Ba’athists not being left-wingers or suggests you have the slightest understanding of their beliefs.
I have to say, your style of argumentation leaves much to be desired.
You insist it’s appropriate to classify Colombia as right-wing by linking to some wiki page on a Jewish dissident and then claim the Ba’ath Party(which at this point it’s readily apparent you’d never even heard of before this discussion) isn’t left-wing because of some rambling discussion of Iraq’s history which never discusses the Ba’athists or their beliefs.
Anyway, at this point you have repeatedly refused to answer the question as to why Michel Aflaq, Assad or Nasser are not left-wingers and it’s embarrassingly obvious you don’t even know who they are.
In short, you’re just another arrogant westerner making pronouncements about a region you’ve never visited, a people you’ve never met, and a culture you know nothing about.
Please stop making dumb comments about where I’m from.
Just as black people don’t like it when they here white people make stupid comments about black culture, we Middle Easterners don’t like it when ignorant westerners make foolish comments about us.
Sure..
Please, even the moderators had words with you in the past regarding your style.
Nope, I did it by looking at the history.
Nope, my point is that it is not a simple world as you want to imagine. The evidence is there to show that just like the nazis they had socialist moves to show, but it was mostly for show, in practice the represion of intellectuals and any other democracy supporters was enough to dismiss any ideas that the Ba’athists would be comparable to the left wingers of western nations.
I know already several of those names, but similarly like Saddam, democracy was a joke for most of them.
Piffle. The evidence shows who is making dumb comments.
Meh, I’m from Latin America and not once I resorted to claim that just because I come from there I should stop you from speaking demonstrated nonsense from where I come from.
You see, posters on a message board are not really good sources of information, for that we use citations, and that expert from PBS was a good cite, accusing what that expert said of being “verbal diarrhea” just discredits you in the eyes of many.
Not sure your point at all. I’m merely pointing out that you’re not making remotely credible arguments and are too proud to back down after I dismantled the arguments you put forth.
Instead you continue to insist that that Ba’athists(whom you’d clearly never heard of prior to this thread) weren’t left-wingers and made similar arguments regarding Assad, Aflaq and Nasser.
The closest you’ve come to an argument is to claim that at one point the CIA may have allied itself with the Ba’ath Party.
You’ve yet to show the slightest understanding of them and completely ignored references to Assad, Nasser and Aflaq(almost certainly because you’ve never heard of any of those men).
By your reasoning, since the US was allied with the Soviet Union during WWII and later on with the Khmer Rouge both of those organizations couldn’t have been left-wing.
Now perhaps at some point you’ll stop by a library, read up on Assad and be able to make an argument that he wasn’t a left-winger, but you show no signs of doing so anytime soon.
Once more, stop making yourself look stupid by spewing crap about a region of the world you knew nothing about.
To test you and give you a chance I actually threw you a bone and through the name George Habbash in there to see if you would pick up on the clue and run with it because you could have made something of an argument if you knew who he was, but you quite obviously didn’t.
Ok, please explain to me why Assad and Aflaq weren’t left-wingers. It’ s a simple question which you’ve refused to answer because you stubbornly want to insist that anti-semitism is more of a right-wing phenomenon than a left-wing phenomenon.
Had I made stupid comments about Latin America you’d have a point but I haven’t so you don’t.
Had your “expert” claimed Saddam Hussein wasn’t a leftist you’d have point, but he didn’t so you don’t.
You do recognize that Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, Kenan Makiya and others referred to Saddam as a leftist(as Saddam himself proudly declared himself).
I would assume you’d consider them experts on the Middle East?
I will let others be the judge of that.
As for continuous attempts to demand that others in the Middle East were leftists, I’m afraid you are working with definitions that ignore many other items. Just like in the case of many right wingers trying to claim that fascists were liberals or left wingers.
[looks at others]
Should I mention that I gave him enough rope? I’m afraid he has still not bother to check who the expert interviewed by PBS was.
[/lao]
Sorry, but just as you have demonstrated to fail at citations, you also fail at checking the ones your opponents bring, that wasan expert on Saddam.
As for: “Had I made stupid comments about Latin America you’d have a point but I haven’t so you don’t.”
That only works by ignoring that I had not used a cite for the Jews in Venezuela/Colombia comparison and yet you claimed that I did.
What the hell?
This thread is bananas.
Marley, how many times can a poster say something that’s out of left field before we can reasonably expect a citation? Or are we allowed to repeat things that are not fact?
[ul]
[li]We can’t agree on what antisemitism is,[/li][li]what disenfranchisement means, or[/li][li]what it is to be right wing or left wing.[/li][/ul]
:smack:
We have people saying that Israel doesn’t allow its citizens to vote, or that Palestine is part of Israel, or that the right in Argentina (whatever that means) have something to do with Spaniards’ centuries-long distrust of Jews. I get this is a right v. left thing, but we can’t even agree what that is.
I think it’s better to narrow down what ‘left’ is. Left on a domestic front is not the same as left on the IR front. I’m pretty liberal but not a socialist. I don’t want to call myself a neocon when it comes to foreign relations, but I’m not dove-ish, either.
I associate ‘left’ with libertie and ‘far-left’ with socialism (or a variant of) because I live in the U.S. Others may think otherwise. I don’t consider communist regimes, fascist regimes, or socialist nations to be ‘left’. But…again…these things are coming from my lens.
I think that, yes, on the domestic front in the U.S., blaming a minority for economic duress is largely something that the “right” does. But liberals today seem more likely to blame Israel for the economic crisis because of ‘what Israel does to Palestinians’ re: 9/11 and economic fallout.
The typical “Jews are the reason for X” stuff is because [insert group here] see Jews as bankers, money changers, Christ-killers and all around jerks of humanity. Who knows. Maybe now that we’re in a global economy, it’s easier to blame Jews for the economic woes more than ever.
Rubbish. It’s perfectly possible to believe Israel is an Apartheid state in effect without believing it is so for the same reasons. Apartheid, like democracy, is a word now divorced from its *original *application and meaning. So it might “suggest” it to the ill-informed, but that’s their problem.
It is perfectly possible to think Israel practices a form of Apartheid without it being racist in origin. One *could *argue that it’s not Apartheid because it’s not racist, being a lot of Jews and Palestinians are genetically close, and some other term is more appropriate. But that’s not the same as saying it doesn’t apply because it’s rooted in mischaracterisation of Jews. I can assure you Desmond Tutu doesn’t think “Jews are racist and only care for their own”.
Me, I used to argue Israel is an Apartheid state, but I’ve moved on from that, I do think the structure of the state isn’t entirely equitable (any country that had ethnically-selective immigration wouldn’t be) but I don’t think it’s structured quite along Apartheid lines *enough *to be called that.
So it’s the Humpty-Dumpty ploy all over again, is it?
But an apartheid state is such because of government ideology. It’s an entire governmental system. Israel doesn’t have that. The West Bank and Gaza is not part of Israel. There’s no rubbish in that.
If you want to object to the ongoing war between the factions (and there are more than two), that’s fine, but the ‘Israel is an apartheid state’ rhetoric is…well, just wrong.
So what does it mean now?
Sure. So make the argument if you want to make the argument. Anyone can argue anything, but a credible argument has to follow some logic. (Not saying that you are making this argument, but I mean, I still don’t see how Israel practices apartheid…)
ppsht rubbish. In South Africa, there may be an obsession with Jew, White, Colored, Indian, Chinese & Black, but ‘race’ is just not applicable here.
I don’t care what Desmond Tutu thinks. Any man who aligns himself with Sabeel isn’t worth a fiddler’s fart.
Like Africa? 
Israel does grant immigrating Jews citizenship immediately, yes. That is no surprise. It was founded as a post-WWII Jewish state, and Zionism was a cause based on the idea that Jews should have a sovereign homeland. (Bet you’re glad we didn’t
camp out in Africa!)
As far as other immigrants, you can immigrate to Israel. You just don’t get citizenship as fast - you have to wait at least 5 years (quicker there than immigration to the States, I believe).
It isn’t. At all.
And I won’t say that things are equal inside Israel’s borders - no. The religious right, fanned by their own self righteousness + fear of Palestinian terror, run too much. The Rabbinate has too much authority, the government has moved away from its original roots, and the economy in Israel (consider you have only a few major population centers to settle in and around) is so rough that in order to find appropriate housing, more and more Jews (and immigrants) are seeing settlements as a way of, well, living.
There is so much that goes on in the international world that citizens of Israel have a hard time figuring out which party they’ll vote for. Israelis aren’t as divided as Americans. They are pretty liberal - more secular than Americans on a lot of things, actually - but they do worry about security. So if there wasn’t this fucking fucking mess going on, the citizens of Israel - Arab, Druze, Jew, Christian, etc. - would have it better.
No one wants a one state solution…but if this stuff doesn’t get resolved (and I don’t think it will) I don’t see any good. Israel could very well become a de facto apartheid state, but the PLO, Hamas, and other factions would have to be eliminated first. I don’t see that happening.
Palestinians are not under Israeli sovereignty. They are ‘under’ Israeli authority in a war/sanctions sense (much like the U.S. will seize funds from a terrorist group or exert power in IR), but the oppression of Palestinians, the day to day operations, the corruption and the lack of structure is because of failed leadership. Not Israel.
It’s going to take a real leader in Palestine for things to end well. sigh
I see Israel going to a war with another country before Palestinians have their own ‘state’ (which is kind of a weird thought, because they already have a de-facto state…).
I don’t know what you are talking about, what that means, or if you had an actual purpose in that statement. Probably not.
I shared what I think of ‘left’ to be. That’s me. No one here can agree on the term…but somehow I can’t point that out?
I don’t know what you are talking about, what that means, or if you had an actual purpose in that statement. Probably not.
I shared what I think of ‘left’ to be. That’s me. No one here can agree on the term…but somehow I can’t point that out?
NOBODY expects the Thread Derailers!
Their chief weapon is turning any thread about Africa into a train wreck about genetics!.. African genetics and threads even vaguely about Israel into yet another rehashing of Middle-eastern history train wreck… Middle-eastern history and African genetics…
Their two weapons are African genetics and Middle-eastern history… and Nazi’s are really leftists because socialist is in the name!
Their three weapons are African genetics, Middle-eastern history, leftist Nazis… and an almost fanatical devotion to Battlestar Galactica…
Their four… no…
Amongst their weapons… Hmf…
Amongst their weaponry… are such elements as African genetics, Middle-eastern…
I’ll come in again.
CMC fnord!
From the OP:
:dubious:
I wasn’t talking about the occupied territories.
A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
You are unaware of the Right of Return? I mean, you mention it yourself, but you don’t think it counts?
Firstly, it’s spelled “Coloured”, secondly, I wasn’t arguing for it, please read again.
Well, that says more about you than the Archbishop Emeritus. Fact is, Tutu has a lot more standing than you to say what is and isn’t Apartheid. Happens that I don’t agree with him anymore, but it hardly makes *him *irrelevant.
Africa’s a country now?
Being derived from rational self interest doesn’t make it equitable.
I have no problem with Jews, they’d be more than welcome.
So you admit there’s a difference based on ethnicity.
It takes all the fun out of arguing if you keep your mutually contradictory statements right next to each other.
There’s glory for you!:
“Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”
You’re the one dissenting from the accepted general meaning of “left wing”…but somehow I can’t point that out?
[QUOTE]
I’m sorry, what? Did you not just agree that the politics in Israel has nothing to do with race?
What’s your new version of apartheid? Can you cite it? You writing a dictionary now?
No, I do not think that Zionism is racism.
Sorry. I have not been largely influenced by the British way of spelling. :dubious:
He can try to redefine a term all he wants. I don’t care. It doesn’t make it true. I’ve seen what he’s had to say and it’s a pity he felt the need to perpetuate a dangerous myth.
The entire region. Or Europe. Or the U.S. Or almost anywhere in the world except for Sweden. 
I can think very few places in which ‘equity’ exists for all.
Yes, but see, I can’t move to South Africa - that’s where you are, no? - because I’m white and it would be really hard to get a job. Or keep land. (:
A difference of what?
I haven’t made any. You seem to think of apartheid as any country that does not …what? Make sure everybody has the same thing?
Is South Africa apartheid because of their policies towards whites? Or is that just racism? 
I was pointing out that the people in this thread couldn’t even seem to get a handle on what the term meant. :rolleyes: Publishing a study that asked Democrats and Republicans how they felt about Jews is not putting forth an analysis of “left-wing” circa French Revolution.
There are few leftists in the U.S. as you (probably) define it. Left and left of center and liberal tends to get stuck in the same pot 'around these parts.
Too bad, cause I don’t like being in the same category as some of those folk.
And again, left re: IR in the U.S. is anti-war (most of the time).
Do ya care to share with me the 1. Definition of apartheid (with cites, because I’m not interested in your personal dictionary) and 2. The “**widely accepted use **of ‘left’”?
Israel is not an apartheid state. You’ve already said as much. Do you have any points at all to make in this thread or are you just here to pick apart my posts?
yeah. that’s what i thought.