You’re wrong. In fact, you’re twice wrong. He didn’t view the Arabs as inferiors, and he didn’t say they had to be “cleansed” from Israel. In fact, he specifically denies both in the Iron Wall speech (Although he does say the Palestinian Arabs are culturally primitive, but that’s in their mode of living, not a natural trait).
What he believed, though, was that there had to be a Jewish state in Palestine, and the Arabs would be fools to sit back and let it happen, because history shows that every group resists colonization from outside. So that’s why the Jews of Palestine, he argued, needed some sort of defense force; why they couldn’t just rely on Arab good intentions.
So, didn’t you realize when you called for “the Israeli model” that this would mean Palestinians would have to live in a state was explicitly “the sovereign state of the Jewish people”.
Moreover, since you’re now insisting the both Hamas and Hezbollah would be eligible for election to the Knesset under your proposed “Israeli model” please explain how that would happen in a country which required all political parties to recognize Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people and to eschew terrorism?
Please explain your comments which would strike most people familiar with the situation as being quite bizarre.
Yes he did. Admittedly, so did most of the contemporary Zionists. That was a time when most white people were unabashed colonialists and used the term “native” as a pejorative.
Yes, he did. Like most of the Irgun and Lehi bigots he supported ethnic cleansing.
It’s moronic to argue otherwise.
That of course is racist bullshit. You might as well argue that George Wallace wasn’t a bigot.
I think you misunderstood BrainGlutton’s point. What he said was that Jews don’t have a superior hereditary historical claim to the region.
That is, Jews do have a historical connection to the region, but so do the non-Jews who dominated its population and culture for millennia after the diaspora. Jewish cultural and historical identification with the land doesn’t automatically trump similar cultural and historical identification by Palestinian non-Jews.
Where? Show me what he said and where he said it. In fact, in his posthumously published 1940 book “The War and the Jew”, he specifically discusses the role of Arabs in a Jewish Palestinian state
It’s not racist. It’s culturally imperialist, if you want to call it that. It’s probably bigoted. But it’s not racism. He didn’t think Arabs were racially inferior or that there were natural differences in ability between Arab and non-Arab, or if he did think that, he didn’t say it.
Ah, the “he wasn’t a racist, he was a bigot” defense.
I’m reminded of the assholes who squeal about Jews controlling the US government shitting their pants in anger when they’re accused of anti-Semitism claiming they’re not anti-Semites because they don’t view Jews as racial inferiors.
Granted, I assume you agree with them and shit yourself in anger when people accuse them of being anti-Semites since they don’t believe that their are “natural” differences between Jews and non-Jews.
To those of us living in the real world there is no significant difference between those who are “racists” and those who are “bigots.”
That being said, thank you for conceding that Jabotinsky was a bigot and his philosophy was bigotry.
Anyway, you have yet to explain how a “one state solution” based on “the Israeli model” where the only change for Israel would be allowing Palestinians in the Occupied territories to vote would result in allowing Hamas, Hezbollah and other groups who advocated turning Jews in kosher hamburger, would be able to put up candidates for the Knesset.
So, does that mean you can’t answer my questions about when he called for the expulsion of Arabs, then? And racism is a kind of bigotry, but not all bigotry is racism, as I’m sure you know. I’ll concede the man was probably personally bigoted (as was most of the population of early 20th century Europe and the US), but what’s bigoted about his philosophy?
Pardon me for asking. Are you *this *Ibn Warraq: Ibn Warraq is the pen name of an author most famous for his criticism of Islam. He is the founder of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS) and a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry,[1][2] focusing on Quranic criticism
or if not, do you identify with him in any significant way ?
No, I’m not him. I agree with some of the things he says and very much enjoyed his first book, Why I Am Not a Muslim, but since then I think he paints religion in general, and Islam in particular, with too broad a brush, though he’s certainly no Bat Yeor or Robert Spencer.
I’d put him more in a similar category as Irshad Manji, with obvious differences, though he’d not nearly as much of a ham.*
*. Isn’t meant as an insult and I think she’d agree.
Should Palestinians be prevented from having some sort of representation that is recognised by the rest of the world, whether in a one or two-state situation, until they end their support for terrorist groups?
Not to get your story twisted with reality, Dick, but “the rest of the world” does not in fact recognize the right for political parties to advocate “turning Jews into kosher hamburger.”
Oops, eh? But please, in light of your previous non-partisan claims about how (only sufficiently modern) occupations and/or annexations are not compatible with democracy, please explain how explicitly genocidal political planks are.
So, of course, you can’t explain how your highly non-partisan and objective analysis squares (only sufficiently recent) occupations and annexations with the negation of democracy, but explicitly genocidal political planks are hunky dory.
Luckily, your high non-partisan and objective metrics will obviously win through, rational as they are.
Okay, if you insist: “Well Finn, explicitly genocidal planks* don’t* negate democracy but (only sufficiently recent) occupations and annexations do, because I’m rationalizing post hoc in order to mangle logic into a rough fit for my partisan argument.”
But I’d rather hear you explain your attempts at coherence and cogency yourself, Dick.
Should Palestinians be prevented from having some sort of representation that is recognised by the rest of the world, whether in a one or two-state situation, until they end their support for terrorist groups?
Funny, you can’t explain the hole in your logic until someone answers yet another of your off-topic, loaded questions.
That’s because your argument is so damn strong, as (only sufficiently recent) occupations and annexations negate democracy, but democracy is vibrant when a group explicitly states as a political plank that if they were part of a nation with another ethnic group they would exterminate them to the last man, woman, and child. Your argument is so very rational, as obviously denying sovereignty to a foreign entity under occupation makes a state non-democratic but wanting to wipe out an entire ethnic group isn’t non-democratic since, hey, dead people can still vote and stuff and exercise self determination. Casket or cremation, right?
Why, your argument isn’t jejune Israel bashing propped up with such sloppy rationalizations that hey look over there!
Political parties that support the violent overthrow of their nation may be legally prevented from functioning. Advocating the violent overthrow of the government can even be a criminal offense in itself.
If any registered U.S. political party openly advocated assassination, revolution, or coup d’etat, their resources could be seized by the FBI, and their representatives in Congress could be ejected by votes of the specific body (House or Senate.)
Democracy depends, vitally, on the concept of the “loyal opposition.” But it has to remain, to that degree at least, loyal.