Well, if being a Zionist simply means support of right of Israel to maintain itself...the state, then I guess most of us including me are Zionists...

And we're back on page 2.

andyx1205 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I don't think I could turn you into a zionist. I became one when I went over there and was wakened because of the sound of an explosion and the family who I was staying with told me that there were bombings at least once a week. And by Zionist I mean I am supportive of Israel's right to be a state. At the same time, I also think Israel has done some fucking stupid things.

Zionism goes beyond simply supporting Israel's right to be a state. Every state has the right to be a state and defend its right to be a state.

Zionism, today, is defined as seeing Israel as superior to its neighbours, giving it power to commit colonial crimes of expulsions and expansion of its borders and stealing resources from the indigenous populations.

I can tell you that's not how most Jews in the US would define Zionism. Nor the many non-Jews in the US who support Israel's right to exist and defend itself. Until I came to this forum, I had no idea that Zionism the term was defined the way many here define it.

Just look at all of the recent building of settlements, the rate has greatly accelerated and yet we, the West, do nothing about it. We talk about the right for Arabs to fight for democracy in the region yet we're hypocritical when it comes to the Palestinians.

But you do know that there are many, many Jews, in Israel as well as in the US who disagree with these actions and yet would still call themselves Zionists. The term has become a dirty word to some but I'd say they have redefined it to suit their own purposes.

The early Zionists' views are VERY different from the Zionists of today.

This is what the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, envisioned Israel to be:

"It is founded on the ideas which are a common product of all civilized nations… It would be immoral if we would exclude anyone, whatever his origin, his descent, or his religion, from participating in our achievements. For we stand on the shoulders of other civilized peoples. … What we own we owe to the preparatory work of other peoples. Therefore, we have to repay our debt. There is only one way to do it, the highest tolerance. Our motto must therefore be, now and ever: ‘Man, you are my brother.’" (Quoted in "Zion & the Jewish National Idea", in Zionism Reconsidered, Macmillan, 1970 PB, p.185)

I don't think it's fair to assume that Herzl no longer speaks for most of today's Zionists. I think many would disagree.

andyx1205 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Well then fuck that. Why would I support terrorism just because it's Israel? I have good Israelite friends. I also know that friend is good friends with a Palestinian and his family. I thought early Zionism was still around, but if we are talking about this neo-Zionism than meh.

Early Zionism has long been gone. Do you know that Chomsky was part of a Zionist movement in his youth? The definition of Zionism has drastically changed.

Yes, I knew that.

Definition changed by whom?

AndreD wrote:
That's not true at all. The labour and social liberal (Kadima) Zionists want a two-state solution and are relatively peaceful compared to the nationalists/conservatives. All Zionism means is that you support the idea of maintaining the state of Israel - which is why everyone in Israel is a Zionist except the Ultra-Orthodox Jews and some of the Arab-Israelis. The idea that Israel should just settle the entire West Bank and so on is really only held by conservatives like those in Likud, and by the religious Zionists.

Yes!

Julia wrote:

AndreD wrote:
That's not true at all. The labour and social liberal (Kadima) Zionists want a two-state solution and are relatively peaceful compared to the nationalists/conservatives. All Zionism means is that you support the idea of maintaining the state of Israel - which is why everyone in Israel is a Zionist except the Ultra-Orthodox Jews and some of the Arab-Israelis. The idea that Israel should just settle the entire West Bank and so on is really only held by conservatives like those in Likud, and by the religious Zionists.

Yes!

No.

Zionism is not the belief that Israel should continue to be a state.

It's the belief that it should continue to be a Jewish State. I.e., a state with special rights for Jews and one that is inherently discriminatory against others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

This is sometimes couched in euphemism, such as "belief in self-determination for Jews," or "belief in a sovereign Jewish homeland". But what that means is a state that treats Jews as first-class citizens and everyone else as second-class citizens.

quill wrote:
This is sometimes couched in euphemism, such as "belief in self-determination for Jews," or "belief in a sovereign Jewish homeland". But what that means is a state that treats Jews as first-class citizens and everyone else as second-class citizens.

Many states uncontroversially do that though.

My friend's girlfriend - a Swedish-speaking citizen of Finland - lived a couple of years in Sweden, and acquired a Swedish social security number and such (pretty much necessary if you're going to do any work in Sweden). She then quit the job in favor of a similar job in Finland closer to home.

Upon returning to Finland, and trying to get back in the Finnish system, the authorities made it pretty clear she was not desired here (and she has no criminal record, she is a graduate of a Finnish university of applied sciences, she's never been late with her bills, even.). This is only something you hear about happening to Swedish-speaking citizens, never to the Finnish-speaking ones. Even if it's not even permitted by law, this is pretty much the standard modus operandi of the authorities.

You'll find most states have laws that favor customs that the people of those states have - or if not, they authorities will implement such favoritism by means of having a praxis that goes beyond what the law expects or even permits.

In Israel's case, it just so happens that this is said explicitly, which is more honest than most governments in the world.

Why not make threads about every fucking state that does this tacitly? Why not make threads about every other state that is honest about it as well?

Zwaarddijk wrote:

quill wrote:
This is sometimes couched in euphemism, such as "belief in self-determination for Jews," or "belief in a sovereign Jewish homeland". But what that means is a state that treats Jews as first-class citizens and everyone else as second-class citizens.

Many states uncontroversially do that though.

Mine doesn't, or at least it's not supposed to, and I don't agree with it.

Zwaarddijk wrote:Why not make threads about every fucking state that does this tacitly? Why not make threads about every other state that is honest about it as well?

Maybe because few states do it so overtly. And those states are not generally involved in wars, territorial aggression, occupations generally considered illegal by other countries and international bodies. And they don't receive the uncritical backing of my state. And no members of my family are entitled to citizenship there. And I am not surrounded by people who try to persuade me of the correctness of it.

You'll find most states have laws that favor customs that the people of those states have - or if not, they authorities will implement such favoritism by means of having a praxis that goes beyond what the law expects or even permits.

Including nations that Zionists historically encouraged to embrace diverse immigration and multi-culturalism?

How does that figure?

pinkharrier wrote:

You'll find most states have laws that favor customs that the people of those states have - or if not, they authorities will implement such favoritism by means of having a praxis that goes beyond what the law expects or even permits.

Including nations that Zionists historically encouraged to embrace diverse immigration and multi-culturalism?

How does that figure?

I don't recall embracing diverse immigration to other countries is part of Zionism. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Here's to Zionism:

Israeli developments to solve the Arab water shortage?

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4146691,00.html (Use Google Translate).

You are kidding. It's all over the internet for starters. If you are truly interested google away but don't demand citations if you are not.

So I suppose Jewish (and by extension) Zionist influence on Hollywood (to mention just one media) over the last 100 years is non-existent, negligible, unimportant or another antisemite rant. Please.

pinkharrier wrote:So I suppose Jewish (and by extension) Zionist influence on Hollywood (to mention just one media) over the last 100 years is non-existent, negligible, unimportant or another antisemite rant. Please.

So not only world Communism, but also Hollywood capitalism is under the control of the insidious Jews. One can't call your rants anti-Semitic without violating the FUA, but I certainly can't disagree with that assessment. By the way, are you ever going to tell me what "Jewish Communism" is?

pinkharrier wrote:You are kidding. It's all over the internet for starters. If you are truly interested google away but don't demand citations if you are not.

So I suppose Jewish (and by extension) Zionist influence on Hollywood (to mention just one media) over the last 100 years is non-existent, negligible, unimportant or another antisemite rant. Please.

But what about all those Jewish violinists? You know what happens when you play their recordings backwards, don't you?

BrandySpears wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:You are kidding. It's all over the internet for starters. If you are truly interested google away but don't demand citations if you are not.

So I suppose Jewish (and by extension) Zionist influence on Hollywood (to mention just one media) over the last 100 years is non-existent, negligible, unimportant or another antisemite rant. Please.

But what about all those Jewish violinists? You know what happens when you play their recordings backwards, don't you?

That is a skill best acquired by drinking the blood of Christian (or Muslim) virgins. Muslim blood is getting cheap, though - the availability is too good.

You know what pinkharrier, get back to me when you can adhere to the standards of rational debate. I've had my fill of racist drivel for the week.

quill wrote:

Julia wrote:

AndreD wrote:
That's not true at all. The labour and social liberal (Kadima) Zionists want a two-state solution and are relatively peaceful compared to the nationalists/conservatives. All Zionism means is that you support the idea of maintaining the state of Israel - which is why everyone in Israel is a Zionist except the Ultra-Orthodox Jews and some of the Arab-Israelis. The idea that Israel should just settle the entire West Bank and so on is really only held by conservatives like those in Likud, and by the religious Zionists.

Yes!

No.

Zionism is not the belief that Israel should continue to be a state.

It's the belief that it should continue to be a Jewish State. I.e., a state with special rights for Jews and one that is inherently discriminatory against others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

This is sometimes couched in euphemism, such as "belief in self-determination for Jews," or "belief in a sovereign Jewish homeland". But what that means is a state that treats Jews as first-class citizens and everyone else as second-class citizens.

That is not how Herzl defined the ‘Jewish state’—a term he invented to refer his vision of a liberal-democratic Jewish nation-state; i.e. a liberal democracy in which minorities enjoyed equal rights and protections from the [Jewish] state.

Please Saim, get out of denial. I'm assuming you don't know what goes on. And spare, yawn, the "racist" charge which is a bit rich coming from someone who supports the right of people to build a wall to keep Africans out of Israel.

Gang up as much as you like. The mob doesn't really a great history in fairness.

So Jewish (and by extension Zionist) influence on International Communism was humongous starting with Marx.
" " " " " " " Hollywood is and always has been humongous.
" " " " " " " International banking is humongous and has been for a long time.
" " " " " " " US Senate and Congress is humongous (especially foreign policy).
And probably a few etcs.

I don't know why you aren't simply proud of it instead of hitting out like an ostrich that's just removed its head from the sand and is blinded by the light.

pinkharrier wrote:You are kidding. It's all over the internet for starters. If you are truly interested google away but don't demand citations if you are not.

So I suppose Jewish (and by extension) Zionist influence on Hollywood (to mention just one media) over the last 100 years is non-existent, negligible, unimportant or another antisemite rant. Please.

Also, the Jews Zionists train sharks to attack tourists!

'Mossad may be behind Red Sea shark attacks'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3995302,00.html

another antisemite rant.

Yes, this is exactly what it is. It's 2011, and still people are sure that Jews are some sort of hive-brain/borgs.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

quill wrote:
This is sometimes couched in euphemism, such as "belief in self-determination for Jews," or "belief in a sovereign Jewish homeland". But what that means is a state that treats Jews as first-class citizens and everyone else as second-class citizens.

Many states uncontroversially do that though.

My friend's girlfriend - a Swedish-speaking citizen of Finland - lived a couple of years in Sweden, and acquired a Swedish social security number and such (pretty much necessary if you're going to do any work in Sweden). She then quit the job in favor of a similar job in Finland closer to home.

Upon returning to Finland, and trying to get back in the Finnish system, the authorities made it pretty clear she was not desired here (and she has no criminal record, she is a graduate of a Finnish university of applied sciences, she's never been late with her bills, even.). This is only something you hear about happening to Swedish-speaking citizens, never to the Finnish-speaking ones. Even if it's not even permitted by law, this is pretty much the standard modus operandi of the authorities.

During the last year or so I've found out that Finland hates us, for some reason. Which is rather strange since Finland never revolted during our centuries-long reign and gladly participated in the 30 Years War and in colonization of North America under Swedish flag.

Anyways, they shouldn't be able to do that due to the EU law regarding freedom of movement between countries. Does it say in the passport or id-card which language the possessor speaks?