Zionism is racism in theory & practice

While Israel quite clearly gains something (whether it's beneficial for them in the long run is a different question) from being allied to the US, what exactly does the US gain from it? What good is a presence that actively works against you? While the other Middle Eastern countries may not run into the US' open arms immediately, it does deprive many of a powerful reason to resent America. The less battlecries for the violent, the better.

On this topic, try googling for "The Country that Wouldn't Grow Up", by Tony Judt. I'd link it, but as a new member I'm not allowed to. I'll be seeding it as well.

Great article, though.

Gideon that's a wonderful link and it really does add a different perspective, thank you.

Matt, could you please explain what you mean by this?

A clarification that may be needed is that as noted above, Zionism is not Judaism. Nor does it equate to a religion of any kind. To quote good old Wiki, "Zionism is a national liberation movement, a nationalist and political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE. Zionism is a diaspora nationalism which promotes migration to the national homeland." Hope this helps facilitate discussion!

Matt, you're simply trotting out the usual nonsense with regard to the non religious and your statement doesn't even hold for the religious. Many atrocities are carried out for the promise of paradise.

I'm assuming you think Zionism is synonymous with relgious belief (it isn't).

Not having to answer to a higher being means nothing here matters and you can do as you please. Why not when there is no repercussions?

1. This is not practically, there are reprecussions, here.
2. Throughout history, and actually in the texts of the Abrahamic religions there is great evil, Jews, Christians, Muslims, have the capacity to do evil.
3. Because of lack of belief in an afterlife it means that more here matters, and more importantly, than those that people in the supernatural.
4. It says more about you that you have to belief in an afterlife to not commit acts of evil, than the millions that lack belief that do not.

Zionism is the cause of a lot of problems in the world... Zionism is also the cause of most major wars

Substitute the word Jews for Zionism in this quote, and you've got something I hope everyone would agree is blatantly and unquestionably antisemitic. Right? So lets ask, how does the use of the word Zionism change the meaning? Is it a trivial or substantial difference?

It might seem to make all the difference in the world, but I don't think that's so. First, we need to understand how words acquire meaning. They do so in the ways that they are used and understood. A dictionary might disagree, but so long as people use and understand words in a particular way, then that is what those words mean as they are used and understood. Zionism represents a variety of views, but these have generally been collapsed by anti-Zionists into two meanings. First, they mean "the part of Zionism which is evil." Here, of course, they run into idiotic, circular reasoning. As Stephen Zunes put it,

Many supporters of the Palestinian cause tend to portray Zionism as its
worst historical manifestations (just as many supporters of Israel do
the same for Palestinian nationalism). Certainly, if Zionism is defined
as an ideology which advocates dispossession, oppression, and
racism-which, unfortunately, is how most Palestinians have experienced
it-I have no problems calling myself anti-Zionist.

However, there is something fundamentally wrong with someone who does
not identify with a certain ideology defining what that ideology is.
(One can only remember Rev. Pat Robertson's definition of feminism as an
ideology which teaches women to "leave their husbands, kill their
children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become
lesbians.")

Second, anti-Zionists often mean Jews. I can imagine you saying, "no, that's just paranoia." When the term antisemitism was created, it didn't refer to all Jews, and it didn't refer to only Jews. That ambiguity was an intentional reason for its creation, so that hatred of Jews could proceed without seeming to be illiberal. People who advocated for antisemitism were liberals who were often opposed to racism and religious prejudice. Yet, antisemitism was, to them, neither of these things exactly, just as Zionism is today neither of these things exactly. I'm not saying that all people who use the word Zionism mean Jews, but within the discourse, where neither the dictionary, the speaker, or the listener have sole ownership of meaning, it frequently acquires that meaning. Of course, as speakers we don't have sole control, but we do have a responsibility to speak clearly when the risks of our being misunderstood are so grave.

The proof is in how the above statements can look so innocent while at the same time being such a close parallel to rabid antisemitism. If it seems natural that Zionism really is the cause of most major wars, that is only because the idea that Jews are responsible for wars (as Mel Gibson recently reminded us) still carries such weight.

Arabs are also semites - that makes Zionism antisemitic.

Since its inception, the word antisemitism has always referred solely to hatred of Jews and never to hatred of any others. Just look it up.

Please, please, please, look it up. Because I know you'll never believe me. Look it up for yourself. Go to any dictionary. Try google, just type "define: antisemitism". Try any encyclopedia. Go to any source you can find in a library. For heaven's sake, read a book. Whatever, just look it up for yourself.

Zionism is the cause of a lot of problems in the world.

Mel,

You were great in Braveheart, but after this I won't be going to any of your movies.

Hatred is the world's foremost problem not Zionism.

Hate and intolerance = bigotry

Matt, that's absurd. Zionism is responsible for only one small set of problems in this world, and for only one small set of wars. If all the Zionists suddenly disappeared, the world would still be full of conflict.

That, however, is no reason to ignore the problems that do arise out of Zionism, especially since they are so tightly wrapped up with the United States.

Granted - antisemitism has mainly been used to mean anti-Jewish.

The word antisemitisch (German) was probably first used by Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase antisemitische Vorurteile. Steinschneider used the phrase to characterize Renan's ideas about how Semitic races [note the plural] were inferior to Aryan races.

It's generally attributed to Wilhelm Marr (in any case, he popularized it and determined its furture usage). It has never seriously been used to describe hatred of anyone but Jews.

Third paragraph ...

djd, Counterpunch doesn't count, since their use is designed to trivialize contemporary antisemitism and obfuscate what it is. (If anything, their usage only shows how not serious they are.) Try to find an historical example.

The biggest reason this is important is because antisemitism and the various forms of racism directed at Arab groups are different. Orientalism, anti-Arab prejudice, and Islamophobia are certainly big problems, but they are not the same problem. No one goes around talking about an Arab Occupied Government in the US; people do talk about a Zionist Occupied Government. When you use antisemitism to mean something other than what it means, you simply obscure what is being talked about.

For this reason, some scholars prefer to use antisemitism without the hyphen. (I don't know if I originally started dropped the hyphen for that reason or because I was lazy.) Many of these same people note that Semitic refers to a language group anyway, so there aren't actually any Semitic people. If you want to drop the hyphen, to make it clearer who you are referring to, go ahead. But to use the term antisemitism to refer to prejudice against non-Jewish people is wrong.

OK ignoblus, my feeling is that antisemitism isn't a particularly good word - it doesn't do what it says on the label. If you'd like a good article on the subject then how about this one.

Your link doesn't work for me. Is it the same as this article, in which Joseph Massad states:

The defensive claim made by some that Arabs cannot be "anti-Semitic" because they are "Semites" is equally erroneous and facile. First, I should state that I do not believe that anyone is a "Semite" any more than I believe anyone is an "Aryan", and I do not believe that Arabs or Jews should proudly declare that they are "Semites" because European racists classified them as such.

If you want to use another term, I don't really have any problem with that except to the extent that it hides the history of antisemitism. (I have seen arguments that go further than I do, and while I think they're correct, I also think they're not so weighty.) But then, I can't imagine another term that doesn't hide and obscure the history of Jewish oppression and obfuscate contemporary bigotry.

That's the article, but from a different source - it works for me, but here it is again with the url displayed:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/720/op63.htm

I'm pleased that you followed up on this ignoblus as it made me go away and research the thing properly. A good way of filling part of a rainy English bank-holiday Monday afternoon. I now have a serious opinion on the subject: that the word antisemitism should be used within the aryan superiority context under which the term was originally coined. Because of the Holocaust it is an emotive word; best not used in another context. That's just my opinion however.

yes, and two-thirds of israelis are racist when it comes to arabs

You use the word racist rather liberally. Some Jews in Israel having negative feelings towards arabs is hardly surprising given the conflict, suicode bombings, history of arab attacks and hate against Israel - does not make them intrinsically racist. That would only apply if they were still "racist" under control conditions - ask scientist Gideon about that

except for the small matter of the 750,000 semitic islamic palestinians who were living there and were killed/forced out by your 'positive political movement'

There were some things done during Israel's war of independence about which it has no reason to feel proud - but the violence only happened at all because Israel's arab neighbours invaded immediately to try to strangle the new state at birth.

I don't recall a similar reaction to the establishment of Jordan (as Transjordan). What was the difference, apart from one state having a Jewish label and one with an Arab/Moslem label?

Why is a new Jewish state not acceptable in the middle east when a new arab one is? Why is the middle east specially reserved for arabs?

Now there's some real racism if you're looking for it.

You can't seriously being saying jewish reasons for being racist are ok, and no one elses are.

no - I'm saying they are not being racist in the true sense

If you tried a survey in Britain now, in the aftermath of the foiled plane bombing plot, you'd get a lot of very strong anti moslem views coming out. Some of that was there before, some of it was subconscious but triggered ny events, some would be perfectly non-racist people who are just frightened who might be starting to worry about a large moslem population for the first time. People react to circumstances, and in different ways.

Labelling a whole society as racist is too convenient, and smacks of racism on the part of wehoever is doing the labelling (cue for Gideon - "Readers of the thread ..." rant)

Ryan, there is a difference between justifying racism and understanding it. Why are so many Arabs antisemites? There are reasons, actually a lot of different reasons. Some of those reasons are entirely understandable. That doesn't excuse antisemitism, but it highlights for us that our approach to dealing with it should be sensitive and understanding. (On the other hand, some of those reasons aren't so understandable. It's hard to know how to address situations like that.) With the Israelis, the vast majority of racism is easily understandable. That doesn't mean we should tolerate it, but it means we should respond with kindness rather than the kind of hateful polemics that some people like to engage in. Such polemics don't do anyone any good. They are merely hateful and harmful.

I never said otherwise. I merely pointed out the hypocracy of saying "Oh, it's ok for us. Don't worry about it".

When did Nazism become racist?

Do you even know anything about Nazism, Gideon? It was racist before it became Nazism, and before nationalism became associated with antisemitism. In France, the nationalist slogan was "liberty, equality, fraternity." There was a similar attitude in Germany. Nationalism may not have been the purest liberalism, but it was a progressive force against the lingering inequality of feudal aristocracy. Nationalism produced institutional equality. Antisemitism played a large role in turning that from a progressive nationalism into a exclusionary nationalism.

In contrast, Israel counts Arabic as an official language. The law of the land forbids discrimination. Although that law is performed irregularly, it has been upheld time and again in the Israeli courts, pushing the state forward toward greater equality. Israel has repeatedly accepted immigration from various persecuted groups as if they were Jews.

Zionism is not an exclusionary nationalism, but a constructive one. You just don't have any idea what you're talking about, and you're working hard to repeat that mistakes of Weimar Germany.

Like it or not, political power in this day and age derives from the nation state, and argument to uniquely deprive Jews of such political power is bigotry.

The premise that Israel has equality is laughable, so is the premise that Israel isn't based on exclusionary nationalism. No one has a right to a nation state, no one is depriving me of millions of dollars, which is the real source of political power in this day and age. You assume that anti-Zionism means a position against a Jewish state, this is completely false. I'm anti-nationalist, so I don't think that any state should be based on nationalism.

The creation of Israel is unacceptable because it was unacceptable to the people living in Palestine, this blatent disregard for Palestinians comes from ignorance or racism, you pick. As far as that's concerned a Jewish state in Palestine in the world we live in was unviable, and definitely racist, in theory Zionism doesn't have to be racist.

Activities of Israel make it clear that Israel is a racist, terrorist state. Colonisation, destruction of homes and property, imprisonment without trial, inequality in services, government assistance, and immigration.

The premise that Israel has equality is laughable

Why? It is far more equitable than a great many other nations, including any other in the Middle East.

I don't consider a general anti-nationalism to be antisemitic. But that's not what this whole article is about. It's about an opposition that begins and ends with specifically Jewish nationalism, that aims to uniquely deprive Jews of political power. That is antisemitic.

You can try to take that up with Wilhelm Marr, but otherwise it's a complete red herring that distracts from some very serious issues.

Israel needs to start making friends in its neck of the woods,

How is Israel supposed to do that when the raison d'etre of more than one of its neighbours is to wipe it off the planet?

How is Israel supposed to do that when the raison d'etre of more than one of its neighbours is to wipe it off the planet?

A good place to start is by not bombing your neighbours back to the stone age, occupying other countries and by not voting for terrorist groups (Likud was born of the original Jewish militant groups that did most of the dirty work during Israel's initial driving out of the natives).

Ultimately, the only ones who can truly stop this are the Israelis one way or the other. No other group in that region has even a fraction of the power that Israel wields, thus the onus is on her to stop this cycle of violence before it gets to the point where it can no longer be stopped. With power comes responsibility, something that Israel has not been showing a lot of, of late.

You know, it would be a lot more convinving if you could find actual Zionists who say that sort of thing. Then we could talk about how and whether they represent Zionism.

On the other hand, if you can't find such statements, maybe Bertell is wrong.

Gideon, why is it that every post or article you write is clearly antisemitic be definitions used by the EU and the US? Do you think there is there any chance it's because your words are antisemitic?

Jabotinsky was not a "Zionist leader", but widely disregarded by zionists. Why do you tar an entire movement (and I'm not going to even bother here with whether you only tar a movement) with such a disingenuous example.

A request by B'nai Brith that he be buried in Israel was refused by Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who wrote in a letter dated May 7, 1958 to Judge Joseph Lamm of the Tel Aviv District Court, vice-president of B'Nai Brith in Israel, that: "Israel does not need dead Jews, but living Jews, and I see no blessing in multiplying graves in Israel."

Oh, and you love to misquote Ben Gurion, don't you. Most anti-Zionists do. Tell me Gideon, do you know why Ben Gurion was opposed to the occupation of the West Bank? Did you know that he was? Why do you insist on interpreting everything through a radically disingenuous filter?

Why won't you answer my question above: why do you think the EU defines rhetoric such as yours as antisemitic?

According to the EU's definitions, simply disagreeing with Israeli policy is "anti Semitic", it's also utter bunkum for the reasons I gave in my first post in this thread.

Brand me and others as you will, ultimately, you've just proved Bertell's point perfectly.

Sorry, just thought I'd add. Recent news reports I've watched and read have stated that the majority of the Israeli public are now against further actions against Lebanon, the general consensus being that it has gone way too far.

By the EU's definition of anti semitism, the majority of Israelis are anti semitic..

Oh the irony...

According to the EU's definitions, simply disagreeing with Israeli policy is "anti Semitic",

That's clearly untrue. The definition explicitly states

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

Se we're back to why the EU defines rhetoric such as Gideon's as antisemitic? Is it perhaps that Gideon's logic effectively blames all Zionists (or even all Jews?) for the crimes of Jabotinsky, despite the fact that Jabotinsky was repudiated by nearly all zionists? Or is it perhaps that Jews simply control the EU? What do you think? I'm open to other interpretations.

Why not hate the Islamic state

Because there's more than one. You're only allowed to hate minorities, see....

The vast majority of Newsviners are anti-Semites. Some are Nazis.

I hardly think anyone would consider that a centrist view and it hardly serves anyone's best interests to do that type of name calling. It is sometimes hard to remember that disagreeing with the political leadership does not equate with hatred for a nation or nationality. I think the Bu@!$%#es have taken us to hell in a hand basket and I am embarrassed by some of the actions and policies. That's not blame America or hate America. What happened to the idea of leaders saying, "The buck stops here." and the debate staying centered on the leadership? If you really believe what you wrote I'd think you would want to be elsewhere because there is little to be gained by surrounding yourself with the kind of hate you say you see.

T-Bone might have overstated the case, but it isn't that people "[disagree] with the political leadership [of Israel]". This very thread is about something very, very different from that. If people only disagreed with the political leadership of Israel, there wouldn't be much of a problem. But saying "zionism is racism" is a very different thing from disagreeing with the leadership of Israel or criticizing the policies of Israel. It is criticizing the desire of Jews to achieve self-determination in a nation-state. The claim that "Zionism is Racism" is a call for the negation of that right and effectively the subjugation of Jews. If you go to any thread on Israel, you can find plenty of voices that go far beyond mere criticism of Israeli policy or disagreement with Israeli leaders and subsequently meet the EUCM and US State Department definitions of antisemitism. If people only disagreed with Israeli leaders - Hell, I disagree with Israeli leaders on a regular basis - no one would be calling any arguments antisemitic. It's when people go on denying the right of Jewish self-determination (or blaming US actions on Jewish cabals; saying the US media is biased because it's run by Jews; demonizing Jews, especially by calling them Nazis, and justifying it with double standards applied to Israel or by holding all Jews responsible for the actions of any Jew at any point in time; justifying the killing of Jews; and minimizing the Holocaust) then we've got a problem.

It is criticizing the desire of Jews to achieve self-determination in a nation-state.

No, it isn't. Self-determination doesn't include somewhere you don't live, and others do.

The claim that "Zionism is Racism" is a call for the negation of that right and effectively the subjugation of Jews.

There is no right to foreign lands. It's a call to end Israel's oppression.

It's when people go on denying the right of Jewish self-determination

It is not self-determination!

If you go to any thread on Israel, you can find plenty of voices that go far beyond mere criticism of Israeli policy or disagreement with Israeli leaders and subsequently meet the EUCM and US State Department definitions of antisemitism.

The EU summary of the report, states "a state of Israel", not "the state of Israel", or any specific state of Israel.

Tell me where anyone on newsvine:
a) blames actions of a "Jewish cabal"
b) says the US media is run by Jews
c) demonizes Jews, e.g. by calling Jews Nazus
d) holds accountable an individual for what others may have done
e) minimizes the holocaust

The political leadership of Israel is zionist, and they back many racist policies, from the start of Israel, to the present government.

These things happen all the time on Newsvine. They happen all the time in the Palestinian Solidarity movement and the antiwar movement. If you haven't noticed them, it is only because you've shut your eyes to them.

The simplest and most accurate way to define Zionism is that of Jewish
nationalism. Like any nationalist movement, there are elements ranging
from the reactionary to the progressive, and while the former have
tended to dominate the Zionist movement, this does not mean that Zionism
is in itself illegitimate. Few nations have been created without
displacing and subjugating large numbers of indigenous inhabitants,
including Britain, France, Japan, and most of today's "Arab" states.
Most of the English-speaking world-the United States, Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand-was far more brutal and thorough than the Israelis in
coming to dominance over the territories they now occupy. This does not
make Israeli repression any more legitimate, ongoing policies more
acceptable, or the need for a viable Palestinian state less urgent, but
the tendency of many to use Israeli policies as the rationale for
failing to recognize the legitimacy of Zionism is no more justifiable or
practical than using the crimes of terrorists as the rationale for
failing to recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism.

- Stephen Zunes

These things happen all the time on Newsvine. They happen all the time in the Palestinian Solidarity movement and the antiwar movement. If you haven't noticed them, it is only because you've shut your eyes to them.

Then I guess you'll have no trouble finding examples.

Few nations have been created without
displacing and subjugating large numbers of indigenous inhabitants,
including Britain, France, Japan, and most of today's "Arab" states.

True, but none of the current inhabitants can be blamed for that as much as all those states once supported slavery.

Most of the English-speaking world-the United States, Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand-was far more brutal and thorough than the Israelis in
coming to dominance over the territories they now occupy.

Yes, they were. And if they were still colonizing I'd be against it.

This does not make Israeli repression any more legitimate

Really?

failing to recognize the legitimacy of Zionism

What legitimacy? There is no legitimacy in the state of Israel, forming a state without agreeing with the population that lives there, a state based on an ethnic group. You can say Zionism is self-determination, Zionism is legitimate, Israel has a right to exist, but saying it does, does not mean it is.

In practice Zionism has been none of those things, there haven't been many Zionist movements that have been legitimate. Zionism has taken a different meaning to reflect the reality, and popular support of a racist movement. Zionism isn't just nationalism, because Palestine last time I checked wasn't in Europe.

I don't support a Mexican state in America, any American laws that would stop them aren't racist. I don't support a Basque state in Scotland, that's not self-determination. Zionism in itself isn't racist, it's how Zionism is obtained.

Then I guess you'll have no trouble finding examples

From the writeup:

the Zionist-beholden US, UK, Canadian and Australian Governments...

the Zionist-promoted Iraq war

Zionism has grossly diverted the West from its responsibilities

The Zionist Israel Lobby has suborned Western political processes ...

the first rule of Western politics - be totally pro-Israel or be subject to vituperative Zionist hysteria and die politically ...

Those who support racist Zionism, and are beholden to the fanatical Israel Lobbyists ...

countries in which the Israel Lobby has had a corrosive effect on societal humanist values e.g. the horrendous, "terror hysteria"-driven, Nazi-style violations of our Western human and civil rights

You don't think that describes Jewish control a la this Nazi propaganda poster? And that's a very limited sample, highlighting only one issue.

No I don't, I think it shows Zionist/Israel control a la AIPAC, CAMERA, ADL. They're Jewish, but they don't represent all Jews, and I don't think that is what the article is trying say, if it was that would be racist. They don't directly control anything a la the racist "protocols of the elders of zion", but they subvertly do so, making it clear that it's not profitable to against Israel's interest. Zionists bias the media and western politics towards Israel. The West has much guilt, and so it should, and Israel uses it to its advantage. Zionists aren't Jews, Jews can be Zionists, non-Jews can be Zionists, many Jews aren't Zionists.

I don't like anyone comparing things to the nazis unless it really is akin to it, but people do about everything these days, so not racist until proven it wouldn't be used in another context towards a non-Jewish state. I don't think it needs a nazi reference, gross crimes against humanity should do.

The problem is that you are representing the idea of Jewish control in terms that are far too concrete. Semantics just doesn't operate that way, and the meanings of words slip easily. (To determine the meanings of words as they are used, you have to look at the way they acquire meaning as they are used.) And clearly antisemitic arguments have rarely been so specific as The Protocols (or did you think they had?).

Is the US "beholden to Capitalists"? No, the US is simply capitalist. Is the US Zionist? No, apparently, it is "beholden to Zionists." Consider how words like beholden and suborn suggest an outside quality. By analogy, someone can talk about the crime rate among blacks without being at all racist, but someone can also be very racist while preserving something of an alibi.

Mearsheimer and Walt acknowledged after their paper came out that they shouldn't have capitalized "the Lobby" - why should that make any difference at all?

As for comparisons to Nazis, I didn't mean to explicitly include that - just as a piece of a discussion on the "Israel Lobby" - but it is there. Sure, lots of things get compared to the Nazis when the comparisons aren't so accurate. But the standard for comparison requires far less accuracy when it comes to Israel. The comparison is explicitly designed to have an emotional impact on Jews. It's that insensitivity that I think is the defining aspect here. This isn't just using a phrase like "Soup Nazi" or comparing Bush to Hitler. Israeli children have been called brownshirts. Israeli policy has been presumed to be about "lebensraum." There is less justification offered but more zeal in the comparison. This is way beyond the pale.

eg

The problem is that you are representing the idea of Jewish control in terms that are far too concrete. Semantics just doesn't operate that way, and the meanings of words slip easily. (To determine the meanings of words as they are used, you have to look at the way they acquire meaning as they are used.) And clearly antisemitic arguments have rarely been so specific as The Protocols (or did you think they had?).

Zionist, not Jewish, Israeli, not Jewish, a racist political movement, not race or ethnicity. The influence is concrete. Anti-semetics groups are always specific, very much like "the protocols".

Is the US "beholden to Capitalists"? No, the US is simply capitalist. Is the US Zionist? No, apparently, it is "beholden to Zionists."

Are you claiming that the US are Zionists?

Consider how words like beholden and suborn suggest an outside quality.

There is an outside quality, these groups are Israel.

By analogy, someone can talk about the crime rate among blacks without being at all racist, but someone can also be very racist while preserving something of an alibi.

Your readiness to label things as anti-semetic suggests to me you are not genuine in your arguments, you're just using it as a tool to silence because of your Nationalist, Zionist ideology.

Did you read the link? In 1968, an "anti-Zionist" movement in Poland was just pure antisemitism. They didn't veer from using the term "anti-Zionist", they just used "Zionist" to mean Jew.

Not only is the supposed influence of the Israel Lobby (I'll capitalize it like Mearsheimer and Walt did) vastly overstated, but it is not concrete. Who were the specific Jews the Poles targetted in 1968? Who were the specific Jews the Nazis targetted? Mearsheimer and Walt used the phrase "the Lobby" specifically because they couldn't figure out just who they were talking about.

Even the Protocols is very specific on how Jews aim to control the world, but not on who they are. Do you think if such ideas were so specific that people could possibly be convinced that Jews were behind Capitalism and Bolshevism at the same time?

There is an outside quality, these groups are Israel.

So being a Zionist, am I Israeli then? Am I Un-American? Am I traitor to America?

So being a Zionist, am I Israeli then?

No, and there seems to be a big problem with your reading skills.

If you think the US is beholden to Israel, there's just a big problem.

I know they are, the billions of dollars being given to Israel and unwavering support at the UN is clear evidence. Tell me another state that the US has the same relationship with.

Well, given that most of that money is a result of the Camp David accords, I'd have to say Egypt and Jordan. Egypt is, I believe, the second largest recipient of US aid ($2.5 billion per year) as part of the same peace agreement, and Jordan is not far down the list. Actually, total aid to Arab nations easily exceeds aid given to Israel (by even more if you count Turkey), and I doubt Israel is all that happy about such a thing.

Given that Israel plays a role, frequently one that can be described as a client state, for the US, I'd have to say that there are a lot more nations that should be considered comparable as well. In fact, the US wasn't at all pro-Israel until Eisenhower decided that support for Israel was a way to combat pan-Arab Nationalism, much like aid to several Latin American nations has been used to ensure allegiance to the Western world. Unfortunately, none of this other money has ever gone to a nation as democratic as Israel.

Now, how do you suppose that Israel controls the US? What are the details of your theory.

Israel's aid is closer to $5 billion, now divide that number by the population of Israel, and $2.5 billion by the population of Egypt, and tell me that there's not a huge difference.

AIPAC influences the government, the ADL tries silence academics, CAMERA silences the media.

AIPAC influences the government, the ADL tries silence academics, CAMERA silences the media.

Are these Israeli or American?

Israeli.

That's quite remarkable.

Anyway, if they are Israeli, what is the basis for their power in the US?

AIPAC sells fear and feeds on guilt, but more importantly gives contributions for allegiance to Israel, something they shouldn't be able to do. ADL and CAMERA are Israeli propaganda machines, that like to call names and spread lies, e.g. calling people anti-semetic with no basis, something you're familiar with.

There are lots of groups that do all sorts of things in America. You described the way in which you think these groups operate, but not the basis of their power.

What is the basis of their power?

Guilt and money, plus organisation, experience, skill.

I also don't remember mentioning that they were the only ones doing this, but as far as I'm aware no one rivals them in opposition to their goals.

I also forgot to ask: Are the members and leadership of these organizations American or Israeli?

Guilt and money, plus organisation, experience, skill

But of these things, only money is power. Lots of groups have organization, experience, and various types of moral persuasion on their side, yet no one says that the US is beholden to them.

As for money, whose money and how much? Are these people American or Israeli?

Are the members and leadership of these organizations American or Israeli?

Does it matter?

Lots of groups have organization, experience, and various types of moral persuasion on their side, yet no one says that the US is beholden to them.

Who are these many groups these attributes? Does no one says that corporations, oil companies, evangelists also wield this power? How's the rock you live under?

Does it matter?

Absolutely.

If you think the US is beholden to Israel

Such a slyboots little straw man you've built there!

ajzz thinks the US is beholden to the Zionist Lobby and that the Zionist Lobby is comprised of Israeli organizations. Doesn't sound like a strawman at all, though I'd rather hear his take on the matter, than have to deal with you, Jimmy.

Your reading comprehension is quite poor, that's probably why you go around being insulted and calling Gideon an anti-semite constantly.

I said its a problem if you think the US is beholden to Israel beholden to Israel, and you said "I know they are". I asked how you thought Israel controls the US and you said through AIPAC, the ADL, and CAMERA. I asked whether you thought AIPAC, the ADL, and CAMERA were American or Israeli organizations, and you said Israeli.

Tell me what I got wrong. I don't want to misrepesent what you've said, but I don't think I have. If you want to change your wording or correct my perceptions, go ahead.

I was referring to your comments on Gideon, you haven't called me an anti-semite for a while.

Does Gideon not routinely use a phrase explicitly regarded as antisemitic by the most widely held definition? We can talk about other issues in his writing, but let's stick with the two that have been brought up already. That, and the one we were discussing.

Btw, if you read closely, you will notice that even Alan Dershowitz or the ADL rarely if ever call anyone an antisemite. They, and I like them, tend to argue that rhetoric is antisemitic, not that people are.

Now, if I've characterized your position correctly, that is a deeply antisemitic position. It is not fundamentally different from the clearly bigotted claims of a Zionist Occupied Government.

I don't believe you're sincere, I think you just like to call people names because they disagree with you. It would have to come from great ignorance and illogical thinking for you to come up with such nonsense genuinely. There is no such thing as new anti-semetism, there is nothing inherently racist about being anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, or non-nationalist. Israel is racist, Zionism is racist, and nationalism most often than not comes from racism. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it from my side, your side ethnicity has everything to do with, it seems clearly a case of projection, of you thinking everyone against you is racist because of your racism.

There is no such thing as new anti-semetism

That's what people said in Weimar Germany.

The concept of new anti-semetism as far as I'm aware wasn't around then. Didn't rumsfeld say the same thing a few days ago, can't you be a bit original?

How much do you know about pre-Nazi Germany?

It was around then and people in certain circles spent a fair bit of time debating whether it was or wasn't the same old Jew hatred. Of course, that "new antisemitism" was simply "antisemitism", a word coined specifically to make Jew hatred seem like it wasn't Jew hatred.

I'm not an expert, however, I do know what new anti-semitism means, and it isn't in reference to pre-Nazi Germany. How much do you know about new anti-semitism?

I know a fair bit about the old new antisemitism and the new new antisemitism.

Remember that antisemitism is a term generally attributed to Wilhelm Marr. He might not have coined the term himself, but he popularized it and determined what it would mean in 1879. For years, people did debate whether antisemitism was different and progressive or just the same old Judenhass. In fact, people were so confused over this that some towns in the more tolerant north of Germany (not to imply that the south was particularly intolerant, because it wasn't) still voted for antisemitic parties in overwhelming majorities.

Herzl isn't and wasn't the be-all-end-all of zionism. Actually, I think in order to understand zionism you have to understand how socialism, liberalism, bundism, and zionism all arose together out of the Russian pogroms, anf then why zionism was the only one to survive. And you have to understand why bundism was, at the time, the least progressive of the ideas, while today it might seem the most progressive. There's a lot to understand.

Gideon's statements, though - clearly antisemitic, according to widely used definitions - aren't helpful.

MYTH

"The Jews have no claim to the land they call Israel."

FACT

A common misperception is that all the Jews were forced into the Diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years.

The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people; 3) the territory was captured in defensive wars and 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in the Land of Israel continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea. The Crusaders massacred many Jews during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years.

By the early 19th century — years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement — more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.1 The 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the reestablishment of the Jewish State.

Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.

"Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its 'right to exist.'

Israel's right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel's legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement....

There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its 'right to exist' a favor, or a negotiable concession."

— Abba Eban2

1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land;

The land was settled before the Zionists arrived. That's why they had to drive so many people out in '48. "A land without people for a people without land" was debunked as a lie in the 19th century.

2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people;

The Zionists seized twice as much land as was granted them in the partition in '48. But then, what right did the "international community" have to give away the land of the Palestinian residents? Incidentally, your premise here clearly reveals the racism at the heart of Israel.

3) the territory was captured in defensive wars

Those are odd defensive wars that are started by attacks from the "defensive" side and fought entirely on the territory of the "offensive" side. Incidentally, 3) contradicts 2). Either you were given sovereignty or you seized it.

and 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

Your god is a myth, and any claims as to what he gave anyone are myths with no legal or moral standing.

I am totally opposed to racism, including anti-semitism,

Gideon, some of the most prominent antisemites in history said similar things. Simply repeating this does not in any way absolve you of a need to avoid antisemitic rhetoric. I would have a lot more respect for you if you at least bothered to try to attain an understanding of why the EU considers rhetoric like yours to be antisemitic. But you don't. You just redouble your efforts to promote and propagate such hatred.

Gideon, you can say you aren't racist until you are blue in the face, but in order to protect himself from recognizing his own racist politics, ignoblus will continue to call you, and anyone who presents facts that disturb him, racist. Is it classic projection?

Or is it just the most widely used definition of antisemitism?

The only evidence that King said anything like that was hearsay, after he was dead and unavailable to confirm. If he did say it, we don't know what his motive was...and remember, in '68, most people thought Israel was litttle plucky David facing down Goliath. I wonder what King would have said twenty years later, or two weeks ago?

Could you be any more self-serving in your selection of evidence, Jimmy? Even the source you site clearly says

Dr. King clearly linked anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism

That is not based on mere hearsay but on the opinions of several of the people who knew him best including his family who have attested that they witnessed him repeatedly saying such things.

they witnessed him repeatedly saying such things.

And yet he never wrote it down except in a forgery...curious, isn't it? Since you're committing the fallacy of appeal to authority anyway, there's no need for you to worry about the quality of your evidence.

You can disagree with Martin Luther King, Jr., Jimmy. You can agree with David Duke. No one is stopping you.

I think Martin Luther King said something like "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. "

I don't think he ever said anything like "Why are there so many Arabs, why didn't you drive them out?"

How come my link or source didn't show up?
How does one add a link to what all they posted?

You need to seed a few articles or post stories before you get the right to link I believe.

The above, if you were to seed it to newsvine might be a good place to start...

Zionism is the Jewish people's instantiation of the human right of self determination.

I think this premise is the root of the problem, Zionism is not self determination. The "right to exist", "defensive wars", don't work when we realize that the Zionist movement is from Europe, and there are plenty of ethnic groups that would not have been able to (they probably wouldn't want to) create a state in Palestine, the Basques for instance. Historical and Biblical reference is the only claim, one entitles no one to anything, and one is fiction.

there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" with the Zionist dream of a "national home for Jews"

Thanks, Gideon, for at least recognizing that. Now, recognizing that, please stop charicaturing Zionism as that particular subset which is most easily targetted.

Thank you for not anwering my question at all. I did NOT ask about the effects of ISLAM. I asked about the effects of Islamism. For example the strife caused when india and pakistan split.. the effects that wahhabism have had in afghanistan and the KSA. Trust me, everyone knows that you are very very pro Islam. As a Jew who works for a Muslim family, I have no problems with people who practice Islam. However you draw from Judiasm to Zionism.. Are you capable of drawing fro Islam to radical Islam and Islamism?

Australia was violently seized from the Indigenous people over 2 centuries ago - the invasion began in 1788 and within a century the Indigenous population had dropped from about 1 million to 0.1 million through Genocide And yet when Zionist Jews immigrated, the Arab populations in the areas specifically settled by Jews increased. It didn't drop at all until the Arab-initiated war.

Tell me Gideon, do you spend half as much effort working against Australian colonialism as you do against Zionism?

Australia was violently seized from the Indigenous people over 2 centuries ago

Ad hominem tu quoque...and not even a very good example, since 1) Australia is not being discussed here, nor does emigration to Australia or the oppression of the Aborigines have anything to do with Israel's current policies. 2) Australia has admitted to its crimes and is working toward reparations, something that Israel has yet to do.

the Arab-initiated war

You've lost me there. I'm not aware of that one.

Gideon is the one who brought up Australia, Jimmy. Do you pay attention at all, or just go around looking for Jews to spite?

Well, ignoblus, I guess if ad hominem is all you have, you've got to run with it.