Antisemitism? Zionists? What?

[DeliciousW]

Maybe I'm just young, but what is meant by "zionists control America"? I don't understand. Yes, you have the ignorant bigots shouting "Kill the jews! Also all other colors! White power!" But then you also have seemingly intelligent people who agree that the Jews are the root of every country's problems (including a few of our own founding fathers).

What do they mean? All jewish men, women, or children? Or just a few Jewish people? Is it race they are talking about, or religious creed? If it's religion, do they include converts to Judaism? Or people who convert out to other beliefs? And if it is race, what about those with only partial Jewish ancestry? And what are zionists?

Honestly, I'm just not sure how to approach this. What is the thought process? What do the people who say these things believe? If any of you are out there, I would honestly like to hear what you have to say about it. I'm not totally sure what they're even talking about.

[ClickToPlay]

Zionism isn't Judaism.
But Zionists are Jewish.

Like "Radical Islamists", but Jewish.

More complex, but all you gotta do is Google..

[DeliciousW]

At 6 minutes ago, ClickToPlay wrote:

More complex, but all you gotta do is Google..

I have a feeling I may run into alot of biased propaganda. I'd rather hear the opinions of people I'm more familiar with on this site.

[MrFlopz]

It's pretty simple. Basically, whoever has the money controls the government. Corporate lobbyists use their money to fund presidential campaigns of politicians who do what they wish. If you have their support, you can maintain power. If you don't, you're screwed. However, corporations don't have a political or foreign policy agenda. They simply wish to maximize profit. Israel, however, has the money along with a political agenda. The media in America has a strictly pro-Israel agenda as a result. You don't hear much about the Israel/Palestine crisis on the news much because our media doesn't want to portray everything that Israel does. If you go on CNN's website there are certain keywords such as "Zionism" or "expulsion" (referring to Arab expulsion from Palestine) that will cause your comments will be taken down automatically. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was caught on camera dismissing America as being easily pushed in the right direction.

To say "Jews control America" sounds extremely bigoted but there is some truth to it.

[satanbrain]

Zionism is a national movement which works toward the establishment (and now protection) of a jewish state in israel. Zionists are people who support this. Ethnically jewish,. The "zionists control america" is probably just another antisemitic propaganda.

[MrFlopz]

At 6 minutes ago, satanbrain wrote: Zionism is a national movement which works toward the establishment (and now protection) of a jewish state in israel. Zionists are people who support this. Ethnically jewish,. The "zionists control america" is probably just another antisemitic propaganda.

Then why did Benjamin Netanyahu say they do? And why do we unconditionally support Israel?

[MrFlopz]

Source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TG0vdzrmt4

It's not letting me link for some reason.

[Sense-Offender]

antisemite!

[Dawnslayer]

At 2 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: To say "Jews control America" sounds extremely bigoted but there is some truth to it.

It's not so much the Jews as it is our view of their rightful place in world society. The people of the United States are primarily Judeo-Christian, and there is a sense in the American religious community (generally speaking) that Jews and Christians, and to a greater extent Israel and the United States, are so-to-speak "brothers in arms" under God. With that sentiment has come the notion that if we do not unflinchingly support the Jewish state in all it does and all it stands for, we are somehow compromising our own ethics, failing in our duty to the divine, and/or endangering the freedom of religion we claim to cherish so much.

So really, we do it to ourselves. But it creates the perception that the most powerful nation in the world is in the pocket of a very small country, built to accommodate a very small religious group, which contains an even smaller and more radical group who can only benefit from the arrangement. And human beings, not known for their ability to use logic, will sometimes jump to the conclusion that this very small group within a group within a country we call an ally must be controlling everything we do from the inside.

-----

So how do we know this isn't a valid conclusion? Using logic. Take this basic statement from the information above:

"If Zionists control America, then America will support Israel unconditionally" (if Z, then U). Note that if the statement is reversed it implies that the effect happened before its cause, which makes no sense.

-"Z is true, therefore U is true" (Zionists control America, so it supports Israel unconditionally) is a valid argument.
-"U is true, therefore Z is true" (America supports Israel unconditionally, so America is controlled by Zionists) is an invalid argument.
-"U is false, therefore Z is false" (America does not support Israel unconditionally, so America is not controlled by Zionists) is valid.
-"Z is false, therefore U is false" (Zionists don't control America, so it doesn't support Israel unconditionally) is invalid.

So while a Zionist conspiracy is possible, it's not proven to exist just because the U.S. treats Israel like a spoiled child.

[MrFlopz]

There has to be more to it than just Americans loving Israel. While Obama was campaigning he didn't claim to support Israel 100%. He wanted Israel to change their approach. But now that he's president he always say (with a grudging undertone to his voice) that the US supports Israel unconditionally. Why the change? If he's the man in charge, why can't he express his opinion from a position of power? You'd think a presidential candidate would be watching their tongue more than the sitting president, and yet he's watching what he says about Israel more and more now that's he's in power. He HATES Netanyahu, and yet he gives him unconditional support. Why is this? I think you're underestimating the power that lobbyists have over the government.

[satanbrain]

Video - in 2001. About failed Oslo accords.

At 4 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: There has to be more to it than just Americans loving Israel. While Obama was campaigning he didn't claim to support Israel 100%. He wanted Israel to change their approach. But now that he's president he always say (with a grudging undertone to his voice) that the US supports Israel unconditionally. Why the change?

Perhaps now that he is the president he sees things differently?

If he's the man in charge, why can't he express his opinion from a position of power?

Since he is exposed to more information and have changed his mind?

You'd think a presidential candidate would be watching their tongue more than the sitting president, and yet he's watching what he says about Israel more and more now that's he's in power. He HATES Netanyahu, and yet he gives him unconditional support. Why is this? I think you're underestimating the power that lobbyists have over the government.

He can hate our prime minister and yet support us. The country isn't represented by the prime minister only.

[MrFlopz]

I'm not sure what information Obama has been exposed to as president, but I do find it disturbing there has been a trend in which each president promises "unconditional support" for Israel. No amount of information in the world should make someone express their unconditional support of a nation. Why should support ever be unconditional? Shouldn't we be objective and look at the issues that come up in Israel before deciding whether or not Israel is right? Promising unconditional support is not the result of some newfound information. It is the result of willfully dismissing information that may come about in the future and coming to conclusions before the facts are known. I think it's clear that Israel damages America's reputation in the Middle East. Obama might know something I do not, but that doesn't change that fact. There are certain undeniable pros and cons to America's support for Israel so no new information should make someone support them "unconditionally". There are clearly times where supporting Israel is disadvantageous.

Also, notice how Netanyahu claims that the percentage of American in favor of Israel is "absurd". He knows much more than I do about Israeli/American relations, and to say that American support is absurd shows that Obama's "unconditional support" might not be the wisest course. Perhaps his exact wording did not translate well and what he meant was "surprising". Maybe you can confirm this for me.

[satanbrain]

At 1 hour ago, MrFlopz wrote: There are clearly times where supporting Israel is disadvantageous.

When you wish to gain the favor of the muslim brotherhood? Who have, so far, only incited against you?

Perhaps his exact wording did not translate well and what he meant was "surprising". Maybe you can confirm this for me.

If you were listening you could've heard the word "absurd" being said.

[MrFlopz]

The Muslims hate us for good reason. Their methods are often evil and unjustifiable but their plight is understandable. If America and Israel change their imperialistic practices in the Middle East, the Muslims will stop sacrificing their lives to kill us. Terrorism is not justifiable but it is a sad but inevitable consequence of America's actions. If Israel stops building illegal settlements on the West Bank and America stops propping up tyrannical dictators like we did with Mubarak, Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein we'll see a decline in terrorism....

Also, why do you think Netanyahu considers America's high levels support to be "absurd"?

And yes, you're right. He does clearly say the word. I was paying more attention to reading than listening.

[satanbrain]

At 9 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: The Muslims hate us for good reason. Their methods are often evil and unjustifiable but their plight is understandable. If America and Israel change their imperialistic practices in the Middle East,

Just how imperialist is it to repatriate and establish a country in your land? Muslim arabs resided in Israel not before the 7th century.

the Muslims will stop sacrificing their lives to kill us.

The radical muslims hate us. And they won't stop until we are dead. It was proved in the failed neogitations with hamas before operation cast lead.

Terrorism is not justifiable but it is a sad but inevitable consequence of America's actions.

Defending yourself results in another attempt made by your enemies to kill you.

If Israel stops building illegal settlements on the West Bank

Illegal according to who?

and America stops propping up tyrannical dictators like we did with Mubarak, Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein we'll see a decline in terrorism....

Are you saying that the arab spring will decrease terrorism? That al-qaida will dissolve somehow without foreign intervention?

Also, why do you think Netanyahu considers America's high levels support to be "absurd"?

Considered, in 2001. Perhaps because he didn't think a superpower could care for a small country.

[Dawnslayer]

At 21 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: There has to be more to it than just Americans loving Israel......I think you're underestimating the power that lobbyists have over the government.

Not at all. I think much of the reason our unconditional support of Israel continues is because the Israel lobby in government perpetuates the beliefs that lead to it. It's a cycle of sorts: politicians express unconditional support for Israel, which leads to a certain perception of Israel in the media and the average citizen upholding the same opinion (not necessarily in that order), which in turn puts more pressure on politicians to continue expressing that unconditional support.

And naturally the American relationship to Israel isn't the only thing anti-Zionists point out. It's just one of the best examples, and the most major argument considering Israel is a defining part of Zionism. (Plus it was the only argument I could think of that wasn't blatantly anti-Semitic.)

[mhb18]

Just how imperialist is it to repatriate and establish a country in your land? Muslim arabs resided in Israel not before the 7th century.

1. the seventh century was a long time ago and that alone should give them legitimacy to the land. 2. Palestinians are not pure blooded Arabs. Their ancestors include the Arab conquers from the 7th century and the native people who lived there and converted to Islam. Thus their legitimacy goes back farther than the seventh century which alone should be enough.

If Israel stops building illegal settlements on the West Bank

Illegal according to who?

The settlements are considered illegal by everyone except Israel. More importantly they are considered illegal by the UN and the International Court of Justice which made a ruling on the matter.

The conflict exists because the Palestinians are the indigenous people who were ethnically cleansed by the Israeli's. Israel continues to built on Palestinian land (and Syrian land aka the Golan Heights) and continues to deny the Palestinians the right of return which they have a legal right to under international law while at the same time allowing any Jewish person to settle in Israel and in the West Bank.

[satanbrain]

At 12 minutes ago, mhb18 wrote: 1. the seventh century was a long time ago and that alone should give them legitimacy to the land. 2. Palestinians are not pure blooded Arabs. Their ancestors include the Arab conquers from the 7th century and the native people who lived there and converted to Islam. Thus their legitimacy goes back farther than the seventh century which alone should be enough.

"Natives" who were exiled from their lands by other empires. Such as babylon and the roman empire.

The settlements are considered illegal by everyone except Israel. More importantly they are considered illegal by the UN and the International Court of Justice which made a ruling on the matter.

Which do not own the land.

The conflict exists because the Palestinians are the indigenous people

Not of israel. They are not the descendants of israelites, who were the sole owners after the canaanites.

who were ethnically cleansed by the Israeli's.

Have you any proof of it?

Israel continues to built on Palestinian land (and Syrian land aka the Golan Heights)

Because they are Israeli. Residing in another's land for some time doesn't make you it's owner.

and continues to deny the Palestinians the right of return which they have a legal right to under international law while at the same time allowing any Jewish person to settle in Israel and in the West Bank.

The palestinians who fled israel did it on their own. An evidence to support this would be the exitence of israeli arabs, they were not exiled. People of the jewish nation have a right to reside in israel, their homeland, if they wish.

[mhb18]

At 6 minutes ago, satanbrain wrote:

At 12 minutes ago, mhb18 wrote: 1. the seventh century was a long time ago and that alone should give them legitimacy to the land. 2. Palestinians are not pure blooded Arabs. Their ancestors include the Arab conquers from the 7th century and the native people who lived there and converted to Islam. Thus their legitimacy goes back farther than the seventh century which alone should be enough.

"Natives" who were exiled from their lands by other empires. Such as babylon and the roman empire.

The settlements are considered illegal by everyone except Israel. More importantly they are considered illegal by the UN and the International Court of Justice which made a ruling on the matter.

Which do not own the land.

The conflict exists because the Palestinians are the indigenous people

Not of israel. They are not the descendants of israelites, who were the sole owners after the canaanites.

who were ethnically cleansed by the Israeli's.

Have you any proof of it?

Israel continues to built on Palestinian land (and Syrian land aka the Golan Heights)

Because they are Israeli. Residing in another's land for some time doesn't make you it's owner.

and continues to deny the Palestinians the right of return which they have a legal right to under international law while at the same time allowing any Jewish person to settle in Israel and in the West Bank.

The palestinians who fled israel did it on their own. An evidence to support this would be the exitence of israeli arabs, they were not exiled. People of the jewish nation have a right to reside in israel, their homeland, if they wish.

I dont know what type of revisionist history you have been reading that says the Palestinians just willfully left their land. If you look at some of the works done by Israeli historians it even says the Palestinians were expelled. Just look at anything by Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, or any thing by the new historians. Its non sense to say that since jews have some connection to the ancient Israelite that they have a right to that land. That means no modern nation as a right to exist. But any reasonable person would agree that living only in an area for over 1,000 years would make you the native population. The native population isnt a group of people who can trace their ancestry back to some far off land but the people who currently live there.

[MrFlopz]

The 7th century? Do you have any idea how long ago the 7th century was? In the 7th century there were no Americans, no Germans, no Poles, no Russians, no Englishmen, no hispanics. I suppose all of these groups are not deserving of the land they walk on simply because they can't date their ethnicities back far enough. So the Jews have more rights than arabs because Hebrews have existed as a culture for longer? Why is that information relevant? You can remove a family from their homes simply because they are part of an ethnic group that only dates back several hundred years? That's incredibly racist. You're essentially prioritizing people's rights based on their ethic group. You're looking at the world as Jews, Arabs, etc. when you should be looking at it as PEOPLE. Why should you be rewarded with land for something that happened 1400 years ago? Why should an Arab be punished by having his land taken from him over this? Were you as an individual personally affected by the expulsion of the Israelites? Just because you share some genetic material means you share a consciousness that transcends time and makes you share their hardships?

You'll probably turn and say "the events that happened in the 7th century affect us today". Why of course they do. That's what history is. EVERYTHING that happened in history affects us today because that's how we got to this moment in time. But you cannot rewrite all of history to correct for hardships by recompensating the affected ethnic group. It was wrong for Rome to expel the Jews in the 7th century. If it wasn't for this injustice they might still have a country. Let's give them Israel back. It was wrong for Rome to invade Gaul. Maybe if Rome hadn't invaded Gaul, Gaul would have still been around today and would have been a major nation. It's possible. How about the descendants of the Romans give compensation to the descendants of the Gauls? Mongolia caused China quite a bit of hardship. I'm sure China would be much more powerful today if they didn't have to deal with a constant threat from the north. Let's let China rule Mongolia to compensate them. If we can rewrite our boarders to help the Israelis, we should be able to revise history to compensate every ethnic group that has lost something in history.

[satanbrain]

At 2 hours ago, mhb18 wrote: I dont know what type of revisionist history you have been reading that says the Palestinians just willfully left their land. If you look at some of the works done by Israeli historians it even says the Palestinians were expelled.

The fact that the historians who slandered Israel were israelies themselves doesn't maek them right.

Its non sense to say that since jews have some connection to the ancient Israelite that they have a right to that land.

Jews are the descendants of israelites. The israelites owend the land and that justify our right to it.

That means no modern nation as a right to exist.

Define modern. If a nation became united only in recent centuries but existed for much longer it is not modern.

But any reasonable person would agree that living only in an area for over 1,000 years would make you the native population.

Why? Which human right affirm that violaton of the owner's right to property?

The native population isnt a group of people who can trace their ancestry back to some far off land but the people who currently live there.

That means that everyone is the native of where he steps. A second or a millenia are the same if you ignore the right to property.

At 1 hour ago, MrFlopz wrote: In the 7th century there were no Americans, no Germans, no Poles, no Russians, no Englishmen, no hispanics.

Tribes can depart and merge and create new nations. If this nation claim an unclaimed land the nation owns it.

I suppose all of these groups are not deserving of the land they walk on simply because they can't date their ethnicities back far enough.

Can't they? Americans are a political nation that did bought some of United States soil from natives. Poles, russians, englishmen and germans are ethnic nations. Hispanics is a term describing pepople with relation to Hispania.

So the Jews have more rights than arabs because Hebrews have existed as a culture for longer?

You misunderstood. The period in which a cultue existed is irrelevant. We have more rights because we claimed it before.

Why is that information relevant? You can remove a family from their homes simply because they are part of an ethnic group that only dates back several hundred years? That's incredibly racist. You're essentially prioritizing people's rights based on their ethic group.

I base this on the right to property. Would you like heritage confiscated since it is "racist" to hand over property to offpsrings (those genetically related to you) only? You claim that one cannot determine his property's status, that a nation cannot own land.

You're looking at the world as Jews, Arabs, etc. when you should be looking at it as PEOPLE. Why should you be rewarded with land for something that happened 1400 years ago?

What happened 1400 years ago is the transfer of occupied israel from byzantines to arabs through war. I argue that the right of nations on their lands should be acknowledged.

Why should an Arab be punished by having his land taken from him over this?

I didn't say that arabs should be punished.

Were you as an individual personally affected by the expulsion of the Israelites?

I cannot prophetize what would've happened were they not exiled.

Just because you share some genetic material means you share a consciousness that transcends time and makes you share their hardships?

I share the land which they own with their other descendants, my nation. Consciousness is irrelevant.

It was wrong for Rome to invade Gaul. Maybe if Rome hadn't invaded Gaul, Gaul would have still been around today and would have been a major nation. It's possible. How about the descendants of the Romans give compensation to the descendants of the Gauls?

Crimes are not hereditary. When nations cease to exist, or assimilate into other nations, they are gone.

Mongolia caused China quite a bit of hardship. I'm sure China would be much more powerful today if they didn't have to deal with a constant threat from the north. Let's let China rule Mongolia to compensate them. If we can rewrite our boarders to help the Israelis, we should be able to revise history to compensate every ethnic group that has lost something in history.

You mistake restitution with compensation. Had chinese owned mongolia and were expelled to china they should've owned mongolia.

[mhb18]

Crimes are not hereditary. When nations cease to exist, or assimilate into other nations, they are gone.

Mongolia caused China quite a bit of hardship. I'm sure China would be much more powerful today if they didn't have to deal with a constant threat from the north. Let's let China rule Mongolia to compensate them. If we can rewrite our boarders to help the Israelis, we should be able to revise history to compensate every ethnic group that has lost something in history.

There is no logic to your argument. 1. you say modern Jews have a right to Historic Palestine because they descend from the Israelite's. 2. While at the same time saying crimes cannot be hereditary. The truth is that they do not have a right to that land just because they are Jewish and that crimes are not hereditary. The modern day Jewish people are a fusion of many different groups of people. Does that mean we have to also give them chunks of other countries? If we were to follow your logic we would have to destroy just about every country in the world so that their "rightful" owners could take over.

[satanbrain]

At 1 hour ago, mhb18 wrote: The modern day Jewish people are a fusion of many different groups of people.

Genetic studies have proved else. Every jew is mostly jewish.

Does that mean we have to also give them chunks of other countries? If we were to follow your logic we would have to destroy just about every country in the world so that their "rightful" owners could take over.

If one more closely resemle one nation over another then he owns it's land since he is part of the nation.

[MrFlopz]

At 8 hours ago, satanbrain wrote: Crimes are not hereditary. When nations cease to exist, or assimilate into other nations, they are gone.

That's MY argument! I'm saying that crimes are not hereditary. You are saying the opposite. You are saying that because you can trace back a bloodline you can somehow undo injustices committed in history. That their descendants inherit that injustice and that somehow everyone who shares genetic material with the Israelites has been wronged. It doesn't work that way. I'm sure my ancestors have gone through horrible things in history. Everyone has ancestors that have been wronged. If a millionaire loses his wealth unjustly, should his descendants 10 generations later be made millionaires? Should we attempt to go through history and undo every wrong that was committed against our gene pool? We're not time travelers. We cannot undo injustices in history. We just have to go forward and learn from the past. Not rearrange our locations on the globe to something that is more "fair".

Nations are not set in stone. Just because a nation comes to be does not mean it should always exist. Nations rise and fall. That is the natural order of the world. To say "that country's decline was wrong! Let's undo it!" is preposterous. The Kingdom of Israel will never return. What we have today is a secular European nation state on what happens to be the same land. The Israelis are NOT the Israelites. They may have some Hebrew roots, but what about their Russian, German or Polish ancestry? Why is that side of the family tree ignored? Where do you think names like "Goldstein", "Rosenberg", "Braflovsky" etc. come from? Ancient Israel? Of course not! These are European people who happen to have a portion of their genes dating back to ancient Israel. So why can't you say that Europe is their home? A large portion of their family tree is European. Why is the Hebrew part the only one that matters?

You seem to be unwilling to listen to reason. Any reasonable person would understand that rearranging the world to 7th century borders is not a logical course of action. This is the 21st century. Why should we go back to the 7th? What would that accomplish? You only want this particular ancient nation to "return" because you benefit from it. And you ignore those who were harmed because of this. I've never believed more strongly that Israel's establishment was wrong than I do now. Listening to your arguments has proved to me that there is no logical justification for Israel's establishment. (Maintaining the country and continuing to live there is a different story. I don't believe Israelis born in Israel should be kicked out. That is their homeland because they were born there, but not because of their DNA.)

[ClickToPlay]

At 3 hours ago, satanbrain wrote:

So are the Israeli people using religion as a way to justify their legitimacy? That you guys deserve the land of Israel because you are the Bani Israel, right?

[lapis]

At 5 hours ago, satanbrain wrote:

At 1 hour ago, mhb18 wrote: The modern day Jewish people are a fusion of many different groups of people.

Genetic studies have proved else. Every jew is mostly jewish.

Yea.. wait, what? What do you mean by "mostly"? We share most of our DNA with fish, for fuck's sake.

Can you find me a genetic test that can separate a German Jew from a German, a Moroccan Jew from a Moroccan, put the German and Moroccan Jew together but separate both Jews from a Palestinian Arab? Bet you can't. Because thanks to 1000+ years of genetic intermixing between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews of Jerusalem, Tzfat and Tveria, I bet most Palestinians can trace at last some of their genetic lineage back to king David, even if they completely self-identify as Arab, rendering your whole genetic argument nonsensical if it wasn't so already.

[MrFlopz]

My apologies for derailing your topic OP. But when you bring up Israel, the discussion is bound to go in this direction.

[lapis]

Don't feel bad. I guess this thread was destined to (d)evolve like this anyway.

[SolInvictus]

no one brought up fringe Christian groups that think the third temple would bring about the return of Jesus; they're an example of non-Jewish Zionism.

or are they?
...and i'm not sure any one person or group has sole control over the meaning of Zionism.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1 day ago, satanbrain wrote: Perhaps now that he is the president he sees things differently?

I think it has more to do with making sure Jewish voters, and those sympathetic to Israel and Israeli issues continue to support him and his campaign.

Since he is exposed to more information and have changed his mind?

Could be...but even if that's a factor, it's not the only factor and would be working hand in hand with the other factors I just mentioned, and probably some things we're not even aware of.

He can hate our prime minister and yet support us. The country isn't represented by the prime minister only.

Very true. You can love the ideals of a country, without loving the current sitting government. But when you are a head of state, dealing with other heads of state (especially allies) sometimes you'll have to swallow some shit, and deal with people you don't necessarily like personally to achieve what you need to achieve.