• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Anti-zionist/anti-semitc?

Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooow there you have it.

The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."

And it says it's fine to **** children, so there you have it.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The objective of Zionism has never been merely to colonize Palestine – as was the goal of classical colonial and imperial movements during the 19th and 20th centuries. The design of European colonialism in Africa and Asia was, essentially, to exploit indigenous peoples as cheap labor while extracting natural resources for exorbitant profit.

What distinguishes Zionism from other colonial movements is the relationship between the settlers and the people to be conquered. The avowed purpose of the Zionist movement was not merely to exploit the Palestinian people but to disperse and dispossess them. The intent was to replace the indigenous population with a new settler community, to eradicate the farmers, artisans and town-dwellers of Palestine and substitute an entirely new workforce composed of the settler population.

In denying the existence of the Palestinian people, Zionism sought to create the political climate for their removal, not only from their land but from history. When acknowledged at all, the Palestinians were re-invented as a semi-savage, nomadic remnant. Historical records were falsified – a procedure begun during the last quarter of the 19th century but continuing to this day in such pseudo-historical writings as Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial.

The Zionist movement would seek alternative imperial sponsors for this bloody enterprise; among them the Ottoman Empire, Imperial Germany, the British Raj, French colonialism and Czarist Russia. Zionist plans for the Palestinian people anticipated the Ottoman solution for the Armenians, who would be slaughtered in the first sustained genocide of the 20th century.

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ch02.htm
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't think Zionism need be honoured and defended anymore by the people on this forum.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Mickyjaystoned said:
Sick and Insane Teachings of the Talmud

Gittin 69a . To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix with honey and eat it.

Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.

Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.

Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.

Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with. On one of his whorehouse romps, Rabbi Eleazar leanred that there was one particular prostitute residing in a whorehouse near the sea, who would receive a bag of money for her services. He took a bag of money and went to her, crossing seven rivers to do so. During their intercourse the prostitute farted. After this the whore told Rabbi Eleazar: "Just as this gas will never return to my anus, Rabbi Eleazar will never get to heaven."

Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

Gittin 70a. The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic."

Gittin 69b. To heal the disease of pleurisy ("catarrh") a Jew should "take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he should not eat the dog's excrement as it loosens the limbs."

Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

Sir, you are anti-semitic, or at least you are a supporter. Spreading these mis-translated and out of context Talmud passages is a popular method of anti-semites and I've seen it many times before. Since you were also anti-Zionist, this just provides more evidence for the theory of the person who started this thread - that anti-semitism and anti-zionism go hand in hand.

I don't want to get into semantics with you either about how anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are technically different things. Well, holocaust denial is not exactly the same thing as anti-semitism either. In fact, there exist Jews who are holocaust deniers. However, I think most people on this forum and most Americans in general realize that holocaust denial is a sure sign on anti-semitism.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
161
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
mis-translated and out of context Talmud passages is a popular method of anti-semites

Ehm no i don't think they are mistranslated, and could you please explain to me how

Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

can be justified by context?

I don't want to get into semantics with you either about how anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are technically different things. Well, holocaust denial is not exactly the same thing as anti-semitism either. In fact, there exist Jews who are holocaust deniers. However, I think most people on this forum and most Americans in general realize that holocaust denial is a sure sign on anti-semitism.

I am not a holocaust denier, i know that you can dissappear for providing arguments to disprove the original turn of events during the holocaust.

What did you think about the ex Israeli man's website, the Armenian Genocide was conducted by the Zionists as a dry run for the Jewish Holocaust, and by all accounts the only people who benefitted from this horrific crime were the Zionists.

You can call me a Rascist or Anti-Semite, but i know that doesn't mean ****!

I can call you a pigeon but it doesn't mean you are, it just seems that calling someone Anti-Semite is an effective means of hiding from the truth about Israel, you people who throw this term around are giving ignorance and rascism the freedom to go on without being questioned.

I have posted various links by Proffesionals to discredit Zionism and show the truth about the movement, but instead of accepting change there are still those stuck in the dark blindly supporting something they know nothing about, that is fine carry on, i don't care but i know the truth, so don't insult mine and your own intelligence by throwing around the label "Anti-Semite".

I think all control religions are pointless and immoral, not just Judaism, but Islam, Christianity, etc etc etc so call me an anti-religionist if your gonna ccall me anything.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,822
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
/mod mode/

Mickeyjaystoned,

I think you have managed to cut and paste your way into an established opinion. If you would like to debate the subject matter you have provided in such abundance, then please, favor your audience with your own words. If you continue to clog up this thread with lengthy opinion pieces it will be shut down. Thank you for your cooperation.

/mod mode/
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Mickyjaystoned said:
Ehm no i don't think they are mistranslated, and could you please explain to me how

Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

can be justified by context?

First of all, you must be aware that these laws come from ancient times. Just like there have been 5 year old kings that have their mother rule until they are 18, you have children arranged with each other early on. That doesn't mean they are having sex at 3.

Secondly, why don't you focues on what Judaism actually teaches people today?

Here:
http://www.frum.org/talmud/index2.asp

This website will describe the inaccuracies and deliberate falsehoods about the Talmud that you are propogating.

www.revisionisthistory.org is an anti-semitic website, and I wouldn't be suprised if it were run by what some call self-hating Jews.

Mickyjaystoned said:
I am not a holocaust denier, i know that you can dissappear for providing arguments to disprove the original turn of events during the holocaust.

So, basically you are a holocaust denier, but you won't say so because you fear that the Jewish conspiracy will shoot you and throw you into the Ocean?

Mickyjaystoned said:
What did you think about the ex Israeli man's website, the Armenian Genocide was conducted by the Zionists as a dry run for the Jewish Holocaust, and by all accounts the only people who benefitted from this horrific crime were the Zionists.

I thought it was crap. People who blame Zionists for every atrocity are deluded - this is the neo-Nazi view and the radical Islamic view.

Mickyjaystoned said:
You can call me a Rascist or Anti-Semite, but i know that doesn't mean ****!

I can call you a pigeon but it doesn't mean you are, it just seems that calling someone Anti-Semite is an effective means of hiding from the truth about Israel, you people who throw this term around are giving ignorance and rascism the freedom to go on without being questioned.

I call them like I see them.

Mickyjaystoned said:
I have posted various links by Proffesionals to discredit Zionism and show the truth about the movement, but instead of accepting change there are still those stuck in the dark blindly supporting something they know nothing about, that is fine carry on, i don't care but i know the truth, so don't insult mine and your own intelligence by throwing around the label "Anti-Semite".

I don't care if you have a million links. Any jackass can put up a website and say whatever the hell they want and declare themselves "professionals".

Mickyjaystoned said:
I think all control religions are pointless and immoral, not just Judaism, but Islam, Christianity, etc etc etc so call me an anti-religionist if your gonna ccall me anything.

Fine - you have every right to believe that. But to spread falsehoods about the Jewish religion and to use it to demonize Jews is patently anti-semitic.
 

john831

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Hotlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Anti-semitism is not the same thing as anti-zionism...I am a Jew who is not a zionist and I do not feel that I am a sellout to my race. I disagree with religious fundamentalism in any religion, be it Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. To me, it seems kind of fundamentalist to kick out all the residents of the area after WWII just because the Europeans felt guilty just because it says in the Torah/Bible that it's OK. I think it would be better for our race to not be in fear of bombings every day and try to reconcile with radical Islam (which would be easier if they did not think that we stole their land). America and European nations would certainly be welcome to take in the Jews currently living in Israel (not that many, since Israel is about the size of New Jersey and much of the south is the Negev desert) and form a strong Jewish community wherever they go. I've been to Israel and I love it there, I certainly feel a strong sense of religious identity but I think it would more beneficial to promote world peace rather than insist on a biblical claim to a tiny tract of land in the middle of enemies.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,840
Reaction score
17,337
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
john831 said:
Anti-semitism is not the same thing as anti-zionism...I am a Jew who is not a zionist and I do not feel that I am a sellout to my race.


I disagree with religious fundamentalism in any religion, be it Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.
For some reason I have this feeling you are jewish only in name.
To me, it seems kind of fundamentalist to kick out all the residents of the area after WWII just because the Europeans felt guilty just because it says in the Torah/Bible that it's OK. .

Read up on the british mandate of of palastine.Israel was not formed out of guilt after WWII like so many neo-nazis(anti-zionist/anti-semitc) would have you beleave.IT was carved out of the ottoman empire after WWI.

.http://www.mideastweb.org/mandate.htm

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_mandate.php

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/asmin/xottoman.html
 

john831

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Hotlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I don't understand how the fact that Palestine was carved out after WWI and given exclusively to Arabs then had the Arabs kicked out after WWII in exchange for Jews changes the fact that it is unfair to kick out the Arabs and give the land back to the Jews. Please explain.
Also, I know it would seem like I'm a Jew in name only, but I'm actually probably more religious than the average Jew in America, I have a strong sense of religious identity, and am fairly active in the Jewish community where I live.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
john831 said:
I don't understand how the fact that Palestine was carved out after WWI and given exclusively to Arabs then had the Arabs kicked out after WWII in exchange for Jews changes the fact that it is unfair to kick out the Arabs and give the land back to the Jews. Please explain.
Also, I know it would seem like I'm a Jew in name only, but I'm actually probably more religious than the average Jew in America, I have a strong sense of religious identity, and am fairly active in the Jewish community where I live.

Hey, John. I'm happy to debate these issues with you but I just needed a cool down period, because as you can see from the posts above, this thread is getting out of control.

Anyway, you can't be suggesting that all of the Israelis just pack up and go home. Wouldn't it be wrong to kick those millions of people out of their homes, and force them to go into foriegn countries?

If you believe that the Israelis should not have taken land back from the Palestinians, then wouldn't you also have to say that the Palestinians should not be able to take the land back from the Israelis at this point. After all, Israelis are there now, and most of them are younger than the state of Israel.

Also, there has been a Jewish presence in the region long before 1948. Israel is now basically a secular state that serves as a Jewish homeland. What's the problem with giving them this state?
 

john831

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Hotlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No, I'm certainly not suggesting that they pack up and leave, that would be just as bad as kicking the Arabs out. However, that small tract of land may be the single biggest threat to world peace; it infuriates Muslim theocracies, leading them to declare that it should be "wiped from the face of the earth" and promote people to kill innocents in the name of religion. One could argued that Israel has had an indirect effect in many world tragedies, 9-11 for example. Perhaps the terrorists would not have had such strong anti-American sentiments had America not been such a staunch Israeli supporter.(I'm not saying Israel caused 9-11, but it did not help) The current situation with Iran has also been influenced by Israeli support, as they might not be so unwilling to negotiate if we did not support their sworn enemy. Some would argue that having a democracy in the Middle East is good because it promotes democracy in the other countries; I think that the recent victory of Hamas shows that even if these Arab nations did have democracies, they would still remain hostile to America and Israel.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,840
Reaction score
17,337
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
john831 said:
I don't understand how the fact that Palestine was carved out after WWI and given exclusively to Arabs then had the Arabs kicked out after WWII in exchange for Jews changes the fact that it is unfair to kick out the Arabs and give the land back to the Jews.

Palastine was not given exclusively to the Arabs.Read the links.Do your own research if you doubt my sources of information.
The jews just did not go to palastine after WWII they were going there to before WWII.
 

john831

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Hotlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
My mistake, you're right about this. However, I still don't think it was such a great idea to give this land surrounding by Arabs due to a biblical claim to the land. In hindsight, it seems this was a bad idea because it created the Palestine-Israel conflict that still persists today. The total human cost of this conflict is way too much; all of the Israeli wars plus all of the other conflicts that Israel may have indirectly affected. To me it doesn't seem worth it.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,840
Reaction score
17,337
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
john831 said:
My mistake, you're right about this. However, I still don't think it was such a great idea to give this land surrounding by Arabs due to a biblical claim to the land. In hindsight, it seems this was a bad idea because it created the Palestine-Israel conflict that still persists today. The total human cost of this conflict is way too much; all of the Israeli wars plus all of the other conflicts that Israel may have indirectly affected. To me it doesn't seem worth it.


What is done is done and most of these Anti-semitics are bitching about something that happend way before they were born(before WWI).The one thing they did wrong was make a arab state consiting of the west bank and the Gaza strip instead of just a single section of land,what sense does it make to have a country divided?
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,928
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
john831 said:
I am a Jew who is not a zionist and I do not feel that I am a sellout to my race.



John 8:31 : Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, "If Ye continue in my word, then ye are my desciples indeed".
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
john831 said:
No, I'm certainly not suggesting that they pack up and leave, that would be just as bad as kicking the Arabs out. However, that small tract of land may be the single biggest threat to world peace; it infuriates Muslim theocracies, leading them to declare that it should be "wiped from the face of the earth" and promote people to kill innocents in the name of religion. One could argued that Israel has had an indirect effect in many world tragedies, 9-11 for example. Perhaps the terrorists would not have had such strong anti-American sentiments had America not been such a staunch Israeli supporter.

George Bush is ridiculed because he says that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. While it seems like a false blanket statement, I believe this statement is true in an indirect root-cause type of way. The ideology of the terrorists is not to be left alone, but rather to dominate and control other people. Therefore, free countries like our own (and to some extent Israel) are very threatening to the terrorist's plans. They'll always be (as they always have been) attacking someone, whther its another country or their own citizens.

I don't think that we can help our strong relationship with Israel and our deteriorating relationship with regimes based on terror and dicatatorship. Even if the US government stayed out, we would still have our buisinesses in close alliance with open governments like Israel. Also, our pop culture will be making its way into the middle East, and that won't help our image either.

john831 said:
Some would argue that having a democracy in the Middle East is good because it promotes democracy in the other countries; I think that the recent victory of Hamas shows that even if these Arab nations did have democracies, they would still remain hostile to America and Israel.

Alright - maybe its true that Israel cannot democratize the rest of the region. I'd just add that it will be interesting to see what happens next.

There are virulent anti-Zionists out there who want to see all Israelis out of Palestine, and belive that Israel is the root of all evil. Those views (which are help by many in the arab world, and neo-nazis as well) are anti-semitic.

Having reservations about whether the west made the right decisions leading up to the creation of Israel, being very critical of Israel's policies today, or regretting the loss of life in this conflict are not what I would characterize as hard-core anti-Zionism. So, I don't think the original poster were talking about people like you when saying that anti-Zionist =~ anti-semite.

john831 said:
My mistake, you're right about this. However, I still don't think it was such a great idea to give this land surrounding by Arabs due to a biblical claim to the land. In hindsight, it seems this was a bad idea because it created the Palestine-Israel conflict that still persists today. The total human cost of this conflict is way too much; all of the Israeli wars plus all of the other conflicts that Israel may have indirectly affected. To me it doesn't seem worth it.

There were other claims to the land other than just biblical. The Jews had settled there - and they wanted self government. The Brits could have attempted to try something else, but who knows what would have happened. Regardless, what's done is done - and we have to decide where to take it from here.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos/GhandiEinstein.html
http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/einstein/nyt_letter.html

GHANDI, EINSTEIN AND BUBER ON ISRAEL AND THE ARABS

Albert Einstein – “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State, with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain”...

Martin Buber – “Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their sickness of causeless hatred...It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer.”

Israel's responsibility for Refugees - The Jewish military advantage was translated into an act of mass expulsion of more than half of the Palestinian population. The Israeli forces, apart from rare exceptions, expelled the Palestinians from every village and town they occupied. In some cases, this expulsion was accompanied by massacres [of civilians] as was the case in Lydda, Tantura, Deir Yassin and others.
http://www.aai-us.org/main.html

Mahatma Gandhi Rejected Zionism
by Professor A.K. Ramakrishnan

Gandhi's major statement on the Palestine and the Jewish question came forth in his widely circulated editorial in the Harijan of 11 November 1938, a time when intense struggle between the Palestinian Arabs and the immigrant Jews had been on the anvil in Palestine. His views came in the context of severe pressure on him, especially from the Zionist quarters, to issue a statement on the problem. Therefore, he started his piece by saying that his sympathies are all with the Jews, who as a people were subjected to inhuman treatment and persecution for a long time.

"But", Gandhi asserted, "My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?"

He thus questioned the very foundational logic of political Zionism. Gandhi rejected the idea of a Jewish State in the Promised Land by pointing out that the "Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract." The Zionists, after embarking upon a policy of colonization of Palestine and after getting British recognition through the Balfour Declaration of 1917 for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jews," tried to elicit maximum international support.

The Jewish leaders were keen to get an approval for Zionism from Gandhi as his international fame as the leader of a non-violent national struggle against imperialism would provide great impetus for the Jewish cause. But his position was one of total disapproval of the Zionist project both for political and religious reasons. He was against the attempts of the British mandatory Government in Palestine toeing the Zionist line of imposing itself on the Palestinians in the name of establishing a Jewish national home. Gandhi's Harijan editorial is an emphatic assertion of the rights of the Arabs in Palestine.

The following oft-quoted lines exemplify his position: "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home."

Gandhi's response to Zionism and the Palestine question contains different layers of meaning, ranging from an ethical position to political realism. What is interesting is that Gandhi, who firmly believed in the inseparability of religion and politics, had been consistently and vehemently rejecting the cultural and religious nationalism of the Zionists.

What follows then is that he was not for religion functioning as a political ideology; rather, he wanted religion to provide an ethical dimension to nation-State politics. Such a difference was vital as far as Gandhi was concerned. A uni-religious justification for claiming a nation-State, as in the case of Zionism, did not appeal to him in any substantial sense.

The history of Palestine in the first half of this century has been characterized by the contention between two kinds of nationalism: Zionism and Palestinian Arab nationalism-the former striving for creating a Jewish nation in Palestine by colonizing its land through massive Jewish immigration and the latter struggling for freedom of the inhabitants of the land of Palestine from colonial and imperialist control.

The Delhi AICC of September 1938 said in its resolution that Britain should leave the Jews and the Arabs to amicably settle the issues between the two parties, and it urged the Jews "not to take shelter behind British Imperialism." Gandhi wanted the Jews in Palestine to seek the goodwill of the Arabs by discarding "the help of the British bayonet."
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Cont'd
Gandhi and the Congress thus openly supported Palestinian Arab nationalism, and Gandhi was more emphatic in the rejection of Zionist nationalism. The major political driving force in such a position was the common legacy of anti-imperialist struggle of the Indians and the Palestinians. Gandhi's views on the Zionist doctrine and his firm commitment to the Palestinian cause starting from the 1930s obviously influenced the design of independent India's position on the Palestine issue.

Gandhi's prescription for the Jews in Germany and the Arabs in Palestine was non-violent resistance. With regard to the Jewish problem in Germany, Gandhi noted, "I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in non-violent action, the winter of their despair can, in the twinkling of an eye, be turned into the summer of hope." His views on Zionism and his prescription of non-violent action and self-sacrifice to the Jews in Germany generated reactions ranging from anger to despair.

As mentioned earlier, Gandhi refused to view the Zionist "hunger" for land in Palestine as a right. Gandhi wrote on 7 January 1939 the following in response to an editorial in the Statesman, "I hold that non-violence is not merely a personal virtue. It is also a social virtue to be cultivated like the other virtues. Surely society is largely regulated by the expression of non-violence in its mutual dealing. What I ask for is an extension of it on a larger, national and international scale."

Also, it is significant to note that, as far as Gandhi was concerned, non-violent action was not pacifism or a defensive activity but a way of waging war. This war without violence also requires discipline, training and the assessment of the strength and weakness of the enemy.

According to Paul Power, four factors influenced Gandhi's position on Zionism:

- "First, he was sensitive about the ideas of Muslim Indians who were anti-Zionists because of their sympathy for Middle Eastern Arabs opposed to the Jewish National Home; second, he objected to any Zionist methods inconsistentwith his way of non-violence; third, he found Zionism contrary to his pluralistic nationalism, which excludes the establishment of any State based solely or mainly on one religion; and fourth, he apparently believed it imprudent to complicate his relations with the British, who held the mandate in Palestine."

Gandhi withstood almost all Zionist attempts at extracting a pro-Zionist stance from him. G.H. Jansen wrote about the failure of Zionist lobbying with Gandhi:

- "His opposition [to Zionism] remained consistent over a period of nearly 20 years and remained firm despite skilful and varied applications to him of that combination of pressure and persuasion known as lobbying, of which the Zionists are past masters."

Apart from responses to Gandhi's anti-Zionism from Jewish pacifists such as Buber, Magnes and Greenberg, Jansen points out at least four separate instances of Zionist attempts to get a favourable statement from Gandhi. At first, Hermann Kallenbach, Gandhi's Jewish friend in South Africa, came to India in 1937 and stayed for weeks with Gandhi trying to convince him of the merits of the Zionist cause. Then, in the 1930s, as requested by Rabbi Stephen Wise, the American pacifist John Haynes Holmes, tried "to obtain from Gandhi a declaration favourable to Zionism". In March 1946, a British MP from the Labour Party, Sydney Silverman, an advocate of Indian independence in Britain, attempted to change Gandhi's mind. At the end of their heated conversation, Gandhi stated that "after all our talk, I am unable to revise the opinion I gave you in the beginning." The fourth Zionist attempt to change Gandhi's mind was by Louis Fischer, Gandhi's famous biographer, to whom Gandhi reported to have said that "the Jews have a good case."

Later, Gandhi clarified in one of his final pieces on Zionism and the Palestine question on 14 July 1946 that "I did say some such thing in the course of a conversation with Mr. Louis Fischer on the subject." He added, "I do believe that the Jews have been cruelly wronged by the world."

Gandhi went back to his initial position by categorically stating that "But in my opinion, they [the Jews] have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism... Why should they depend on American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine?"

There were an influential number of Jews who thought that force, only force, could ensure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. They adopted terrorism as the method to achieve their national goal. This policy of subjugation of the Palestinians by Zionist terror was totally rejected by Gandhi in no uncertain terms.

A few months before his assassination, Gandhi answered the question "What is the solution to the Palestine problem?" raised by Doon Campbell of Reuters:

"It has become a problem which seems almost insoluble. If I were a Jew, I would tell them: 'Do not be so silly as to resort to terrorism...' The Jews should meet the Arabs, make friends with them and not depend on British aid or American aid, save what descends from Jehovah."

Dr. Ramakrishnan is a senior lecturer, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala, India. He presented this paper on June 13, 1998 at a seminar organized by the Institute of Islamic and Arab Studies. The seminar was inaugurated by the chairman of India's National Minorities Commission, Prof. Tahir Mahmoud, who highlighted the traditional Indian support for the Palestinian struggle against Zionist Occupation.

The United States walked out of the September 2001 World Conference Against Racism because it included two contentious issues: Zionism as racism, and reparations for slavery and colonialism.

[Tim Wise, an activist, writer and lecturer based in Nashville, Tennessee, writes that "it is difficult to deny that Zionism, in practice if not theory, amounts to ethnic chauvinism, colonial ethnocentrism, and national oppression."--Tim Wise, "Reflections on Zionism From a Dissident Jew," Media Monitors Network, September 6, 2001]

["In the last decade the two countries have built up extensive military collaboration, involving arms sales, equipment upgrades, the transfer of technology and joint weapons development programmes. The latest multi-billion dollar defence agreements are seen as another watershed in the Indo-Israeli strategic partnership."--"Closer ties for India and Israel," Jane's Intelligence Digest, August 7, 2001]
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0815-GandhiZionism.html
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,230
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
In actuality, Zionism is nothing more than plain old-fashioned nationalism. Almost every country has citizens who could be described as nationalists. In essence, nationalism has little, if anything, to do with religion. Israel is a bit unique in this regard though because it was the first true monotheistic society, and its ancient birth as a nation was wholly based on its religious covenant with Yahweh.

In a corollary and contemporary vein, we can examine the Kurds. This ancient people has been around for thousands of years and its culture is quite distinct from Arabic culture. The traditional Kurdish homeland encompasses parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. I personally believe that the Kurds should have their own state (Kurdistan). The majority of Kurds also favor this scenario. This is Kurdish nationalism. Is it wrong? From my perspective, I think an independent Kurdistan would be the morally right thing to do. Additionally, although the Kurds are majority Muslim, they do not allow Isalm to govern politics. They are fiercely independent, quite openly favor democracy, and remain America's staunchest allies in Iraq.

The problem here, as it often seems to be, is oil. The Kirkuk oil fields of Iraq (Iraq's largest) lie within the traditional boundaries of Kurdistan. The question then becomes, should an ancient and distinct culture that seeks the soverignty of its traditional homeland be held captive to the capriciousness of geography, politics, and greed? Not from my perspective. Is Kurdish Nationalism any different than Israeli Zionism? Not from my perspective. Would a Kurdish movement dedicated to reclaiming its traditional and ancient homeland from the wrongs inflicted by empire and colonialism be injust and immoral? Not from my perspective. On the contrary, from my Israeli perspective... I strongly support the nationalist dreams of this ancient and persecuted people.

To equate Zionism with Judaism is just as disingenuous as equating Ukranian Nationalism with the Russian Orthodox Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. Religion is cultish whereas nationalism is secular. Sometimes they overlap at the fringe, but each has a separate and distinct agenda. In this light then, disenchantment with the Zionist movement is a legitimate and political exercise. When the criticism instead falls upon the Jewish religion or the people of Yahweh, it crosses the political line and becomes nothing more than vile religion-bashing and blatant anti-Semitism.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,230
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
[Moderator Mode=Tashah]

:minigavel robin, I will iterate what mixedmedia cautioned about above. With lengthy extracts, please condense it to one or two paragraphs and post a reference link to facilitate continued reading.

[/Moderator Mode]
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Tashah said:
[Moderator Mode=Tashah]

:minigavel robin, I will iterate what mixedmedia cautioned about above. With lengthy extracts, please condense it to one or two paragraphs and post a reference link to facilitate continued reading.

[/Moderator Mode]
Yes miss.. sorry miss
punk.gif
 
Last edited:

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Mickyjaystoned said:
No wonder he was shot.


he was shot by a hindu... so you make no sense whatsoever.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
To equate Zionism with Judaism is just as disingenuous as equating Ukranian Nationalism with the Russian Orthodox Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. Religion is cultish whereas nationalism is secular. Sometimes they overlap at the fringe, but each has a separate and distinct agenda. In this light then, disenchantment with the Zionist movement is a legitimate and political exercise. When the criticism instead falls upon the Jewish religion or the people of Yahweh, it crosses the political line and becomes nothing more than vile religion-bashing and blatant anti-Semitism.



thank you, this shoudl be end of discussion right here. Anti-zionism does not necessarily equate to anti-semitism.
 
Top Bottom