Judaism is not a country. You said "What I hate about the Jewish attitude in general is...". That's like saying "What I hate about Muslims is that they are terrorists k?" Or "What I hate about Christians in general is that they suck alright?"

And w/e. You dislike Jewish egocentrism. Alright. EVERY religion, race, culture, nationality, ethnicity in the world has ethnocentrism.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

dude, honestly, the more you talk, the more i dislike jews
at least in my "extreme antisemitism" i used to think they were intelligent people and now i have to verify my information

i wont excuse myself in front of you, as i believe any nation or religion should be open for criticism - simply to avoid fanaticism which in fact you proudly represent. i can say i dont like christians because they are ignorant and i dont like islam because it eliminates more peaceful religions. but if im not mistaken wasnt it you who named arabs the "oilfags" is that the reason why you have yellow card? yes? good to know!
at least now i can think of jews as hypocrites (sarcasm in case you dont understand it either)


i am a polish patriot but if someone tells me what he particularly dislikes about Poles, i am not calling him antiPolish, racist etc as i believe that most stereotypes are based on some facts. and aswell can contain some truth, which can be explained to the speaker and justied somehow. obviously i dont call people thieves, terrorists or murderers like you do in your examples
while you are nationalist, not able to see things in wider perspective

please write no more, as discussion with you is rather tirig

I referred to the Iranian Government as oilfags which is why I had the yellow card. How am i a fanatic really? I'm not religious at all. Really I find Christians ignorant and Muslims old and hate-mongerers. *waits for my red card*. You see if I was to say anything about religions they would have me banned right away.

I think Jews should have a place to live,but it seems cause too much trouble.
Here,in china,we know jews are wandering people and sympathize jews.
And we think jews are very smart,a nation love knowledge.
So when Hiller killed the jews,shanghai,china opened its door for jews.
According to chinese culture,most of chinese cannot live Muslem way life,so wont support muslems.
But it seems Israel is becoming more and more dangerous.
Isnot Israel has nuke weapon,too?
It might rise more touble with muslems countries.
Anyway,it is none of our business,as long as dont make a WWIII.

I support the Idea, that each nation should have a state, the same I think about Jews.

I do not think that Arabs have to pay the bill for German Genocide on Jews. It would be better that the Jews got somewhere else land, but Israel is a fact.

The Israelis should make peace as long as they are stronger then Arabs. Or else they risk to go on tour, to be an minority without state means that the host nation do with you what they want. How nice this is see Palestinians now, even their arab brothers threat them like illegal immigrants.

Without a Palestinian State and East-Jerusalem as Palestinian Capitol, Israel will never get peace. And without Peace with his neighbours no state can stand long. In timeframes of states which are commonly several houndred Years old is Israel with 60 Years, a short phenomen.

Israel was founded and destroyed several times due the fact that the state was not able to make arrangments with his neighbours. This is the bane of the Jewish nation.

I agree with that.



No one got along with the Assyrians too well.

Jews should be proud of themselves and face criticism with dignity. I am not against this in any way. I am against Zionism in the sense of singling out Jews as special as compared to other peoples, though I would think most Jews do not think this way at all. In fact I know they don't, at least not here in Australia. Fact is Judaism and Jews in general are not responsible for the Palestine conflict but it's a two sided coin guys. Israel might be a democracy and have a functioning economy but without American/western support they would have been wiped off the map long ago.

Without Soviet help the Arabs wouldnt have been a threat to Israel. The only Reason the US got involved was to mitigate Russias influence in the region.

zionism is an historically specific ideology attached to the rise of nationalism in late 19th/ early 20th century

as such, ideologically, it has no less of claim to moral validity than any other form of nationalism; on this basis we can accept the zionist 'need' for a homeland,

the point when this moral validity becomes sketchy is when we look at it historically rather than ideologically, and vast amounts of bloodshed, violence and oppression that has resulted, and continues as a result of the idelological attachment to zionism

however, a zionist would be perfectly justified in saying , 'well look at all other periods of nation building, they have all been a process of violent upheavel, why are we different'. they would of course be correct.

this only serves to highlight the inherent problems of nationalism as an ideology (which i can go into further, but maybe worth a seperate thread) when applied to the real world

but applied to the real world it has been, and harping on and moralising with claims that israel is a historical abberration that has no legitimacy is frankly irrelevant now. israel exists, accept it.

the issue is how does one end the continued violence and oppression suffered, particularly by palestinians? and recourse to palestinian or zionist nationalism is not the solution; it will only serve to perpetuate the problem. on the basis that nationalism is an inherently divisive ideology, i believe a one state solution based on an aspiration to political social and economic equality for all (of course, not easy!) is the only viable option for long term peace.

it negates the divisive nationalism of both israelis and palestinians, and yet satisfies in both the need for a 'homeland'

thoughts?

A one state solution means Jews will be second class citizens in a Islamic Republic.

A one state solution is advocated by two types of people:
[1]Arabs, who know it will mean their political supremacy in the Levant
[2]Clueless Western liberals who think that things like race, religion, culture, etc. don't really mean anything and that if it weren't for those nasty brutes we could all get along in blissful harmony

The Jews and Arabs are distinct, incompatible civilizations. The current situation in that land is one of jewish supremacy. The one-state solution simply trades that for Arab supremacy. As I am not connected to the issue it wouldn't make a difference to me, although as Jewish civilization is Western and presently superior to Arab civilization I have a preference for the present situation. The only way this conflict will be resolved is for the Arabs to disappear or the Jews to be pushed into the sea.

Nationalism isn't anything new. Man is and always has been tribal. Romantic nationalism was the new force of the 19th century.

And ethnocentrism is something to be proud of? Jews come from various ethnic backgrounds but even Jewish geneticists know that the ORIGINAL Jews from that region of the world are essentially the same ethnic group as some of the original Palestinians. For me, Israel's existence etc is motivated by a common belief in a religion. Jews are not a race of people. Still, religious intolerance is also nothing to be frowned upon. I think patriotic feelings for one's homeland and nationalistic feelings for one's background is acceptable and healthy, but if you take it too far it only becomes divisive and evil. Zionism as an ideology has been tainted with many misconceptions and lies, yes, but it is still nothing to be immensely proud of if one were to take it to the most extreme levels. Nothing is. I mean I don't think anyone who criticizes Israel should be labeled anti-Semitic but clearly most Jews know how to approach arguments regarding Israel as a STATE founded on some elements of Zionism and Jews as a people. They know how to make the distinction.

you can add a lot israelis and jews in general to your list



they do have meaning, but meanings change; its a general truth of history



zionist nationalism (which is what we're talking about) is precisely this form of nationalism that originated in the 19th century

and yes human's will always live in multiple societies, but again this isn't fixed to territories or cultures. they change and evolve over time; another general truth of history



they have co-existed in relative peace in the past (for example for periods during the ottoman empire). why not again?

and after all, if the jewish race's historical homeland is the territory we now call israel, then surely they're (at least partly) arabs too? or is the distinction your making a religious one? in which case the reformation is an example of how religion can also change over time, to become more accomodating to other world-views

so although a one state solution seems implausible now, its certainly something to aspire to, especially as it will be the only guarantee to lasting peace.

Hell yes.


These people fall into the "clueless liberal" category. And actually, a jew who advocates such a solution should probably be considered a traitor to his people.


Not overnight and not without substantial costs.


Zionist nationalism was a pragmatic solution for a people who didn't want to assimilate into the countries they lived in. Once the state was achieved, the romantic aspect was gone and now we're left with normal nationalism.


It is fixed to peoples, unless you can forcibly change that people's identity. Land is very important to some people as well.


I doubt very much that jews desire to be dhimmi once more.


Mizari jews are much closer to Arabs, but judaism, while through matrilineal descent, is not an entirely ethnic distinction, but a general one of culture. After all, Ethiopian jews are black. The Reformation, by the way, resulted in 200 years of open religious warfare.


The jews would simply become the new oppressed and they would fight back. The only way to guarantee a lasting peace is for either the arabs or jews to be expelled. This is how lasting peace was achieved in Europe when 13 million Germans were expelled from non-German states and forced into Germany proper. Since the developed world is dominated by people with no stomach for hard solutions but with an insatiable appetite for meddling in other people's business, neither party could affect such a solution, so endless low-intensity warfare will continue.

agreed



agreed



do 'peoples' identities not change over history?



why would this be necessary?



i would dispute that the basis of this warfare was religious, but thats another debate...

my point was merely to support a question on whether your distinction between jews and arabs is religious or ethnic? you seem to be admiting its not ethnic (have i misinterpreted you here?). i'm not sure what it is inherent in arabs and jews that makes them incompatible cultures, maybe you could elaborate on this point?



i actually believe the opposite is true. initially in a single state jewish israelis would remain social elites, in the same way the end of apartheid didn't change social hierarchy in south africa... but you would hope progressively things would level out.



well this is what it comes down to: you, on the basis that jews and arabs are inherently incompatible, are justified in this position; i, on the basis that there is nothing inherent in this incompatibility, and therefore can be changed, am justified in proposing a single state solution

so to repeat an earlier request, why, in more detail do you think arabs and jews are incompatible?



spot on

Over a long period of time. If forcibly imposed, it is done with against the resistance of the present generation.


That's exactly the status they previously had in islamic dominated countries before. If the one state could agree to parallel communities that would be fine, but that's not in keeping with the general thrust of islam, which is a conqueror's creed (not disparaging that, I admire them for it).


Much of the initial religious conversion was undertaken for political reasons, but the subsequent hatred was purely religious. The English workers who rioted over Catholic emancipation were doing so for the simple reason that they hated Catholics.


It is a combination of ethnic, religious, and historical factors. The question is not of particular importance aside from academic interest, as we can plainly observe that jews and muslims hate each other.


Note that in post-Apartheid Africa white people suffer from a murder rate higher than the battle death rate than American soldiers in Vietnam, and the government does nothing because it serves the black community. The economic domination by white South Africans continues because South Africa is capitalist, and white South Africans are superior businessmen and skilled workers than black South Africans.


Both jews and muslims strongly perceive themselves to be different people. If we look at their underlying creeds, jews hold themselves to be the chosen people, whereas muslims are universalist and hold islam to be a uniquely superior social-religious system with all non-muslims being heathens rejecting the true word of God. Granted, over time consumerism could ruin their traditional culture and turn them into the same kind of degenerate slobs that populate our civilization today, but this would be fiercely resisted by them.

By the way, I must commend you on being a very pleasant and polite debater.

ditto!



i think its more crucial than that. my central argument throughout has been historical variation in cultures indicates that attitudes and convictions of humans changes over time, and will continue to change. and there's no reason, on this basis, why we should assume attitudes of hostility between arabs and jews won't eventually change.

i think, perhaps, you dispute this very basis.

with this in mind, and considering i seem to be just repeating myself without adding too much, we can take the weak liberal approach and agree to disagree

I do not dispute that the basis can change. In Europe we can see how this changed. Europe went from competing centers of imperialism and severe national hatreds (England v. France, everyone v. Germany) to a continent of peaceful cooperation and increasingly shared identity today. However, this change took two World Wars that killed 60-70 million Europeans, the end of the basis of independent European power, and the final formation of ethnonational homelands for all Europeans due to German ethnic cleansing and the subsequent ethnic cleansing of Germans. And in Europe, there was already a shared identity and culture, which often expressed unity against external threats, historically islam. The Nazis tried to coopt this spirit by painting Operation Barbarossa as a pan-European crusade against Asiatic barbarism.

With Israel and the Arabs, we don't have this shared culture, despite some racial similarities. One could FORCE assimilation of the groups, but that would require strong force and a very, very long time. One hundred years after the Norman conquest it wasn't uncommon for aristocrats to refer to commoners as "Saxon guttersnipes" (see the great film Becket), and even hundreds of years later commoners talked about "throwing off the Norman yoke" (e.g. the Levellers & Diggers).

In the case of Israel, I suppose steps could be taken to reduce hostility and increase amicability. The most important steps would be a reduction of hostilities and an increase in shared economic life. In the case of hostilities, the reason is obvious. With respect to shared economic life, different groups who share an economic life have increasingly shared interests and become more friendly to eachother over time. We can clearly see this in Europe where many people now consider themselves European first (something I consider horrifying, but that's a different topic). I think perhaps the following could be done:

• Israel has to stop responding with disproportionate force. Unfortunately, democracy makes this inevitable. Successful counter-insurgency requires limiting the application of force as much as possible. It should develop a constabulary of older soldiers trained in police tactics and less-than-lethal force. This constabulary would occupy the Palestinian territories. Self-government for the Palestinians doesn't work because they hate Israel (understandably) for the time being and will just elect Hamas over and over.
• Get Palestinians to man security points in their own neighborhoods. Suicide attacks would then harm their own people, which would cause these to go down.
• End the settlements. This is a painful choice for Israel, but sometimes a tactical withdrawal is required for strategic victory.
• End the economic blockade!
• Encourage Israeli (and foreign) investment in the Palestinian territories.
• DO NOT allow Palestinian guest workers in Israel proper, this will depress Israeli wages and breed more resentment against Palestinians.

I think this strategy, pursued over time, would reduce hostility and increase cooperation. Then you could talk about an economically integrated two-state solution, which over time could give way to a single-state solution. The independent Palestinian state could come in perhaps 15-20 years, and a single state would be possible perhaps 50-100 years after that.

I assume that the single state would be an Arab-majority country (a strong majority in that time frame). Will Israelis be able to accept the loss of a Jewish state? Or would the country still be ruled by Israeli Jews and lose its democracy?

There is no way jews would accept Arab supremacy, which is what a one-state solution would mean now. What I envision is something of a synthesis of the cultures, or at least a harmonization of interests, over a long time. That in turn would allow a single state which is not the tool of one group to dominate the other.