PDA

View Full Version : Zionsim



peb
08-03-2014, 11:34 AM
Seems a good idea at times to step back and look at the most basic question which pertains to a current issue.

Captain Intrepid
08-03-2014, 12:19 PM
Wheres the option to vote no to each option?

Peerie Maa
08-03-2014, 12:47 PM
^ +1

A secular state in Israel that respects all of the population OK. A Jewish state no, Israel is not a single religion country, and their track record so far indicates that under a government mandated to support only one religion human rights for non Zionists would go out the window.

Bubba L.
08-03-2014, 01:04 PM
Stupid.

Gene

isla
08-03-2014, 01:08 PM
I can't vote for either option. It's a meaningless poll.

George Jung
08-03-2014, 01:13 PM
I'm unsure how to vote, as well - though in considering these past severl threads, and looking at a peaceful ME as the ultimate goal (I wonder if that's even possible, even with the elimination of Israel?) - the only option that might be successful would be elimination of one side, or the other -and it's unclear to me, which would be preferable. on one hand, eliminating the only non-arab country seems the obvious choice - but then you note where many of the other Arab countries apparently (recently) consider radical Islam an even bigger threat.

I wonder how the Arab countries (non-Palestinian) would respond.

peb
08-03-2014, 01:43 PM
^ +1

A secular state in Israel that respects all of the population OK. A Jewish state no, Israel is not a single religion country, and their track record so far indicates that under a government mandated to support only one religion human rights for non Zionists would go out the window.
Israel defines itself as "A Jewish and Democratic State" in its Basic Laws. It seems your position is clearly the second option.

peb
08-03-2014, 01:44 PM
Hmmm...no possibility of an intermediate view, I see... another case of 'you're either for us, or against us'.

And we sometimes wonder why polls are so screwed up.

Not at all. Supporting the existence of the Israel by no means one has to support all of its policies, or even any of its policies.

peb
08-03-2014, 01:45 PM
I can't vote for either option. It's a meaningless poll.

Why is it meaningless?

peb
08-03-2014, 01:46 PM
I'm unsure how to vote, as well - though in considering these past severl threads, and looking at a peaceful ME as the ultimate goal (I wonder if that's even possible, even with the elimination of Israel?) - the only option that might be successful would be elimination of one side, or the other -and it's unclear to me, which would be preferable. on one hand, eliminating the only non-arab country seems the obvious choice - but then you note where many of the other Arab countries apparently (recently) consider radical Islam an even bigger threat.

I wonder how the Arab countries (non-Palestinian) would respond.

That's a fair answer. Certainly more considered than the other responses.

CWSmith
08-03-2014, 01:48 PM
The issues are more complex. Supporting Israel should not mean "right or wrong", but your poll questions don't span the true issues.

Bubba L.
08-03-2014, 01:50 PM
Not at all. Supporting the existence of the Israel by no means one has to support all of its policies, or even any of its policies.

No option to support both Israel and Palestine. Why should it be only about Israel or no Israel? Why should only one side be allowed to exist?

Gene

Peerie Maa
08-03-2014, 01:53 PM
Israel defines itself as "A Jewish and Democratic State" in its Basic Laws. It seems your position is clearly the second option.

No, I don't want them eliminated, I want them to behave with humanity to all of the Israeli population.
The UK is an Anglican state, but we stopped treating Catholics as second class citizens a long time ago. Israel can do the same for their Arabs.

Jim Mahan
08-03-2014, 01:54 PM
Maybe we could just unwind all of the hegemony and wars over territory and ancestral homelands for everyone. And remunerations, too. I'll be looking for a castle in Ireland.

hanleyclifford
08-03-2014, 02:13 PM
Maybe we could just unwind all of the hegemony and wars over territory and ancestral homelands for everyone. And remunerations, too. I'll be looking for a castle in Ireland. I think a guy named Clifford stole some property in Kerry - AND WE AIN'T GIVING IT BACK!

peb
08-03-2014, 02:59 PM
No option to support both Israel and Palestine. Why should it be only about Israel or no Israel? Why should only one side be allowed to exist?

Gene


??? I simply asked if a Jewish state should exist in Palestine. The answer, either way, does not preclude one from supporting a Palestinian state. I ccertainly support both.
.

isla
08-03-2014, 03:00 PM
Why is it meaningless?Because it is not a black and white situation. I have never supported the UN decision to create the state of Israel, so I wish it didn't exist, so I can't vote for it. At the same time, elimination seems like an overreaction, just like the current Israeli overreaction in Gaza, so I can't vote for elimination either.

peb
08-03-2014, 03:24 PM
Because it is not a black and white situation. I have never supported the UN decision to create the state of Israel, so I wish it didn't exist, so I can't vote for it. At the same time, elimination seems like an overreaction, just like the current Israeli overreaction in Gaza, so I can't vote for elimination either.

So I should have worded the second option along the lines of "the state of Israel, as currently constituted, should not exist". I thought about that, and it now certainly appears it would be better. Don't know how to change it.

Peerie Maa
08-03-2014, 03:52 PM
??? I simply asked if a Jewish state should exist in Palestine. The answer, either way, does not preclude one from supporting a Palestinian state. I ccertainly support both.
.

Do you mean two separate states sharing the same piece of land?

George Jung
08-03-2014, 03:53 PM
Because it is not a black and white situation. I have never supported the UN decision to create the state of Israel, so I wish it didn't exist, so I can't vote for it. At the same time, elimination seems like an overreaction, just like the current Israeli overreaction in Gaza, so I can't vote for elimination either.


Hmmmm.... so it comes to this, eh?

Here.... choose a glass of wine... one contains iocane powder....

peb
08-03-2014, 03:56 PM
Do you mean two separate states sharing the same piece of land?

Certainly not. To be two independent states, they have to be geographically separate.

Peerie Maa
08-03-2014, 04:16 PM
Certainly not. To be two independent states, they have to be geographically separate.


In 2006, the official number of Arab residents in Israel — including East Jerusalem permanent residents many of whom are not citizens — was 1,413,500 people, about 20% of Israel’s population.[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#cite_note-Ynet-57)

Well, that isn't going to happen then. Unless you are suggesting ethnic cleansing?

peb
08-03-2014, 04:25 PM
Well, that isn't going to happen then. Unless you are suggesting ethnic cleansing?



A Jewish state does not need to consist of 100% Jews. It seems you are being much more "black and white" than i

Todd D
08-03-2014, 04:39 PM
Eliminating the jewish state does not mean that the people there have to leave. I would like to see the entire area as a single secular nation where the current residents of Israel and Palestine lived together in harmony. I am 100% against religious states of any kind.

Peerie Maa
08-03-2014, 04:47 PM
A Jewish state does not need to consist of 100% Jews. It seems you are being much more "black and white" than i

I'm just trying to get a handle on what you actually mean.

Todd has nailed it.

Durnik
08-03-2014, 05:06 PM
Todd has nailed it.

He has indeed.

enjoy
bobby

Reynard38
08-03-2014, 05:21 PM
Eliminating the jewish state does not mean that the people there have to leave. I would like to see the entire area as a single secular nation where the current residents of Israel and Palestine lived together in harmony. I am 100% against religious states of any kind.

+1

But it ain't gonna happen.
Did a google search and read the history of that particular chunk of real estate. It's changed hands maybe 100 times in recorded history, and nobody's held it for too long.
How about option 3.
Large asteroid comes along and adds a few square miles of area to the eastern Med.
Otherwise I think history is bound to keep repeating itself.

Breakaway
08-03-2014, 05:25 PM
Todd does have it nailed. But the problem arises because many of those people who'd " be allowed " to stay in the secular state would not stand for it. They want a religious state.

Square one, anybody?

Kevin

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

PeterSibley
08-03-2014, 06:30 PM
I can't vote for either option. It's a meaningless poll.

+1.

S/V Laura Ellen
08-03-2014, 06:33 PM
I can't vote for either option. It's a meaningless poll.


+1.

+2 (but I have my own reasons)

Captain Intrepid
08-03-2014, 06:41 PM
Because it is not a black and white situation. I have never supported the UN decision to create the state of Israel, so I wish it didn't exist, so I can't vote for it. At the same time, elimination seems like an overreaction, just like the current Israeli overreaction in Gaza, so I can't vote for elimination either.

Bingo. I do not think that the hemi-demi-semi Jewish state of Israel was a good idea to begin with, however, it is a fait accompli, and that makes it a very complicated issue now. Certainly more complicated than a two option poll.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-03-2014, 06:46 PM
Israel suffers from what many parliamentary states suffer from; too many political parties. The only way to govern is to manufacture alliances, some of which can be counter-productive. Hasidics altho' few in number originally have carved out a protected legal niche for themselves that allows their men to avoid military service, to live off the dole while the men go on a lifelong study of the Torah, and alifelong quest to father as many children as possible to the point they aren't few in number any more. It's no secret that secular Israelis are more and more cognicent of risks their men take in the frequent border wars while the Hasidim stay at home and try to buy up more and more Jerusalem neighborhoods. Right now secular Jews in Israel are in the majority but their preponderance is probably diminishing. And you can't sustain a state where a sizable percentage of citizens get a legal exemption from partaking in the military necessities. So, even in Israel "'a Jewish state" means different things to different parts of society.

peb
08-03-2014, 06:52 PM
Eliminating the jewish state does not mean that the people there have to leave. I would like to see the entire area as a single secular nation where the current residents of Israel and Palestine lived together in harmony. I am 100% against religious states of any kind.

The problem with your approach is the word "current". Israel serves a purpose, when the inevitable persecutions of the Jewish people occur at various places in the world, it gives them a refuge. No more ships full of Jews trying to escape certain death that every country turns away. It certainly served that purpose well during anti-jewish persecutions of the Soviet Union during the Breshnev years.

peb
08-03-2014, 06:54 PM
No...Todd hasn't nailed it at all.

There is absolutely no difference, in the level of intolerance, between saying no nation should be religiously based, and saying a nation may, if it wishes, be religiously based.

Well said. Who is condemning the United Kingdom these days for having an established religion?

Captain Intrepid
08-03-2014, 06:55 PM
The problem with your approach is the word "current". Israel serves a purpose, when the inevitable persecutions of the Jewish people occur at various places in the world, it gives them a refuge. No more ships full of Jews trying to escape certain death that every country turns away. It certainly served that purpose well during anti-jewish persecutions of the Soviet Union during the Breshnev years.

Because the rest of the western world was sooooo hostile to Jews during the 60s. Your argument would have been true a century ago, but things have changed, particularly for Jewish people, especially post WWII.

peb
08-03-2014, 07:09 PM
Because the rest of the western world was sooooo hostile to Jews during the 60s. Your argument would have been true a century ago, but things have changed, particularly for Jewish people, especially post WWII.

Not buying that at all. anti-semitism certainly still exists today. It ebbs and flows, but there is no indication it is behind us. It would be hard to convince the Jewish people it won't happen again, anywhere.

A century ago? I guess in your mind it wasn't even needed in the 1930s?

Captain Intrepid
08-03-2014, 07:33 PM
Not buying that at all. anti-semitism certainly still exists today. It ebbs and flows, but there is no indication it is behind us. It would be hard to convince the Jewish people it won't happen again, anywhere.

A century ago? I guess in your mind it wasn't even needed in the 1930s?

Anti-semitism exists today. So does racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia and dozens of other forms of bigotry. The world has changed though, and while all these forms of hate exist and people suffer and are killed for them, there isn't the almost universal acceptance of bigotry that there once was, and that makes all the difference.

As for your 1930s comment, surely you need not stoop so low. Such an accusation, based off of a puerile and unreasonably narrow interpretation of my words is despicable.

Reynard38
08-03-2014, 07:35 PM
Because the rest of the western world was sooooo hostile to Jews during the 60s.

Always been curious about why this is.
Sorry for the drift.

peb
08-03-2014, 07:50 PM
Anti-semitism exists today. So does racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia and dozens of other forms of bigotry. The world has changed though, and while all these forms of hate exist and people suffer and are killed for them, there isn't the almost universal acceptance of bigotry that there once was, and that makes all the difference.

As for your 1930s comment, surely you need not stoop so low. Such an accusation, based off of a puerile and unreasonably narrow interpretation of my words is despicable.
I was simply making a point that it was not nearly so long ago when such a need existed. Nevertheless, I sincerely apologize. Shouldn't have said it.

But my basic point stands, in the 60s/70s, there was only one country with an organized system of helping Jews escape persecution in the Soviet Union. The fact that bigotry is not universally accepted does not make all the difference. There are always going to be crazy regimes with horrible practices. For a variety of reasons, nations do not always respond to the need for assistance. And there is a long, long history of this particular bigotry occurring at various times/places on a mass scale. I suggest that 50 years of relative calm does not suggest the world has progressed beyond the point.

Captain Intrepid
08-03-2014, 08:00 PM
I was simply making a point that it was not nearly so long ago when such a need existed. Nevertheless, I sincerely apologize. Shouldn't have said it.

Apology accepted. It's way too easy to make gotcha statements like that, and I'm as guilty as the rest for resorting to them from time to time.


But my basic point stands, in the 60s/70s, there was only one country with an organized system of helping Jews escape persecution in the Soviet Union. The fact that bigotry is not universally accepted does not make all the difference. There are always going to be crazy regimes with horrible practices. For a variety of reasons, nations do not always respond to the need for assistance. And there is a long, long history of this particular bigotry occurring at various times/places on a mass scale. I suggest that 50 years of relative calm does not suggest the world has progressed beyond the point.

I suppose I'm just more optimistic. I feel like we could be doing so much more to help people escape terrible situations (look at the outcry against south american children seeking refuge in the USA), but we're still going in the right direction.

Todd D
08-03-2014, 08:32 PM
For those of you that say it is fine to have a religious state, how do you feel about Iran, or the fledgling Islamic Caliphate? What about Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Given Israel's behavior it is clearly long overdue for the US to stop all aid.

peb
08-03-2014, 08:41 PM
For those of you that say it is fine to have a religious state, how do you feel about Iran, or the fledgling Islamic Caliphate? What about Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Given Israel's behavior it is clearly long overdue for the US to stop all aid.

Israel is not a religious state in the sense of your examples. Not an apples to apples comparison.

hanleyclifford
08-03-2014, 08:53 PM
Israel suffers from what many parliamentary states suffer from; too many political parties. The only way to govern is to manufacture alliances, some of which can be counter-productive. Hasidics altho' few in number originally have carved out a protected legal niche for themselves that allows their men to avoid military service, to live off the dole while the men go on a lifelong study of the Torah, and alifelong quest to father as many children as possible to the point they aren't few in number any more. It's no secret that secular Israelis are more and more cognicent of risks their men take in the frequent border wars while the Hasidim stay at home and try to buy up more and more Jerusalem neighborhoods. Right now secular Jews in Israel are in the majority but their preponderance is probably diminishing. And you can't sustain a state where a sizable percentage of citizens get a legal exsemption from partaking in the military necessities. So, even in Israel "'a Jewish state" means different things to different parts of society. Good post. Anywhere else on the planet the hypocrisy of the Hasidim would be an embarrassment.

LeeG
08-03-2014, 09:02 PM
Israel is not a religious state in the sense of your examples. Not an apples to apples comparison.

Then what is a "Jewish state"?

LeeG
08-03-2014, 09:03 PM
For those of you that say it is fine to have a religious state, how do you feel about Iran, or the fledgling Islamic Caliphate? What about Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Given Israel's behavior it is clearly long overdue for the US to stop all aid.

Agreed

PeterSibley
08-03-2014, 09:06 PM
Then what is a "Jewish state"?

A very good question.... Jewishness seems essentially religious ?

This BBC site is probably as unbiased a source as I could find ... no mean task !! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8165338.stm

peb
08-03-2014, 10:08 PM
Then what is a "Jewish state"?



Do some homework. With regards to the extend of their established religions, Israel and Iran are light years apart. To suggest, as your post taken in context if the conversation does, any similarity at all is idiotic. What l, do you actually believe that the laws of Israel enforce the Book oh Deuterouromy? Seriously?

peb
08-03-2014, 10:08 PM
Then what is a "Jewish state"?



Do some homework. With regards to the extend of their established religions, Israel and Iran are light years apart. To suggest, as your post taken in context of the conversation does, any similarity at all is idiotic. What, do you actually believe that the laws of Israel enforce the Book of Deuterouromy? Seriously?

changeng
08-04-2014, 02:58 AM
The Israeli insistance on a Jewish state is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to peace.
I vote
Neither of the above.

Issa has it at #18

Flying Orca
08-04-2014, 03:36 PM
The state of Israel should not have been established where and how it was, but it is too late to dis-establish it. Acknowledging that historic wrong and apologizing to and compensating those who were wronged is the only restorative course left.