Skip to main content

View Diary: The case against Zionism, a historical perspective part 1. (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  look up the word AntiSemite in a dictionary (0+ / 0-)

    After all that is the word that we are talking about.

    Although Arabs are semites, the term anti-semite does not refer to them.  
    This term originated at the end of the 1870s. It was misleading in that hostility was solely directed at Jews and not against all semitic peoples.

    HOWEVER, you do like to throw around the term Aparteid, as if you know what it means.

    The word "apartheid" was coined in the 1920s for Calvinist religious purposes but became widely known through the general election in 1948 as the expression of Afrikaner nationalist political, social and economic policy. It can be defined as racial separation and discrimination, institutionalised by law in every aspect of everyday life, imposed by the white minority and derived from belief in white racial superiority.

    It might seem like a minor point, but in Israel, the jews are the MAJORITY, not the MINORITY.  So calling the State of Israel an apartied State, would be like saying that the Minority Arabs were discriminating against the Majority Jews... (Seems to me to be just as petty as pointing out that arabs are semites too.)

    Despite your OPINION, the LAWS in Israel are based in EQUALITY.  The marriage law you mention hurts all races equaly.  You have to be aware of the scale that the word aparteid brings with it.  In pre-1994 South Africa, under apartheid, no detail of life was immune to discrimination by law. Skin colour determined every single person’s life, literally from birth until death: where you were born, where you went to school, what job you had, which bus you used, what park bench you sat on and in which cemetery you were buried.

    So, as an example, Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, with the same facilities, attended by the same doctors and nurses, with the mothers recovering in adjoining beds in a ward.

    Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other’s homes.

    Could any of this possibly have happened for Blacks and Whites in pre-1994 South Africa under apartheid? Of course not.  Do you grasp the concept of scale here?

    Another crucial, non-comparison between apartheid South Africa and Israel — is that Arabs have the vote. Blacks did not. The vote means citizenship and power to change. Arab citizens have the right and the power to unite as a group and to ally with others.  Does that change happen right away?  Of course not.  People of race are descriminated against in the US and all right thinking people hope that will change.  However, without the concept of true equality under the law, discrimination is institutionalized and cannot change.  You might compare a Black man being discriminated against in getting to buy a co-op in Miami to Aparteid, but you would be wrong.  The discrimination would be wrong, but the scale would mean that it does not rise to the level of Aparteid.  It might seem to be racial separation and discrimination, but it is not institutionalised by law.

    In South Africa, change for the better was simply not possible during at least the first 30 years of Afrikaner Nationalist rule. Even if a court occasionally blew a hole in an apartheid law, the all-white parliament rapidly enacted legislation to close the loophole.

    I would even say there are civil rights issues in Israel, and I would invite you to discuss that, and even join me in fighting that.  BUT to use Aparteid (or Nazi as some people do) terms is to burn down the house in order to clean the germs.  Just not productive.

    The security fence is just that, IN FACT.  Its immediate purpose is to prevent suicide-bombers from entering Israel. It does not stop people, based on racial identity from movement, but is a security device.  Much like security checks at airports.  It may look like a land grab to some, but if security were not a real, life and death issue it would be gone.  Again if the Israeli government wanted a land grab, they are doing it completly wrong.  Over the years they have given back more land that the security fence has encroached on.

    We are never going to agree with each other on the Herzl quote.  I do not think it is fair to pick apart a paragraph to make someone say what you want them to say.  Especially when in the same paragraph the author makes clear that he is saying the exact opposite of what you are trying to make them say.

    (To that end, please note that I am getting lazy, and doing way too much cutting and pasting from others.  In this post, one source I borrowed heavily from Benjamin Pogrund.  He was born in South Africa, where he was a respected leader in the fight against apartheid and outspoken proponent of equality.  I would have loved to take the time to document each and every sentence I stole, but I am going to hope this disclaimer will be acceptable.  I am not nearly as fluent in the topic of Aparteid as this post might make me seem.)

    "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." (A.J. Liebling)

    by MyFreepress on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 10:19:55 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Opps, the Apartheid response was for a different (0+ / 0-)


      However it is instructive...even if off topic as it relates to omachoomar.

      I apologize if it causes a misundertanding.

      "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." (A.J. Liebling)

      by MyFreepress on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:58:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The land stealing fence. (0+ / 0-)

      If it really was just about Security, it would have all been put all on Israeli territory. Instead they decided to seperate Palestinians from there land. If you want to claim that it is your opinion that it was built for security go ahead. But for you to claim it is fact after constantly flipping out about what is fact/opinion is silly.   With all do respect, it is an extremist point of view to be convinced that your opinion is a fact.  Try to be consistent for your own sake, not mine.  

      As for the Herzl quote, I did'nt cut and paste any words together.  I took whole sentences where he clearly advocates throwing out the natives and replacing them with colonialists.  Of course any reasonable person realizes that ethnic cleansing is not going to be 100 percent effective, and some people of different cultures/religions will remain.  I don't doubt that Hertzl thought those who remained should be able to practice whatever religion they wont. but him advocating ethnic cleansing/allowing freedom of religion are not mutually exclusive.  I hope that clears up where I am coming from on this issue, from my point of view his words are crystal clear, but if you want to interpret his words differently then go ahead

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site