|
Grex > Agora41 > #135: Why Israel isn't interested in UN investigation of Jenin | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 129 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 50 of 129:
| 
May 7 20:34 UTC 2002 |
I think he is saying that it isnt any *more* religious than the Swiss
flag.
|
oval
|
|
response 51 of 129:
|
May 7 20:35 UTC 2002 |
"#48 of 50: by Leeron Kopelman (lk) on Tue, May 7, 2002 (14:54):
So typically Aaron beats around the bush, but the facts remain:
1. The Star of David is a national symbol, not a religious one."
|
brighn
|
|
response 52 of 129:
|
May 7 20:38 UTC 2002 |
Now the Swiss are oppressing the Israelites. Fascinating.
|
oval
|
|
response 53 of 129:
|
May 7 20:55 UTC 2002 |
in leeron's world, EVERYone's doing a sieg heil.
except the jews.
|
slynne
|
|
response 54 of 129:
|
May 7 21:34 UTC 2002 |
Yes but if #51 is true, one could say that the cross on the swiss flag
is now a national symbol, not a religious one even though it's origins
are religious.
|
oval
|
|
response 55 of 129:
|
May 7 21:37 UTC 2002 |
magen david is not religious, but the movement that adopted it IS, is my
point.
|
slynne
|
|
response 56 of 129:
|
May 7 21:40 UTC 2002 |
Ah while the movement that adopted the inverted swiss flag with it's
cross is NOT particulary religious.
|
oval
|
|
response 57 of 129:
|
May 7 21:53 UTC 2002 |
yes. (was that sarcastic?)
|
lk
|
|
response 58 of 129:
|
May 8 02:24 UTC 2002 |
Oval:
> it must be confusing to to have your race, religion, and national identity
> all crammed together into one like that.
It only appears to confuse anti-Semites.
Are you confused?
> magen david is not religious, but the movement that adopted it IS
False. The Magen David predates modern Zionism, and most Zionists were not
religious.
The point remains: if it's OK for the Red Cross to use the Cross (a religious
symbol that appears on the Swiss flag), why is Magen David Adom denied entry
to the ICRC because it uses a national symbol that appears on the Israeli
flag? And why was the Red Crescent (another religious symbol, one that does
not appear on the flag of many Muslim nations) OK?
|
brighn
|
|
response 59 of 129:
|
May 8 04:45 UTC 2002 |
How can the point remain if you keep changing it?
I agree. If the Red Crescent and the cross can appear on flags (Switzerland
is not the only country with a cross on it -- all UK flags, for instance, are
based on St George's cross, among others), then "religious origin" is not a
valid reason for banning a flag from a context that allows such flags to be
flown.
|
slynne
|
|
response 60 of 129:
|
May 8 13:49 UTC 2002 |
Sounds resonable to me. Let Isreal's "red cross" keep their symbol and
let them join the club!
|
oval
|
|
response 61 of 129:
|
May 8 22:19 UTC 2002 |
right, fine with me - i just don't understand how the hell zionism is not
religious.
enlighten me.
|
lk
|
|
response 62 of 129:
|
May 8 22:48 UTC 2002 |
Paul: you got me, but it's not that the point is changing -- it's that
there's more than one. (:
So if everyone agrees that it is ludicrous that Israel's Magen David Adom
relief agency should denied entry into the ICRC because it employs a
religious symbol (sounds like a weak excuse, no?), what should we conclude
about the former head of the ICRC who made this stand -- and went on to
compare the Star of David to the swastika?
If you were a lawyer representing a Jewish client, would you keep such a
person on the jury?
Oval, what in your mind does Zionism have to do with religion?
Was Theodore Herzel a religious Jew? No.
Was Chaim Weitzman (head of the Jewish Agency in the British Mandate)?
Was David Ben Gurion (Israel's first Prime Minister)?
Are/were Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, Peres or Rabin religious?
Zionism is the self-determination of the Jewish people.
As Martin Luther King wrote 35 years ago:
The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of
tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have
begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization
of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our
own country.
How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable
right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the
Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel.... This is
Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.
And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a
fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and
freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination
against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is
antisemitism.
The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The
times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred
of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek
new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new
masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!
"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know
you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion
for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been
misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist'
and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I
share. Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people
criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."
|
oval
|
|
response 63 of 129:
|
May 8 23:12 UTC 2002 |
i'm sorry, but that just didn't clear it up for me. there's the "jew: the
religion of judaism", there's the "jew: the race of peoples?" and then there's
this piece of land that grants citizenship to Jews (race) or people that
convert (religion), no? it seems like you claim it's a movement of one or the
other when it supports you, and disregard the other when it doesn't.
if i say i support ireland in wanting their autonomy from england, does that
mean i am racist against .. ?
there's the zionist who thinks GOD gave jews this land (a reasoning that i'm
just not quite comfortable with in regards to politics) and then there's the
zionist who's all about the "self determination of jews" (another reasoning
that history can tell you itself the probalems that rationality causes.) even
malcom X eventually ended up shedding his racist outlook on race issues and
pleaded for eveyone to live peacefully TOGETHER. now that's not an easy goal,
and not one that can or should be solved with violence. people like you, who
can come up with no solutions other than to point fingers and blame "the
racists" the "anti-semites", (which DO exists) as if there's some big world
plot against the jews. leeron, there's ALWAYS going to be racists, but don't
use your big anti-semitism card to try and convince me arabs should be treated
as less-than-human because some stupid fuck blew up a synogogue.
|
brighn
|
|
response 64 of 129:
|
May 8 23:49 UTC 2002 |
The Star of David is certainly not comparable to the Nazi swastika. I know
many religionists who would use the swastika publicly but can't because of
what Hitler did to a symbol that was, in 1930, fairly innocuous.
|
other
|
|
response 65 of 129:
|
May 9 00:20 UTC 2002 |
#62 is attempting to distinguish Jewish cultural heritage (or genealogy)
from Jewish religious ideology.
The problem is that is a really subtle distinction which, in the eyes of
most of the world, doesn't exist at all. Jews are a race of people who,
though they have scattered throughout the world, have chosen to remain
ideologically and, to the extent possible under the circumstances,
genetically isolated from the rest of the world. This means that Jews
exist as a People, but really only for religious reasons. If we had had
a plot of land throughout our history which the nation of Jews could call
our country, we would be just another of thousands of geographically and
culturally differentiated peoples. Since we have not, our religious
identity is the chief differentiating factor, because it is the sole
force which has united the scattered Jews of the world since the diaspora
and kept us from assimilating into the cultures and ethnicities
predominant in whatever places we have called home.
So, Zionism is the drive of the Jewish nation to reestablish itself as a
geographically based sovereign country. This has nothing in and of
itself to do with Jewish religious identity except that that identity is
the sole means of determining who the constituent elements of that Jewish
nation are. Confused yet?
|
klg
|
|
response 66 of 129:
|
May 9 00:48 UTC 2002 |
Nice job of weaseling, aaron! I new you would do it.
|
lk
|
|
response 67 of 129:
|
May 9 07:03 UTC 2002 |
Oval:
> there's the zionist who thinks GOD gave jews this land
So you admit that only some Zionists (and a relatively small minority at that)
make this argument?
Then clearly Zionism isn't inherently religious as you claimed. QED
It should be further noted that the above argument is not based on God giving
Jews this land today, or yesterday, but 4000 years ago. The simple fact is
that this piece of land has been the Jewish homeland for 3300-4000 years. I'm
not sure it's relevant one way or another if it was God who took Abraham (or
Joshua or the Habiru) into the "Promised" land or if it was just "fate" or
luck/chance. It's the history since then that is compelling.
> don't use your big anti-semitism card to try and convince me arabs should
> be treated as less-than-human because some stupid fuck blew up a synogogue.
I've never made any such point. Why do you keep raising this straw man?
|
mdw
|
|
response 68 of 129:
|
May 9 09:48 UTC 2002 |
So, whose homeland was it 5000 years ago?
|
void
|
|
response 69 of 129:
|
May 9 15:35 UTC 2002 |
The Canaanites?
|
other
|
|
response 70 of 129:
|
May 9 23:23 UTC 2002 |
That's a good point, since the Hebrews came into the land of Canaan and
practiced genocide for probably the first time in recorded history. But
that's ok, because God said we could do it.
|
oval
|
|
response 71 of 129:
|
May 9 23:39 UTC 2002 |
so a black jew in ethopia is the same race as the eastern european jew?
|
lk
|
|
response 72 of 129:
|
May 10 10:00 UTC 2002 |
I don't believe I spoke about "race". Are you suggesting that if a Jew from
Europe marries one from Ethiopia that their child would be of a mixed 3rd race?
Yet you didn't respond to my previous question, oval. If only some Zionists
make religious (or more appropriately historic) arguments, how does this
make Zionism inherently religious?
Void: 5000 years ago pre-dates the Canaanite period. I'm sure Marcus realizes
that it was no one's "homeland" back then -- there was no such concept. Even
the city-state was not yet established.
Yet the operative word wasn't that it was the Jewish homeland 3300-4000
years ago, but that it has been the Jewish homeland since.
Other, you need to get over your guilt. (:
If you wish to subscribe to the story of Joshua, you'll note that it records
the battles of only 1 tribe (Benjamin), which may have been a relative
latecomer and thus had to engage some of the city-states. But if you wish
to accept this story, why not also accept the story of Abraham?
As I've detailed in other items, the archeological record does not support
the stories of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. Some historians suspect that
these stories, recorded centuries later, are a tapestry of earlier battles.
The walls of Jericho had collapsed centuries prior to the Israelite arrival
(assuming that there was an Exodus) and that the Hebrews hadn't been present
all along. Read up on the Habiru (Hebrew?) who may have been Canaanite slaves
or serfs, perhaps even predating them.
So even IF Joshua perpetrated genocide, it most certainly was not the first
time in history -- and it remained a common practice for a few thousand
years so let's not get so heavy with anachronistic judgements.
|
mdw
|
|
response 73 of 129:
|
May 11 05:04 UTC 2002 |
5000 years ago was at the dawn of agriculture. People were just
starting to farm, and make villages -- and form city states. War is
almost certainly far older than that, it's just hard to collect data
from people who are long since dead, and didn't write things down.
Or, in other words, "Moo".
|
oval
|
|
response 74 of 129:
|
May 11 08:34 UTC 2002 |
heh.
|