lol
this is the kind of thing I search for going to r/justiceporn and all I ever get is russian people knocking each other out
I think I might be hard
pie-junior's forum posts
how do i break these fucking quote chains
jesus gamespot. who's the inbred sociopath who designed this thing
@GazaAli said:
@pie-junior said:
@GazaAli said:
Whatever you might or might not claim about Zionism not being based on the destruction of anyone or the displacement of anyone is irrelevant; we have a destroyed and displaced people at hands that are the result of Zionism and have been so since the onset of the Jewish state that is the creation of that movement. The volume of this displacement and the scale of the destruction are too conspicuously large to write it off as "sorry didn't mean to". It can only be achieved through deliberate and systematic adversity fueled by malignant ideology and intent. That haaretz poll shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone; it is the natural consequence to the suffering and ravaging that Zionism perpetrated against us for decades. You can't systematically radicalize and persecute people then bitch about it. Basically that's what happened to the Jews in Europe and had it been a slightly less serious and grave matter I would have said there is some irony in that. With that said, I made it clear that I support a two-state solution so this is a moot point to begin with.
but you have no answer to the fact that palestinian nationalism espoused the displacement and subjugation of jews in palestine-israel before and after 1948? let's concentrate on the point please. if you want to rationalise the violent tendencies of palestinian nationalism, you can just as easily rationalise the violent tendencies of zionism, especially since if zionism hadn't destroyed palestinian nationalism- palestinian nationalism would have destroyed zionism (I can link palestinian rethoric from the time, as well as cooperation with the nazis if you really insist).
Whatever Islam did or did not do in the past is neither the topic of this discussion nor is it relevant in the present day. Zionism and what it resulted in on the other hand is.
why?
Islam is not even a nationalistic concept so I'm not sure why we're discussing it here, not that what you self-proclaimed to be "historical fact" is necessarily is.
it's an ideology that people follow with bloody past and present. are you denying Islam spread and history were violent because "by all means proclaim this audacious proclamation." because there are people dead and displaced by it and "the volume of this and the scale of the destruction are too conspicuously large to write it off as "sorry didn't mean to". It can only be achieved through deliberate and systematic adversity fueled by malignant ideology and intent."
To cite Zeev Jabotinsky as a benevolent Zionist is a fucking joke rofl this is gold. It is Jabotinsky that was the culmination of the opposition against moderate/liberal Zionism constituted in the likes of Herzl, casting them as romantics and detached from reality for wanting to carry out Jewish immigration in Palestine in agreement with the Arabs. It is him in his "Iron Wall" article that anticipated, with remarkable accuracy, the results of Jewish immigration to Palestine and how the native population would rightfully react to it. Consequently he insisted on the necessity of the use of force and coercion in order to establish the Jewish state in a land owned by a living nation, as opposed to the shit you continually refer to that the land didn't have a nation. The point being here is that this Jabotinsky you're citing was aware of the adversarial and malignant means necessary for Zionism to thrive and expressed his assent to that so if I were you I wouldn't quote him in defense of the Zionist movement.
why? you're confusing the points you're countering. He espoused what i said he espoused- he objected to palestinian nationalism and advocated the use of force, but he was adamant on the implementation of the values of liberal democracy. This is his most prominent feature. This charactarised most of his writing. If he's your villain- you have a problem because the idea of a violent foundation of a unitary nation state with both jews and arabs and equal rights for all has been the prominent position taken by the PLO, supposedly representing your brand of nationalism. The only difference is that Jabotinsky wanted a jewish nation state and the PLO wants a palestinian nation state.
we were arguing on whether there was a consensus for arab equality among zionists. there was.
him not acquiescing with palestinian nationality and operating late enough to coexist with it has no bearing on the point I made, which you have still not rebuffed.
also- that jabotinsky favoured the use of force could be "the natural consequence to the suffering and ravaging that [arabs and palestinians] perpetrated against [jews] for decades."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Tiberias_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%9339_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
I have its not my problem that you're not listening.
k
Oh look its dave
Did dave end up being that ayn rand libertarian guy? because I always suspected that
votes will be be given to those shameless enough to ask in exchange for answer
I mean I'll go over the reasons I have gathered so far, and you tell me which one is right and why
1) causation argument: zionism is the main reason palestinians were dsiplaced.
me: palestinians and their stubborn national and religious views were the main reasons palestinians were displaced
2) zionism is founded on the need to displace palestinians.
me: no. zionist thinkers espoused equality of arabs in the new jewish country. zionism precedes palestinian nationalism by a great many years and cannot have been designed to clash with palestinian national aspirations. zionists overwhelmingly supported partition plans to accomodate rise in palestinian nationality.
@GazaAli said:
Whatever I admitted pertains very little to this discussion. I am Muslim and a Palestinian. Now based on the definition of nationalism and nationalist yes I am a Palestinian nationalist which by no means contradict anything I said quite the contrary it corroborates it. This nationalism of mine is not based on the destruction of anyone or the infliction of any injustice on any people so it is benign this much can be asserted about it. I guess what you're referring to as "cognitive dissonance" has to do with my capacity for distinguishing between likes in some respect or another. I think its a wonder that you can't grasp the idea that different manifestations of the same thing can possibly be judged radically different based on their own respective merits. With you its either all nationalism is bad or none is bad; I think I need not to elaborate on the asininity of this line of reasoning.
I can claim (and be supported by zionist founders and canonic documents-I'll touch this more) zionism isn't based on the destruction of anyone or the displacement of anyone. On the other hand I can claim palestinian nationalism is predicated on the displacement and/or eradication of jews in palestine or their nationality. So it has the same flaws zionism is thought by you to have.
examples:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.601938
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Abbas-wants-not-a-single-Israeli-in-future-Palestinian-state-321470
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp
(and there's really a slew of these). Why you would think this is benign and zionism isn't- is all part of your little cognitive dissonance. the simple reality is that Israeli-jewish zionists have always espoused the two state solution far more than their arab counterparts.
But to address your Islam comparison: again it doesn't show any contradiction on my part. Just because some ideologies are wrongfully accused of vilified doesn't mean all ideologies which are vilified are wrongfully so while emphasizing that it is not tantamount to cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy or antisomething to acquit who deserves an acquittal and condemns who deserves condemnation. Besides on average, a small percentage of the Muslim population supports radical Islam or what is referred to as "jihadism". This thing is worthy of condemnation, but you cannot rightfully condemn Islam through it because it remains a fringe ideology within Muslims. On the other hand, the percentage of Jews supporting Zionism is naturally sweeping. So at the very least, the comparison is inadequate, and less favorably for you, it further implicates Zionism.
Islam started as an imperialistic movement spread through violent expansion. this is a historical fact. Islam has been directly involved as a central cause in countless wars, displacement of people as well as different atrocities whose victims greatly surpass those of zionism. It has a long bloody history- carried out by its followers if not intended by its founders.
I'm not equating zionism with radical islam- i'm equating it with mainstream islam.
The only iconic Zionist thinker that actually agrees with the description you provided would be Theodore Herzl.
This is laughably wrong. The great zionist 'rightist' (i'd say liberal, but american politics have muddled that word) thinker (and father of today's likud movement) was Zeev Jabotinsky who insisted in his writings on the full equality of the non-jewish citizens of the new jewish country. his great adversaries of labour zionism were herzl and ben-gurion who both (as you have mentioned) propagated the same notions. That the declaration of independence of the state of israel also stands on these values, is somewhat proof of the consensus they held with the jewish/Israeli parliament- considering all its members are signatories.
I have given plenty of reasons why Zionism is vile let's abstain from equivocations.
You really haven't. but i'm willing to listen to some.
@GazaAli said:
It is not part of a string of events that led to the nakba, it is the chief reason that led to it. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Islam to the argument seeing how this is not what we're discussing here. Even if I were to entertain that thought of yours, I'd say it was Arab nationalism that rejected that UN recommendation and waged war against Israel. You could argue whether that was an example of bad nationalism too but that wouldn't acquit Zionism from being shitty nationalism.
Expand away whatever you want, this remains irrelevant to what we're discussing here: whether Zionism is a vile form of nationalism or not. You continue to miss the point: Zionism contained the germs of all the destruction it caused to my people from its inception. It is not a matter of ops things went wrong at some point, if only this happened or if only that happened. Maybe if X did Y we wouldn't be here, etc etc of this line of reasoning. The very definition of Zionism was bound to lead this there was no other way. How else would you establish a state based on nationalistic foundation but to cleanse the land from whatever nationality that might collide with the one you're trying to instate? Two things cannot occupy the same space this is simple logic.
Stop going off on tangents again. I'm not discussing Palestinian "radical" leadership but to comment on that, I believe we never actually had leadership to begin with. Be that as it may, the suffering and ravaging Zionism caused was significant enough long before Palestinian resistance formally commenced so again it is not a matter of different courses of action and strings of events. And give me a break with that lawyers shenanigans take it somewhere else.
lol ok ali, mr straight shooting brevity guy. I'm sorry my tangents are too broad for you. I'll be more specific:
If all the other ideologies mentioned are shitty aswell, and you support them (because by your own admission you are a muslim and you are a Palestinian nationalist)- then you are a hypocrite. marking zionism as a the butt of criticism (and such hyperbolic criticism, at that) alone is disingenuous. I don't think arab nationalism is 'vile' and I don't think zionism is 'vile'and I don;t think islam is 'vile'. you think one of them is vile, and expect me to defend my point without pointing out that with your levels of cognitive dissonance it's a wonder you can walk in a straight line.
Zionism isn't vile, because it seeks to maintain a nation state for jews, but all of its most iconic thinkers insisted on infusing it with equality for the native local population in Palestine- and the basic laws of Israel, as well as the Israeli founding documents all insist on this fact. you're also ignoring two things: (1) Zionism could have coexisted with a Palestinian nationality- if a two state solution would have been implemented as per the wishes of the jewish leadership of the time; and (2) Zionism precedes palestinian nationalism, and its 19th century founders were moved to pick Palestine because of this fact, among other things (which were admittedly more important).
Now, I didn't have to explain this because, notice this: if we disregard your causation argument (which I take it we are because you seem to insist on my pretty obvious retort to it as being some sort of mental gymnastics and haven't answered why causation is a sensible measure of merit)- you still haven't given a reason why zionism is vile.
and to add,
Arab nationalism and nationality, the palestinian one among them, are responsible for much more death and suffering than the jewish ones.
In the last 3 years, the assad regime alone has killed many times more the palestinian casualties Israel is even vicariously responsible for. ever.
@GazaAli said:
@pie-junior said:
@toast_burner said:
@pie-junior said:
@MlauTheDaft said:
You seemed to imply that you were jewish earlier with your infidelity remark, but I may have misinterpreted you.
I suppose your first sentence was supposed to mean that the majority of the world's jews are zionists, and I can't really comment on that. Still does'nt change my view on zionism.
ok.
I am jewish. I'm also an atheist. and a zionist.
and your remarks make me think you don't know or care to know what zionism is. in any manner, your comments are conflicting- you claim zionists are 'just as bad as' violent religious extremists, but then deny vilifying jews, who are mostly zionists.
Zionism is Jewish nationalism. If someone said they was a German nationalist many people would call them a racist, why do Jews get special treatment?
I believe nationalism is bad, Zionism is no exception. That is not a contradiction. If a Jew is a Zionist he is bad not because he's a Jew but because he's a nationalist. It doesn't matter if 90% think that or just 1%, something bad doesn't become good if a lot of people like it. A lot of Muslims think that gays and converts should be killed, does that mean if you are against that you must hate Muslims?
what are you on about.
nationalism isn't necessarily involved with racism and Zionism isn't just nationailsm, it's also the nationality at the core of the state of Israel. the common denominator for zionists is the support for the existence of the state of Israel as a jewish nation state. the notion of nation stats is very popular worldwide, and seperating it from the support for the (eg) German, Japanese or arab nation states and putting it on the same level as violent muslim fundamentalism is asinine if born of ignornace, and reeks of anti-semitic hypocrisy if not.
This guy went on about how zionists (not 'zionism') are as bad as extreme muslims. this statement does indicate dislike for jews by (a) targeting jewish nationalism and nationality as opposed to other form of nationalism and nationalities; and (b) stating dislike specifically for the people who endorse this ideology, and not the ideology itself.
You're equivocating a very simple notion. Zionism is Jewish nationalism that sought to end the persecution of Jews across Europe by founding a new state to shelter them. It is that very same movement that obstinately insisted on Palestine for that end. As such, it is that movement that is responsible for the unmistakable and indisputable suffering and ravaging of the Palestinian people thus making it deserving of reproof and condemnation, at least in a measure that is proportionate to the suffering it cause; unless you would venture to deny that some people suffered because of the creation of Israel and at the hands of the newly created state through subsequent decades in which case by all means proclaim this audacious proclamation.
People support German nationalism now but they sure as hell didn't support it a few decades ago. So whatever criticism and scrutiny Zionism is allegedly subject to have nothing to do with antisemitism or hypocrisy. It simply means that some forms of nationalism are benign and commendable even while others are malignant and rightly condemnable.
Your entire argument boils down to causation: zionism is bad, because its part of the string of events that caused the nakba. but by this argument Islam is also vile- because it, too (via the muslim clerical leadership), is part of this string of events that caused the Palestinian leadership to reject the peel commission recommendations and the UN partition plan and wage war against the jewish settlement. Egyptian nationalism is also vile through common responsibility for the Nakba because Egypt also supported and urged the rejection of said plans.
If I expand this enough I can find culpability in every political entity and ideology of europe and the near east. Maybe Allah is also vile because it allowed this all to happen, and created the earth, jews and palestine.
An ideology's place in historic timeline isn't how you judge its merit, and this paradox is the reason why causation, in law, requires both factual causation and a 'legal' causation (simplified as a breached legal responsibility of some sort- for example foreseeability of result). The palestinian through inept obstinate and radical leadership and behaviour are, in my opinion, much more responsible for the last 70 years than zionism.
@GazaAli said:
@pie-junior said:
ok.
I am jewish. I'm also an atheist. and a zionist.
and your remarks make me think you don't know or care to know what zionism is. in any manner, your comments are conflicting- you claim zionists are 'just as bad as' violent religious extremists, but then deny vilifying jews, who are mostly zionists.
It is not his fault that, according to your claim that the majority of Jews are Zionists, Jews choose to pledge allegiance and zealously associate themselves with a vile thing that wreaked havoc and caused countless suffering and ravaging for several decades. If blaming people and holding them responsible for their wrongdoing is "vilification" then I guess he did vilify Jews.
a simple minded argument wrapped in a string of superlatives is still a simple minded argument.
no, 'zionism' isn't vile. no, 'zionism' hasn't wreaked havoc, except incidentally, as almost all influential ideologies have. your description of it as such is really glaring hypocrisy because, from what i gather, you hold the exact same ideological position as a zionist- only with regards to a palestinian nation state,and not a jewish nation state.
an Islamophobe would say muslims choose to pledge allegiance and zealously associate themselves with a vile thing that wreaked havoc and caused countless suffering and ravaging for several decades (see: Islam). therefore, they are bad people responsible for every action committed by any person associated with this ideology. would you feel this vilified Muslims?
Log in to comment