A Discussion on Zionism
A Discussion on Zionism
After submitting an article on the Daily Kos entitled, "Do You Really Want Peace in the Middle East", I became engaged in a discussion with a gentleman who identified himself as "Fischfry". He took the position indicated in quotes. You'll find our initial discussion in the first four paragraphs. The final two paragraphs sums up my position.
"You're stuck in ideology. It may not be the ideology espoused by Israelis or Palestinians, but it is an ideological position. Nothing moderate about it. You've changed one ideology -- that the events of 1948 justify continued Palestinian outrage -- to another ideology that denies anyone's right to a nation there. Interestingly, both ideologies deny the validity of Israelis' claim to even as much the pre-'67 borders. Way to be consistent."
So I take from your position that anyone who doesn't support Israel's position is engaging in ideology over thought. That's a very open-minded position indeed. With that kind of thinking, there's no wonder there's a blood bath taking place in the region.
"I didn't say ideology precludes thought. And, there are multiple positions that could be characterized as Israel's position. However, I would say that anyone rejecting the starting point -- that Israelis have some right to a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland -- is taking an ideological stance against Zionism."
I don't see that as an ideology--I'm also against the United States as a WHITE homeland. Is that an ideological stance? And by the way, I am against Zionism--Zionism and racism are synonymous terms, at least, with respect to the state of Israel. There's only one difference--racism promotes racial supremacy, and Zionism promotes religious supremacy.
Thus, I don't consider my stance against either of these "isms" as an ideological one at all--I consider my stance a moral one. Zionism can only be justified if one accepts the legitimacy of either one of two arguments. The first argument is, the world should return to the geographical boundaries as established in the Bible; or secondly, that the Palestinian people should have to pay for the German persecution of the Jews.
While I have much respect for the Jewish people and what they've contributed to the world, I find neither of those arguments either reasonable, rational, or justification for one additional drop of human blood.
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
P.S. By the way, all Hell is breaking loose over there over the issue. No wonder so many people are dying in the Middle East. People just can't seem to discuss the subject rationally.
This land, is mine, God gave this land to me
If you really believe this line from the movie Exodus, how can you compromise?
And both sides hold this prayer in their hearts as part of their very being.
AND IT IS THE SAME GOD
January 17, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
January 18, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is ironic, isn't it? It's hard to believe that Muslims and Jews are cousins.
January 17, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric: What would you make of the following argument: the establishment of the state of Israel by the international community is an irreversible action, and thus any position that implicitly seeks to end the state of Israel is unrealistic. This claim stakes out no position on whether or not the actions related to creating Israel were a good idea or not; it only insists that the action is now a matter of history and cannot be changed. Nor does the position imply any commitment at all regarding current actions in Gaza.
There is a stronger argument related to this one that I am inclined to affirm it as well, but is no doubt much more controversial: those who say that they are not anti-Jewish, just anti-Israel are fooling themselves. I find people whom I really admire affirming the position that they are only against the nation of Israel as a Jewish nation, not against Jews. Because I admire these people, and wish to preserve my friendship with them, I usually keep my mouth shut regarding what I take to be an implicit antisemitism in their position, but I cannot avoid thinking it is there.
I think your posts are fantastic (your site is now bookmarked among my favorites!). I look forward to much back and forth in the future.
January 17, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much, Joe. I'll be looking forward to it.
I agree with your first statement. Israel is here to stay. We can no more expect the Israelis to pack up and leave, as we can expect Americans to pack up and return America to Native Americans. So what do we do now?
I say we start the peace talks off with an acknowledgement of an injustice committed against the Palestinian people and an apology. Then we move on to discuss what we can do to set things right. Then we can start using some of the billions of dollars for war as reparations to the Palestinians.
With regard to your second statement, I think you're wrong about that. While I'm not against the state of Israel, per se, I am adamantly against Zionism.
Two of my grandsons or have Jewish, and I insisted that they be instructed in the Judaism, so when they come of age, they can make up their own minds what traditions they wanted to follow.
As a sort of humorous aside, as I pointed out, I insisted that my grandsons study and get to know both sides of their heritage so later in life they'll have a choice about what part of their heritage they wanted to identify with. So we have this family joke about that where my daughter-n-law pulls my son to the side and says, "Listen Eric, I know Poppie insisted that the boys get to know their heritage, but things are not working out."
So my son asks, "What's the Problem?"
"Well, now Eric Jr. Wants to move to the West Bank, and the Honorable Elijah Wattree is really out of control."
"What do you mean out of control."
"First, I want you to stop Eli from wearing that fez to school. And secondly, he keeps throwing water bombs at his older brother, and he put a sign on his brother's bedroom door saying, 'Down with the Jews, and Get the hell out of Palestine.'
"I mean, he's only in the third grade, and his teacher told me she said good morning to him and he said, 'Assalamu Alilkum, my ravishing Nubian princess.' Eric, I'm afraid we're gonna have a jihad right here in the living room."
January 17, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"those who say that they are not anti-Jewish, just anti-Israel are fooling themselves. I find people whom I really admire affirming the position that they are only against the nation of Israel as a Jewish nation, not against Jews . . . I usually keep my mouth shut regarding what I take to be an implicit antisemitism . . . "
Joe, how about this? The decision to create a Jewish state in that location, against the wishes of those nations in the area, was a mistake. It was a huge mistake, in fact, because it has caused only war and fighting ever since and has the potential to erupt into World War III.
Now, is that decision reversable? Can the decision to create the state of Israel be nullified? Probably not. But it can be modified and controlled by a more reason-minded force of nations sensitive to the balance of powers in the world, and that is my hope in the 21st century.
Does that make me an "anti-semite?" Have it your way. Your black-or-white viewpoints about persons who speak against Israel's creation and its aggressive actions is really tiresome, overused, and, like many Americans, I feel it's time for change on our Israeli policy.
January 17, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sassi2j: Since I only suggested an implicit antisemitism in the position that calls for the elimination of the state of Israel, I do not understand why you would think that I would find such an implication in a position like yours that does not take this position. I did not say that one who thought that the creation of Israel was a mistake was implicitly antisemitic, only one who moved from it was a mistake then to it needs to be reversed now.
I have no objections to changes in our policies toward Israel. For example, I support making Jerusalem an international city; I support very tough action to both stop settlement activity in the West Bank and to dismantle the settlements that should not be there in the first place.
Your response imputes a stridency in my position that I do not think was presented.
January 17, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So demanding an end to Apartheid is "implicitly antisemitic"? Israel has held the Palestinian people on reservations which it has systematically pillaged for half a century. Although it has Arab citizens, it treats them as second class citizens. The obvious solution is to end this Apartheid by acknowledging all of these citizens as equal. Unfortunately for the dominant minority, they would likely see the end of there Zionist state as a consequence. But you call those who oppose apartheid "antisemitic"?
January 17, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I now take the position that no group of people can "own" any part of this planet--it ALL belongs to God. We only serve as custodians. I do, however, recognize the need to setup governments to manage the parcel of land that we're blessed with inhabiting.
Thus, while my new position is consistent with my continued belief that the Palestinian people were treated unfairly, it also suggests a solution--though a highly unlikely one, considering man's current state of barbarism. I have not come to believe that Israel, Palestine, or whatever one chooses to call it, should be considered God's land, for which no man, or group of men, should be able to claim exclusive ownership. In fact, that should be the case for every nation throughout the globe.
But again, while I do recognize the need for geographical boundaries and governmental administration, no land should be deemed the exclusive domain of any one religious, ethnic, or racial group. All lands across this globe is the exclusive domain of our creator, and no man is anything more than a, very temporary, caretaker. Even as I speak, the continents shift, the snows drift, and the oceans surge to reclaim that which only he is mighty enough to hold claim.
January 17, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric: Someone may have already arrived at your position regarding the land. Consider:
Leviticus 25:23: The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants.
The voice in this text is understood to be YHWH.
I see now that my second claim was not clearly stated. When I wrote "anti-Israel" I meant, "wanting to see the state of Israel eliminated," not "opposed to some or many of the current policies of the state of Israel." I think the strong opposition to the argument is coming from those who are understanding what I wrote in terms of the second reading. I am still willing to defend the first version, but I have no interest whatsoever in defending the second position.
January 17, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read Leviticus lately. Is your quote before or after the one about smiting everyone who doesn't believe in YHWH? Can't keep those things straight. Don't even remember if it is the same book that tells you you can kill your wife if you think she is unfaithful to you; or the one that describes how to treat your slaves.
January 18, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe,
I found that this is such a hot button issue that you have to state your position with laser-like precision. Because if people can find anyway to possibly misinterpret what you say, they certainly will.
Look at this e-mail I received this morning:From:
Steve Markom
Date: 1/17/2009 7:24:44 AM
To: wattree@verizon.net
Subject: Israel
You: "I am against Zionism--Zionism and racism are synonymous terms"
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: "Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism."
Now on a personal level. Clearly you are a Black Racist and have no credibility except among other black racists. You apparently have extended your alliance now with anti-Semite neo-Nazis as well as Islamo-fasicsts. Congratulations.
Let me inform you of some history. It was the Jews who funded the civil right movement. It was the Jews who marched with Dr. King. And it was Jews who died in the name of civil rights (2 of the 3 young men in that car in Mississippi were Jews).
And the way scum like you (as well as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and many others) show your gratitude is to spew anti-Semitic crap.
You indict yourself with your very words with lies and overt discrimination.
You and the rest of your kind should re-examine and maybe even do some research on Jewish history in that region as well as this phony history of Palestinians.
If not then just drop dead Hitler.
And don’t even try calling me a racist because you have no idea who my circle of friends are.
January 17, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. It seems, though, that there is really no excuse for something like that e-mail. Some measure of charity of, or at least caution in, interpretation seems called for in all civil conversation.
January 17, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, but that's the kind of passion we're dealing with with this issue.
People have forgotten how to think. We're becoming brain-stemmers, and allowing our higher cognitive functions to atrophy.
I researched this guy and he's a writer. One would think that he'd be objective and methodical enough to formulate an argument against anything he disagreed with, but instead, he just had a knee-jerk reaction to it and burst into anger.
What it demonstrates to me is how badly we need to repair our rapidly deteriorating educational system. We've become a decadent and hedonistic society with a deep distain for knowledge--and that threatens more than just our ecconomic stability. It directly threatens our very existence.
January 17, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe,
Make that "economic" and "disdain". I can't be writing about education and being sloppy with my spelling.
I remember it like it was yesterday. Ms. Lee, my third grade teacher told me, "You shouldn't even have to think about it. You'll be sorry someday"--and she was right.
Maybe she should have let them place me in Special Training like they wanted to. But for some reason, she had faith in me.
Sorry, Ms. Lee.
January 17, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of like "ecconomic." Seems somehow Latin-like: Behold the money.
Sounds like Ms. Lee helped you dodge one of society's bullets resevered especially for young black men.
January 17, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ladies and gentlemen, and especially to Eric L. Wattree Esq., thank you. It is refreshing to have such a civilized discourse on such a contentious issue.
As a moslem, I recognize the rights of the Jewish people to live in peace. And I equally recognize the rights of the Palestinian people to live in peace. I truely believe that jews and moslems and christians can live in peace with each other, side by side, because that which unites us is far greater that that which divides us.
What I cannot accept are the zionist dictates of the Israeli politicians which have rendered the Palestinian people to second class citizens. What I cannot accept is the repeated bombings of hospitals, cemeteries, mosques, UN buildings etc., sheltering civilians, sheltering the wounded, sheltering the dead. I can no longer stand by silently and watch the murder of children and hearing to them being referred to as 'collateral damage.' I can no longer stand by and watch the creation of two new gulags, of two new concentration camps, called the West Bank and the Gaza.
Whenever I hear Israeli politicians defend their indefensible actions, I am always reminded of the 'Stockholm syndrome' defined as '...a psychological response occasionally seen in abducted hostages, where hostages became emotionally attached to their abductors, and even defended them...' I stand with my head bowed and wonder how a people who have suffered so much injustice, can turn around and now subject others to the same injustice.
History bears witness to the abomination of World War II, and the holocaust in which almost 18 million people were murdered for who they were; Jews, Homosexuals, Gipsys, mentally and physically challenged Germans. The United Nations was borne from those ashes, in the hopes that we, as citizens of this world, would never forget. But we have. Kosova, Rwanda, Dafur to name just a few. And now Gaza.
I do not know how to stop the bloodshed. I just know it must stop.
And so I march. I write. I talk.
Thank you for allowing me to 'talk.'
January 18, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Salaha,
It's nice to hear from a Muslim on this site. I hope you'll talk more. There's a lot of debate about Israel and Palestine here, but almost no Muslim voices. I think the dialogue would be improved greatly if we heard more from Muslims and Arabs and, especially, Palestinians.
January 18, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Salaha,
I completely concur with your sentiments, as well as the sentiments of Purple State above. I seriously suspect that the world, just as in the United States, has been held hostage by a bitter, malevolent, and very strident, minority of hostile voices.
So it is up to the majority of people of good will and moderation to rise up and reclaim the world's agenda. We must be fanatical only in our pursuit of reason, moderation, and intellectual honesty and wisdom. For the wisdom of moderation embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.
January 18, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny that you misspelled "Muslim." (MOSLEM? I don't think so)
January 18, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
American Heritage Dictionary:
Mos·lem (m¼z“l…m, m¼s“-) or Mus·lim (m¾z“l…m, m‹z“-, m¾s“-, m‹s“-) n. A believer in or adherent of Islam. [Arabic muslim. See MUSLIM.] --Mos“lem adj.
————————————————————
USAGE NOTE: Moslem is the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage. Muslim is preferred by scholars and by English-speaking adherents of Islam.
January 18, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
CV111e Dem
'Moslem' and 'muslim' are synonyms of each other and refer to those individuals who follow 'Islam.'
In the same vein, I could have described myself as a 'musliman' (masculine term) or a 'muslimah' (feminine term).
January 18, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the information. My Egyptian friend (who is muslim) told me that the "moslem" spelling is an insult, and is only used (knowingly, as opposed to simply by mistake) by people to denigrate. Glad to get another point of view.
January 18, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The faster the west comes to eliminating its dependency on Middle East oil over the next twenty years the sooner the bloodshed will end.
Worldwide demand for Oil means that the western world needs Israel as its proxy against Iran and its benefactors which want to sit at the spigot controlling access and therefore the worldwide economies.
It's a war fueled entirely (especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union) by the scarcity of oil, a strategic natural resource.
All the immature focus on, and childish arguments over religion, morality and rights are silly efforts of, and an implicit agreement by those who participate in it to be but mere pawns of the state's fighting to protect and project their strategic interests.
No demand for the regions oil = a infinitely, if not entirely, enhanced environment for PEACE!
When the west no longer needs the oil then its competitors (enemies) will no longer need Iran and Hamas.
January 18, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
.....and the west will longer need Israel.
January 18, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
CV111e Dem
thanks for noting source (Egyptian friend) of your original posting wrt moslem v. muslim. Now I understand your comment.
You might find it of interest that a similar spelling issue arises when refering to the holy month of fasting. Arab muslims refer to this period as the holy month of Ramahdan. Turkish and Indian moslems say the holy month of Ramzan. Not to mention Ramdan, Ramadaan etc.
Its a case of:
you say potato and I like potato,
you like tomato and I like tomato
potato potato tomato tomato
let's call the whole thing off
But oh if we call the whole thing off
then we must part
and oh if we ever part then that might break my heart
January 18, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other thing I learned from her is never to admire anything a muslim owns (like jewelry or a watch) because they are then obligated to offer it to you. That had actually happened to me when I worked in a college health service where we had lots of middle eastern students. I remember seeing this very "blingy" watch and admiring it, and the kid took it off and handed it to me. I was really flummoxed. I think it hurt his feelings when I gave it back to him. I Later found out his father could have bought him 100 more of those watches, but still it was a very interesting learning experience for me.
I learned a lot from working in such a diverse place.
January 18, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh! That explains Bush's affinity for the Saudis: "Hey Prince, that's a might handsome oil field you got there."
January 18, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good observation! I hadn't connected those dots, but you may be onto something. Doesn't seem to have worked out too well for him though. Do you think he maybe overdid it?
January 18, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's his M.O.
I'm sure glad that future historians are going to have an exhaustive video record of that clown. That will say it all--especially his last two attempts at revisionism. They won't be able to spin this one.
I just hope Obama is not so fixated on moving forward that he allow this administration to get away with what they've done to this country. I'm not so interested in vengeance as I am setting a precedent that you can't waste American lives or drag America through the mud before the eyes of the world and get away with it.
I think a dialogue needs to be initiated on this subject, because of if we Bush/Cheney to get away with what they've done, that constitutes their behavior being ratified by the American people.
Once they're gone we need to disinfect the place.
January 18, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Somewhere else on this site someone noted that if we hadn't refused to explore the Iran-Contra scandal, Rumsfeld and Cheney would not have been available to do the harm they did.
Also, when people get away with things (big things like war crimes, ignoring subpoenas, etc) it sets a precedent. If these criminals get away with this and live the lives of comfort, which they pay for with their war profiteering spoils; when will it stop? And why would it stop? The absurdity of the Clinton impeachment did nothing to put criminals like these on notice.
We cannot let this go.
January 18, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so right, in fact, I decided to initiate the discussion myself, so I'm currently writing your very words as we speak. So, please standby.
January 19, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink