Daniel Perl's father: anti Zionism is racism.

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://www.zionism-israel.com/pearl_formula.htm

Dr. Perl says:

"I submit that anti-Zionism is a form of racism more dangerous than classical anti-Semitism. Framing anti-Zionism as racism is precisely the weapon that our students need for survival on campus.

Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to nationhood and self-determination.

Are Jews a nation? A collective is entitled to nationhood when its members identify with a common history and wish to share a common destiny. Palestinians have earned nationhood status by virtue of thinking like a nation, not by residing where their ancestors did (many of them are only three or four generations in Palestine). Jews, likewise, are bonded by nationhood (i.e., common history and destiny) more than they are bonded by religion."


Interesting concept. How will the anti semites get out of this one?

 

[laptop]

It's no more than a clumsy re-statement of the Zionist founding principle: that Jews are nothing without a State.

The majority of Jews reject, and have always rejected, this principle in practice.

And where does Judea Pearl live?

Er, Los Angeles.

Argument void.

 

[Streathamite]

oh well, if Daniel oerl's dad says its' true, then the whole of the UN declaring that zionism itself = racism (something supported by a mjority of the non-aligned world), well i must have imagined that - or was a majority of the world racists in 1975?
and it helps if you get a source which DOESN'T shoot itself in the foot in the same para

Palestinians have earned nationhood status by virtue of thinking like a nation, not by residing where their ancestors did (many of them are only three or four generations in Palestine)

that'll be "the vast majority of of palestinians, at the time of the founding of Israel, had been on that land for very much longer than 3-4 generations".
oh, and as for

Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to nationhood and self-determination.

no it does NOT; my SOLE objection is not the there being a Jewish homeland per se; it is down to them pinching someone else's to make your own.

ZERO out of ten johnny, your most laughable and pitiful yet.
can't you do better than this?

 

[nino_savatte]

Has anyone noticed how there is absolutely no input from Johnny? He posts up a link, adds a quote from the article for a little spice. He begins this thread with a provocative title, then regurgitates the accusation that anyone who who is anti-zionist is actually a racist. I would put it to the Canuck that he doth protest too much; and given his support for those who support Nazism (Diesel and pbman) one has to wonder why he seems so vehemently Zionist.

Nothing like "thinking by numbers" - eh, Johnny?

 

[ViolentPanda]

http://www.zionism-israel.com/pearl_formula.htm

Dr. Perl says:

"I submit that anti-Zionism is a form of racism more dangerous than classical anti-Semitism. Framing anti-Zionism as racism is precisely the weapon that our students need for survival on campus.

Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to nationhood and self-determination.

Are Jews a nation? A collective is entitled to nationhood when its members identify with a common history and wish to share a common destiny. Palestinians have earned nationhood status by virtue of thinking like a nation, not by residing where their ancestors did (many of them are only three or four generations in Palestine). Jews, likewise, are bonded by nationhood (i.e., common history and destiny) more than they are bonded by religion."


Interesting concept. How will the anti semites get out of this one?

How would most people on this board know? Most neither have an agenda such as yours or are anti-Semites (however much you might like to make such snide allusions).

Also, there's a hyphen between the two words "anti" and "Semite" and it's there for a reason. Please use it.

Mr Pearl is entirely entitled to his opinion, and the thing is that unlike some, he acknowledges that his remarks are exactly that; an opinion. IMO Mr. Pearl is conflating the indisputable right of all Jews to a safe haven or homeland with a specific political form that has been since the post-war period to attain and maintain that homeland, i.e. "right-Zionism". Any rational being knows that it is the form that Zionism currently takes that is what provokes enmity, not Zionism per se.
Mr. Pearl's cheerleading for revisionist history I find distasteful, and he does himself no credit by using such dreck.

Oh, and you're supposed to add comment to your C & Ps, Johnny. I doubt making an oblique remark about anti-Semites counts as "comment".

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

oh well, if Daniel oerl's dad says its' true, then the whole of the UN declaring that zionism itself = racism (something supported by a mjority of the non-aligned world), well i must have imagined that - or was a majority of the world racists in 1975?

As you well know, the UN retracted the bit about zionism being the same as racism.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How would most people on this board know? Most neither have an agenda such as yours or are anti-Semites (however much you might like to make such snide allusions).

Also, there's a hyphen between the two words "anti" and "Semite" and it's there for a reason. Please use it.

Mr Pearl is entirely entitled to his opinion, and the thing is that unlike some, he acknowledges that his remarks are exactly that; an opinion. IMO Mr. Pearl is conflating the indisputable right of all Jews to a safe haven or homeland with a specific political form that has been since the post-war period to attain and maintain that homeland, i.e. "right-Zionism". Any rational being knows that it is the form that Zionism currently takes that is what provokes enmity, not Zionism per se.
Mr. Pearl's cheerleading for revisionist history I find distasteful, and he does himself no credit by using such dreck.

Oh, and you're supposed to add comment to your C & Ps, Johnny. I doubt making an oblique remark about anti-Semites counts as "comment".

But you haven't explained why the jews shouldn't strive for nationhood.

 

[laptop]

But you haven't explained why the jews shouldn't strive for nationhood.

Again?

You'd have thought that people so proud of their history - all the significant bits of which have happened in various diasporae - would realise that the 1871 nation-state was, like, sooo over. In 1871, already.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Again?

You'd have thought that people so proud of their history - all the significant bits of which have happened in various diasporae - would realise that the 1871 nation-state was, like, sooo over. In 1871, already.

But, nation states are still going strong.

 

[Fong]

Lets make this really simple.

Zionism is an idea, not a race.

Just like Republicanism and Conservatism and Socialism and Communism.

So I am no more racist for bashing Zionism as I am Conservatism or Communism, if I were ever to bash Zionism, since I just don't care enough to bash or support it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Lets make this really simple.

Zionism is an idea, not a race.

Just like Republicanism and Conservatism and Socialism and Communism.

So I am no more racist for bashing Zionism as I am Conservatism or Communism, if I were ever to bash Zionism, since I just don't care enough to bash or support it.

You should have actually read the article.

Anti zionism is racism, he says, because zionism is the belief that the jews should have a homeland.

To say that jews should be denied this, something that other groups have or aspire to, is to treat jews in an unfair and prejudicial manner.

 

[laptop]

Like all such arguments, this one is a tautology if and only if you accept the Zionist premise.

That's what the Zionist premise is for.

Do I need to explain "tautology"?

The article boils down to: "If you are a Zionist, you will see anti-Zionism as racist."

The corolloray is: "If you are not a Zionist, this argument is utterly content-free."

 

[TeeJay]

Anti-Zionism earns its racist character from denying the Jewish people what it grants to other collectives (e.g. Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to nationhood and self-determination.

Even if you accept that a group of people have the right to nationhood and their own country, noone is so bonkers as to say they can pick whatever borders they want for that country with no reference to either the other people who live there or the existing borders of neighbouring countries.

I am surprised that you think that this even constitutes a hole to get out of Johnny.

Actually...you aqe so fucking stupid that I am not surpised at all.

 

[laptop]

BTW, the Pearl Senior I'm finding teaches logic.

So either he knows how daft his argument is, or he should be sacked.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Even if you accept that a group of people have the right to nationhood and their own country, noone is so bonkers as to say they can pick whatever borders they want for that country with no reference to either the other people who live there or the existing borders of neighbouring countries.

I am surprised that you think that this even constitutes a hole to get out of Johnny.

Actually...you aqe so fucking stupid that I am not surpised at all.

Teejay: "you're wrong! And you're fucking stupid!


And I'm three years old!"

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Like all such arguments, this one is a tautology if and only if you accept the Zionist premise.

That's what the Zionist premise is for.

Do I need to explain "tautology"?

The article boils down to: "If you are a Zionist, you will see anti-Zionism as racist."

The corolloray is: "If you are not a Zionist, this argument is utterly content-free."

Let's see how smart you are: can you explain what you've said above, in a simple and understandable manner?

 

[TeeJay]

Going to engage with the point I made Johnny?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Going to engage with the point I made Johnny?

What point? That I'm too fucking stupid to listen to?

If you want to discuss something, grow up a little and I'll consider it.

 

[TeeJay]

laptop - I think you *do* need to explain to JC2 what a tautology is. You had better take it slowly and not use any long words.

 

[TeeJay]

What point?

The one about "pick whatever borders they want for that country with no reference to either the other people who live there or the existing borders of neighbouring countries"

 

[phildwyer]

The one about "pick whatever borders they want for that country with no reference to either the other people who live there or the existing borders of neighbouring countries"

Not even Israel's worst enemies would claim its done that. Is that what you're claiming?

 

[Fong]

Not even Israel's worst enemies would claim its done that. Is that what you're claiming?

Since when did it become about Isreal?

Can you not read the thread title where it says, Zionism?

Zionism was a part of choosing arbitary borders since it was kinda at the root of the creation of Israel itself, which is basically a nation state that was just plucked off the face of the map regardless of the neighbouring countries or people that lived there.

 

[laptop]

It's there in my previous posts.

I'm shattered.

But here goes:

A tautology is loosely a "circular argument" and precisely an argument "proved" by a definition which it assumes.

All tautologies (and only tautologies) are definitely true - if you accept the definition.

1) Zionism is defined as the argument that the Jews need a nation-state;
2) Therefore, if and only if you accept 1, to be anti-Zionist is to deny Jews what they need.

3) The argument is developed by Zionists - for recruitment purposes - to the assertion that there can be no Jews unless Jews have a nation-state;
4) Therefore, if and only if you accept 3, to be anti-Zionist is to deny Jews existence.

5) Religious Zionism is defined as the argument that the Jewish state may only exist in Palestine;
6) Therefore, if and only if you accept 5, to be anti-Zionist and object to religious Zionists' usurping the non-Jewish part of the pre-existing population of Palestine is to deny Jews existence.

It is of course 5 that causes the definitive problem and it is religious Zionism that is most clearly racist.

 

[phildwyer]

Since when did it become about Isreal?

Can you not read the thread title where it says, Zionism?

Zionism was a part of choosing arbitary borders since it was kinda at the root of the creation of Israel itself, which is basically a nation state that was just plucked off the face of the map regardless of the neighbouring countries or people that lived there.

The borders were hardly arbitrary, and not even the worst enemies of Zionism have ever claimed that they were.

 

[laptop]

I have no idea what happened to the pre-existing population of the Jewish Autonomous Region. More research to do.

It would also be interesting to know how much the rights of the Jewish families who lived in Jerusalem in 1871 were stomped on by the Zionist incomers. I shall ask my friend who's writing a book on the problems that Jews of Middle-Eastern extraction in general (she's of Syrian heritage) have suffered due to Zionism.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's there in my previous posts.

I'm shattered.

But here goes:

A tautology is loosely a "circular argument" and precisely an argument "proved" by a definition which it assumes.

All tautologies (and only tautologies) are definitely true - if you accept the definition.

1) Zionism is defined as the argument that the Jews need a nation-state;
2) Therefore, if and only if you accept 1, to be anti-Zionist is to deny Jews what they need.

3) The argument is developed by Zionists - for recruitment purposes - to the assertion that there can be no Jews unless Jews have a nation-state;
4) Therefore, if and only if you accept 3, to be anti-Zionist is to deny Jews existence.

5) Religions Zionism is defined as the argument that the Jewish state may only exist in Palestine;
6) Therefore, if and only if you accept 5, to be anti-Zionist and object to religious Zionists' usurping the non-Jewish part of the pre-existing population of Palestine is to deny Jews existence.

It is of course 5 that causes the definitive problem and it is religious Zionism that is most clearly racist.

Be shattered all you want. In your original post, the word 'tautology' was the only part that made sense.

This new effort is much better.

I don't know if it's 'need' so much as 'have a right to'.

3 is not integral to the concept of zionism.

Re: 5. Religious zionism isn't the only kind.

 

[phildwyer]

I shall ask my friend who's writing a book on the problems that Jews of Middle-Eastern extraction in general (she's of Syrian heritage) have suffered due to Zionism.

That is going to be an extremely long book.

 

[laptop]

3 is not integral to the concept of zionism.

That's Pearl's sleight of hand - he assumes it is.

Re: 5. Religious zionism isn't the only kind.

See reference to the Jewish Autonomous Region, above.

 

[nino_savatte]

What point? That I'm too fucking stupid to listen to?

If you want to discuss something, grow up a little and I'll consider it.

You said it pal.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But you haven't explained why the jews shouldn't strive for nationhood.

Why should I?

It appears to me that you're making some pretty swingeing assumptions about what you believe my views to be, Johnny.

Not very clever of you, to be sure.