Ah Froggy, let me be clear, I wouldn't use anything other than Israeli, Lebanese, Palestinian. I am referring to the double standard which seems to pertain on media outlets since Hezbollah (at the moment) is used as a sort of shorthand for Lebanese citizens...regardless of religious affiliations...which is at least as problematic as equating Israel with some homogenous Jewish state.
Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion
- Thread starter PR1Berske
- Start date
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Had a look back at Ilan Pappe book the Ten Myths of Israel. It's the myths he was taught when he grew up in Israel.
Excerpt here. Goes into the period when Zionism was minority view in Jewish communities. Whether secular or religious.
To take it to present day Israel bible is used ( selectively) to justify Palestine as a homeland of the Jews. Secular Zionists used it in early days;
And when it says ours it means Jewish.
It's treating Judaism as literal history. As he points out in article other Jews interpreted the bible differently.
I must say the religious side of this isn't my thing. I'm not expert.
But impression I get is that Jewish religious thought doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with the Zionism of Herzl or David Ben Gurion.
And as Ilan Pappe points out a, until recently, largely secular nationalist movement used religion to back up it's ideology. He does say not only Zionists did this.
The other support for Zionism now and in early days was also the Christian Zionists of evangelical Christianity.
So yes Israel was set up as state for Jewish people. But not all Jews subscribe to this use of Judaism.
www.huckmag.com
Excerpt here. Goes into the period when Zionism was minority view in Jewish communities. Whether secular or religious.
To take it to present day Israel bible is used ( selectively) to justify Palestine as a homeland of the Jews. Secular Zionists used it in early days;
And when it says ours it means Jewish.
It's treating Judaism as literal history. As he points out in article other Jews interpreted the bible differently.
I must say the religious side of this isn't my thing. I'm not expert.
But impression I get is that Jewish religious thought doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with the Zionism of Herzl or David Ben Gurion.
And as Ilan Pappe points out a, until recently, largely secular nationalist movement used religion to back up it's ideology. He does say not only Zionists did this.
The other support for Zionism now and in early days was also the Christian Zionists of evangelical Christianity.
So yes Israel was set up as state for Jewish people. But not all Jews subscribe to this use of Judaism.
Zionism is not Judaism and other myths about Israel
In this excerpt from his groundbreaking book, outspoken and radical Israeli historian Ilan Pappe examines the origins of Zionism and tracks its role in…
www.huckmag.com
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Got this from PSC
Write to David Lammy as Foreign minister about the attack on north Gaza
.
palestinecampaign.eaction.online
Write to David Lammy as Foreign minister about the attack on north Gaza
.
URGENT: Stop the extermination of Palestinians in northern Gaza
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
This week marked the horrific milestone of one year since the start of Israel’s genocidal assault against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. Now, the Israeli military is intensifying its massacres in northern Gaza in an attempt to forcibly displace the remaining Palestinian population of around 400,000 people. Our Palestinian partners have asked us to act urgently and increase our pressure on the government. Will you write to Foreign Secretary David Lammy today demanding that he takes action to prevent catastrophe?
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Had a look back at Ilan Pappe book the Ten Myths of Israel. It's the myths he was taught when he grew up in Israel.
Excerpt here. Goes into the period when Zionism was minority view in Jewish communities. Whether secular or religious.
To take it to present day Israel bible is used ( selectively) to justify Palestine as a homeland of the Jews. Secular Zionists used it in early days;
And when it says ours it means Jewish.
It's treating Judaism as literal history. As he points out in article other Jews interpreted the bible differently.
I must say the religious side of this isn't my thing. I'm not expert.
But impression I get is that Jewish religious thought doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with the Zionism of Herzl or David Ben Gurion.
And as Ilan Pappe points out a, until recently, largely secular nationalist movement used religion to back up it's ideology. He does say not only Zionists did this.
The other support for Zionism now and in early days was also the Christian Zionists of evangelical Christianity.
So yes Israel was set up as state for Jewish people. But not all Jews subscribe to this use of Judaism.
Zionism is not Judaism and other myths about Israel
In this excerpt from his groundbreaking book, outspoken and radical Israeli historian Ilan Pappe examines the origins of Zionism and tracks its role in…
You've mentioned Ilan Pappe a lot, and I agree his is an important voice. But if you want to understand zionism in its own context, that of jewish history (and as I mentioned earlier I think it's important for anyone who talks a lot about zionism from any perspective, to understand the background of how political zionism should come to exist in the first place) I recommend the Bamberger book, which was first published IIRC in 1905, and predates even the Balfour declaration (later editions eg the one I have which is a 1970 3rd edition of course have chapters on the state of israel)
You need to understand that there have always been jews who have fantasised about reforming a jewish kingdom in Palestine. Since literally 100AD. No, that's not Political Zionism, but it's a precursor to it, and it's a perfectly legitimate cultural expression of a diaspora people. It's actually part of the reason jews were always abused and exiled; they were considered foreign and untrustworthy, because they prayed to israel in a funny language. And all this has always been there. People have even tried to re-found a jewish nation there before 1948 and nobody cared. It was the vast influx of stateless, traumatised, angry and terrified jews after WW2 that largely caused the modern problems.
Now of course not all jews 'stand with israel', especiallyin the last year or so IMO, but you've even acknowledged yourself that there's an emotional aspect to Eretz Israel that can be hard to understand for anyone who just .. doesn't feel it. It's not rational. But it's there, and denigrating it or dismissing it or saying it shouldn't matter .. these are deep, ancient, emotional, cultural sensitivities. They can't just be written out of the story, or wished away.
For some of us though it's quite a stretch to imagine that Ben Gvir or Smotrich are impelled by deep ancient emotional sensitivities.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
I think it's probably a mistake to believe you know entirely what motivates someone else.
I dont think either of those men would deny being racist tbh, but I doubt that all they are is racist.
Yes of course just the thought that either of those gentlemen are sensitive types- I struggle with that
teqniq
DisMembered
This is not really news though is it? Where have most of the munitions come from?Israel using American arms; quelle surprise
US-made munition used in Israeli strike on central Beirut, shrapnel shows
Exclusive: Strike that killed 22 is first time US-made munition confirmed to have been used in attack on central Beirut since 2006www.theguardian.com
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Fair enough, and fwiw you could be right. But those two don't represent all jews (or even all israelis) any more than jeremy hunt or suella braverman or nigel farage represent all of whoever they pretend to speak for.
hash tag
Books, not bombs
I thought that was partly my point " quelle surprise". Oh well.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Right, but that's what I'm saying. It's 'their project' now, but it wasn't always, and it doesn't have to be. They're extremists. The history of the state of israel is essentially one of extremists fighting other extremists in what both groups see as a zero-sum game. But there's a pre-1948 and pre-1917 context here that needs to be understood, and can't be properly represented by two extremist politicians who are even ridiculed inside Israel.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Ok, I agree with you on that. I was confused at first especially as some people genuinely do seem to believe that they are all the same thing.
Last edited:
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Actually, a sort of final thought on this. The Ben Gvirs and the Smotriches, they are these exactly. Jews who fantasise about a jewish kingdom reborn, one that stretches from the Med to the Euphrates. Except they're not mystical seventeenth century dreamers in a shtetl in Poland or a ghetto in Italy, now they're on the spot and heavily armed, with powerful backers and no compassion or wish to understand anything other than their own fixed ideas.
Their dream, which is mainly what's powering everyone else's nightmare, is not shared even by most israelis IME, let alone non-israeli jewish sympathizers whose rather different dream might be something like, a small country where jews can do jewish stuff without having their front doors painted or their windows smashed or whatever.
It's turned to shit. Absolute shit. Because of the context it started in, because of British duplicity, because of populism, because of early wars, later wars, because the world has changed, because of breaking international law, committing war crimes, because of acting cruelly and unjustly and unlawfully.
But none of that erases the manifold reasons this country was first conceived. Nor IMO does it invalidate them.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
How about the people already living there? Didn't their existence invalidate the conception of this particular country?
It's a country founded on an act of ethnic cleansing. It's not the only country founded like that. But that others have done similar doesn't validate the act.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
No it doesn't, but other countries aren't in line for being wiped off the map for their transgressions.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
The only way that the state of Israel would not have been in line for being wiped off the map is if it had been more thorough, more genocidal, more brutal in the past. If there was no sizeable Palestinian population left in Israel or the other occupied territories. If the other adherents to monotheistic religions had decided they didn't need access to their holy places to perform their rituals. If everyone else in the region suffered from amnesia and forgot about everything.
Happy Tree
maagilises metsas
The "wiped off the map" phrase is an interestingly emotive term. While Israel uses it to defend itself, saying other peoples want to wipe it off the map, Israel is and has been in the process of wiping Palestine off the map. Literally. So I can't really sympathise. The Zionists even claim Palestine was never on the map in the first place. The wiping off the map idea is a perfect example of projecting what you are currently doing onto some hypothetical future action by your enemy.
Same goes for "from river to sea".
Same goes for "from river to sea".
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Not just Palestine, according to at least one senior Israeli cabinet minister.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
According to this analysis a zionist project in the ME was always going to fail, no matter what it did. From your tone it seems to piss you off that it still hasn't failed yet. Netanyahu and his thugs sowing seeds of destruction must be a dream come true; a few more years of them and the zionist entity will become the pariah you believe it always should've been. Or maybe it'll just be in ashes. Some will celebrate this; after all, whereas for many this far-right regime is a nightmare, for some it's the burgeoning hope of a jew-free future Palestine.
"Wiped off the map" was a phrase employed first and most memorably by mahmoud ahmedinejad when he was in power in Iran. (IIRC it was more like "removed from the page of time" but however it's translated it was unequivocally meant as a threat). Anyway we never hear about wiping eg. Australia, Brazil or Canada off the map so till we do it's pretty clear that only one 'colonial project' is destined for the bin. The fact it happens to be the Jewish one is nothing to do with anything obvs.
"From the river to the sea" has a long history but its modern usage was coined by the PLO as the template for a one-state solution. It was intended as a call for peace but slowly it's morphed into a call for endless war from both sides.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sorry this just isn't true. As used by most of the people on the Palestinian side, it is a call for justice.
And it was used by Likud in the 1970s.
maomao
普費斯
I'm willing to bet the indigenous peoples of those three country have expressed similar sentiments.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Thing is, mojo pixy, I do get that you have an affection for Israel, but nothing you say offers anything to the Palestinians. What is the alternative you are suggesting? Suck it up. The colonial project happened and you lost.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
If 2 million Aboriginal Australians were being kept in a large pen in the Northern Territory from which they were not allowed out without permission, I suspect the world would have something to say.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
As I said, it originated with the PLO as a call for a one-state solution. It's become a call for war from both sides of the conflict.
I'm sure they have, but im not seeing any UN resolutions or ICC opinions about it.
The zero-sum version seems to be either that or sorry jews, your zionism project needs to end and you all need to fuck off back to where your ancestors came from.
Personally I believe there's some middle ground where peace and justice could flourish, but like many on both sides you're not interested in that.
They might well have something to say; but would they be demanding that the Australian entity be wound up or destroyed entirely? I think not.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is effectively what was demanded of the entity known as apartheid South Africa.
The demand here is an end to the current regime, an end to its apartheid practice, justice for the displaced, equal rights for all. To do that, many of the institutions that have been built to serve the injustice will need to be dismantled and reconstituted, just as they were in South Africa.
It is disingenuous to talk about this as if it necessarily involved the forced removal from the region of millions of Jews. It doesn't.
maomao
普費斯
Just to clarify, as I'm sure it's not what you meant but it's what your sentence implies, there has never been a UN resolution or ICC opinion in favour of wiping Israel off the map.
The APIB tried quite hard to get Bolsanaro done for Genocide at the ICC. I agree they could have done with more support. They are also trying to use international human rights law to reverse certain Brazilian laws. They could do with more support in this. I know less about the Australian and Canadian situations but I know there are campaigns to get their bits of the map back. It's true that because their genocides were more complete they have less obvious nation level allies in the world to help them voice their opinions. I'm not sure that this means people should complain less about the genocide in Palestine.
Similar threads
