• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Like most things I'd say context is key. If anti Zionism includes being critical of the Israeli government's actions that's fine but if it's saying Isreal should be wiped off the map then probably not ok.
Anti-zionism is saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Zionism being the establishment of a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine. It might not be anti semetic but it is definitely adjacent.

As with all remarks in this regard its just far easier to be specific and be directly critical of Israel government than using broad terms.
 
Anti-zionism is saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Zionism being the establishment of a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine. It might not be anti semetic but it is definitely adjacent.

As with all remarks in this regard its just far easier to be specific and be directly critical of Israel government than using broad terms.
Yeah I agree but people like to put different definition on things. Some might only refer to the more expansionist stuff Isreal in doing in the West Bank as their criteria for anti Zionism which I think is a push but again, I wouldn't have any problem with that but as you rightly say better to be more specific.
 
Something I learned the other day was that the word Palestine was given by the Romans after driving out the Jews in the area and the reason they gave the land the name Palestine (well the Roman word for Palestine and Syria or something g like that) was to humiliate the Jews as their long standing enemy were a bunch of Greeks called the Philistines or something like that anyway so they renamed it after their enemy.
 
Anti-zionism is saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Zionism being the establishment of a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine. It might not be anti semetic but it is definitely adjacent.

As with all remarks in this regard its just far easier to be specific and be directly critical of Israel government than using broad terms.
Yeah I agree but people like to put different definition on things. Some might only refer to the more expansionist stuff Isreal in doing in the West Bank as their criteria for anti Zionism which I think is a push but again, I wouldn't have any problem with that but as you rightly say better to be more specific.

I am anti-Zionist. I'm not anti-semitic although many would currently accuse me of being that.

Israel should never been created. It's the result of short sighted and anti semitic policies first created by the UK and then encouraged by the US in response to the holocaust and has seen innocent people ran out of their homes ever since. Whatever about a safe place to take Jews in the aftermath of their displacement in WW2, setting up a religious state that indefinitely offered citizenship to any Jew in such a contentious strip of land was incredibly reckless and only going to end up this way.

Israel can't be wiped off a map at this stage and I don't support that anyway but I'm totally against Israel as a Jewish state with the law of return in what was a predominantly Islamic area. That is what has created this situation and until there is some sort of reform and more secular administration innocent, defenceless and undefended people will continue to suffer and die.

I think this passes the threshold of anti-zionist because the country that would exist lacks the key element that makes Israel Zionist regardless of name.
 
I am anti-Zionist. I'm not anti-semitic although many would currently accuse me of being that.

Israel should never been created. It's the result of short sighted and anti semitic policies first created by the UK and then encouraged by the US in response to the holocaust and has seen innocent people ran out of their homes ever since. Whatever about a safe place to take Jews in the aftermath of their displacement in WW2, setting up a religious state that indefinitely offered citizenship to any Jew in such a contentious strip of land was incredibly reckless and only going to end up this way.

Israel can't be wiped off a map at this stage and I don't support that anyway but I'm totally against Israel as a Jewish state with the law of return in what was a predominantly Islamic area. That is what has created this situation and until there is some sort of reform and more secular administration innocent, defenceless and undefended people will continue to suffer and die.

I think this passes the threshold of anti-zionist because the country that would exist lacks the key element that makes Israel Zionist regardless of name.
I don't like how Isreal was created either but I'm not really a fan of the Ottoman Empire and their control over the area prior. I don't like how the Saxons and Vikings drew new boundaries in Britain and then later Normans but this is the way of the world. I appreciate more recent history in the last century has more powerful effects on the present day than events a thousand years ago or more but pretty much the inception of every country is built on conquest and oppression, or more powerful countries making the decision of where to draw their magical lines.

This is why I just think the debate starts with does Isreal have a right to exist even baring in mid we agree on the morally dubious way it was created. We both not only agree it was but both agree it still can't be wiped off the map at this stage. Once we get past that stage (not me and you obviously) and accept some kind of 2 state solution is the only way round this problem (from what i can see) then we can have different conversations.

Also think it's worth remembering that while a passionate subject we obviously all come from the same angle that loss of innocent life in war while inevitable is always tragic whatever side it's on so another thing we agree on.
 
As with all things surrounding this, it's a topic that requires looking at the subtleties and yet people want to paint a broad brush. For example, anti-Zionism in the form of saying the state of Israel should not have been formed as it was post WW2 is not the same as anti-Zionism in the form of saying it should not exist now, which is also not the same as not having a problem with Israel itself at all but instead having a problem with the government and the religious extremism in the country. Only the 2nd could you say has clear links to anti-Semitism.

It seems many of the more hardline pro-Israelis want to paint any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, when these same people will happily criticise other nations all the time.

The fact does remain though, Israel is surrounded by nations that have a sizeable chunk of their population who feel Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth and have done ever since it was created. This would almost certainly have continued regardless of what Israel did or didn't do. How can you normalise relations with people who want to destroy you? The flip side is that there are now plenty in Israel who think the same about their neighbours, as indicated above. Why should it be ok for someone to call for the destruction of Gaza but not ok to call for the destruction of Israel?

Unfortunately I think the reality is that Israel will get it's own way and in my lifetime will probably absorb Gaza and the West Bank. What happens afterwards if that does occur is another matter. Further land grabs from Jordan, Lebanon and Syria or does that then become the final border for the country?
 
I don't like how Isreal was created either but I'm not really a fan of the Ottoman Empire and their control over the area prior. I don't like how the Saxons and Vikings drew new boundaries in Britain and then later Normans but this is the way of the world. I appreciate more recent history in the last century has more powerful effects on the present day than events a thousand years ago or more but pretty much the inception of every country is built on conquest and oppression, or more powerful countries making the decision of where to draw their magical lines.
This is just trying to dismiss European and in particular here British responsibility for the situation. There is so much fighting all over the world that can be directly traced back to how colonial powers divided up the world. Various civil wars and genocides in Africa because completely different ethnic groups were shoved together into one country. We currently Venezuela and Guyana. Pakistan and India for decades (which is possibly closest to Israel and Palestine). Israel and Palestine. I'm sure there are more. I think it's pathetic to say, "well this happened decades ago, you should have sorted your **** out by now, it's not our fault anymore". As for it happening throughout history, yes it has, but that doesn't make it right or excuse it. In fact often it just led to more wars and oppression in those places. Slavery has also happened throughout history. We don't shrug our shoulders and say tough it's part of life.
This is why I just think the debate starts with does Isreal have a right to exist even baring in mid we agree on the morally dubious way it was created. We both not only agree it was but both agree it still can't be wiped off the map at this stage. Once we get past that stage (not me and you obviously) and accept some kind of 2 state solution is the only way round this problem (from what i can see) then we can have different conversations.
Does Israel have a right to exist? As Ragey said, it's not a simple question. Does the Basque region have the right to exist as a separate state? How about Christians, Buddhists and other religious groups, do they have the right to their own state? Now you'll probably say they already do, which is and isn't true. Some countries use religion as the basis of their state, but many don't. The state and the religion are usually separate and most are secular states. Israel (despite it's propaganda isn't a secular state) many of it's laws actively favour Jewish people. I am personally opposed to any state that is based on one religion. For me anyway, organised religion itself is just politics with a religious tint. Religion should be personal to the individual and religious organisations should be there to guide people, not enforce.

As for Jewish people as an ethnic group, well this is just as complex. In theory I guess the majority of Jewish people are descended from those in Israel if the concept of being Jewish through the mother's side is consistently accurate. However, as Jewish people will have married non-Jewish people throughout history this will have become more and more confusing. But again does every individual ethnic group have the right to a state? At what point do you class someone as ethnically Jewish? The same for other ethnic groups.

Then even of you come up with an agreed definition if that group doesn't have land then how do you decide where they go? Who should be forced to give up their land to make space? That's exactly what happened in Palestine and look at the conflict and atrocities it has caused. I am definitely anti-Zionist when it comes to creating an Israeli state by forcibly removing people from their homes and land. (which has happened). I am anti-Zionist if it means creating a religious state where not everyone is equal (which has also happened). Tbh I would be anti-Zionist in general because I believe that humans need to work together and we need to move on from the concept of a national state. For me all nationalism continues to do is separate and divide us as a species. We're at a point where we need to address global issues that transcend national identities and the reality is we can only do this as a species, not individual states. We can also do this in a way that respects people's heritages and traditions.

For me though that does not make me anti-Semitic.
 
This is just trying to dismiss European and in particular here British responsibility for the situation. There is so much fighting all over the world that can be directly traced back to how colonial powers divided up the world. Various civil wars and genocides in Africa because completely different ethnic groups were shoved together into one country. We currently Venezuela and Guyana. Pakistan and India for decades (which is possibly closest to Israel and Palestine). Israel and Palestine. I'm sure there are more. I think it's pathetic to say, "well this happened decades ago, you should have sorted your **** out by now, it's not our fault anymore". As for it happening throughout history, yes it has, but that doesn't make it right or excuse it. In fact often it just led to more wars and oppression in those places. Slavery has also happened throughout history. We don't shrug our shoulders and say tough it's part of life.

Does Israel have a right to exist? As Ragey said, it's not a simple question. Does the Basque region have the right to exist as a separate state? How about Christians, Buddhists and other religious groups, do they have the right to their own state? Now you'll probably say they already do, which is and isn't true. Some countries use religion as the basis of their state, but many don't. The state and the religion are usually separate and most are secular states. Israel (despite it's propaganda isn't a secular state) many of it's laws actively favour Jewish people. I am personally opposed to any state that is based on one religion. For me anyway, organised religion itself is just politics with a religious tint. Religion should be personal to the individual and religious organisations should be there to guide people, not enforce.

As for Jewish people as an ethnic group, well this is just as complex. In theory I guess the majority of Jewish people are descended from those in Israel if the concept of being Jewish through the mother's side is consistently accurate. However, as Jewish people will have married non-Jewish people throughout history this will have become more and more confusing. But again does every individual ethnic group have the right to a state? At what point do you class someone as ethnically Jewish? The same for other ethnic groups.

Then even of you come up with an agreed definition if that group doesn't have land then how do you decide where they go? Who should be forced to give up their land to make space? That's exactly what happened in Palestine and look at the conflict and atrocities it has caused. I am definitely anti-Zionist when it comes to creating an Israeli state by forcibly removing people from their homes and land. (which has happened). I am anti-Zionist if it means creating a religious state where not everyone is equal (which has also happened). Tbh I would be anti-Zionist in general because I believe that humans need to work together and we need to move on from the concept of a national state. For me all nationalism continues to do is separate and divide us as a species. We're at a point where we need to address global issues that transcend national identities and the reality is we can only do this as a species, not individual states. We can also do this in a way that respects people's heritages and traditions.

For me though that does not make me anti-Semitic.
I'm not excusing anything just pointing out historical and present day realities. We don't do slavery anymore but we do tolerate international boundaries, as much as I like, and agree, with your utopian vision of a boundary free world.

Again there's not a lot I disagree with but what are you saying in relation to question I'm asking?

The romans carved it up, the Ottomans did the same i'm sure there were lots of killing and displacement going on then as well. As you rightly say, Jewish people have been in that region since year dot. Do I like the way the international community, led by Britain being opportunistic in capitalising on another fallen empire, created Isreal? not especially but as I say it is just a reality that every countries formation has be off the back of slaughter and conquest. This is a reality and not excusing anything. I mean, **** me, we were Englands first colony and to this day the Word the English give our land and is the same as the old Saxon word for foreigner.

Where do we go from here. Do you believe in a 1 state solution?
 
I'm not excusing anything just pointing out historical and present day realities. We don't do slavery anymore but we do tolerate international boundaries, as much as I like, and agree, with your utopian vision of a boundary free world.

Again there's not a lot I disagree with but what are you saying in relation to question I'm asking?

The romans carved it up, the Ottomans did the same i'm sure there were lots of killing and displacement going on then as well. As you rightly say, Jewish people have been in that region since year dot. Do I like the way the international community, led by Britain being opportunistic in capitalising on another fallen empire, created Isreal? not especially but as I say it is just a reality that every countries formation has be off the back of slaughter and conquest. This is a reality and not excusing anything. I mean, **** me, we were Englands first colony and to this day the Word the English give our land and is the same as the old Saxon word for foreigner.

Where do we go from here. Do you believe in a 1 state solution?
I don't think there is any solution at the moment that doesn't involve war. My main point is that you can be anti-zionist without being antisemitic. The issue is so toxic anyway that most people won't discuss it in any depth anyway. I still think Israel are overall the bigger criminals in this case. I completely condemn Hamas's actions, but Israel going beyond what is a reasonable response and they hide behind the cloak of Antisemitism. I think they'll also get away without and the Palestinians will become permanent refugees across the gulf region and in Egypt.
 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict beginning to spill into Lebanon with an Israeli assassination of Hamas leaders in Beirut. This could backfire quite badly on Israel and be the start of the conflict escalating to other neighbours. I'm not sure the benefit of killing some of Hamas' top leadership would be worth an escalation with Lebanon and potentially other states.
 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict beginning to spill into Lebanon with an Israeli assassination of Hamas leaders in Beirut. This could backfire quite badly on Israel and be the start of the conflict escalating to other neighbours. I'm not sure the benefit of killing some of Hamas' top leadership would be worth an escalation with Lebanon and potentially other states.
I'm not sure given both countries have been taking shots at each other for years. Random attacks, attacks from Lebanon last year, the war in 2006 etc, etc. Both sides have never been at peace. I think the only issue for Israel would be if Jordan or Egypt became involved. As supposed allies of the US i doubt that would happen. Even then I don't even think that would overly bother Israel.
 

Latest posts

Top