Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Post questions or suggestions here.

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:45 am

Leyla Shen wrote:
Diebert wrote:In general I think the idea of some mythical or real historical homeland is crucial to most forms of nationalism; [...]


But this is only operative in the absence of or after the civil state has failed.

I'm not so sure of that. Just take two examples of Italian and German Nationalism in the 1930's and 40's. For Germany, the concept of a German homeland as Großdeutschland was defining for the nationalist sentiment. Also referrals to the older German and holy Roman empire were often made. Italian nationalism was firmly based on the territory of the Roman empire. In Spain fascism linked back to the mighty Spanish empire of old although I'm not sure to what extent.

I can think of many “peoples” who might share similar traditions and cultures, but I cannot think of any two ethnic peoples yet who have shared the same religion when defining their ethnicity outside of anything on the order of a successful civil state, matters of territory notwithstanding.

What about the Kurds or the Turkmen? I'll admit their religion is not very particular to their ethnicity.

One might venture to argue that, for example, the cause of all conflicts today is Islamic fundamentalism fostered by radical Islamic states. Such a one, however, is utterly and sometimes even willfully ignorant of history and how and why those particular nation-states came about and the fundamentals upon which they were created.

Even with ideologist networks as Al-Qaeda their main populist concern is linkage to holy lands or holy sites - and what is seen as their occupation. Then you have the earlier Pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism which does not have so much of a religious context but one of culture - with in mind the glory days of that culture: the Arab empire. The days of this particular fever seems over though and it's possible the internationally oriented Muslim faith, lacking a clear bond to one specific region always has weakened Arab nationalism. I'm tempted to see this as two competing religious sentiments in this case.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:14 am

Shahrazad wrote:
Not a cause of what?
Not a cause of ignorance, broken.

Ignorance causes dogmatism, and not the other way around.

Thanks, Shah. I have to admit I have trouble understanding Leyla's syntax at times. I shouldn't - she writes clearly enough.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:17 pm

Diebert:

D: In general I think the idea of some mythical or real historical homeland is crucial to most forms of nationalism; [...]

L: But this is only operative in the absence of or after the civil state has failed.

D: I'm not so sure of that. Just take two examples of Italian and German Nationalism in the 1930's and 40's. For Germany, the concept of a German homeland as Großdeutschland was defining for the nationalist sentiment. Also referrals to the older German and holy Roman empire were often made. Italian nationalism was firmly based on the territory of the Roman empire. In Spain fascism linked back to the mighty Spanish empire of old although I'm not sure to what extent.


Are you suggesting that, at the time, the Italian and German peoples enjoyed the type of conditions concomitant with a successful civil state? Germany had just been crippled both militarily and economically as a result of WWI, for one. So, what in your view, comprised the prevailing, successful civil state for Germans? Whose interests were being served after WWI and before the rise of Hitler?

Nationalism, like any other revolutionary movement, can only arise precisely in the absence, or in opposition to the interests, of a prevailing civil state—a prevailing “ruling class,” whomever they may be and in whatever form.

I think “nationalism,” as you speak of it here without contrast by opposition to the civil state (the legally binding protection of group interests by force—which is the basis for, among other things, the idea “dictatorship by the proletariat”), is actually imperialism by definition; certainly in the case of your consequently hypothetical Germany.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:46 am

Leyla Shen wrote:I think “nationalism,” as you speak of it here without contrast by opposition to the civil state (the legally binding protection of group interests by force—which is the basis for, among other things, the idea “dictatorship by the proletariat”), is actually imperialism by definition; certainly in the case of your consequently hypothetical Germany.

Which is precisely why the aliyot cannot be considered imperialism. The emigration of Jews to Palestine is a result of a search for a place to consider a homeland from places where persecution was very real and attempts at assimilation by the ruling classes were unsuccessful. Imperialism suggests a spreading of a nation by force to less developed areas to establish markets and protect trade routes.

This isn't to say that no Jews were assimilated or that all were Zionists. But it is no coincidence that the rise of European nationalism and the rise of Zionism (and the demise of the Ottoman Empire) all came at the same time in European history.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:17 am

Here's a link to a brief description of the early aliyot. There are seven main waves of emigration of Jews to Palestine between 1880 and 1948. (Aliyot is plural for aliya.)

The first wave of emigration resulted from Russian pogroms. The vast majority of more 1.5 million of Russian Jews that left in the 30 years after the first pogroms came to the US.

The Ottoman Sultan, who was aware of the exodus of Jews that began with the first pogroms, in 1882 decreed the Jews could emigrate to the Ottoman lands if they renounced their European identity and became Ottoman subjects and if they settled in places other than Palestine. The Ottomans did not fear the emigration of Jews because they were Jews, but because they were Europeans.

However, the Ottomans were inefficient and this decree merely made Jewish land purchases in Palestine occur through third parties - it did little to stop the first aliya.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:08 pm

Wow, brokenhead. I love it. That post alone drips such ethnocentric bias I can taste it from here.

Nevertheless, as generous as I am in all my madness, I'll give you room for doubt—let's see what you do with it:

But it is no coincidence that the rise of European nationalism and the rise of Zionism (and the demise of the Ottoman Empire) all came at the same time in European history.


You do know who the Ottoman allies were in WWI, right?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:23 am

Leyla Shen wrote:Wow, brokenhead. I love it. That post alone drips such ethnocentric bias I can taste it from here.

Nevertheless, as generous as I am in all my madness, I'll give you room for doubt—let's see what you do with it:

But it is no coincidence that the rise of European nationalism and the rise of Zionism (and the demise of the Ottoman Empire) all came at the same time in European history.


You do know who the Ottoman allies were in WWI, right?

The Young Turks were on Germany's side.

Yes, I make no pretense of special expertise in this area, but I can do research as well as the next guy/Mad Turk.

I do know that the Ottomans suffered the highest per capita casualty rate in the entire Great War.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:24 am

What ethnocentric bias?
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:20 am

Your researching "ability" is a moot point, particularly in relation to the discussion developing at the moment. Why? I’m a little perplexed, brokenhead, as to the nature and relevance of the following statement to the developing discussion, in which I see your ethnocentric bias:

Which is precisely why the aliyot cannot be considered imperialism. The emigration of Jews to Palestine is a result of a search for a place to consider a homeland from places where persecution was very real and attempts at assimilation by the ruling classes were unsuccessful. Imperialism suggests a spreading of a nation by force to less developed areas to establish markets and protect trade routes.


I’m not sure why you thought it useful to simply assert that “the aliyot cannot be considered imperialism” when my argument is that nationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war. (Spooky. Tower of Babel, anyone?)

Perhaps I was erroneous in assuming you had intended to contribute something substantial to that discussion?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:57 am

Diebert:

Furthermore (and I requote you for convenience):

In general I think the idea of some mythical or real historical homeland is crucial to most forms of nationalism; it could be called its main religious icon. In case of Israel it happens to be as well the main theme of Judaism although in my view the approach is radically different, depending on which fundamentalist one speaks.


This is not a matter of “just happening to be” the “main theme” of Judaism. It is both the central “theme” of Judaism AND Israel. Therefore, countries with stable borders are in significant proportion all countries whose naturalization and citizenship laws support the country (territory) itself as one of immigration, rather than emigration as in the case of Israel and the impetus for "the greater historic" Armenia as well as the Kurdish state.

[EDIT: relocated an offending comma.]
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:46 am

The Mad Turk wrote:I’m not sure why you thought it useful to simply assert that “the aliyot cannot be considered imperialism” when my argument is that nationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war. (Spooky. Tower of Babel, anyone?)

Perhaps I was erroneous in assuming you had intended to contribute something substantial to that discussion?

What are you babbling about? I'm not interested in theories. I just want to see the facts represented here without bias.

If your argument is that the rise of nations and with it the rise of self-identification with the nation-state is the basis for nationalism, and that with it imperialism grows (English, Dutch, French, etc.) as foreign markets are established and trade routes fought for and defended, then we have no disagreement. Religion has little to do with modern imperialism when you compare it to the spread of Islam in the first millennium, the crusades, and later the Ottoman expansion. And even then, Islamic expansion had little to do with Islam except as a unifying factor, the Muslims being far more tolerant of other "people of the book."

I'm trying to head you off at the pass with your demonization of religion and any other Marxist platitudes you have up your sleeve.

You state nationalism is a mechanism for imperialism. If anything, imperialism is the mechanism by which the modern nations arose and prospered. You state that nationalism "deftly places" religion as the catalyst for war. It does no such thing. Material wealth and the annexation of land which gives rise to it and sustains it is the catalyst for war.

The Diaspora had been around for hundreds of years. Persecution of the Jews by the Church had been around for as long. What I am attempting to do is to briefly describe the political climate in the late 19th century, i.e., why Jews began emigrating to Palestine, which is the topic of this thread. It has little to do with theological debate. It has to do with the "separateness" of the Jews, to which the Jews themselves were the main contributors. The pogroms in the 1880s were practically benign in comparison to the ethnic cleansings (of many different peoples) the 20th century would witness, but at the time they sparked the first aliyot.

So far our discussion goes up to WWI. I don't see this as at all religious in character. I see it rather as the death-throes of European imperialism and maybe the debut of America as a modern imperialist power.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:13 pm

dumb-dumb wrote:

What are you babbling about?


You do have difficulty understanding plain English, don’t you. You’ll have to try harder. I don’t speak religionese.

To that end, I’ll give it to you again:

L: I’m not sure why you thought it useful to simply assert that “the aliyot cannot be considered imperialism” when my argument is that nationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war. (Spooky. Tower of Babel, anyone?)

Perhaps I was erroneous in assuming you had intended to contribute something substantial to that discussion?

b: I'm not interested in theories.


Yes, I know. You're only interested in religious dogma. And, I don’t give a flying fuck about that. So...?

I just want to see the facts represented here without bias.


Don't make me laugh! I suggest, if you are sincere, dumbledwarf, that you start doing so.

My bias, according to you, goes something like this:

I'm trying to head you off at the pass with your demonization of religion and any other Marxist platitudes you have up your sleeve.


The fact is, it is idiots like you who deal in things such as demons and angels. I’m simply likely to call irrational individuals retarded dickheads, or some such thing. I have no use for “demons,” “demonisation” or any other such terms like them. Haven’t you noticed? Thanks for detailing your bias, though. My, how you managed to hide it well! :)

If your argument is that the rise of nations and with it the rise of self-identification with the nation-state is the basis for nationalism, and that with it imperialism grows (English, Dutch, French, etc.) as foreign markets are established and trade routes fought for and defended, then we have no disagreement.


Man. Here it is, again:

L: [N]ationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.


b: Religion has little to do with modern imperialism…


Are you seriously positing this as a counter-argument? Note: use a dictionary—I said “nationalism serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism…”

Are you getting a clue, yet? Religion enters the argument here as a consequence not a cause of modern imperialism. Do you have any idea how insane your reply to me is???

…when you compare it to the spread of Islam in the first millennium, the crusades, and later the Ottoman expansion. And even then, Islamic expansion had little to do with Islam except as a unifying factor, the Muslims being far more tolerant of other "people of the book."


See above; really on-sequitir.

I'm trying to head you off at the pass with your demonization of religion and any other Marxist platitudes you have up your sleeve.


Oo-oo. Taking on the big, bad demon? Again, your bias is getting in the way of your reasoning ability. Ever wondered why you don’t understand what I write, despite the fact that it’s written clearly enough?

The rest is also irrelevant blather, serving only to justify your bias without even addressing the actual argument.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:47 am

Leyla wrote:Yes, I know. You're only interested in religious dogma. And, I don’t give a flying fuck about that. So...?

You're being stupid. Leyla. I couldn't be less interested in religious dogma of any kind. You keep bringing it up. You are obviously more interested in it than I am.

I am interested in the facts of history - not in Marxist slogans or interpretations, either. What gives you the mistaken impression I give two shits about dogma of any kind? Just stick to the facts.

The fact is, it is idiots like you who deal in things such as demons and angels. I’m simply likely to call irrational individuals retarded dickheads, or some such thing. I have no use for “demons,” “demonisation” or any other such terms like them. Haven’t you noticed? Thanks for detailing your bias, though. My, how you managed to hide it well! :)

You are a fucking retard. "Demonizing" is a perfectly good word. It says nothing about any supposed bias I have - because I have none. The term has nothing to do with demons or angels. You argue like an hysterical old woman. It is like hearing somebody say "Oh my god" and calling them religionist. You're being a moron.

I think your knowledge of this material is weak and you are resorting to calling names to cover that fact.

You are the biased one, are you not? You are of Turkish descent - and you clearly have antagonism for the Jews and for Christians. Don't worry, I am not expecting you to be tolerant. If you just stick to the facts and avoid ad hominem, we can have a discusssion.

Ad hominem against me will accomplish nothing except getting it back in return. You may have already noticed this.

Besides, you have no idea about my mind set. I am not Jewish and am against every established religion I have ever encountered. Just stick to the facts.

Are you seriously positing this as a counter-argument? Note: use a dictionary—I said “nationalism serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism…”

Are you getting a clue, yet? Religion enters the argument here as a consequence not a cause of modern imperialism. Do you have any idea how insane your reply to me is???


Religion does no such thing. Your misunderstanding of geopolitical events and modern history - really history of any kind - is glaring.

I am disagreeing with you because you are wrong. It's as simple as that. Do you thing for a second religion has anything to do with Zionism? Once again, for your tiny mind: Zionism is a manifestation of nationalism for a people without a nation. Tradition is what makes the Jews a people - a shared and exclusive tradition. In fact, a tradition of exclusivity and resistance to accepting cultural forces of the lands in which they migrated to, a resistance to being assimilated. Theirs is a dogged history of identifying with their own traditions, of which religion is only a part. Today's Arab-Israeli conflict has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the land and who is occupying that land, and how that land came to be occupied.

Leyla, do not attempt to pretend you even understand one tiny thing about the Jews and Jewish culture. You do not. It is your bias that is marring this discourse. My bias is simply for historical accuracy. Other than that, I have none. Do yourself a favor: participate in this thread with some dispassion and some objectivity. You may find that you do not have all the answers, and you just may find yourself learning something.

Oo-oo. Taking on the big, bad demon? Again, your bias is getting in the way of your reasoning ability. Ever wondered why you don’t understand what I write, despite the fact that it’s written clearly enough?

The rest is also irrelevant blather, serving only to justify your bias without even addressing the actual argument.


See above.

Instead of hurling accusations, give me an example of where I am biased.

I have trouble understanding what you write sometimes because you often make what you think are points but are simple pronouncements that do not follow from anything. Your writing is clear - what you write often is not.

For instance, this entire post of yours has said nothing. It is in response to something I have written that contributes some historical background for the topic of this thread. In it, you merely quote parts of it and say it demonstrates my bias. It does no such thing because I am not biased. I am bringing some of what I have learned through some research - unless my sources are biased, what I have written here cannot be. I am not making anything up.

So please try to elevate the level of your discourse.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Alex Jacob » Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:50 am

[Weisenheimer, in a true non-partisan spirit, has been and will continue to pray for you, Mad Turk; sometimes whispering, sometimes begging, sometimes blackmailing God into granting His mercy unto you. As a sign of good-will and spiritual docility suitable the female of the species, it would be helpful if you would offer him, say, a few pounds of those GiAnT pistachio nuts one gets on the street in Istanbul, you know, the ones that are about an inch and a half long...]

Carry on...
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:00 am

Weisenheimer wrote:[Weisenheimer, in a true non-partisan spirit, has been and will continue to pray for you, Mad Turk; sometimes whispering, sometimes begging, sometimes blackmailing God into granting His mercy unto you. As a sign of good-will and spiritual docility suitable the female of the species, it would be helpful if you would offer him, say, a few pounds of those GiAnT pistachio nuts one gets on the street in Istanbul, you know, the ones that are about an inch and a half long...]

Carry on...

A few pounds?! Weisenheimer, you'll never be able to get off your perch.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:42 am

Oh, brother. Here we go. If this is what happens to you over a single sentence, I’d hate to think what your mind is like after a whole book.

You’re lucky I’m giving you even a second of my thinking space. But, as you can see, your time is running out. Your kind of mediocrity is anathema to me and is not at all interested in anything other than the preservation of that mediocrity.

The fact is, my argument is a VERY simple one. Your bias, however, compels you to complicate it beyond belief and has nothing to do with facts. Your accusations notwithstanding, I have provided more facts on this thread than you are capable of considering as a whole.

Try, one more time, to assimilate the simplicity of it.

[N]ationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.


Let me give you, oh, just a random example of how this is so.

“Iran”:

The roughly 1,200 mile range of Iran's Shahab-3 rocket has been known for several years, but the test firing -- and pointed statements from Tehran about the country's "capability in hitting its enemies" -- added to a tense climate.

Jon Wolfsthal, senior fellow in the International Security Program at the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), said in an interview with washingtonpost.com that while the test is likely a response to recent war games by Israel, reportedly to simulate an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, the test is also likely meant to remind states in the region and the United States that Iran has the ability to respond to any perceive military threat. How the United States, European countries and Russia respond to the continued tensions in the region will determine whether the situation improves or deteriorates further.


Where, in anyone’s terms and by any stretch of the imagination, is the catalyst for this LAND, as you insist? You cannot just ignore the fact that it is people making decisions about the land, territory, etc., and expect to be taken seriously!

You should be ashamed of your ignorant self.

Do you thing for a second religion has anything to do with Zionism?


Yes, dickhead—it is the “UNIFYING factor.”

…I am not biased.


Oh, yes you are.

Oh, wait. Another random example? I have an even more recent one:

You are the biased one, are you not? You are of Turkish descent - and you clearly have antagonism for the Jews and for Christians.


Careful, it’s subtle. Takes a fine mind to see it. :)

I am bringing some of what I have learned through some research - unless my sources are biased, what I have written here cannot be.


You don’t know if your sources are biased? What are your sources, and their nature?

I am not making anything up.


Liar!

Leyla, do not attempt to pretend you even understand one tiny thing about the Jews and Jewish culture. You do not.


Do stop accusing me of your own shortcomings. If your argument is that the distinction between religion and tradition is such that my argument fails, it is up to YOU to provide THAT argument. So, where have you demonstrated your understanding about the Jews and Jewish culture to this end? Oh, that’s right, you haven’t. Why?

So please try to elevate the level of your discourse.


When you elevate the level and integrity of your thinking, you might just find the discourse "magically" elevates along with it.

I have no intention of pandering to your emotional needs, stupid.

My bias is simply for historical accuracy. Other than that, I have none.


Wow, your insane confusion, prejudice and emotionalism know no bounds. What a fucking joke! Since you are so concerned for historical accuracy, would you care, stupid, to point out exactly where I have been "historically inaccurate"?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:44 am

brokenhead wrote:
Weisenheimer wrote:[Weisenheimer, in a true non-partisan spirit, has been and will continue to pray for you, Mad Turk; sometimes whispering, sometimes begging, sometimes blackmailing God into granting His mercy unto you. As a sign of good-will and spiritual docility suitable the female of the species, it would be helpful if you would offer him, say, a few pounds of those GiAnT pistachio nuts one gets on the street in Istanbul, you know, the ones that are about an inch and a half long...]

Carry on...

A few pounds?! Weisenheimer, you'll never be able to get off your perch.


Suck.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:02 am

Leyla wrote:You’re lucky I’m giving you even a second of my thinking space. But, as you can see, your time is running out. Your kind of mediocrity is anathema to me and is not at all interested in anything other than the preservation of that mediocrity.

I know I'm lucky. Your thinking space is clearly in short supply.

[N]ationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.


Let me give you, oh, just a random example of how this is so.

The roughly 1,200 mile range of Iran's Shahab-3 rocket has been known for several years, but the test firing -- and pointed statements from Tehran about the country's "capability in hitting its enemies" -- added to a tense climate.

Jon Wolfsthal, senior fellow in the International Security Program at the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), said in an interview with washingtonpost.com that while the test is likely a response to recent war games by Israel, reportedly to simulate an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, the test is also likely meant to remind states in the region and the United States that Iran has the ability to respond to any perceive military threat. How the United States, European countries and Russia respond to the continued tensions in the region will determine whether the situation improves or deteriorates further.


What is your point? I beg you to make one. I'll pay you to make one.

May I hazard a guess as to what your point might be? The Jews are the problem because their religion is different from the religion of the surrounding poeples. Is that your point?

Leyla - you come across as being accusatory. The tone of this entire thread is "where should we lay the blame for the tensions in the Middle East." You created the thread - you are the one pointing fingers. I am merely making sure that the finger points to the truth.

Where, in anyone’s terms and by any stretch of the imagination, is the catalyst for this LAND, as you insist? You cannot just ignore the fact that it is people making decisions about the land, territory, etc., and expect to be taken seriously!


I simply don't know what you are talking about, Leyla. "Where is the catalyst for this land?" This question makes no sense whatsoever:

catalyst - noun: something that causes an important event to happen

Land is not and cannot be an important event.

Where do you get from anything that I have written in this thread that I am ignoring people and the decisions they mad concerning Palestine?

Forgive me, but is English not your native language? It would explain a lot.

I am forced to take back what I said about you to Shahrazad: You do not write clearly enough. Heaping contempt upon those with whom you carry on a discourse does not aid you in advancing your point of view. Name-calling (dickhead, stupid, idiot...) should be beneath you. Don't you agree?

Do stop accusing me of your own shortcomings. If your argument is that the distinction between religion and tradition is such that my argument fails, it is up to YOU to provide THAT argument. So, where have you demonstrated your understanding about the Jews and Jewish culture to this end? Oh, that’s right, you haven’t. Why?


You have not stated an argument.
Wow, your insane confusion, prejudice and emotionalism know no bounds. What a fucking joke! Since you are so concerned for historical accuracy, would you care, stupid, to point out exactly where I have been "historically inaccurate"?

Calm down. Let's try to be civil. I have not accused you of being historically inaccurate. I have accused you of being biased. If you are of Turkish descent, then it is rational for me to conclude that you may not be objective in this thread. Objectivity is what I am aiming for. If we both do that, perhaps we will both learn something.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:49 am

This is what I get for engaging a mad man.

What is your point? I beg you to make one. I'll pay you to make one.


And 10 times MORE for each time I am forced to repeat it due to your ignorance:

[N]ationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.


~

L: May I hazard a guess as to what your point might be? The Jews are the problem because their religion is different from the religion of the surrounding poeples. Is that your point?


Unbelievable. How does that follow from what I have said?

[N]ationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.


~

Leyla - you come across as being accusatory.


Yes, to the insane—since that is whom I am accusing.

The tone of this entire thread is "where should we lay the blame for the tensions in the Middle East." You created the thread - you are the one pointing fingers. I am merely making sure that the finger points to the truth.


No, you’re full of shit, and you simply refuse to examine the role of religion and religious belief in current and human affairs.

I simply don't know what you are talking about, Leyla.


Well, I am sorry that you cannot actually think, but I am not responsible for it.

"Where is the catalyst for this land?" This question makes no sense whatsoever:


You introduced the idea:

b: You state that nationalism "deftly places" religion as the catalyst for war. It does no such thing. Material wealth and the annexation of land which gives rise to [nationalism] and sustains it is the catalyst for war.


Hello? Again, how does this even follow as a counterargument to:

[N]ationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.


It doesn’t.

You have not stated an argument.


Yes, I have. You're just trying to turn it into something it isn't. Why???

Calm down. Let's try to be civil.


Fuck off.

I have not accused you of being historically inaccurate.


You have. The thing is, because you actually don't know what you're talking about, you can’t come out and say it openly.

Do you know what the word “implied” means?

Nevertheless, I'll attempt to explain: you stated that your only bias was historical accuracy. If that is the case, then you should be able to show how my argument fails on the basis of that bias—that is, how it fails in historical accuracy. You know, logically, that’s what would make your claim to that particular bias coherent.

I have accused you of being biased. If you are of Turkish descent, then it is rational for me to conclude that you may not be objective in this thread.


Rational? Do you think this position objective?

Objectivity is what I am aiming for. If we both do that, perhaps we will both learn something.


No. You are the one who needs to do it. When you are ready, you can address my argument, objectively:

[N]ationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:47 am

No, you’re full of shit, and you simply refuse to examine the role of religion and religious belief in current and human affairs.


Nonsense.

What is your academic background, if I may ask?

Where do you get your information?

The only thing I know about you is that you are opinionated. I am attempting to grasp your opinions.

Any help towards that end would be appreciated.

I am willing to take you seriously. And please refrain from name calling. It makes both of us look stupid.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:14 pm

You couldn’t get more desperate. Though, who knows, you might just surprise me!

All my sources (mostly historical documents) are clearly cited and readily available for examination. I made a deliberate point of it.

So, here’s my argument, again:

[N]ationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.


Deal with it directly and coherently—that is, without recourse to logical fallacies every step of the way—or concede, and shut the fuck up.

The only thing I know about you is that you are opinionated. I am attempting to grasp your opinions.

Any help towards that end would be appreciated.


Spare me the bullshit. This exchange is clear evidence that you cannot appreciate all that I have done already in this regard. Thus, I don’t waste much time on people who don’t help themselves.

Why would I?

You should realise that ad hominem isn’t actually defined as "calling someone names." Thus, calling names is not what makes one stupid—his arguments, or lack thereof, do. Therefore, and since I am not in the business of sex or politics, I don’t really care how I look to anyone. Nor do I care for anyone whose only capacity for discernment is looks. You, however, are another matter altogether. I suggest that it is important for you to maintain your looks, brokenhead. Like a woman, they’re just about the only thing you might have going for you.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:11 am

Spare me the bullshit. This exchange is clear evidence that you cannot appreciate all that I have done already in this regard.

You are massively unimpressive.

[N]ationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.

Deal with it directly and coherently—that is, without recourse to logical fallacies every step of the way—or concede, and shut the fuck up.

I know you fancy yourself some kind of intellectual. You will excuse me if I have my reservations about that. Repeating the same line over and over again betrays the fact that you do not have much to say.

I haven't resorted to any fallacies, despite what you say. There's nothing to concede, because you haven't said anything yet, so I can't do that. And I'm not about to shut the fuck up, no matter how much you try to charm me.

BTW - where did you go to finishing school? On a pirate ship?

You should realise that ad hominem isn’t actually defined as "calling someone names."

Don't lecture me. I know perfectly well what ad hominem is. The point is that you indulge in name calling and it doesn't impress me. It makes you sound ignorant. But then again, perhaps I have been too quick in presuming you are not ignorant.

Therefore, and since I am not in the business of sex or politics, I don’t really care how I look to anyone. Nor do I care for anyone whose only capacity for discernment is looks. You, however, are another matter altogether. I suggest that it is important for you to maintain your looks, brokenhead. Like a woman, they’re just about the only thing you might have going for you.


Apparently English is not your first language. I noticed you didn't answer me when I politely inquired if it was. If it were, you would understand my use of the word "look" when I said your use of profanity and name-calling makes us look bad. It has nothing to do with physical appearance. And besides - I was only being polite, since when you resort to such lowbrow language, it really only reflects on yourself - not on me.

I also inquired as to your academic background. Instead of replying, you let loose with yet another verbal assault on my person, which leads me to believe you do not have any academic background. That's fine, as long as you are rational.

However, you are not rational. The slightest hint that someone might be disagreeing with you sets you off. I had hopes for this thread. I had hoped that it would not turn into another Leyla Shen experience.

So back to that sentence you proudly keep repeating:
Nationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war.

What exactly are you referring to? The Crimean War? WWI? The Six-Day War? Surely you cannot mean all war is "catalyzed" by religion. I can only guess at your meaning. If you will not clarify it, I can only conclude that you really do not have a meaning, you simply like the way the assertion sounds.

The only thing that is evident to me is that you have emotional disdain. And it's not even clear what it is that you are so contemptuous of. Religion in general? Jews? It can't be me - you do not know me. You have difficulty expressing yourself, and in your frustration, you become arrogant, aggressive, and abusive.

All I ask - once again - is that we behave ourselves like mature individuals and explain our viewpoints in a rational and non-acerbic manner.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:04 pm

AN IMPROMPTU BUT NECESSARY FACT-FINDING COMMISSION

Diebert wrote:

In general I think the idea of some mythical or real historical homeland is crucial to most forms of nationalism; it could be called its main religious icon. In case of Israel it happens to be as well the main theme of Judaism although in my view the approach is radically different, depending on which fundamentalist one speaks.


Leyla replied:

But this is only operative in the absence of or after the civil state has failed. Ethnic partition (in the form of the constant creation of nation-states based on the inherent traits of “a people”) is doomed to fail since it so obviously does nothing but establish the ultimate inter-ethnic catalyst for war—religion. […]

One might venture to argue that, for example, the cause of all conflicts today is Islamic fundamentalism fostered by radical Islamic states. Such a one, however, is utterly and sometimes even willfully ignorant of history and how and why those particular nation-states came about and the fundamentals upon which they were created. […]

Nationalism, like any other revolutionary movement, can only arise precisely in the absence, or in opposition to the interests, of a prevailing civil state—a prevailing “ruling class,” whomever they may be and in whatever form. […]


brokenhead ignorantly (and in the most literal sense of the word) and, as utter non-sequitir as is possible, ventured:

Which is precisely why the aliyot cannot be considered imperialism. The emigration of Jews to Palestine is a result of a search for a place to consider a homeland from places where persecution was very real and attempts at assimilation by the ruling classes were unsuccessful. Imperialism suggests a spreading of a nation by force to less developed areas to establish markets and protect trade routes.


To which I replied:

I’m not sure why you thought it useful to simply assert that “the aliyot cannot be considered imperialism” when my argument is that nationalism itself serves as a political divide-and-conquer mechanism for (modern) imperialism and further that, thus, it deftly places religion as the catalyst for war. (Spooky. Tower of Babel, anyone?)


I then later added in further reply to Diebert:

This is not a matter of “just happening to be” the “main theme” of Judaism. It is both the central “theme” of Judaism AND Israel. Therefore, countries with stable borders are in significant proportion all countries whose naturalization and citizenship laws support the country (territory) itself as one of immigration, rather than emigration as in the case of Israel and the impetus for "the greater historic" Armenia as well as the Kurdish state.


And dumb-dumb says, amongst other ad hominem and various all-and-sundry logical fallacies, to all this:

What exactly are you referring to?

The only thing that is evident to me is that you have emotional disdain. And it's not even clear what it is that you are so contemptuous of. Religion in general? Jews? It can't be me - you do not know me. You have difficulty expressing yourself, and in your frustration, you become arrogant, aggressive, and abusive.


The evidence is clear proof of your own ignorance, brokenhead. Take it like a man.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:07 pm

PS: by the way, you're wrong on another matter, as well—I definitely hold you in contempt for your sheer lack of honesty and thinking ability.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby brokenhead » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:41 am

Leyla Shen wrote:PS: by the way, you're wrong on another matter, as well—I definitely hold you in contempt for your sheer lack of honesty and thinking ability.

= I don't agree with you.

You are a joke.
brokenhead
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

PreviousNext

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest

cron