Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert exclaims:

"Meaning that the Palestinians had to agree not to exist in a similar way as Israel decided to exist. If only Israel dared to phrase it like that! It would clear up so much."

Despite the temptation, it long ago became apparent that psychoanalysis over the Internet rarely results in productive analysis, nevertheless I am tempted to question you, to interrogate your position, you and also many people who hold to views such as yours, the Left, liberal Europe and America.

You are not able to consider the security issue Israel faces and has faced since the inception, and you cannot understand this in the broader context of Jewish history, still so fresh. You cannot and will not take into consideration, and really, really internalize and allow such an understanding to become part of your thinking, that there are people and groups who would certainly do great harm to Jews in Israel if they had the chance. You cannot and you will not allow this to become operative knowledge, and a part of the knowledge with which you make analytical choices. Like others here, you work (like rodents really) to undermine the entire structure of 'Jewish identity', so that it doesn't and logically cannot exist. You proceed straight through all the 'pillars', if you will, by which Jews understand themselves, define themselves, explain and of course defend themselves (I won't name them all here since you certainly know them by heart).

When you're done, what you have left is an insubstantial wisp, a non-thing thing, that you identify as a problem, and with which you can do what you want.

When you arrive at that point, which is an intellectual de Sadism, then you present all your facts for consideration in front of 'reasonable people', those darling pacifists who 'wouldn't hurt a fly', and set up bleachers for your grand 'democratic revival meeting' where Israel's fate is decided, where the righteous, the highpriests of PC, pass their judgments and decide what should and should not be. But no one among them, as I have seen, ever takes into account the core security issue, unreal for you, but ever-real for us.

Does anyone out there that you know of want to annihilate the Dutch from the face of the planet, Diebert? Is there ANY people you can name right now about whom people regularly say, with no apparent shame, that Hitler should have been allowed to complete his noble work, etc., etc? I could dig up in 10 seconds from all over the web endless reams of ourtightly violent declarations that express an existent, living hatred of Jews (Israelis, 'Zionists') and the expressed wish that they suffer attack, death and all the rest.

IF you were to start from a genuine base, when all the facts are placed on the table, an understanding of the Israeli situation becomes something very different than what you present, as you have sorted through the facts and presented only what you want. I certainly would never say that this renders the problem simple, as it is not simple, and there are so many different issues all grouped together (the 'clash of civilizations' and ideas, etc.) When 'reasonable people' deal with the full facts they generally conclude that Israel has a defensible position and they too defend Israel. I don't think that should mean excuse Israel without exception (Israelis do not 'excuse Israel'), but at the very least they seem to grasp what Israel is up against.

So, it seems to me that in answer to your statement above, Israel will certainly not allow the construction of a bellicose Palestinian state. One can only hope for the day when the Palestinians will make the decision to work within a peaceful context, to construct peace and prosperity, and that the whole region does this.
_________________________________________________________

What do you think of the New Tribal Review?

A couple of things I came across that might interest you:

A video you may find interesting
Muslim_Bridges

[Diebert van Rhijn]

IF you were to start from a genuine base, when all the facts are placed on the table, an understanding of the Israeli situation becomes something very different than what you present, as you have sorted through the facts and presented only what you want.

Sure, that's where Lila's thread was for, to try to get facts on Palestine presented in a more complete fashion. To add to this topic the whole international history of the Jews and their psychology and fears which are surely relevant to understand the Zionist dreams and justifications, might become a bit too much of a swamp. Perhaps a convenient swamp to drown all discourse in. Which is what is actually being implied by so many pro-Zionists, that somehow the stage of dialog is over, that by not acknowledging one specific narrative, the discussion is over and violence against a whole population is now justified somehow.

Although on the other hand, by the looks of it, we're already including in this discussion Marxist analysis of capitalism and my view on fascist mechanics. But I think I've said enough for now on the matter of Israel and Zionism.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert writes:

"Sure, that's where Lila's thread was for, to try to get facts on Palestine presented in a more complete fashion."

Ha ha. That is almost funny! Leyla (you did mean Leyla, right?) is constitutionally incapable of what you and I would call 'rational thought'. Every argument she engages in she utterly loses and you know it, yet never recognizes or accepts that she had been decimated. She could never be trusted to assemble 'objective facts' on the issue---any issue I would guess---but neither could Dan, or Faust, or any other of the grand, cold, rational thinkers who have barfed-up opinions on this forum about Jews, Zionism, Israel. What one gets here is:

Nothing more and nothing less than the standard arguments, the standard group of lies and distortions that if allowed to function as praxis could do tremendous harm to Israel. This one, basic, elemental and simple fact is one that you will not allow to enter into your thought processes.

I think you should make a trip to Israel one of these days, if you haven't yet. Myself, I have never been but as a result of the discussion on this forum I have thought it might be necessary, to see things with my own eyes. Another result of exposure to the nut-case ideas some of the losers here express about Israel is that I have increased my donations to Israeli groups. The clear anti-semitism, the visceral contempt combined with willful ignorance of Jewish-Israeli issues, has demonstrated to me that these destructive narratives are still completely alive, and that in truth those who 'wouldn't hurt a fly' ... 'wait for this bully to fall asleep'.

On the other hand, I do right now have faith, a sense of positive things on the horizon, and admit that I think the Obama presidency may well have a productive influence. Any stance of violence against Israel must end.

And by the way I have looked at all the information you have presented over the course of this long discussion. You have helped me to appreciate more the complex nature of this issue, and for that I am appreciative.

Am Israel Chai

[vicdan]

Am Israel Chai

Indeed. Yeah after year, century after century, era after era -- Am Israel Chai!

Le Chaim, chaverim (and even the not-quite-chaverim).

You should really visit Israel. You won't be sorry.

[Dan Rowden]

No wonder people have historically wanted to kill Jews. They really are profoundly pathetic. Every time Alex posts I feel like I need to take a shower.

[guest_of_logic]

No wonder people have historically wanted to kill Jews.

Hmm, don't you think that you might have gone a little too far there? Even as a joke it's not at all funny.

It's ironic that in that post you criticise Alex ("Every time Alex posts I feel like I need to take a shower") whilst simultaneously providing evidence for one of his contentions: that the pro-Palestinian posters here are motivated by anti-Semitism. I'm not saying that his contention is correct, just that you're helping to make it look that way.

By the way, I haven't picked a side in this conflict, because I just don't know enough about it, and there seems to be so much to know, although historically I've read/seen more pro-Palestinian arguments than pro-Isreali arguments: this thread has been fascinating to me because it has shown both sides of the issue. I tend to agree with Katy, who used to post to this forum, and who a little while ago set her Facebook status to "Katy thinks anyone who blames Israel or Palestine exclusively is simple-minded", although I wouldn't have used "simple-minded" myself - I'd probably have chosen "excessively biased" or something like that.

[Dan Rowden]

No wonder people have historically wanted to kill Jews.

Hmm, don't you think that you might have gone a little too far there? Even as a joke it's not at all funny.

I'm not really joking, though I'm not really serious either.

It's ironic that in that post you criticise Alex ("Every time Alex posts I feel like I need to take a shower") whilst simultaneously providing evidence for one of his contentions: that the pro-Palestinian posters here are motivated by anti-Semitism. I'm not saying that his contention is correct, just that you're helping to make it look that way.

The whole "anti-Semitism" paradigm is itself utterly pathetic. Anyone who uses that rhetoric as a debate device is a person of no moral and intellectual character. You may have noticed by now that to do as little as disagree with the standard Zionist line of argument is to be anti-Semitic.

By the way, I haven't picked a side in this conflict, because I just don't know enough about it,

There's no "side" to pick other than the side of reason.

and there seems to be so much to know, although historically I've read/seen more pro-Palestinian arguments than pro-Isreali arguments: this thread has been fascinating to me because it has shown both sides of the issue.

Israel has illegally occupied multiple territories and treated the inhabitants on those territories like animals. It has illegally pursued an expansionist program in those same territories. Certain groups within those territories have decided to fight back. I don't find that surprising or particularly morally offensive. Israel has a natural right to defend itself against this behaviour, but it does not have a right to do so in the manner that it always does. The way it ought to respond conflicts with its own agenda, which is the real problem.

I tend to agree with Katy, who used to post to this forum, and who a little while ago set her Facebook status to "Katy thinks anyone who blames Israel or Palestine exclusively is simple-minded", although I wouldn't have used "simple-minded" myself - I'd probably have chosen "excessively biased" or something like that.

Yes, she's essentially right. There's stupidity all round, no doubt of that. However, Israel has it in its power to put an end to it. But what would be required for that to happen simply isn't on its agenda. Thus, the idiocy will go on and on and on.

[vicdan]

The whole "anti-Semitism" paradigm is itself utterly pathetic. Anyone who uses that rhetoric as a debate device is a person of no moral and intellectual character. You may have noticed by now that to do as little as disagree with the standard Zionist line of argument is to be anti-Semitic.

You may have noticed that this, ahem, false.

Intellectually bankrupt losers like you, Dan, like to play victims of the evil zionists by claiming that the said evil zionists are trying to stifle reasonable discourse by labeling any deviation from the zionist line as anti-semitism.

Of course no evidence of that is ever given. I do wonder why...

Also, i have criticized the settlements and the Lebanon war, and for some mysterious reason nobody called me an anti-semite. It must have been pure luck.

You are an idiot, Dan. A dishonest idiot.

Israel has illegally occupied multiple territories and treated the inhabitants on those territories like animals. It has illegally pursued an expansionist program in those same territories. Certain groups within those territories have decided to fight back. I don't find that surprising or particularly morally offensive. Israel has a natural right to defend itself against this behaviour, but it does not have a right to do so in the manner that it always does.

meaning, Hamas deliberately targeting civilians is perfectly OK, but Israel trying to minimize civilian casualties is still too cruel. Gotcha.

However, Israel has it in its power to put an end to it.

Oh? How can Israel put an end to Hamas attacks, given that Hamas is constitutionally dedicated to the eradication of Israel? Do enlighten me.

[Dan Rowden]

The whole "anti-Semitism" paradigm is itself utterly pathetic. Anyone who uses that rhetoric as a debate device is a person of no moral and intellectual character. You may have noticed by now that to do as little as disagree with the standard Zionist line of argument is to be anti-Semitic.

You may have noticed that this, ahem, false.

Not in my experience. And I wasn't referring to you, as it happens. Interesting that you took it to heart. Must the Jew-Borg thing.

Intellectually bankrupt losers like you, Dan, like to play victims of the evil zionists by claiming that the said evil zionists are trying to stifle reasonable discourse by labeling any deviation from the zionist line as anti-semitism.

I've come across that attitude time and time again. Alex displays it almost pathologically. They very fact that the term is employed is these sorts of discussions proves my point.

Also, i have criticized the settlements and the Lebanon war, and for some mysterious reason nobody called me an anti-semite. It must have been pure luck.

That's because you're an Israeli flag waving Jew, duh. You're allowed to get away with anything. You have a special Pass. Hell, you could probably even get away with criticising Halacha. Well, in some circles anyway.

You are an idiot, Dan. A dishonest idiot.

It's a skill I learned under the tutelage of the genius, Yitzhak Ginsburgh.

Israel has illegally occupied multiple territories and treated the inhabitants on those territories like animals. It has illegally pursued an expansionist program in those same territories. Certain groups within those territories have decided to fight back. I don't find that surprising or particularly morally offensive. Israel has a natural right to defend itself against this behaviour, but it does not have a right to do so in the manner that it always does.

meaning, Hamas deliberately targeting civilians is perfectly OK, but Israel trying to minimize civilian casualties is still too cruel. Gotcha.

Oh, boo fuckin' hoo. You know damned well the chances of an Israeli being killed or injured by a Hamas rocket is about the same as them getting kicked in the nuts by a rabid camel. If you think that's comparable to the daily oppression of people in the territories, you're a comedian all out of jokes.

However, Israel has it in its power to put an end to it.

Oh? How can Israel put an end to Hamas attacks, given that Hamas is constitutionally dedicated to the eradication of Israel? Do enlighten me.

Hamas is not the issue, but you and every other pro-Israeli propagandist wants to make that the issue. I'm not buying it. I'm not that easily distracted. Hamas is only able to ply its trade because it has a measure of popular support. It has that support because a) it does a lot for the people of Gaza; b) it is able to capture the imagination of that populace by being - or seeming to be - the only group inside or outside the middle-east that gives a fuck about the people and who will do something for them - anything. If Israel were to cease their occupations and their blockades and general oppression, Hamas would instantly lose their pathos. i.e. Gazans would suddenly have something to lose and would no doubt oppose Hamas' militarist activities. The rhetoric of their charter wouldn't mean jack shit in the face of that.

And let's not forget that such rhetoric is meaningless given the complete and utter incapacity Hamas - or any other such group - has to achieve its stated goals.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Am Israel Chai

Indeed. Yeah after year, century after century, era after era -- Am Israel Chai!

Smells fundamentally reactionary to me, the whole phrase. No wonder.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

meaning, Hamas deliberately targeting civilians is perfectly OK, but Israel trying to minimize civilian casualties is still too cruel. Gotcha.

Over the last eight years the ratio is about 10 Palestinian civilians against 1 Israeli civilian, although last month it seems Israel tries to add a zero to that ratio for the coming years [100:1]. Not even counting the many militants that were killed just because of their alliance or operating smuggling networks or humanitarian relief [Hamas operates mostly in a political and social context] and not because they actually participated in direct armed hostilities toward Israel.

But when talking about cruelty it should be noted that Israel has achieved Dr. Mengele proportions with: DIME flesh melting weapons, intentially used "bone eating" phosphorus on population, claims of shooting women and children holding white flags and other unacceptable war crimes

To even suggest there's some appropriate response taking place against war crimes of Palestinian militias is to be severely disconnected with the world at large. Living in a fantasy land of ideology and imagined moral high ground. It doesn't exist. Typical closet fascist mythology. Grow up!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It seemed like a bad idea because it might go in a personal subjective direction

As opposed to simply calling me a fascist.

While I was describing to me rather obvious fascist tendencies in Zionism and current Israeli policies, it was you associating the idea of a kissed and transformed geek-frog with this very dynamic while describing yourself as formally being such geek. This romanticizing, this fascination led me to the term 'closet fascist' as a probably accurate description of, well, what you keep in your closet!

1) I am not interested in strength or power. i am interested in wholeness, of which strength and power are aspects.

Of course. It's this organic wholeness-balance-synergy where the roots of any real and sustained strength lies. And initially we all develop interest and fascination with the usage of this power. But with fascist psychology something else happens: the mindset of a suppressed, subjugated little man begins to crave strength, it assumes the strength of his former bullies [and what they represent: a natural order] but it becomes distorted, enlarged and over-blown. The victim taking on the role of abuser with a vengeance and quite often: in hidden ways. For the simple reason the outside world will not allow otherwise and there's not the strength present to actually overcome this limit. Unless one lifts on the coat tails of other more powerful ideologies like nationalism, communism, militarism and even scientific materialism. Here their perversion is about to start.

2) My drive and control are directed inwards. As it happens, this topic tangentially came up at my friend's blog

Your stressing that you do not desire to control anyone, even are abhorred by the idea, is suspect in itself. As at the same time you seem to believe in some synergistic web where nothing stands or acts alone and equilibria of power seeking agents are established. From this perspective you're continuously exerting power over others or being dominated and manipulated.

A fascist is only different in this regard that its energy is mostly directed against false threats, the very things that are not the real cause of his awkward position and power is thus always projected in an irrational, myth-based über-authoritative fashion that keeps breaking down under any scrutiny. While fascism is short-lived by definition when its corruption is fully exercised, the carnage and deterioration that happens in its wake is real enough.

[Alex Jacob]

Dan writes:

"The whole "anti-Semitism" paradigm is itself utterly pathetic. Anyone who uses that rhetoric as a debate device is a person of no moral and intellectual character. You may have noticed by now that to do as little as disagree with the standard Zionist line of argument is to be anti-Semitic."

As you know, I don't consider you the brightest bulb in the hallway, yet when I was told that, on your own initiative, through application of intelligence, you had removed the panel under your keyboard so that the drool could flow through, I knew at that point I'd have to reassess all my opinions of you.

Even with this issue, as with so much that connects to Jewish issues and of course Israel, one has to really keep one's wits about one and to very carefully sort through things, including, of course, the abuse of the term 'anti-Semite'.

However, it is also quite plain, or should be quite plain, that no 'objective' ('reasonable' as you---*laughs*---say) conversation about Jews and Jewish history in Europe, and all events precipitating 1948, could be undertaken without a genuine understanding of what this term means.

What is illustrative here, I think, is that in respect to Israel I am in no sense taking an extremist position, nor have I said anything that challenges or refutes, say, charges of 'excessive brutality' (in some instances), or other activities that point to 'Israeli complicity', possible 'wrong-doing' (in certain instances), etc. What I have said is that all of this, and a wide and open conversation, is found within the social discourse of Israel, and of course in any edition of Ha'aretz.

What I do say, and with no reservation, is that any narrative that denies the core security issue of Israel, that cannot take it into account, and that undermines the core right of Israel to exist as a state and to protect itself, is a narrative that I resist, and that must be resisted with counter-arguments. If the argument conduces to harm of Israel, to 'wiping Israel off the map', then, really, there is no conversation possible. No one of you would engage in a conversation with an enemy that proposed such a thing.

Also, what I say is that if those 'on the outside' (whole armies of opinion-moulders and wielders!) would stop supporting the kinds of narratives that have this end in view (harm to Israel, dismantling of Israel, or 'wiping Israel off the map'), and support those narratives and those groups who want to work to establish a durable base for peace and prosperity for the whole region, that road would open. As long as you do not, you are essentially supporting overt enemies of Israel who have declared their purpose and whose 'rhetoric' is in no sense empty or for show (as Diebert suggests).

I think it is a pretty reasonable position.

This forum is filled with people who are deeply confused and conflicted about Jews and it extends to Israel. There is no doubt, and any intelligent reader can see it plainly, that 'Jew' is a very deeply problematic and psychologically loaded term for many here. I suggest that it is in this murky domain, this shadowy region (of our own psyches) where we run into that psychic energy that gives life to Jew-hatred, and of course is what informs 'anti-Semitism'.

I am doing truth-seekers a favor by pointing this out, because at some point in your future you'll have to deal with it. Those who see, see.

[guest_of_logic]

What I do say, and with no reservation, is that any narrative that [...] undermines the core right of Israel to exist as a state and to protect itself, is a narrative that I resist, and that must be resisted with counter-arguments.

When you say that, do you mean Israel as a state that is majority-Jewish both in the composition of its population and government, or do you allow for the possibility of the existence of a state of Israel in which Jews are not the majority of the population and/or of the government?

[vicdan]

Not in my experience. And I wasn't referring to you, as it happens. Interesting that you took it to heart. Must the Jew-Borg thing.

No, must be the "I had countless other losers accuse me of this" thing -- IIRC, you were among them in the past.

I've come across that attitude time and time again. Alex displays it almost pathologically.

OK, show me some instances where he accused you of zionism for labeling reasonable criticism of Israel (i.e. one which doesn't attack jews as a whole, doesn't deny israel's right to exist, doesn't exhibit prejudice against jews, etc.) as anti-semitic.

They very fact that the term is employed is these sorts of discussions proves my point.

Ahem, no. The term is employed because actual true-blue undeniable anti-semites, the not-at-all-borderline anti-semites, like Leyla or Faust, are abundant.

meaning, Hamas deliberately targeting civilians is perfectly OK, but Israel trying to minimize civilian casualties is still too cruel. Gotcha.

Oh, boo fuckin' hoo. You know damned well the chances of an Israeli being killed or injured by a Hamas rocket is about the same as them getting kicked in the nuts by a rabid camel. If you think that's comparable to the daily oppression of people in the territories, you're a comedian all out of jokes.

Ah, so it's not the methods you take issue with, despite your overt claim, but the results. Whatever achieves your point,eh?

So much for self-defense. It sounds like you would only consider Israel retaliation legitimate if they wait until enough Israelis are dead. Quite convenient for someone who doesn't have rockets flying at his house, who doesn't have to fear being bombed in a cafe.

As Patton had said, "Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by making the other bastard die for his". Your position is hypocritical bloviation.

Hamas is not the issue

Rockets flying into israel are an issue. Suicide bombings are an issue. Until these things cease, there will be no peace there -- and the fact that you wave these very real issues away, simply speaks about your bias on the matter.

but you and every other pro-Israeli propagandist wants to make that the issue. I'm not buying it. I'm not that easily distracted. Hamas is only able to ply its trade because it has a measure of popular support. It has that support because a) it does a lot for the people of Gaza; b) it is able to capture the imagination of that populace by being - or seeming to be - the only group inside or outside the middle-east that gives a fuck about the people and who will do something for them - anything. If Israel were to cease their occupations and their blockades and general oppression, Hamas would instantly lose their pathos. i.e. Gazans would suddenly have something to lose and would no doubt oppose Hamas' militarist activities. The rhetoric of their charter wouldn't mean jack shit in the face of that.

Riiight. So Israel should simply sit back and hope that Hamas loses its popular support.

Dan, a significant segment of palestinian population are outright fundamentally anti-semitic, and will be satisfied with nothing less than Israel being destroyed. Even if Hamas retains support of only 10 or 20 percent of palestinians, this will be plenty enough for it to continue carrying out its attacks.

And let's not forget that such rhetoric is meaningless given the complete and utter incapacity Hamas - or any other such group - has to achieve its stated goals.

It's not just rhetoric. it's attacks which have results -- lethal results. Your point is kinda like saying "let's ignore Timothy McVeigh because his anti-government rhetoric is accompanied by his utter inability to achieve his goals". So what if 168 people died? he couldn't have possibly brought down the US government...

[vicdan]

Smells fundamentally reactionary to me, the whole phrase. No wonder.

Surviving is reactionary?.. Ooooo-kayyyyy...

Over the last eight years the ratio is about 10 Palestinian civilians against 1 Israeli civilian, although last month it seems Israel tries to add a zero to that ratio for the coming years [100:1].

yeah. Israelis are much better at fighting than palestinians are.

If you jump me with a knife and I kill you with a gun, "but you only got one moderately dangerous stab wound!" won't be much of a point, will it?

Or would you rather see Israel sit and suffer attacks until enough Israelis are killed, so that retaliation results in comparable body counts?

But when talking about cruelty it should be noted that Israel has achieved Dr. Mengele proportions with: DIME flesh melting weapons,

Dude, you are a moron. look up what DIME weapons are. Their very point is to reduce civilian casualties, which goal they achieve admirably by resulting in a much smaller lethality radius.

intentially used "bone eating" phosphorus on population,

<sigh> obscurants are not "bone eating phosphorus", cretin. They spray WP-impregnated felt wedges (which, by their very nature, don't work the way loose WP does); and they are legal by international law.

claims of shooting women and children holding white flags

yeah. Claims. Kinda like the Al Dura or Jenin claims.

and other unacceptable war crimes

When you got evidence rather than confabulations, you let me know, eh?

What we do know is that Israel had gone to rather extreme extents to reduce civilian casualties; and we know it from interviews with palestinians themselves, not just from IDF's claims.

To even suggest there's some appropriate response taking place against war crimes of Palestinian militias is to be severely disconnected with the world at large. Living in a fantasy land of ideology and imagined moral high ground. It doesn't exist. Typical closet fascist mythology. Grow up!

I guess making shit up passes for anti-fascism these days, huh?

Idiot.

[vicdan]

1) I am not interested in strength or power. i am interested in wholeness, of which strength and power are aspects.

Of course. It's this organic wholeness-balance-synergy where the roots of any real and sustained strength lies.

Riiiight. I guess hellenes were fascists too then. Well, Plato kinda was, granted, but he was by far not the only greek of note.

Yeah, interest in wholeness, in integrating various aspects of human being, in synergizing reason and passion and spirit -- in Arete -- is fascistic now. Whatever gets you to the predetermined conclusion, eh?

Your stressing that you do not desire to control anyone, even are abhorred by the idea, is suspect in itself.

of course it is. <smirk> Your mind is made up, don't let me confuse you with facts.

As at the same time you seem to believe in some synergistic web where nothing stands or acts alone and equilibria of power seeking agents are established. From this perspective you're continuously exerting power over others or being dominated and manipulated.

How very expected, for you to see the wholeness of being purely in terms of power relationships -- your vision, kiddo, not mine. I see relationships in terms of freedom and choice, not power.

Any relationship can be interpreted as a power relationship -- can, but doesn't have to; this interpretation is yours, not mine. Similarly, any human relationship can be interpreted as an economic relationship, but if I speak of social relationship and you accuse me of monetizing them, then the obsession with perceiving them in economic terms is yours, not mine.

Don't look now, but your obsession is showing, little man. :D You seem to be accusing me of that which you yourself silently nurture deep in the recesses of your consciousness.

[vicdan]

When you say that, do you mean Israel as a state that is majority-Jewish both in the composition of its population and government, or do you allow for the possibility of the existence of a state of Israel in which Jews are not the majority of the population and/or of the government?

one state will only be feasible after anti-semitism ceases to be a factor -- and the way thence lies through free, independent nation-states, perhaps eventually forming a confederation like EU.

You have to have your own position and freedom, a base from which to act and be a free state, before you can form such supranational conglomerations. The way to One State -- to real, sustainable, peaceful, internally coherent One State -- lies only through Two States.

It is no surprise that EU was formed by a confederacy of sovereign nation-states.

[guest_of_logic]

When you say that, do you mean Israel as a state that is majority-Jewish both in the composition of its population and government, or do you allow for the possibility of the existence of a state of Israel in which Jews are not the majority of the population and/or of the government?

one state will only be feasible after anti-semitism ceases to be a factor -- and the way thence lies through free, independent nation-states, perhaps eventually forming a confederation like EU.

You have to have your own position and freedom, a base from which to act and be a free state, before you can form such supranational conglomerations. The way to One State -- to real, sustainable, peaceful, internally coherent One State -- lies only through Two States.

It is no surprise that EU was formed by a confederacy of sovereign nation-states.

Why do you mention only anti-semitism as a factor, as though the only prejudice/hatred in this conflict is on the part of the Palestinians? Are Jews completely free of prejudice/hatred for Palestinians?

And would you have made the same argument for South Africa in the days of apartheid? That the way to One South Africa -- to real, sustainable, peaceful, internally coherent One South Africa -- lies only through Two South Africas: in other words, that black townships should be maintained separately from white cities and farms? I ask because I was born and lived the first ten years of my life in South Africa, and I see a lot of parallels to the Middle East situation.

And what are the specifics of the "way" that you speak of? How do the Two States eventually become One? When you bring up the EU it seems like you never actually intend them to: that they will be "One" only in the sense that they are federated.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yeah, interest in wholeness, in integrating various aspects of human being, in synergizing reason and passion and spirit -- in Arete -- is fascistic now.

Come to think of it, that sounds indeed more like the typical mysticism that fascists like to surround themselves with, probably thinking they've outgrown their new-age stage. Nevertheless if you'd be able to read a bit more attentive you'd have noticed I was actually agreeing when you wrote about that earlier. But I doubt if you fully realize what it actually means and implies like with so many of your rather underdeveloped convictions.

Any relationship can be interpreted as a power relationship -- can, but doesn't have to; this interpretation is yours, not mine.

You sound confused. This whole discussion on fascism started because of your rant about power, some "quintessential expression of carnality" and "the physical struggle for survival" of Israel which was offending the weaker virgins of this world who couldn't handle the display of power. Now you turn around and say it's me that's making it about relationships in terms of power!

[vicdan]

Why do you mention only anti-semitism as a factor, as though the only prejudice/hatred in this conflict is on the part of the Palestinians? Are Jews completely free of prejudice/hatred for Palestinians?

for palestinians qua palestinians? Absolutely.

Sure, they hate the current enemy; but there is no deeper root for this hate. If the war ends, the hate will end. In contrast, anti-semitism preceded zionism by many centuries in the arab world, and even if all the jews are gone from Israel, it will not end by dint thereof.

And would you have made the same argument for South Africa in the days of apartheid? That the way to One South Africa -- to real, sustainable, peaceful, internally coherent One South Africa -- lies only through Two South Africas: in other words, that black townships should be maintained separately from white cities and farms? I ask because I was born and lived the first ten years of my life in South Africa, and I see a lot of parallels to the Middle East situation.

In South Africa, the two-state solution would have been preferable, were it practical -- but it wasn't, because the geographic separation between the white and black populations didn't exist (no, the banthustans obviously don't count,t hat was a POS "separate-but-equal" idiocy which made things worse, not better).

Right now SA is gripped by some very serious racial problems. The hate crimes against the white minority are a major issue. The transition has been anything but smooth, and this is happening because they went straight from hate to one-state. In SA's case, this was unavoidable -- they had no way to establish a transitional state where each demographic could establish its own self-determination and sovereignty, free from hatred -- but Israel and Palestine do have the far superior option of intermediate two-state solution.

And what are the specifics of the "way" that you speak of? How do the Two States eventually become One? When you bring up the EU it seems like you never actually intend them to: that they will be "One" only in the sense that they are federated.

That's how federated states start. USA also started out as a confederacy, then a federation, and how it's a single state. EU is moving in the same direction as well: it started out as a confederation, but it is slowly moving towards federated status. So what is wrong with federations?

I think the only way One State can emerge is through voluntary merger of independent, sovereign Israel and Palestine states; and for that, those two states have to first become free, equal, independent neighbors.

[vicdan]

Come to think of it, that sounds indeed more like the typical mysticism that fascists like to surround themselves with

<LOL>

You sound confused. This whole discussion on fascism started because of your rant about power, some "quintessential expression of carnality" and "the physical struggle for survival" of Israel which was offending the weaker virgins of this world who couldn't handle the display of power. Now you turn around and say it's me that's making it about relationships in terms of power!

Kiddo, my rant was about people renouncing their carnality. I was extolling not the physical itself, but the wholeness which includes the physical, and excoriating one-sided approach to humanity -- the approach that attempts to suppress our carnal aspects. I was speaking about one specific power relationship, you were the one who spoke about every relationship as a power relationship.

You never got that, huh? Too much in a rush to call me fascist, I imagine. It must be all that obsession with power on your part. :) Love-hate, is it?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I was speaking about one specific power relationship, you were the one who spoke about every relationship as a power relationship.

That's because that's what power is: the exchange of any effect, change or control of everything we're in relationship with. Since we cannot be said to have a relation to something that is not effecting us or being effected by us, it doesn't make sense to talk about some non-power relationship. The power could be more detailed in social or economical contexts but you cannot just block the power aspect out of sight and wax about freedom and choice. To use your own language from another thread: freedom and choice exist only in a pure metaphysical or symbolic sense.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Or would you rather see Israel sit and suffer attacks until enough Israelis are killed, so that retaliation results in comparable body counts?

Nobody in their right mind would claim that Israel was 'minimizing' civilian casualties during their last incursion. The only way to get more victims would have been to fire indiscriminately at everything that moved, in other words: full and bloody genocide. They entered knowing very well the likely death toll and destruction. Minimize my ass, it was full escalation and psychological shock treatment.

look up what DIME weapons are. Their very point is to reduce civilian casualties, which goal they achieve admirably by resulting in a much smaller lethality radius.

Man, are you trying to defend the ripping of flesh from the bones of women and children with the full knowledge of the ones firing the weapon? Now you ask the Palestinians to be thankful only a few of them got melted instead of a lot more? Fact is that these weapons were regularly fired at unidentified targets in a civilian densely populated area. Did you see any of the images and medical reports? Do you know how many people who were innocent beyond doubt and not close to any militant have been hit by the weapon?

<sigh> obscurants are not "bone eating phosphorus", cretin. They spray WP-impregnated felt wedges (which, by their very nature, don't work the way loose WP does); and they are legal by international law.

You're waffling, the Geneva Treaty bans its use in densely populated areas. There are so many reports, witnesses, video's, photo's of empty shells and dozens of burn victims that all show beyond reasonable doubt this stuff has actually been used inside areas where it was bound to have hit someone. But we'll see, the UN is preparing serious investigations. Even the IDF is already looking into internal reports of possible abuses [after initially denial, of course].

What we do know is that Israel had gone to rather extreme extents to reduce civilian casualties; and we know it from interviews with palestinians themselves, not just from IDF's claims.

It would be helpful if you showed some reference. And who is we? You're a clueless nobody not related to what's happening there in any meaningful way that would provide more insight, the last time I checked.

[Ataraxia]

Of course. It's this organic wholeness-balance-synergy where the roots of any real and sustained strength lies. And initially we all develop interest and fascination with the usage of this power. But with fascist psychology something else happens: the mindset of a suppressed, subjugated little man begins to crave strength, it assumes the strength of his former bullies [and what they represent: a natural order] but it becomes distorted, enlarged and over-blown. The victim taking on the role of abuser with a vengeance and quite often: in hidden ways. For the simple reason the outside world will not allow otherwise and there's not the strength present to actually overcome this limit. Unless one lifts on the coat tails of other more powerful ideologies like nationalism, communism, militarism and even scientific materialism. Here their perversion is about to start.

Hehe,bloody hell Diebert,you sure do write some interesting socio/psycholigical insights at times.Scientific materialism as a fascist former- geek reaction;I like it!!