The zionist questionFollow

The recent events in Norway have evoked a lot of different reactions. For example, more extreme members of the Zionist community have gone as far as to say the shootings were deserved because of the support the victims voiced for Palestinians. It brings to mind the general behavior of Zionists, and Israel as an essentially Zionist state, throughout the past. Israel has committed very atrocious actions. Extremists in Palestine launch some poorly built rockets and kill a few people, the Israeli government responds by killing over a thousand Palestinians, destroying infrastructure and so on.

When you occupy a land, steadily encroach on the natives and cut off various essential supplies, you've forced them to violence. You can not claim a "right to return" after thousands of years of absence, especially when the land is already occupied. What's being done to Palestinians now is absolutely detestable, and there is no justification for it.

Yet despite all of the above, Israel is still somehow seen as the victim in everything. Any criticism of it is immediately met with cries of "Antisemitism!".



And it's particularly ironic considering that Israel essentially operates under a doctrine of racial superiority. I'm curious what other nation in the world would enjoy such high public opinion while employing similar policies and tactics. Apartheid in South Africa, segregation in the US, the Armenian genocide, etc. All regarded as the epitome of evil, yet Israel is essentially guilty of all the same to varying extents and those who criticize it are summarily dismissed as bigots.

Fascinating, that.

Edited, Jul 31st 2011 11:55pm by zukunftsangst

Edited, Jul 31st 2011 11:56pm by zukunftsangst

What's that they say about wrongs? Two of them make a right, yeah?

Almost as good as **** poor, might makes right imperialist 'justification' for a geopolitical reality that you do like. Get @#%^ed.

<3

Edited, Aug 1st 2011 12:12am by zukunftsangst

Tl;dr: Extremism is bad. Doesn't matter if it's radical Islam, far-right-wing Christianity, militant atheism, or Zionism. It's all bad.

Cultural ties play a big part of it but there's also the simple fact that Israel is a western style democracy and western style democracies tend to get along well together (at least compared to the alternatives).

Even more pragmatically, what do the Palestinians have to offer for our support?

Incidentally, this...

...is one of the dumbest comments made here in a while.

(A) Those "extremists" are Hamas; the ruling elected government in Gaza.
(B) They're launching rockets only because Israel built a big wall which made a lot of people complain but also (more importantly to Israel, I'm sure) stopped the flow of suicide bombers who happily blew up clubs, restaurants, buses, schools, playgrounds, etc.
(C) They're not launching poorly built rockets because they're half-assing it, it's because they lack better built rockets. The idea that launching rockets randomly into population centers isn't as bad if they're shitty rockets is asinine.
(D) They should stop launching their shitty rockets from population centers and using schools and hospitals as cover if they don't want their population centers, schools and hospitals to be targeted for counter attacks. In fact, not launching rockets at all would be a splendid method of preventing Israeli airstrikes and tanks rolling down their streets.

Edited, Aug 1st 2011 9:16am by Jophiel

Sure, but if you accept that Israel owes responsibility to people apart from its own citizens, then you don't need to accept a strict consequentialist position to come to the conclusion that it's wrong to kill thousands of innocents to prevent what are ultimately rather ineffectual attacks on their own citizens.

If you accept that doctrine, then the fact that hamas is responsible for its citizens, and shirks this responsibility, does not ameliorate Israel's actions, or negative their duty not to harm innocents.

It's not a 'who's worse' contest between Israel and Hamas.

Proof seems to think so, hence my response. I'd assume that any nation state's primary obligation is to their own people. Hamas has a doctrine of attacking Israel and the only thing preventing further harm thus far has been Israeli actions, be it through embargoes, walls, diplomatic actions with allied states or military counter attacks.

Throwing a morality argument on it is a waste of time because both sides can cry "Think of the children!"

The simple fact is that the Israeli military actions people are decrying are a response to Hamas launching attacks on Israel. There's a pretty basic cause and effect thing going on here if you're worried about civilians getting blown up.

The door swings both ways, Hamas wants a free Palestine, so they fight for a free Palestine, Israel uses this as a scapegoat to further subjugate the Palestinians people. Palestine is the worlds largest ever Concentration camp.

Hell your nation was built off covert attacks and guerilla tactics, and when Britain was ready to stomp you, you had France come save your asses. Fast forward to today, and change you have Palestinians fighting for their own nation, Israel stomping them out, and Americans paying to keep the freedoms of the Palestinians in check. Only because they don't line up politically with your nations ideals.

Its ok if we do it, but we won't let others do it. **** Israel.

There's less than thirty years difference between the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and Britain taking Palestine after WWI. So when you're done rolling your eyes, let me know what the difference is, okay?

There's still a spectrum within that. One can believe that you have a primary obligation to stop rocket attacks on your population without supporting invading neighboring countries for their resources or something.

We're not talking about Britain taking over Palestine after WWI, we're talking about Britain forcing Palestinians out of their homes and allowing an Israeli state to move in after WWII. I will freely admit that I don't know a ton about Hawaiian history, so I may look like a hypocritical douche, but I don't believe that anyone was forced out in order for someone else to claim the islands on tenuous religious grounds.

And I'll probably be renting from one of those Hawaiians, so I don't imagine they'll be asking me to move out while they're taking my money....

Oh, and Clinton apologized for me back in 1993, so I don't have to... right?