Let's try to discuss this with civility and without namecalling.
This is what, on Dailykos.com, they call a "meta" article, about considerations regarding the website. It's also a discussion on what some very hot, HOT words mean to different people.
What are appropriate uses and meanings for the words Zionist and Zionism, islamofascist or islamofascism?
Is it appropriate to express hate for Zionists, or for that matter, right wingers, republicans, "Islamofascists," gays.... or whoever.
Here's why I'm asking.
It is a fact that there are bigots who use the words Zionist, Zionism, islamofascist, gay, homo, etc. to express hate. They go beyond reasonable and appropriate use of these words, hiding behind them to vent their hate and intolerance.
We'd like to have the community set some standards for what is reasonable use and what isn't, that extends beyond discussion of ideas into bigotry and hate. Is it reasonable to reject discussion that fits this category of bigotry and hate? Or should rejection of such discussion be considered censorship?
Our goal here at OpEdnews.com is to keep as open a forum as possible for discussion of as wide a range of ideas as possible, but to keep it civil, without tolerating hateful content or violations of commonly accepted netiquette standards, like the rule against ad hominem, personal attacks.
Regarding Zionism and Zionists, I've made it clear, I'm born and raised Jewish. But I oppose many of the actions and policies of Israel. Still, I support Israel's right to exist and would want the US to defend Israel if it was attacked by a foreign force.
Does that make me a Zionist?
Polls show that 80% of Jews vote Democratic. I would venture to guess that at least 50% of those Jews are not happy with the way Israel treats Palestinians. But I'd also bet that 90% of those Jews also support Israel's right to exist. They have an ancestral (not racial, not national-- ancestral) memory of the Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany, being rejected by every nation. Are those Jews who support Israel's right to exist Zionists? Should writers have the right to talk about these liberal Democrats with hate and contempt?
I'm not saying that this is right. Actually, I think it's really screwed up. But the truth is, if any US candidate shows less than full support for Israel, his or her opponent will use this to attack the candidate in an effort to cut support by Jewish constituents. It doesn't matter in some backwoods district in Tennessee, where there are few if any Jews, but in large metropolitan areas-- NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco-- the position matters. Want to know what happens to a candidate who comes out against Israel? Look at Cynthia McKinney. She was destroyed by AIPAC and other Israel supporters.
I don't like AIPAC. I've written about my dislike in this article-- *****. Like I said, probably half the Jews who vote Democratic don't like the way things are in Israel, in terms of the treatment of the Palestinians. But there seems to be this quantum gulf on how to handle it. A politician would face certain death in many districts if he or she even broaches the idea of less than 100% support. I think part of the problem is the intense, hateful rhetoric that supporters of the Palestinian cause produce.
As the Middle East lurches towards peace, the hate and contempt, the meanness must dissipate. We should look to South Africa for an example. There, peace and reconciliation hearings continue to be held. No, I am not saying the final solution is to do what was done in South Africa. It seems like an unlikely outcome, though some advocate for it. But eventually, the hate and recriminations must come to an end. Advocates for peace would serve the peace and justice process best by seeking truth, justice through peaceful, civil efforts. It is important to call abusers of peace and justice on their abuses. But that can be done without hate.
Then, there are those who really are haters and bigots. They expand the meaning of Zionist to include all Jews, while denying that they are actually doing that. They usually throw in a denial that they are anti-Semitic, challenging people to claim it. To me, those challenges are usually signs that they are defending themselves in advance. Maybe they already have plenty of experience of being accused in other forums, and they think if they bristle with hostility and combativeness, they will get away with their hiding behind words.
I won't let it pass. Frankly, I think it is easy to talk about the issues of Israel and the Middle East without first reciting a long history-- a litany of complaints.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
If you're going to un-ban the real history of Zionism, then there's a perfect starting point: Ralph Schoenman's The Hidden History of Zionism.
"Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on July 9, 1947:
The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. It includes parts of Syria and Lebanon."
Now, if you don't "get" why this is relevant today -- where Israel wages criminal wars of aggression against Lebanon, murdering 1400 civilians, destroying "20 years" worth of infrastructure (Israeli general's assessment), and trying and failing to steal the land up to the Litani River, when Israeli warplanes enter Syrian airspace igniting hostilities as reported just this week -- then you are indeed in need of further education on the subject.
Your apologetics above seek to absolve Israel of its crimes. As great historical crimes, such as slavery recede into the past, there is less and less chance of reparations and justice. That is the Israeli long term strategy. They are emulating "Manifest Destiny" in Palestine, reducing the Palestinians to "savages" in the script ("terrorists" are the new "savages"), and stealing real estate. This continues every day. They haven't stopped. They provoke the occupied population in order to get an incident that they can overwhelmingly respond to with military force, and for propaganda purposes. This nonsense has been repeated so many times, I'm astonished it needs to be said, but many just don't understand the "facts on the ground."
You tried above to claim that Hezbollah was "raining" missiles on Israel, when it was Israel that rained bombs on Lebanon first -- while Hezbollah had enforced a ceasefire for a very long time -- and then Hezbollah responded to the outright aggression and war crime perpetrated by the Israelis (in the style of "Shock and Awe"?). Omitting that central and crucial fact completely rewrites ... history.
We will never get to any consensus on this issue unitil we recognize a simple thing or two:
1. Jews are a nation, not a religion. Religion is Judaism.
2. To be a Jew means nothing but to be a Jew. There is no special destiny, no special meaning and no difference from others. It is just a chance.
3, Zionism is a politivcal movement. Its ideology is now in power in the country called Israel.
4. Israel is a country, nothing more. It does not have a 'right to exist'; people who live there have a right to live there in peace but as for the system, name and so on- there is no such right at all. There is no 'right to the Jewish state'. USA do not have the 'right to exist'; only people who live here have a right to live here in peace. We can become tomorrow a monarchy and we will still be here.
5. Israeli Arabs are as much Israelis as anyone else there.
6. Palestionian people are screwed by all sides, including Arabs around them.
7. The most important: Until the sticky fingers of the US and others are withdrawn from there there will be no peace there. We here in the US are the PRIMARY reason for the blodshed there and our 'slimy love' is a curse.
******************************************
A thing or two, huh? How about them apples?
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3359 comments)
on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 7:37:05 PM
people define differently but I follow the old rules and that means that Jewish people have distinct features( ethnical) as well as certain national character. It is true that there are ' Jews of many nationalities' but the chaaracter is a character and it shows. In sunshine or in shadow there are some unique features of the Jewish chaaracter ( surely coming from the generational memory) and it is a common thread. Again, it is not a privilege and being born Jewish does not mean that you must be a Judaist, love the Jews, love Israel or go to Sinagogue. But you are a Jew. There is aa saying that Jewish is a diagnosis:) But you can say it about other nations too even if they have them some land or a common language.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3359 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 7:08:51 AM
Israel is a nation that is descended from Abraham. One becomes part of that nation through birth or freewill.
Quote from Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998
"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."
The people of Israel (also called the "Jewish People") trace their origin to Abraham, who established the belief that there is only one God, the creator of the universe (see Old Testament). Abraham, his son Yitshak (Isaac), and grandson Jacob (Israel), are referred to as the patriarchs of the Israelites. All three patriarchs lived in the Land of Canaan, that later came to be known as the Land of Israel. They and their wives are buried in the Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in Hebron.
The name Israel derives from the name given to Jacob (see Old Testament). His 12 sons were the kernels of 12 tribes that later developed into the Jewish nation. The name Jew derives from Yehuda (Judah) one of the 12 sons of Jacob (Reuben, Shimon, Levi, Yehuda, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Yisachar, Zevulun, Yosef, Binyamin). So, the names Israel, Israeli or Jewish refer to people of the same origin.
The descendants of Abraham crystallized into a nation at about 1300 BCE after their Exodus from Egypt under the leadership of Moses (Moshe in Hebrew). Soon after the Exodus, Moses transmitted to the people of this new emerging nation, the Torah, and the Ten Commandments. After 40 years in the Sinai desert, Moses led them to the Land of Israel, that is cited in The Bible as the land promised by G-d to the descendants of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The people of modern day Israel share the same language and culture shaped by the Jewish heritage and religion passed through generations starting with the founding father Abraham (ca. 1800 BCE). Thus, Jews have had continuous presence in the land of Israel for the past 3,300 years.
The rule of Israelites in the land of Israel starts with the conquests of Joshua (ca. 1250 BCE). The period from 1000-587 BCE is known as the "Period of the Kings". The most noteworthy kings were King David (1010-970 BCE), who made Jerusalem the Capital of Israel, and his son Solomon (Shlomo, 970-931 BCE), who built the first Temple in Jerusalem as prescribed in the Tanach (Old Testament).
In 587 BCE, Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar's army captured Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, and exiled the Jews to Babylon (modern day Iraq).
The year 587 BCE marks a turning point in the history of the region. From this year onwards, the region was ruled or controlled by a succession of superpower empires of the time in the following order: Babylonian, Persian, Greek Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Empires, Islamic and Christian crusaders, Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire.
by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 10:17:29 PM
Don't know if you're still monitoring this article
Zionism as a term in and of itself .....simply describes a philosophy. Alot of people apply a meaning and moral interpretation based on their own judgements. But the term itself is an accepted termed by both those pro and con.
Whereas...in my judgement, the term 'islamofascism' is a term coined by those with a definitively antagonistic predisposition towards the religion of islam.
I think that is the defining point and where you draw the line between a word itself and terms that can be used either way.
by
chariotdrvr14 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 126 comments)
on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 10:44:28 PM
Zion is the name of the mount on which Solomon's Temple was built. From the time the Jews and the Israelis (Northern Kindom of Israel) were destroyed by the Assyrians and the Babylonians and later the Romans, both Jews and Isrealis have been called Jews which is a religion and a nationality, and their aim over two hundred years have been to return to "Zion" which is a synecdoche (of part) for Jerusalem or for the Land of Israel. Any Jew wishing to return to the land is called a Zionist. Zionist can be militant or pacifist, democratic or absolute authoriatarian and a dozen other things such as religious or secular.
When Zionism is used as Islamofascist is used, then it is anti-Semitic. Those hating the existence of Israel and those hating the Jews who just hate Jews because they are Jews use the term to escape being called anti-Semitic.
If one is going to ban Islamofascist from the web site when it is used as an attack article or attack comment against Muslims, then one must ban Zionist or Zionism when this term is used as an attak against Israelis or Jews.
When the words are used to describe those who attack Muslims or attack Jews, those who use them in this hateful way do not need a forum; they need to be censored. As I understand the terms are not banned on this site unless they are used to denigrate Muslims or Jews. I just used both terms in this comment and I trust it will be posted.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 948 comments)
on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 11:08:33 AM
It's me again... that guy "hiding" behind three initials - MARK. (Happy now? Ready to invite me to the BBQ?)
Look, I cannot be any more concise or informative than some of the excellent posts which appear above me here in the comments section -
*Except I would strongly suggest also researching the term "Ashkenazi" to bring this picture into a bit better focus. And perhaps also a short history lesson on the "Khazars." Simply put, a lot of people who "seem to" get their feelings hurt over over what they perceive to be "anti-semitism" are not even semites - never were and never will be.)
Personally I simply refuse to censor my use of a perfectly utilitarian noun, verb, or preposition simpy because some bigots use those words or phrases too, especially when they use them in totally different ways.
Background on who is doing the blabbering here: (since you, Mr Kall, expressed an interest in that trivia.) I'm not a Jew or a Palestinian. I'm an "outside observer" in this matter: I'm a mixed race (Irish/Native American) screaming liberal American with a wrinkled university degree. I have "visited" Israel - but readily concede that one can determine very little about a place from a brief visit as a tourist - since the circumstances are so artificial when one is staying in hotels and visiting landmarks and shrines. It's a beautiful place and someday I would dearly love to go back for a longer more intimate visit.
HOWEVER that being said - even though I am an American liberal who has been bombarded with pro-Israel propaganda for nearly 60 years (see Rob, I just revealed me age!) and who has had a number of close business associates and friends who are Jews (all of them ashkenazim) and has visited "the Holy Land" - I have grown increasingly offended by official Israeli government policies that can only be called "rascist." Are we allowed to use that word? Note: I didn't say "apartheid" - yet.
Just one glaring example: using US tax money to build a 30 foot wall across the entire landscape to seperate farmers of a different ethnicity from their fields and children from schools? Complete and utter certifiable insanity! (Note: I think that according to the Geneva Conventions, collective punishment of civilians is a war crime...?)
So what's my point? We should not let the fact or possibility that some other (perhaps objectionable) individuals speak the same language and use the same words as us make us fall mute. I won't quit using the word "Christian" to describe that group/sect/religion simply because klansmen call themselves "Chrisitans." Would you? I won't stop using the words "NeoCon" or "redneck" or "****" when and if they are needed to complete a sentence.
Let's discuss the PROBLEM in the Eastern Mediterranean. Let's get it all out, air all opinions, share all viewpoints. Get it all out in the open - even (especially) the ugly stuff.
Since US citizens are forced to pay for so much of what takes place there, why shouldn't we be correctly informed what our money is buying? AND when our money is used to buy or build instruments of hatred and racism we should have the RIGHT to stand up and object. Strenuously! AND in order to make those objections we must employ the language in all its nuances, shades and colors.
Jah? Si? So deska? Bien, bueno, et al...?
by
mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 296 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 12:20:44 PM
Hi Rob,I believe you have unleashed the hounds. Vocalizing any support at all for Israel is highly politically incorrect. I do have a question. You said:"I believe that if more was invested in providing for the Palestinians, so they stopped raining rocket and suicide bombs on Israel, the US could drastically cut the support to Israel without impacting on its safety."Here are a few statistics:
This totals 1 billion 285 million 500 thousand, and does not include 400 million in grants in 1998, 50 million for disaster relief in 2002, and the 1 billion, 255 million for UNRWA.
This totals roughly 2 billion 990 million 500 thousand in roughly 14 years, or 213 million, 600 thousand per year.
The Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza was estimated to be 3.1 million in the year 2000.
Since the population was less in 2000, and has probably grown since then, I am approximating the population.
Just for rough estimates, the aid per person to the Palestinians over a 14 year period is just under 7 million. What is happening with the money?
by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 9:48:02 PM
Nice try, but you won't disarm most of us just by calling us"PC", and esp. when you speak as if we aren't even sitting at the table with you.
I also find it interesting (in an offensive sort of way) that you say he has unleashed the hounds. Fits right in with the subtext created on this topic: that Palestinians, and their supporters, are wild, scary, frothing beasts intent on harming innocent people arbitrarily. Isn't that what the US Army says about EVERY group of people it is about to (or in the process of) trying to either exterminate or force into submission???
by
Mars Caulton (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 82 comments)
on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 12:07:16 AM
They are not going to answer your question, where does the 7 million dollars per Palestinian go?
They are too caught up in their propaganda and absolutely will not be mixed up by the facts. They will remain silent and hope you will just go away with your good arguments.
You are way too logical for them. They can only blindly attack without reason (no instigation) or reason (no logic).
Thanks for you arguments,
Phil.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 948 comments)
on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 2:53:45 PM
Thank you for setting the record straight, and you did not even mention the aid to Israels avowed enemies as Saudi Arabia.
Truth is indeed Power and some on this blog absolutely hate it when it comes to this issue.
And by the way, there are some very few Zionist who see the Kingdom of Israel as the map above; however, the vast majority do not just like a few Muslims see the whole world under the Cresent Moon and the Sword of Islam; however, most Muslims do not.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 948 comments)
on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 11:28:42 AM
Rob, you wrote: "A politician would face certain death in many districts if he or she even broaches the idea of less than 100% support [for Israel]. I think part of the problem is the intense, hateful rhetoric that supporters of the Palestinian cause produce."
You mean produce in AIPAC supporters who immediately froth with pinko-commie-anti-semite accusations? Since I don't write-off the suffering of Palestinians, I hear alot of crap. Imagine you do too. But you make it sound like it is the Palestinian's supporters fault......that others rage against them.
You are coming very close to blaming the victim here. From what I hear, the virulence is pretty one-sided. It may be scary to confront that, but there you are.
by
Laudyms (0 articles, 759 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 377 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 11:27:40 PM
