9/11 thread

I'm not 100% sure about what is meant by zionism in this context. could you elaborate?

If you are 99% sure that ought to do it. However, the idea is that Zionism is about establishing a nation exclusively for Jews and the UN decided to call that racist. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

how is that any different then, for instance, the idea of stablishing a nation exclusively for muslins in modern Iraq? would that be racism?

Ask the UN. I don't think any of it is racism, it's about culture and beliefs. Perfectly silly idea to turn that into racism.

quote:

---

However, the idea is that Zionism is about establishing a nation exclusively for Jews and the UN decided to call that racist.

---

Establishing a nation exclusively for ethnic Jews would be racism. And if this nation is to be established by expelling people who happen not to be Jewish or by refusing to grant them citizenship - as would have to be the case if this nation were established in Israel, or any area occupied by any gentiles at all - certainly deserves to be condemned.

It's not racism at all. You can become a Jew no matter what race you are if you are willing to live by the tenets of Judaism and follow the directions of the rabbis. Even though many Jews aren't religious, that is how one becomes a Jew, that's how their ancestors became Jews.

I guess that you didn't notice that I explicitly made the point that I was talking about ethnic Jews - whether they are Jewish by religion or not. And since Zionism was founded as a secular movement, it too is concerned with Jews as an ethnic group, not a religion.

Ethnic homogeneity isn't racism. In fact wanting to have a culturally, ethnically, philosophically or religiously homogeneous society isn't racism unless all common sense has been abandoned in the thinking about these things. And I suspect that's not far from the truth.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Discrimination on an ethnic basis IS a form of racism.And if it involves forcibly expelling people who do not belong to the favoured ethnic group, I don't see how you could morally defend it.
w

Well it DOESN'T involve forcibly expelling anybody.

Israel has in the past forcibly expelled Palestinians.And how are you going to get an ethnically pure state in a settled area if people of other ethnic backgrounds refuse to move out ?u

The topic is ZIONISM, not this purist idea you are pushing here. Plenty of nonJews remained in Israel and still remain in Israel though it is a Jewish state.Israel did NOT ever force anyone out. That's just propaganda by the Muslim states, who are the ones who created the refugee situation by attacking Israel and warning Arabs to leave.How about getting back to 9/11. Have any thoughts on that?

Yes, I think there's some real truth in this. Karen Armstrong argues the same thing in her book "Islam". I don't buy this. The US has never had a problem with Saudi Islamism, as long as it suits its strategic and economic aims. The US even funded the Islamist Mujahideen as a bulwark against the USSR! The US was (and still is) pissed at losing influence over Iran, plain and simple. Also remember that we are talking about an Islamic revolution that the US itself helped to incite? Oh yes, I am aware of this, but how does this justify it to the people in the Middle East? In any case Mossadech was never a Communist, but the CIA were keen to caricature him as one for the "crime" of wanting to nationalize his country's oil interests.I don't think our views are too conflicting. I simply argue that the West must carry some of the blame for the rise radical Islam. Edited by RickJB, : Tags

have you ever considered the nations that comprise the UN? There are more Islamic nations than any other. They are not majority democracies. Nations vote for their self-interest and their allies. Leaders of non democracies are threatened by democracy and democracies for many reasons, and tend to be aligned with others like themselves.

There are many non democracies whom we have not preceived as a threat to democracy, so we have ignored them. Thus, saudi Arabia's transgressions were considered minor and of little threat for many years. That changed with 9/11. And yet, given the oil factor, we're still bearing more than we might otherwise. But they are mow closely watched, suspiciously, cynically, and warned and monitored about whom they finance.And yes, again for the same strategic reasons as the US played Hussein off against Iran, so the US played Islamists against the Communists. It worled, in that at the time the Communists were the greater threat to democracy, and the Islamists helped bring the SU down.Radical Islam is not a recent phenomenon. It is simply resurgent. Even mohammed was, very arguably, a radical Islamist. He was an imperialist who conquered for Allah. His successors carried on, conquering before long most of the ME, including the Jews in what had been Israel, India, North Africa, all the way to Spain (Andalusia as obl called it to many's WHAT????). They moderated over time, in part because of the influences of those they conquered. But through the centuries radical Islam, or Islamism, always reappeared. Bear in mind that the ottomans were at the gates of vienna as few years ago as the 1600's, and near Paris. It was they who first attacked the west, and they who first attacked and meant to extinguish Christian civilization. despite their assaults against us, we still birthed the Enlightenment and democracy. Is it possible that had the west not responded in kind, through napolean's incursions in their homelands, and GB's defeat of the ottoman's, that radical Islam would not have, once again, arisen? Maybe. But unlikely. And even if true, radical Islam only became resurgent because it is part of the faith, part of the culture, and a major player throughout Islamic history.I'm not justifying the overthrow of democracy in Iran. it is one of the darker chapters of British and, to a lesser degree, American history.