Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[compared2what?]

You had me wondering if that may be when the old limbic system kicks in and all clear thinking is replaced or injected with much more primal patterns. But then you can have what seem to be very clear thinking during battle, eg the very rapid real time coordinated responses of Mongol cavalry.

That's an interesting point about "the very clear thinking during battle," and it got me thinking.

My educational background is in Christian theology; talk about a tangled mess of delusional thinking — and I was in the grip of it! Now even within (what I later came to see as) that delusional framework, there was some very impressive "very clear thinking" that seemed to go on, both on my part and on the part of my colleagues and friends. Only when I stepped outside that framework was I capable of recognizing just how delusional I had become.

And as I was typing that, the song from the movie, Exodus, was playing in my head — and the lyrics to that song might be a clue about some of the first delusions operative in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

"This land is mine. God gave this land to me."

Nope. Sorry. Didn't happen.

No, of course it did not. But those aren't primarily the terms on which zionism/Israel stakes its claim to that land. And you don't even really need that "primarily," strictly speaking. Those just aren't the terms on which the claim is staked, in any literal sense. However, since those terms are employed -- and very lavishly -- for branding and PR and other political purposes, I'd say it was fair to put them somewhere in that mix. Just on an "imo" basis.

This discussion has been very, very disproportionately focused on religious-identity factors irrespective of relevance when it comes to that particular point, though.

[compared2what?]

You had me wondering if that may be when the old limbic system kicks in and all clear thinking is replaced or injected with much more primal patterns. But then you can have what seem to be very clear thinking during battle, eg the very rapid real time coordinated responses of Mongol cavalry.

That's an interesting point about "the very clear thinking during battle," and it got me thinking.

My educational background is in Christian theology; talk about a tangled mess of delusional thinking — and I was in the grip of it! Now even within (what I later came to see as) that delusional framework, there was some very impressive "very clear thinking" that seemed to go on, both on my part and on the part of my colleagues and friends. Only when I stepped outside that framework was I capable of recognizing just how delusional I had become.

And as I was typing that, the song from the movie, Exodus, was playing in my head — and the lyrics to that song might be a clue about some of the first delusions operative in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

"This land is mine. God gave this land to me."

Nope. Sorry. Didn't happen.

No, of course it did not. But those aren't primarily the terms on which zionism/Israel stakes its claim to that land. And you don't even really need that "primarily," strictly speaking. Those just aren't the terms on which the claim is staked, in any literal sense. However, since those terms are employed -- and very lavishly -- for branding and PR and other political purposes, I'd say it was fair to put them somewhere in that mix. Just on an "imo" basis.

This discussion has been very, very disproportionately focused on religious-identity factors irrespective of relevance when it comes to that particular point, though.

In case it's not clear, the reason that's not a minor, didactic point is that widespread belief in the (falsely) alleged Israeli claim of god-given proprietary ownership to that land arises from the same body of endlessly repeated misinformation that argues for the acceptance of synagogue-burning as a politically valid and rational act.

Which it might be, if Israel was a Jewish state in the same sense that Vatican City is an ecclesiastical state. But it's not. It's not even a Jewish state in the same sense that Denmark is a Lutheran state, or that Greece is an Eastern Orthodox state, or that England is an Anglican state, or that Egypt is a Sunni state.

In short: Judaism is not the state religion of Israel. Because it doesn't have one. The language in "Jewish state and homeland" means "for Jewish people, as defined herein" not "for and/or of the Jewish faith." I'm not saying that isn't problematic in its way, though. In fact, I suppose that I'm saying that it is.

[Simulist]

Which brings me then to this question, which I ask sincerely: "What in the world IS (supposed to be) the legitimate basis for Israel's dispossessing Palestinian people of their homes?"

Since we know that "God" didn't give "this land" to the Israelis, who — besides the United Nations — did?

(In other words, I think this whole problem might have been solved way back in the 1940s had there been a decent escrow officer from a title company in charge. )

[compared2what?]

1) Is Gilad Atzmon a racist?

No. He does not even acknowledge "racial differences" between people, whether in word or deed. He talks about 'tribal identity politics' that he condemns because they lay the ideological groundwork for supremacist calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing and other horrors, including apartheid. Even in its mildest form, this supremacy is manifested in the presumption that one's 'identity' gives one the right to impose rules about what others can say, write or even think, and to use bullying, harassment and threats against those who disagree. He criticizes individuals for their actions and their attitudes toward others, never for being Jewish or anything else.

Okay. Let those be your criteria. Would it be safe to assume that you make an effort to abide by them yourself?

[compared2what?]

Which brings me then to this question, which I ask sincerely: "What in the world IS (supposed to be) the legitimate basis for Israel's dispossessing Palestinian people of their homes?"

Since we know that "God" didn't give "this land" to the Israelis, who — besides the United Nations — did?

(In other words, I think this whole problem might have been solved way back in the 1940s had there been a decent escrow officer from a title company in charge. )

The short-ish answer is that it was a response to the aftermath of the Holocaust/WWII, brokered by and among and/or between a number of western powers/interests and zionist leadership, for a number of reasons. It was cynical on the part of some and well-intentioned on the part of others, in some ways. But it was also racist (ie -- entailed a prejudiced dismissal of the rights and interests of Arabs) on the part of all, irrespective of anybody's intentions.

That's a lot more clearly evident now than it was in 1948, when Arabs were still cartoon sheiks, veiled houris and comically toothless fez-wearers in the eyes of most. It's also a lot less obscured by the political primacy of restoring the functional status of practically every economy/society in Europe now than it was then. And it's also a lot less obviously a decision borne of antisemitism now than it was then. By which I don't just mean that the H was then recent, but that both the United States and England were then very antisemitic (and xenophobic!) countries/cultures, neither of which wanted to be saddled with jewzillion masses of Eastern European immigrants.

Nevertheless, it was a bad idea then. And it's a bad idea/thing (in the obvious ways, for the obvious reasons) now.

________________

Zionism was also always a bad idea, imo. In every form. But it should be noted that it wasn't always the unitary goal of zionism to literally found a nation-state in Israel. Prior to (roughly) the Balfour Declaration, some zionists were just aiming for a cultural home location/refuge for Jewish refugees. For example. Plus -- as I've already said many, many times -- it wasn't at all a popular -- or even a well-accepted -- idea among Jews generally, ever, in any form, anywhere until the Holocaust. For that reason (and others) it was far from a done deal even after the Balfour Declaration.

That notwithstanding, Palestinians are living with and dying from the consequences now. And we live in the now. So it might be more helpful to consider it within the framework of the now than within the framework of some intangible, strictly notional and widely rumored tribal collective nastiness on the part of Jews.

That's all I'm saying.

[AlicetheKurious]

Since we know that "God" didn't give "this land" to the Israelis, who — besides the United Nations — did?

The short-ish answer is that it was a response to the aftermath of the Holocaust/WWII, brokered by and among and/or between a number of western powers/interests and zionist leadership, for a number of reasons.

Nope.

The short answer is: the British did (the UN, more than 30 years later, just provided the icing on the cake).

If you're interested in learning more, this paper is a great start.

[bluenoseclaret]

Thanks Alice

A really interesting and informative read. My father, in many a conversation about the World Wars would bring up the Balfour Declaration. He noted the Jews got Palestine. He still waits with regard to Ireland.

Kro

[seemslikeadream]

Thanks Alice
He still waits with regard to Ireland.

Kro

me too....but some holocausts are much more important than others

[eyeno]

Thanks Alice
He still waits with regard to Ireland.

Kro

me too....but some holocausts are much more important than others

It not polite to mention 'your' holocaust in connection with THE holocaust. Shame on you.

[compared2what?]

Thanks Alice
He still waits with regard to Ireland.

Kro

me too....but some holocausts are much more important than others

Not to me. I oppose them all equally.

But you're entitled to your partialities and prejudices, I suppose.

Cheers.

[compared2what?]

Since we know that "God" didn't give "this land" to the Israelis, who — besides the United Nations — did?

The short-ish answer is that it was a response to the aftermath of the Holocaust/WWII, brokered by and among and/or between a number of western powers/interests and zionist leadership, for a number of reasons.

Nope.

The short answer is: the British did (the UN, more than 30 years later, just provided the icing on the cake).

If you're interested in learning more, this paper is a great start.

And you're not the boss of history. So you don't actually get to say which reasonably supported paper-length version of it is authorotative. I don't even know why you'd want to.

May I remind you again that things do not become true just because you say they are?

[seemslikeadream]

Thanks Alice
He still waits with regard to Ireland.

Kro

me too....but some holocausts are much more important than others

Not to me. I oppose them all equally.

But you're entitled to your partialities and prejudices, I suppose.

Cheers.

you and others here may oppose them equally but one would be hard pressed to verify that sentiment with actual RI threads on the subject ...but you are entitled to your partialities and prejudices, I suppose....Ad nauseam


Slainte

[eyeno]

Sometimes this forum is exactly like a surreal journey into a stagnant backwater in which prehistoric creatures live and control the environment.

The most surreal feature of this forum (for me) is this >>>Oddly enough there is more freedom of speech at Ynet news than there is at this place. Ynet news is one of the most popular news sites in Israel.

I read Ynet on a regular basis.

While Ynet is busy explaining the links between jewishness and mass murdering Bolshevism to its people, RI dinosaurs are busy calling people "nazis" simply for noticing the connection between Bolshevism and jewishness.

Admittedly Ynet didn't even scratch the surface, and was much too kind, but it still ripped open the subject, much to its credit.
This is mainstream Israeli reading material. This is Ynet news. Read this. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 0.htmlEven

Ynetnews was established[4] in 2005 in Tel Aviv, with the goal of providing the Israeli community and its readers worldwide reporting and real-time breaking news from Israel and the Middle East. The founding editor of Ynetnews, Alan Abbey, left in the summer of 2005 and is now Internet Director for Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ynet_News

Apparently mainstream news outlets like Ynet and Atzmon seem to see history somewhat similarly. Who knew?


as damning as this ^^article is for Zionism it only scratches the surface. And let me say it again, THIS IS ISRAELI NEWS DAMN IT! THIS IS JEWS SAYING THIS OK?

Anybody that tried to get away with writing this at RI would get their ass pounded into the mud by the dinosaur sophists people that rule this forum and that desperately attempt to pretend that history is not what it is OBVIOUSLY IS.

Cuda, AD, C2W, jackriddler, sometimes simulist, you guys are so damn behind the times it isn't even funny. The whole world, even including the Israelis, are openly discussing the topics you kill yourself denying. Its funny to watch, sometimes painful, but always interesting.

Your Israeli news sources, rabbis, leaders, religious organizations, etc...all contradict mostly everything you say but you stubbornly continue to say it anyway, as if it will some day magically suddenly come true.

You people trip me out, but I watch anyway....I can't help it, its so damn fascinating to watch people live with their head in a hole and cannot help but stare at you and it intently.

If you people plan to continue writing the things you write in this forum you should check Ynet News and openly published Hasbara communications before you speak because quite frankly you appear illiterate otherwise.

ad-hominem....fire....reload ad-hominem....fire.....reload ad-hominem......fire....reload ad-hominem.....I have told you this before but you just keep doing it because you have not studied your rhetorical devices.

C2w is the only person that has studied rhetorical device enough to even attempt to cross this swamp. But I will say the use of circular logic is so nauseating (c2w) that we don't read it. We skip what you write c2w and go to Alice's rebuttal because Alice's writing isn't completely circular and deals with some actual facts. The use of what I call 'circular negation' is so over used that your writing c2w is almost completely un-readable so i'm bettin most of us don't even try.

Not a good tactic to use, I don't read it, and would not subject myself to it. I bet most readers here do not attempt to read it.


My question is this though, ok? Since Ynet is busy drawing lines between Bolsheviks/Jews/Zionism why the hell are you wasting hours, hours, hours attempting to deconstruct it? What is the point?

[Simulist]

Thanks Alice
He still waits with regard to Ireland.

Kro

me too....but some holocausts are much more important than others

Not to me. I oppose them all equally.

But you're entitled to your partialities and prejudices, I suppose.

Cheers.

you and others here may oppose them equally but one would be hard pressed to verify that sentiment with actual RI threads on the subject ...but you are entitled to your partialities and prejudices, I suppose


Slainte

Murder is a crime, and it's wrong. But unless I'm grossly misinformed on the subject, the Holocaust was "the Final Solution" to exterminate every Jewish man, woman, and child. To utterly wipe the Jewish people from the face of the earth.

Because of this, I see few crimes that compare in (A) intent, or (B) scope — if any.

[barracuda]

you and others here may oppose them equally but one would be hard pressed to verify that sentiment with actual RI threads on the subject ...but you are entitled to your partialities and prejudices, I suppose....Ad nauseam


Slainte

It would be different if this forum were populated by groups of deniers of the Irish genocide, or people who insisted upon supporting hating the Irish for their Irishness. But it isn't.