Scarlett Johansson and SodaStream dumped.

So you think groups like Peace Now, Gush Shalom, Meretz, New Israel Fund, are just a joke? they don't count???

if you choose to disregard Liberal Zionists like myself, who believe in equality, the end of settlements, then you are more about partisan politics than finding a solution to this crisis.

 

For you because that's the diplomatic war your group wage on Israel, deny its legitimacy to the core.

 

Oh Mr. Moon the story with Scarjo and this company came about a tad earlier than you are suggesting. Go look it up. You are resurrecting a spent issue.

Oxfam and all the others like you who support Palestinians being unemployed because you think it helps in the on-going war against "neos" make me laugh. I mean come on. He was cool in the Matrix movies but this need to bring him up everytime you talk about the Middle East is pointless. He's a fictitious character. Now the real Neo like wow man hasn't had like a meaty role dude in a long long time cuz I think its like man his accent kynduh like stereotypes him from like these real cool roles man. Being a surfer dude weed man is spaztic like when you catch the king kahuna but between that its a downer man full of bummer spit waves man.

- - - Updated - - -

Say now you were expecting him to embrace you? Lol.

 

Personally, in terms of domestic politics here in the UK, I have struggled most of my life with determining how best to square the kind of democratic-deficit you highlight so as to bring about the kind of society I think we both broadly agree on. Is it more productive to argue the case for reforming the system from within, or are the problems deeper rooted and systemic and therefore need to be approached in more radical ways?
Is it best to combine the two?

These are fundamental questions that warrant proper discussion elsewhere. Until you are able to grasp the Zionist project is a colonialist one, you will be forever misled by Zionist leaders who falsely claim otherwise. I agree that the groups you mentioned are welcome, but one should not overestimate their importance. Illan Pappe argues that there isn't a genuine debate in Israel about Palestinian nationhood, independence or self-determination. Rather he posits that there is only a tactical 'debate' on two issues:

1) On how best to sell to the world the Zionist wish to have all or most of Palestine with as few Palestinian's within it as possible, and:
2) What is the best way of doing it?

That, according to Pappe, is the debate. He argues that within the framework of Zionism, instead of having rainbows, you have pajama stripes. The Israeli 'debate', in other words is, according to Pappe, non-existent in reality. Nevertheless, the Israeli establishment presents this to the world as a 'wide rainbow of ideas'.

So the 'debate' actually comes down to deciding how many Palestinian's can live in a Jewish space. In this context, Liberal Zionism is merely a part of this deceptive narrative. More perceptive Israeli's like Pappe and Avi Shlaim understand this very well.

What all this indicates is that the so-called 'peace process' isn't moving anywhere because it was NEVER INTENDED to move anywhere. Liberal Zionism creates the illusion that good people within Israel can affect real change, while others like the Liberal Zionist establishment figure I cited above, give the false impression that there really is a soft and humane side to modern day Zionism. But just as significantly, the false impression created is that this softer side can win in the battle of ideas that, as I have argued above, in reality does not exist. The Israeli formula, developed in 1948, continues today.

As Pappe says, we are being sold a false reality. The entire charade of an Israeli society tormented by people who want to give back the WB/Gaza Strip to the Palestinian's and allow them to create an independent state on the one hand, and a group of annexationist Israeli's who do not wish to have any peace with the Palestinian's on the other, is a fable - a fabricated narrative.

 

Nope. That's not my argument at all.

 

No, its the spiritual ' Zion' which makes sense of it all- rather than some piece of pilfered real estate within which to dig ones jaxie.

 

You know I can use the same argument with you, why not read a good book about indipendance instead of going for a Palestinian state ? no?

Zionism was created when it was needed, the state was created when the time was right - but the need was already there.

 

To be clear, I would describe myself as a 'post-Zionist'. In this sense I accept Zionism to be the national liberation movement of the Jews. I regard the Zionist aspiration to have been achieved in 1967.

 

I just looked up the definition of Zionism in the first 10 google links I could find.

9/10 of them stated it was a movement for the creation of a Jewish state.

The tenth didn't work

 

Yes, and that has already long been achieved.

 

name one.

 

The former Israeli minister I previously quoted.

 

sorry buddy, but the UN voted for the creation of a Jewish nation-state in Palestine. The UN then voted to admit this Jewish nation-state into the community of nations, even though they had expanded their borders in a defensive war.

Israel is a Jewish nation-state, struggling to be a real democracy.

I support this struggle and see no contradiction between democracy, equality, and a Jewish nation-state. If this were true, the UN would not have approved this in resolution 181 and 149.

 

here's the thing, do you really want to go against the Avengers? Of course it's mythical but it's every reason why we are so much better than than the world that refuses to let us go. The next time these Eurotrash swine pull us into a continental war I swear by god we should just nuke them and end the whole charade. I'm done.

 

nuke'm from orbit it's the only way to be sure.

 

whatever you say, Ripley.

 

My view is that the political ideology of Zionism - which I regard at its core to be about privileging a particular ethnic/religious group over other groups - cannot be reconciled with the principles of liberalism which is about equal rights and equal citizenship for all.

 

A believe in a Jewish nation-state in Israel, with Hebrew as the national tongue, and Jewish holidays being state holidays.

The only privalage I support for Jews, is in immigration. Everything else should be totally equal.

 

I personally cannot see how the circle can be squared in a practical sense given the fundamental anomaly described.

 

I think it can easily be reconciled. From Constitutions in the region.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; .....

Article (1) The Republic of Yemen is an Arab, Islamic and independent sovereign state whose integrity is inviolable, and no part of which may be ceded. The people of Yemen are part of the Arab and Islamic nation......

Article 1
The United Arab Emirates is an independent, sovereign , federal state ...
Article 6
The Union is a part of the Great Arab Nation....
Article 7
Islam is the official religion of the Union. .....


Article 1 The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ...
Article 2 Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language ....

An Islamic and fully sovereign state whose official language is Arabic, the Kingdom of Morocco constitutes a part of the Great Arab Maghreb......

Islam neccesitates the creation of a Jewish state.

 

Prof. Avi Shlaim is an Israeli academic that I have a lot of time for. His argument is that Zionism and liberalism is not a contradiction in terms on the basis that Zionism isn't a monolithic movement. It seems to be the view shared by Ronstar and it is persuasive one as long as one accepts the premise upon which it is made. My view that I alluded to above is that this notion of pluralism existing within Zionism is essentially an illusion. But taken at face value as Shlaim and Ronstar do, the argument is a valid one.

That said, mainstream Zionism has never been liberal and crucially, for all intents and purposes for this discussion, it's this strand of Zionism that dominates discourse in Israel. On the other hand, liberal Zionism reflects a tiny minority of opinion within the country. The gap between the lofty Zionist ideals and the reality of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian's on the ground is, to quote Shlaim, "so huge that Zionist leaders have filled it with hypocrisy and humbug."

The Zionist project was achieved by 1967. This year was a watershed. Prior to 1967 Israel had great international legitimacy but this legitimacy was undermined at the point at which the country became a colonial power. One cannot understand modern Israel without grasping its role as part and parcel of a wider colonial project.

It's true to say that all countries have been born in sin not just Israel. But the reason why many people single Israel out for particular criticism is because Zionism and the Zionist movement on the ground is about creating a Jewish state that grants exclusive rights to one set of people at the expense of another. That arrangement is neither liberal or equitable. There is not a single Zionist that I'm aware of who has publicly said that Israeli's and Palestinian's ought to be entitled to the exact same rights.

The fear of a demographic doomsday has always been one of the central issues as far as the Israeli state is concerned, irrespective of whether one adopts the liberal Zionist perspective or the Likud one. In a recent TV interview the liberal Zionist I cited, Ben Ami said "Israel is driven by a paranoia of the Arab world". On that point, I agree with him.

Very few people that I know dispute the burden, suffering and persecution of the Jewish people. The issue from where I stand is the right to self-determination for the Jewish population came at the expense of equal rights for others. I accept that the programme of Liberal Zionists - at least on the surface - is to try to put and end to this situation. However, this is undermined by Ben Ami's false assertion that Israel has become less and less discriminatory over time. The evidence points to the contrary.

Ever since the breakdown of Camp David, Israel has increasingly moved further to the right and today the current PM embodies the most right-wing, homophobic, chauvinistic, exclusive and racist brand of Zionism. Compromise according to the Zionist mindset means taking the land of others, then claiming it's theirs and then making concessions with regards to land that doesn't belong to them. This is essentially the approach the liberal Zionist, Ben Ami, undertook as his role as chief negotiator at Taba.

Successful negotiations were also bogged down with regards to liberal Zionism's problematic concept of security which unrealistically insists upon 100 per cent security for Israel which means zero security for the Palestinian's. The US sponsored peace process since 1991 is an exercise in futility that has involved all process and no peace.

The reality is Israel pretends to want peace with one hand while it continues to build illegal settlements with the other. To paraphrase Avi Shlaim, "it's akin to a man who pretends to negotiate over the division of a Pizza while simultaneously eating the whole thing."

 

nice sophistry.

the last 2,000 years shows that the Jewish people need a safe haven to go to, when (*)(*)(*)(*) hits the fan and Gentiles won't protect us.

 

I can't address everything wrong with this but what does Israel have to do with environmentalism?

 

Yes and the Jewish people got it at the expense of the rights of others whom you displaced. The Zionist aspiration was achieved in the watershed year of 1967.