Zionism (and Nationalism in general)- 2

[NewsGuy]

Continued from Part 1 (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=2321).

The last post in Part 1 is Here (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=3253#post3253).

[NewsGuy]

Rehavaam Zeevi and liberman did not offer transfer as a mean to acheive the goals of Zionism. The support of transfer came because they believed its the only way for the jewish people to stay in israel (after the zionism cause acheived), it is not offered as a way to get more lands for the zionism cause.
Gev,

This is correct.

Also, the transfer of Arabs to their own lands is a means to bring freedom and security to the Arabs, and create a situation where they can live exactly as they please without any Israeli influence. This would serve to reduce tensions in the entire Middle East and further the interests of the whole world.

[A-Palestinian]

(This is not a rebuttal Post - it is an Information request post).

Gev and Sharonbn,

First off, what ideologies have actually existed in the real world is irrelevant. The existance of moral ideologies cannot help my argument, and their non-existance cannot harm it. Just because they do not exist, (or do exist) does not mean that they cannot BE, (or can BE).

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Communism: (taken from you post #85):

Ends : Equal wealth for all.

Means: State ownership of the means of production.

How does the Means acheived, can be done in morral or immoral ways i persume. it never ends. "

In the case of Communism, its Ends are moral, but not its Means. Therefore, the whole Ideology is Immoral. (Read the rest of this post for more details on this - I am not going into the detials yet for a reason).

"but i think you will find that most Ideologies are "Immoral" by your defenition"

So what? Please show how this is relevant to their inherent morality.

"I searched my mind and could not find an ideology that specify explicit moral Means (I'm talking about a socio-economical or political ideology, not a religious-philosophical onr like Taoism.) "

Why do you disgard religious ideologies? In short, what is the logical reason why ideologies based on a supreme diety should be ignored?

"I think we are entering a much more controversial, subjective and vague area of the definition of morality and what's moral and what's immoral. "

There is only *one* proper morality. If morality is Subjective, then *anything * can be justified.

"Example:
"State control over all property" is this moral or immoral? IMO this is moral means, since it secures "Equal wealth for all" which is the ultimate moral Ends (something Capitalism never intended to achieve. Capitalism is an immoral ideology IMO). I believe state control does not necessarily mean terror reign via secret police etc, altough given the nature of man, it is impossibly hard to achieve. Maybe Communism can only be successfully implemented on a much smaller scale (like a Kibbutz). I assume lots of people will argue this conclusion with me.

Question:
Can you give an exmaple of an ideology that is moral in your optinion? "

Yes I can. But before I delve more into this, I want to make sure we are clear on a core issue:

---------------------------------------------------

Emergencies aside, is robbery moral? (Y/N)

---------------------------------------------------

I am asking this because we have to have the same answer before we can continue.

[sharonbn]

First off, what ideologies have actually existed in the real world is irrelevant. The existance of moral ideologies cannot help my argument, and their non-existance cannot harm it. Just because they do not exist, (or do exist) does not mean that they cannot BE, (or can BE).

You are right, of course, I am not trying to diminish the strength of your argument. I’m just saying that giving real life examples makes your argument something more comprehensible. It also helps the reader to gather his/her opinion while reading your post. Talking about concepts like Ends, Means and morality is too general and confusing (sorry, my limitations.) By giving an example of real life ideology (as we have over the course of this discussion) and stating your opinion (e.g. Nazism is immoral, Communism is immoral, etc.), the reader can take a stand whether or not he/she agrees with you.
For instance, if you are saying there are no moral political ideologies, that certainly sheds new light over your argument.

"Communism: (taken from you post #85):
Ends : Equal wealth for all.
Means: State ownership of the means of production.
I will state again: IMO, state ownership of all the country’s resources is moral Means, that ensures equal wealth for all. This is providing that the people understand and support the government (i.e. do not develop black market) and that the government is open enough to accept criticism and allow freedom of expression of the people and media (i.e. does not develop tyrannical laws and secret police.)

There is only *one* proper morality. If morality is Subjective, then *anything* can be justified.
and who’s to determine what’s moral and what’s not?
Believe it or not, the Nazis thought of themselves as the most moral people on Earth. There are probably still a lot of people living today that support Nazi ideology and believe it to be moral and just.
The above does not mean I believe that anything can be justified. I’m saying anything is justified by someone (the Palestinian terror attacks on Israel and some of the actions of IDF are another good examples.)
I hope we all agree that Nazi ideology is immoral. I can see we disagree on Communism (I believe it is a moral ideology, certainly more moral than its counterpart – Capitalism. It just had poor and misleading interpretations and implementations over the course of history.)
Perhaps it is appropriate to establish common grounds on morality (more on that later.)

Why do you disgard religious ideologies? In short, what is the logical reason why ideologies based on a supreme diety should be ignored?
This thread speaks about Zionism, which is a political ideology. It does not speak about the concept of ideology in general. Political and Socio-economical ideologies portray a society in which people may live in, specifically focusing on the social, economic and government systems. Religious ideologies concern themselves with a totally different area of life: the spiritual world of the people. Different terminologies, POVs, set of values and fields of science are attributed to these two areas of life. Of course religious ideologies can be graded by their morality, but comparing Zionism with Taoism is futile and will not help our cause of grading the morality of Zionism.

---------------------------------------------------

Emergencies aside, is robbery moral? (Y/N)

It depends. You need to question the motives for the robbery. In most cases, the motives are to better the situation of the robber himself/herself, in which case the act is immoral. However, Robin hood, a thief with his own gang of thugs, used to rob the rich and give to the poor (so the folk tale goes.) He was operating under an immoral government system (Feudalism) which totally ignored the needs and interests of the lower classes. IMO, under the given circumstances, he was a moral person, with moral Ends and moral Means (as long as he didn’t murder those who he robbed.) Had he operated in a modern democratic society, maybe he would be judged differently.

Another example: The Partizan groups that waged guerilla war against the Nazi occupation used all kinds of means to fund themselves, including robbing their own people. I'm not sure about the morality of these actions (or lack thereof) (or does this falls under the "emergency" label?)

Even murder can sometimes, in extreme cases, be justified. For instance, Israel's pursuit and killing of the group responsible for the Munich Olympics terrorist attack, or more recently, the reaction of USA to the terrorist attack of Sept. 11

If you want to establish common ground for morality grading, I will say this:
IMO, Racism and Xenophobia are immoral without any possible justification

[A-Palestinian]

(This is not a rebuttal).

Sharonbn,


"Perhaps it is appropriate to establish common grounds on morality (more on that later "

This is true. However, I must mention one thing: If we delve into what is moral and what it not, that is going to take up alot of time, posts. My point is this: I will do it, if I need to. But I have a another idea - the whole reason why any discussion on morality is necessary, is because you are requesting real-life ideologies, (which have no bearing on the argument as you have stated). If I was to give real-life examples, then I would have to go into morality, which I would rather not. (For reason of it taking up too much time).

So, if you really do want the irrelevant real life examples, I will provide them. But I would rather not, and continue from where we left off from Post#81. Dont get me wrong - I will provide them - I am simply inviting you to re-think your request, for the sake of time, (and because real life examples are irrelevant).

One last thing: As long as you can imagine that such ideologies can Be, then that is all that is really required.

Thnx.

[sharonbn]

Fine.
Skip the real life examples.

However, if you state that Zionism is immoral, and I cannot understand your definition of what's moral or not (and we already know we have differences in our opinions of Communism), its gonna be hard for me to answer to you.

It just seems strange to me that you have no reservations about using hypothetical ideologies in abundance in your posts and even judge the example ideologies that were given as immoral (Nazim, Communism), but shy away from giving a real life example of a moral political ideology.

We can go back to our (gev and I) opinions regarding ideologies with unspecified Means. as we expressed them in posts #104, #105 and #109.

At the end of post#109, I suggested a way to identify an ideology as moral - if moral people follow it. Moral people will never follow an immoral ideology, since it contradicts their internal sense of morality, even if it has unspecified Means.
So, given my post #105 "speech", The Jewish people, being moral people in nature, can only follow moral ideologies (that is why Jews and Israelis have been more susceptible to the Communist idea than the Capitalist one.)

Also in post #109, I explained why the founders of the Zionist movement could not have imagined the situation that would lead to the creation of the state of Israel, some 100 years later. Furthermore, the first Zionists could not have thought of any detailed practical plan of action that would serve as Means to achieve the Zionist dream. They said to themselves (and to their followers) "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." It sounds like they allowed any Means to be taken, but they did not. They meant: "When someone comes up with a plan of action sometime in the future, then we'll judge it and implement it if we believe it to be moral and practical."

[Flame]

With Zionism being a term meaning a homeland for Jews controlled by Jews... how is the ENTIRE land mass of arab nations whose popluation is exclusively arab... with no other race or religions other than islam be considered anything other than total racism and apartheidism?

Where do arabs and pals criticize Jews for being racist by having a home to call their own, ruled by their....when this is exactly what the entire middle east is and is what the pals want

How is that not the ultimate in hypocrisy????

[A-Palestinian]

"It just seems strange to me that you have no reservations about using hypothetical ideologies in abundance in your posts and even judge the example ideologies that were given as immoral (Nazim, Communism), but shy away from giving a real life example of a moral political ideology. "

The only reason I hesitate, is because once I do state moral/immoral ideologies, the debate will shift into the "but why is this moral", which is totally irrelevant.

Anyway, I have decided to povide you with real life ideologies, and I will divide up the posts into two parts, in case a debate on "what is moral" ensues.

I will post shortly.

---------------------------

Flame, nice rant. Try elsewhere.

[gev]

A-Phalestanian,

A point i would like you to consider:

Ideologies can be changed and constructed over time, and the judjement of Ideology in one point in history, can be different that in another point in history.

if there will be another Zionist Congress in the future and there will be a statement that the means of the Zionism should only be ahieved by moral means, will the Zionism become morral?

Now, if there was this Zionist Gathering in say 1950, and there has been a statement, that the Zionism Ends should be acheived only by morral Means, would you also think now (2002) that Zionism is Immorral?

thats my problem with your defenition of Morral and immoral Ideologies.

When you conclude that an Ideology is Immorral, you call all people who consider themself Morral to abondon this Ideology.
but, if you conclude an Ideology that has Moral Ends and Unspecified Means - Immorral, than even if the Ends can be acheived by morral Means, Morral people should abondon the Ideology....


Another Point:

when I try to think about what would have been different in the History of the Conflict, if the first Zionists Congress would have released a statement that the Means of the Zionism should only be morral. I dont think anything would have changed, also the core of the Ideology not changed.

Correct if I'm wrong, but I think that what you were trying to state in the begining of the Thread, is that if the Zionism Ideology would have stated that the Ends should only be acheived by Moral Means than it wouldnt be practical, because of the Statements you have offered. well, I think Sharonbn did successfully showed that the Statements are not completely correct and that Zionism can be practical when Moral Means are persude.


and now to your question:
Emergencies aside, is robbery moral? (Y/N)
well, an Emergency is subjective, and morrality is subjective too.

There is only *one* proper morality. If morality is Subjective, then *anything * can be justified.

The Sentence has two parts:
1. There is only *one* proper morality.
I disagree with that, what is morral to you today, can be seen immorral tommorrow. for example, animal rights movements - question the morrality of using animals in experiments, there are arguments and opinions about the morallity and Immorality of this issue - so Morrality IS Subjuctive.

2. If morality is Subjective, then *anything * can be justified.
That is Correct. the Emphasis should be on the word Can,
Anyhting can be justified, and Immorral acts are being justified by the people who commit them.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

The only reason I hesitate, is because once I do state moral/immoral ideologies, the debate will shift into the "but why is this moral", which is totally irrelevant.

If you judge Zionism as an immoral ideology, then your moral standards are a relevant issue indeed.
I see the point you're trying to make: You're saying any ideology that does not explicitly specify moral Means to achieve it, implies that immoral ones are allowed. This is also true for an ideology that does not specify any Means at all. This statement can stand regardless of your private moral standards.
Well, I disagree with you on the issue of the morality of such ideologies. An ideology should not be judged by what is implied from its statement (or what's not in the statement), because any such conclusion is an interpretation of the ideology.
As I have shown in previous posts, the lack of Means in the definition of an ideology need not be interpreted as a "green light" to take any Means (certainly not in the case of Zionism.)
The addition of Means to an ideology serves only the purpose of giving specific practical instructions how the Ends may be achieved in real life. When such instructions were not known, than it was left to future generations to decide the course of action. When such a course was devised, its morality was judged at that time.
There can be many cuases why an ideology does not specify Means. Yet, The creators never felt obliged to add a disclaimer: “Use only moral Means to achieve our ideology”. In any case, given the subjective and historically dynamic nature of moral standards, such an instruction could still be interpreted in a way the creators did not wish to.

Regarding the establishment of moral common grounds, it seems to me gev agrees with me that:
a) Moral standards are subjective and underwent great changes in the course of history.
b) Your example with Robbery cannot be taken as the common denominator for moral standards.
What we can achieve (I hope) is common agreement on moral standards for the three of us (not *one* proper morality). I suggested Racism and Xenophobia as an immoral standard. Any ideology that does not explicitly promote these ideas may be eligible to be graded as Moral.

[Thair]

If one wants to examine Zionism, 1948 is a perfect example. In this year, Jewish gangs unleashed their fury upon the inhabitants. It was also the year the Israeli army embarassed an ill-equipped Arab army, but more on that later. Nevertheless, the Zionist slogan "a people without a land for a land without people" - something of that nature. Hello, wake up people. One of the reasons PLO and Barak couldn't agree was the right to return. This right would have allowed Arabs driven from their homes to return to Israel. From which war? There were many wars in which the Israeli army forced people to flee their homes. 1948, 1967, and many others are just a few. Also, why don't you just ask the British if that land was empty and ripe for claim. This isn't the South Pole! What is the purpose of all of this, one may ask. Quite simple, Zionism may have been founded on noble causes, but in practice, it was just as bad as communism.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn and Gev, I will post my reply on Sunday. Too much school homework right now. :(

[gev]

Thair,

First, the event in 1948, as unfortunate as it was, does not say anything about Zionism. If this is how you judge an Ideology, so one can say: to Examine Palestanian goals, Suicide bombings and terror attacks all over the world, is a perfect example, Palestanians and Arabs wants to kill as many jews as possible.

I dont think this statement and your statement is true.

Second, this history event was taken totally out of context. you see, if the Arabs would have accepted the UN Resolutions in 1948 as the Jews have, and establish their own state. we all would have lived happily ever after, and the middle east would have looked much different (and the palestanians would have had more land). but instead, the Arabs chose a war in which some of the Arab populatin have fled and some were driven out. yet if it was the Zionism goal to eradicate or drive out all arabs from Israel, how is it that a lot of Palestanians (now called Arab-Israelies) have stayed? you are saying Israel has failed to drive them out? have they fought so badly with the israeli army that he surrended and let them stay?

the fact that most of the Arab population in lands occupied in 1948 and 1967 have stayed in the region, and the fact that both wars (and actually all wars) were forced upon Israel contradicts your theory that Zionists wanted to drive Arabs out.

[sharonbn]

gev,

Every once-and-a-while, some hot-blooded light-headed yahoo enters the thread and "contributes" useless flamatory posts. A-Palestinian and I (both Houyhnhnms) have learned its best to ignore them.

[Thair]

Do you know what Israel is really supposed to look like? Well, I can tell you its a lot bigger than what Israelis currently have. As far as Zionism, the idealogy may have been good in the start, but application was a different process. In other words, communsiom is good in theory, but the only communism that was practiced was Bolshevism. Anyway, I grow weary of arguing with people who have a certain idealogy implanted in their heads. As a result, I have no choice but to throw in the towel. As you may have noticed, my posts tend to infuriate some people. And as I have explained in other posts elsewhere, the risk is not worth it. I tried to educate people, but people don't want anything at all contrary to their beliefs. Call me a quitter if you like, and by the way, NewsGuy, did you check out IDF's true credibility?

[sharonbn]

Thair,
I hope you will read this post (i.e. pick the towel), since I want to change your impression of this thread.

If you want to contribute to this thread, and have people treat you and your posts with proper respect, then maybe you would like to take note of the following "free" advices:

a) Take the time and browse through the postings here. It will give you a general idea about the thread, the participants and the course of discussion (i.e. is it flame war, high volume discussion, civilized discussion, etc.) You may also find information that will educate or at least shed new light over issues you wish to discuss. for instance, another implementation for Communism (other than Bolshevism), that was mentioned here several times is the Israeli Kibbutz, IMO the most successful social experiment based upon Marxist-Communist ideology. Also posted here were some interesting notes regarding 1948 war. Specifically, the fact that the founding of the state of Israel (i.e. realization of the Zionist dream) came as a result of the 1947 UN resolution to divide the land to two independent states. The war, that started only after the Israeli declaration of independance, was totally avoidable and was initiated by the Arabs who rejected the UN resolution. The Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon invaded the land, aided by local Arab gangs (like Ca'uckgi's "rescue army" in the north and Abed Kader's gang in the Jerusalem corridor.)

b) Using articulate, "soft" language is one of the best ways to make people read and listen to you. It does not diminish the strength of your argument. Quite the contrary, I'm proud to say that for the most part, this thread kept the volume to a level of a civilized discussion. A-Palestinian and recently gev gained my respect and attention through their quiet, articulate manners. It came to such an incredible point where A-Palestinian was actually able to convince me of his POV in several matters! (wow! In this forum!?)

c) Another indication of a serious post is its general look: If the author took the time and effort to edit the post, separate the text into logical paragraphs, check spelling, quote past posts using colors and other editing enhancements - all designed to aid the POV that the author is trying to describe - these greatly change the attitude of the reader.
I usually Go 2-3 times over my posts, changing and rearranging words to make my point clearer and more pleasant to read.

d) Cluttering is the enemy of clarity. Unrelated comments (like NewsGuy, did you check out IDF's true credibility?) are best left to their respective threads.

I hope you can see now why, after reading your posts, I thought they were written hastily and for the sole purpose of provocation.

I don't want to call you a quitter, but if you're serious about contributing to this thread, you would not throw the towel so quickly. You're welcome, as long as you keep up with the high standards we so meticulously established here.

[Shuki]

Originally posted by Thair
Do you know what Israel is really supposed to look like? Well, I can tell you its a lot bigger than what Israelis currently have. As far as Zionism, the idealogy may have been good in the start, but application was a different process. In other words, communsiom is good in theory, but the only communism that was practiced was Bolshevism. Anyway, I grow weary of arguing with people who have a certain idealogy implanted in their heads. As a result, I have no choice but to throw in the towel. As you may have noticed, my posts tend to infuriate some people. And as I have explained in other posts elsewhere, the risk is not worth it. I tried to educate people, but people don't want anything at all contrary to their beliefs. Call me a quitter if you like, and by the way, NewsGuy, did you check out IDF's true credibility?

Thair, dialogue is good, but that means there is an exchange of ideas. yOu say that you want to educate people, that doesn't sound to me like you are interested in anything but pushing your own POV

[Melchidael]

Here's my point of view on the conflict in Israel-Palestina...

In my opinion interpreting "Zion" as a justification of a Jewish state in Palestina is as much a fundamentalistic approach to that word as a muslim would interprete Jihad as holy war would be fundamentalistic.

The war going on right now is not Israeli's against Palestinians. It is hardcore right-winged (and by that definition confused) groups fighting each others beliefs not knowing their own belief is far off from what the belief in itself represents.

Why doesn't Israel open borders for the Palestians without expecting them to change their religion? They should have the oppurtunity to do this. If not, you are creating an enemy because it is discriminating and racist.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Melchidael
The war going on right now is not Israeli's against Palestinians. It is hardcore right-winged (and by that definition confused) groups fighting each others beliefs not knowing their own belief is far off from what the belief in itself represents.

Why doesn't Israel open borders for the Palestians without expecting them to change their religion? They should have the oppurtunity to do this. If not, you are creating an enemy because it is discriminating and racist.

How do you know that moms and their little kids eating at a pizza parlor are "right wing"? How do you know that 200 mostly old people at a Passover Seder are "right wing"?

One would think that Europeans would have learned by now from their own long and distinguished history of anti-semitism.

On the contrary, there are over 1 million Arabs -- most of them Muslims -- living in Israel. Israel has bent over backwards to make peace with her Arab neighbors. While Israel searches for a settlement -- having offered the Palestinians their own state with east Jerusalem as its capital -- the Palestinian leaders have never done anything but encourage, glorify, and reward terrorism.

Some Palestinians talk about replacing Israel with a "secular state" for both peoples. This is just a tall tale for gullible Westerners. There is no tradition of secularism in the Arab world. Muslims do not believe in separation of church and state; they want to establish Islamic states.

Israel is simply on the front line of the War Against Terrorism.

You really have to have your head buried in the sand to not see that the Arab world is the world's most racist society. Only Arab countries have entire cities that are closed to all but members of one religion. Only Moslems insist that no non-Moslems may walk past their houses of worship. Here we are in the 21st century, and Arabs are still buying and selling slaves in North Africa. And at a UN conference against racism, Arabs show up distributing anti-semitic literature that would have made (Europe's) Nazis proud.

[Flame]

Actually what I found very bizarre was readng a travel log written by some wiccan women who traveled the Middle East several years ago... after finding out they were American, everyone they spoke to asked if they wree Jewish... upon saying no... they would speak to them.

HEY M????? How many Jewish communities exist outside of Israel thoughout the M.E?

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn and Gev,

I have become really bogged down with School work, so I apologise for the delay. I expect to be free-ed up by Thursday.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Melchidael
The war going on right now is not Israeli's against Palestinians. It is hardcore right-winged (and by that definition confused) groups fighting each others beliefs not knowing their own belief is far off from what the belief in itself represents.

72% of Israelis polled recently for the Jerusalem Post are in favor of this war.

Are you saying that 72% of Israelis are hardcore right-winged? Then you know absolutely nothing about Israel.

Your beliefs are not based on anything factual.


Why doesn't Israel open borders for the Palestians without expecting them to change their religion?

As a hardcore right-wing Jewish orthodox religious fanatic myself (according to your beliefs and assumptions of course), I can tell you that active proselytizing and missionarizing activivty attempting to convert gentiles to Jews is looked upon with disdain and is, in fact, not practiced by any known religious organization or group. Furthermore, as much as Jews are infidels (and monkeys) in the eyes of the Moslem Arabs, there has never been a campaign or an attempted campaign by them in modern Israel to convert Jews by the handfuls or by the masses.

Regarding the borders, they were more open before Oslo started. However, most people forgot or simply never knew that terrorist attacks, death and casualties statistically shot through the roof in the first few years after Oslo was signed.

It was Rabin and Peres who kept on closing and reopening the borders, only to allow the attacks to continue again.

Please try this in Belgium with such hostile neighbors and see how much you like it.


They should have the oppurtunity to do this. If not, you are creating an enemy because it is discriminating and racist.

There is nothing racist about closing your borders to a hostile entity.

[Flame]

Funny... from what I"ve seen in this little old world right-wing fanatics don't usually wait 30 years and thousands of attacks to occur before finally taking action. As a matter of fact, no other nation ON EARTH has restrained itself from taking serious action after so much butchery. And no other nation on earth did the US a favor of taking missle attacks during someone other's war without returning fire.

Oh Jerusalem... if I might add to the accusation that its racist to close your border to an enemy... as if every nation on earth doesn't have border restrictions... BUT... if he wants to talk about racism... 2 words.... arab world... that is the ultimate in racism... no one else allowed except arabs... what else could that be called?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Flame
BUT... if he wants to talk about racism... 2 words.... arab world...

Can you recommend a good kosher hotel in Riyad? :p

[Melchidael]

Prove to me the word Zion justifies an Israeli state in Palestinian territory today... It is originally a religious term meant to enrich the spirit not territory as the Sharon-government (backed up by 74 % of the Israeli public) would like it to be. I wonder if this 74 % of the Israeli public will say "wir haben es nicht gewust" when the atrocities of what your government is doing to the Palestinian population will leak out to the media that is not controlled by your government. Yes in that sense this 74 % of the Israeli public are zionists which support a right-winged regime. Denying the Israeli government is right-winged would be self-denial if you would recognize the members being part of it and the military actions they are commiting against the Palestinian population despite warnings from the global political scene. They ignore UN-rulings and are violating human rights. How much more right-winged can you be?

I suggest you talk to an anti-zionist Jew living in Europe today(yes they exist too so don't start calling me an anti-semitist because i'm still one of those who can make a distinction between zionists and jews in contrary to many users on this forum it seems). Ask him why some fundamentalist arabs burnt his car to the ground yesterday even though he is opposed to the Israeli policy in Palestina. He will tell you he is a victim of what the right-winged government in Israel is doing and how the right-winged arabs react to it.

In Europe religion and politics are strictly separated. Fundamentalist regimes are characterized by mixing those two. Judge for yourself is Israel mixing those two nowadays?

Yes, every country has border restrictions but Israël is one of those that uses restrictions based on religion. Or how many Palestinian Jews live in Israël?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Melchidael
[B]Prove to me the word Zion justifies an Israeli state in Palestinian territory today...[b]

Who said a single word justifies anything?


It is originally a religious term meant to enrich the spirit not territory as the Sharon-government (backed up by 74 % of the Israeli public) would like it to be.

So this whole mess is about semantics?


I wonder if this 74 % of the Israeli public will say "wir haben es nicht gewust" when the atrocities of what your government is doing to the Palestinian population will leak out to the media that is not controlled by your government.

Sorry, no attrocities. There are misfortunes of war and tragedies but no attrocities.




Yes in that sense this 74 % of the Israeli public are zionists which support a right-winged regime.


It's a right-leaning Zionist democratically elected givernment. You almost got that right.


Denying the Israeli government is right-winged would be self-denial if you would recognize the members being part of it and the military actions they are commiting against the Palestinian population despite warnings from the global political scene.

So, military actions like this in response to over 400 Israeli citizens being killed in terrorist incidents over the past year and a half (actually 8 years) are unjustified in your opinion?


They ignore UN-rulings

Amen. Never thought we would pay much attention to a Moslem aligned organization that managed to place Syria on their security council. Yuk! Yuk!


I suggest you talk to an anti-zionist Jew living in Europe today(yes they exist too so don't start calling me an anti-semitist because i'm still one of those who can make a distinction between zionists and jews in contrary to many users on this forum it seems). Ask him why some fundamentalist arabs burnt his car to the ground yesterday even though he is opposed to the Israeli policy in Palestina. He will tell you he is a victim of what the right-winged government in Israel is doing and how the right-winged arabs react to it.

That's right. The antisemite who burned his car was totally in his rights. He didn't violate any UN ultimatums and burning a car is not an abuse of the vehicle's human rights.

[quote]In Europe religion and politics are strictly separated. Fundamentalist regimes are characterized by mixing those two.[quote]

Sorry. Most of us here came to live in and build a Jewish state. Shame on us!

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn and Gev,

Again, I must apologise for keeping you waiting, but my school work has first priority. (Finals are near). I will try my best to post on Monday. (No really). :p

[A-Palestinian]

Gev,

"Ideologies can be changed and constructed over time, and the judjement of Ideology in one point in history, can be different that in another point in history. "

Since you think that morality is subjective, then the above statement is not surprising. There is only one - proper - morality, and thus, only one - correct - judgement.

"In your opinion, if there will be another Zionist Congress in the future and there will be a statement that the means of the Zionism should only be ahieved by moral means, will the Zionism become morral?

thats my problem with your defenition of Morral and immoral Ideologies.

Now, if there was this Zionist Gathering in say 1950, and there has been a statement, that the Zionism Ends should be acheived only by morral Means, would you also think now (2002) that Zionism is Immorral? "

When we are referring to "Zionism", it is a referance to the one articulated by Theodore Herzl, in the 19th Century. *THIS* is the one with Unspecified Means. If a new Zionist Congress declared that Zionism's Ends should now be achieved with (Specified) Moral Means, then this "new" Zionism would be moral.

So now there are two ideologies, with the same Ends. But their Means are different. Thus, they are not the same Ideology. (Just like the Democrats and the Communists do not share the same ideology , but the exact same Ends ). Therefore, the "Old Zionism" would still remain immoral, but the "New Zionism" would indeed be perfectly moral.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"if you conclude an Ideology that has Moral Ends and Unspecified Means - Immorral, than even if the Ends can be acheived by morral Means, Morral people should abondon the Ideology.... "

Realise, that when a Means is stated in an Ideology, it essentially limits what may be undertaken in order to achieve the Ends (Weather its moral or not doesnt matter - there is limit placed). If an Ideology contains Unspecified Means, then there is essentially no limit placed on what is to be undertaken - so long as the Ends are achieved. As such, it sanctions immoral Means.

Now, moral people, cannot accept all the Means of this Ideology. This is because, the Means of this Ideology will sanction *anything*, while the Moral people will only sanction *some* (moral) things.

Since the moral people do not accept the ideology's accepted Means, then they do not accept the Ideology. (They might accept its ENDS - but certainly not its full endorsement of all possible Means). In short, they reject the immoral Means sanctioned by the ideology, and thus, reject the whole Ideology.

Now, bear in mind, that if a person chooses to follow moral means, it does not neccesarily mean that he is a moral person. Contrast this with someone who is inherently moral.
Example: A practical person could choose moral Means one day, and immoral Means the next. A perfectly moral person, would only work with moral Means. Is the former a moral person? No. He might follow moral Means, but his choice of morality is just practical. Contrasted to a moral person who would ALWAYS use *only* moral Means.

"Correct if I'm wrong, but I think that what you were trying to state in the begining of the Thread, is that if the Zionism Ideology would have stated that the Ends should only be acheived by Moral Means than it wouldnt be practical, because of the Statements you have offered. well, I think Sharonbn did successfully showed that the Statements are not completely correct and that Zionism can be practical when Moral Means are persude. "

I do not recall stating that moral Means would be impractical. (Surely however, if you include immoral Means, that opens up alot more options, but that does not mean necessarily that moral Means are unpractical).

"when I try to think about what would have been different in the History of the Conflict, if the first Zionists Congress would have released a statement that the Means of the Zionism should only be morral. I dont think anything would have changed, also the core of the Ideology not changed . " (Bold Mine).

Sure it would change. The Ends would be perfectly the same, but they Means would change from immoral, to moral ones.

"The Sentence has two parts:
1. There is only *one* proper morality.
I disagree with that, what is morral to you today, can be seen immorral tommorrow. for example, animal rights movements - question the morrality of using animals in experiments, there are arguments and opinions about the morallity and Immorality of this issue - so Morrality IS Subjuctive. "

No. Just beacause people arent decided on the morality of something, does not mean that a proper morality for it doesnt exist - it just means it hasnt been discovered yet. Just as two scientists could be undecided on a certain temperature of a Star - it does not mean the Star has no temperature - it simply means that it is yet to be discovered.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"If you judge Zionism as an immoral ideology, then your moral standards are a relevant issue indeed. "

Sharonbn, if you recall, you asked me to give an example of moral/immoral ideologies *other* than Zionism.

"b) Your example with Robbery cannot be taken as the common denominator for moral standards.
What we can achieve (I hope) is common agreement on moral standards for the three of us (not *one* proper morality). I suggested Racism and Xenophobia as an immoral standard. Any ideology that does not explicitly promote these ideas may be eligible to be graded as Moral "

Well, I never intended the Robbery Question to serve as a common denominator - I was going to build on it from there.

Anyway, we must not digress. We left the issue at Post 81 - more specifically, Ideologies that do not specify Means are inherently Immoral.

Since there was a long pause, I invite you to ask questions from your previous posts (any ones), that you think are still valid.
-Thnx

[sharonbn]

There is only one - proper - morality, and thus, only one - correct – judgment
and who determines what’s moral and what’s not?
History shows that moral standards change over time: what was considered moral 200 years ago (e.g. slavery) is immoral today.
Furthermore, even today, different people live with different moral standards. For example, Bigamy is considered immoral in Judaism and Christianity but is accepted in Islam and Hinduism. So which is it, moral or not?
I know you think Communism is an immoral ideology. However, I believe it to be morally superior to Capitalism. We already saw that robbery is another controversial concept.
By the way, I suggested Racism and Xenophobia as standards for immoral concepts. Is that acceptable by you?

When we are referring to "Zionism", it is a reference to the one articulated by Theodore Herzl, in the 19th Century. *THIS* is the one with Unspecified Means. If a new Zionist Congress declared that Zionism's Ends should now be achieved with (Specified) Moral Means, then this "new" Zionism would be moral.
Ideologies may change over time. This does not make them obsolete, it makes them dynamic as any other man-conceived concept (much like morality)
As early as post #5 of part 1, NewsGuy notes the dynamic and controversial nature of Zionism:
I am not so sure about whether there is an "official" definition of Zionism, per se. In fact, as the article I am linking to below states, the definition of Zionism has been hotly debated for a very long time.
Here is the discussion in the British Guardian newspaper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/unracism/story/0,1099,546868,00.html

Realize, that when a Means is stated in an Ideology, it essentially limits what may be undertaken in order to achieve the Ends (Weather its moral or not doesn’t matter - there is limit placed). If an Ideology contains Unspecified Means, then there is essentially no limit placed on what is to be undertaken - so long as the Ends are achieved. As such, it sanctions immoral Means.
Means do not serve as limitations on how to achieve the goal of an ideology. Means serve as instructions of how to achieve the Ends. This is true for all the examples we gave in this discussion (Communism, Nazism, etc.) Furthermore, All Ideologies differ in their goal. This means that you cannot have two ideologies with the same goal but different Means. if you wanted to achieve Marxist-Communist goal (“equal wealth for all”) and came up with a different plan than “state control over all production means” (for example, “One salary of $1000 for all jobs”) then you would still be regarded as a communist.
There could never be “old” Zionism and “new” Zionism simply because someone changed the Means.
Whenever the Means were left unspecified its because the inventor of the ideology could not imagine at the time how it is possible to achieve the Ends. The inventor is saying “I’m open for suggestions” He does not say “Do whatever you like”.

Now, to top it all off, I came up with a radical idea: Zionism is an ideology with specified Means.

Zionism rose as a response to the persecutions of Jews in Europe and other parts of the world. Hertzel came to the conclusion that Jews will never find peace in foreign lands among foreign people because they themselves will always be viewed as foreigners. This was true then and is still true to this day.
If history had taken another course, if Jews were fully integrated in all countries without persecutions, then I imagined that Zionism would never be conceived. (Same with Palestinian nationalism, by the way) It remains evident that the vast majority of Zionists came from countries were persecutions occur (e.g. Russia and not America)

Hertzel believed that Jews can only find peace with the establishment of an independent Jewish state. This last sentence defines the "establishment of an independent Jewish state" as Means to establish peace for the Jews.

So Zionism definition is:

Ends: End the persecutions of the Jewish people.
Means: Establish an independent Jewish state.

Where would this land be? The natural answer for the Jews would be the land of Israel since they claim it was promised to them by God. Uganda was proposed by UK. Hertzel endorsed the plan but the Zionist congress rejected it. If a Jewish state was to be founded in Uganda, who knows? Maybe it could serve as home for the Jews. The Zionist congress rejected the Uganda plan because it feared Jews would not come to “Jewish Uganda” (having no emotional attachment to the land) and thus it will fail to serve as safe haven for the Jewish people.

This definition was revised after the establishment of the state of Israel to:

Ends: End the persecutions of the Jewish people.
Means: Develop the state of Israel and prepare it for the arrival of Jews, in case of future catastrophes.

[Mediocrates]

We've been saying for a half century that never again would the murder, threat, oppression, persecution of Jews go without a response. The degree of that response has varied over time but there has always been one and there always will. Anyone who can't get around or over or comfortable with that thought needs to pick out a wall and bang their head against it.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Ok, well obviously is appears as though we will have to address morality. Because of this, I will divide future posts which address morality into two parts. One will address morality, and the other, that which is related to Zionism.

"Furthermore, even today, different people live with different moral standards. For example, Bigamy is considered immoral in Judaism and Christianity but is accepted in Islam and Hinduism. So which is it, moral or not?
I know you think Communism is an immoral ideology. However, I believe it to be morally superior to Capitalism. We already saw that robbery is another controversial concept.
By the way, I suggested Racism and Xenophobia as standards for immoral concepts. Is that acceptable by you? "

Ok. First, you have to agree with this:

-- If the morality of an action, or topic is controversial, that does not mean that there is "no real right or wrong". It simply means, that it is yet to be discovered.

Do you agree with the above?

About Racism and Xenophobia being immoral:

Racism:: Discrimination based on Race.
Xenophobia: Fear of foreigners/outsiders.

Xenophobia cannot possibly be immoral. It is simply a fear of something. Fears are simply abstracts, with no implication for violating rights. They are just that - fear. By the same token, it cannot be moral either. It is simply a fear. As such, it is ammoral.

Racism: If a man is more attracted to certain races over others, and chooses to marry a woman of a particular race over another, then he is practicing racism. Is this immoral? Certainly not. However, he is discriminating based on race.

If that same man was to state that people of a particular race are actually humans, while others are not, then this is also racism. Is this statement immoral? Certainly.

So, Racism being immoral depends on the context being used. It can be both moral, and immoral, depending on context.


I had stated: "There is only one - proper - morality, and thus, only one - correct judgment. " and you said:
and who determines what? moral and what? not?
History shows that moral standards change over time: what was considered moral 200 years ago (e.g. slavery) is immoral today. (Bold Mine).

To answer your first question: Like anything, you determine facts through reason. So the answer is: People, throught rational faculty can determine what is moral, and what is not.

Take note about what you stated in the above paragraph - about what was "considered" moral. You are right - people, over time, *considered* different things to be moral, and different things not to be. Does that mean that a real morality does not exist? No. Like I said earlier, it simply means that it has yet to be discovered. People can consider different things all the time. What does this say about the true facts? Absolutely Nothing.

Answer this question:

Is morality to be invented or to be discovered?

Your answer will shed light onto weather you believe morality to be subjective (in which case I can concoct my own morality and live/kill by it), or weather you consider morality to be objective and absoulte, (in which case no-one can escape proper rights and wrongs).

"Ideologies may change over time. This does not make them obsolete, it makes them dynamic as any other man-conceived concept (much like morality)
As early as post #5 of part 1, NewsGuy notes the dynamic and controversial nature of Zionism: "

If in 1898, someone defined an ideology, then is has been created. If at some point in the future, a change is made to it, then it is no longer the same ideology. It is different. Weather the old ideology sparked the new one, and weather or not they are very similar is irrelevant. They are two, distinct ideologies now.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Means do not serve as limitations on how to achieve the goal of an ideology. Means serve as instructions of how to achieve the Ends. "

Your second statement is correct. However, *since* a Means will provide an ideology with a distinct way of going about achieving its goal, there ARE indeed limits placed on what is can do. Thus, Means essentially serve as a limit on how to achive a goal. This last sentence is a consequent.

"Furthermore, All Ideologies differ in their goal. "

Arbitrary Assertion.

"This means that you cannot have two ideologies with the same goal but different Means. "

Again, Arbitrary Assertion. Why not?

(Regarding your last two statements - you has previously agreed, that an Ideology can contain a Means. (Post #105, Part 1). Your last two statements however, go against what you had previously accepted. This is because an Ideology can contain same Ends, but different Means, and since Means can be included, then the ideologies are different. Thus, if you are standing by what you said in post #105, the above 2 statements need to be retracted. If not, then you are not standing by post #105. You will have to renounce one of those conflicting positions.)

"Whenever the Means were left unspecified its because the inventor of the ideology could not imagine at the time how it is possible to achieve the Ends. The inventor is saying ?? open for suggestions?He does not say ?o whatever you like? "

You are correct. But as what was said before, the intention of the creator of the Ideology is not relevant. Thus, if he essentially left the Means open, (for whatever reason), then its consequent means that *anything* is sanctioned to go. Sure, he may not have meant it, but that does not change what his ideology sanctions.

Now, before you say that "Well, it was not completed yet, which was why he might not have specified the Means". Thats fine - but we are talking about Ideologies that have been completed, and are way past the formulation stage.

"Ends: End the persecutions of the Jewish people.
Means: Establish an independent Jewish state. "

You are correct. But this does not change anything. Thus, the statement that Zionism is inherently immoral still stands. This is the reason:

Your Means stated here are correct, and are the exact same as what I had stated in Post# 3, part 1. Your Means here simply encompass both Upshot 1, and Upshot 2 from post# 3.

Also, note this: It is very possible to "zoom out" a bit. So for example, one could say the Ultimate Ends are for "Happiness of the Jewish people." The Means for this End is "Zionism". This is perfectly acceptable. Ends can be Means when looking at the "bigger picture", but that does not change anything relating to their morality.

"Ends: End the persecutions of the Jewish people.
Means: Develop the state of Israel and prepare it for the arrival of Jews, in case of future catastrophes ."

This is not a "modification". It is simply Patriotism. Zionism is for what you had mentioned above. Those are the Ends, and those are the Means. Your last paragraph is work for ones country - or the love of it - Patriotism. (Obviously, a prerequisite for loving ones country is for it to exist in the first place - the job of Zionism).

[Mediocrates]

As if simply uttering the word 'racism' is some kind of ideological trump card. 'Ok we can all go home now, we heard the "R" word.' Which of course is nonsense. People who are not themselves zionists who lecture about what zionism is is on par with blind people lecturing me about the color of the sky. You are certainly entitled to your own albeit misinformed wrong headed opinion which is I suppose what makes this country and Israel great in comparison to nation states that allow no dissent no variation no public discouse. Now why is it again there has never been any civil rights movement for the Palestinians? Well it's because there is no notion of any dialog. No concept of process. No marketplace of ideas that is the strength of free societies. It's simply "Death or Glory!!!"

[gev]

A-Phalastanian,

What you are actually saying is that morality can be discovered over time. and you agree that something that is considered morral today can be considered Immoral tommorow.

then, I dont think it matters if we dont agree that there is only one true Morrality. because what I was trying to show is the Dynamic of Morality. To show the problem of your arguments about Immorality of Zionism with the Dynamic of Morality Let me ask you a question:

If Zionism would have stated that Only Moral Means are allowed in acheiving the Ends, would it satisfy you (Moral is Dynamic and argumentable)? would it change anything (in history, followers)?
It would have been a vague and useless Statement.

Only if There were Details of Parctical Means, and all of them were Morral, only then, in your opinion, the Ideology would be Morral. well, as stated before the thinkers of Zionism havent had the privelege of knowing exactly what will be the plan for creating Israel, so I dont think they had much of a choice but to leave it open for future discussions, but certainly I dont think that it was intentionally left out for letting Immorral means to be implemented.

[A-Palestinian]

Gev,

"What you are actually saying is that morality can be discovered over time. and you agree that something that is considered morral today can be considered Immoral tommorow. "

No - you have misunderstood.

The error you are making is why you come up with wrong conclusions. Allow me to re-itterate:

Actions have been considered moral and immoral over time - this much is true. This meaning, that no decision was made regarding their morality - that they might have been very controversial. Now, this does NOT mean that a Real morality doesn't exist - it simply means that it has not yet been discovered.

There is a big difference over an weather something HAS a morality, and weather we have discovered it yet.

To better understand this, imagine a complicated math problem, that has a solution. It is so complicated, that people spend centuries pondering over it, argueing, etc, over what the solution is. As yet, no one has a solution. Does this mean the math problem has no correct answer - no solution? No. It simply means, that it has not yet been discovered. The solution is THERE - it EXISTS - but we dont know it yet.

"If Zionism would have stated that Only Moral Means are allowed in acheiving the Ends, would it satisfy you "

(Satisfy me?) Yes, then Zionism would be a moral Ideology.

"would it change anything (in history, followers)? "

Yes. Immoral people could not follow it.

"well, as stated before the thinkers of Zionism havent had the privelege of knowing exactly what will be the plan for creating Israel, so I dont think they had much of a choice but to leave it open for future discussions, but certainly I dont think that it was intentionally left out for letting Immorral means to be implemented ."

Right. LIke I had stated in the previous post, the *intentions* of the creators are irrelevant. They could have been angels - but that does *not* change the inherent morality of their ideology.

[Mediocrates]

Yes yes all governments and philosophies are 100% exclusively moral - in fact they all claim distinct moral superiority.

Is there a point to this? Do you not know the way of the world? Do you want to debate effects and not intentions or what you think are intentions? Are you unhappy that for the first time the PLI is faced with an opponent as ruthless and determined as your own? Do you have a problem with moral parity because frankly you can play the victim or the agressor but not both. And if you think the way to peace is to simply kill off all the Jews and then make a half hearted apology about it - that's not going to happen either.

[gev]

A-Palestinian,

Actions have been considered moral and immoral over time - this much is true. This meaning, that no decision was made regarding their morality - that they might have been very controversial. Now, this does NOT mean that a Real morality doesn't exist - it simply means that it has not yet been discovered.

I understood you perfectly. what I am trying to emphasize is that what really counts is people's actions and how they see their actions. not the thoeratically "pure" morrality!

as Mediocrates stated "all governments and philosophies are 100% exclusively moral" and I will add to it: all people think of themself as morral... What do think the Nazis thought of their Ideology? morral/Immorral?

would it change anything (in history, followers)? "

Yes. Immoral people could not follow it.

I agree that Immoral people could not follow it. but in our case there arent any, because someone who will not follow the Ideology must be considered Immorral to himself - subjectively and not Objectively. So I still think that nothing would have changed in history if Zionism would have been "Morral" to your metohd...

But I think we are drifting into a purely academic discussion and I doubt that we can convice each other.

I tried to return in one of my last post to the begining of the thread. in the begining of the Thread, you have stated 3 statements which I interperted them as your attempt to show that the Ends of Zionism as morral as they maybe, could have been only acheived, practically, by Immorral Means. is that correct?

[A-Palestinian]

Gev,

"what I am trying to emphasize is that what really counts is people's actions and how they see their actions. not the thoeratically "pure" morrality! "

What?

"all people think of themself as morral... What do think the Nazis thought of their Ideology? morral/Immorral? "

Again, you are falling into the same ditch - confusing what people consider themselves, and what they really are. Please do not confuse the two.

An example :

If I consider myself 2 feet tall, does that mean that I really am 2 feet tall?

No. In order to accept it as fact, that I am 2 feet tall, one would have to measure me. Once you prove that I am really 2 feet tall, then that becomes fact. If you show that I am instead 5' 8", then thats a fact. What if I still consider myself as 2 feet tall? Then that becomes Irrelevant.

The same goes for Hitler - yes, he considered himself to be a moral person, but was he really? We can successfully show that he was not - so now, what he still adamantly considers becomes irrelevant.

"So I still think that nothing would have changed in history if Zionism would have been "Morral" to your metohd "

Again, if Zionism sanctioned only moral Means, then it would be a totally moral ideology. As such, immoral people could not follow it. Thus, a Zionist could *never* commit himself to immoral Means. (Because in that case, he would not be a Zionist).

"I tried to return in one of my last post to the begining of the thread. in the begining of the Thread, you have stated 3 statements which I interperted them as your attempt to show that the Ends of Zionism as morral as they maybe, could have been only acheived, practically, by Immorral Means. is that correct?"

I take it you are referring to Statements 1 through 5 . Post# 6, Part 1.

In that case, no. When you state: "the Ends of Zionism as morral as they maybe, could have been only acheived, practically, by Immorral Means. ":

Thats not true. If the land was empty, then nothing immoral gets done - so the land can be taken, and a new Nation founded on it.

However, if the land was not empty, and you are set out to create a new Nation with the properties of Zionism, (Given from Upshot 1 and 2), then the *only* way is to resort to immoral Means.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,
I agree we can split the posts to discussion on morality and Zionism. However, the topic of morality does bare strong effect on Zionism.

Xenophobia cannot possibly be immoral. It is simply a fear of something. Fears are simply abstracts, with no implication for violating rights. They are just that - fear. By the same token, it cannot be moral either. It is simply a fear. As such, it is ammoral.
According to the dictionary, Xenophobia also defines a person which is “unduly contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.”

Regarding racism: I believe if someone says “I don’t like black women and I’m not going to marry one” it does not make him a racist. He simply states his taste in women (everyone has his/her taste in the opposite sex.) However, if he was to say “I believe all black women are stupid and therefore I’m not going to marry one” then he becomes a racist. Do you see the difference? Being a racist does not mean you like or dislike certain people. It goes to the reason for your disliking. If you attach a mental or cultural attribute to an ethnic group, then you become a racist.

-- If the morality of an action, or topic is controversial, that does not mean that there is "no real right or wrong". It simply means, that it is yet to be discovered.
How can you be sure that you discovered the “true” morality of anything? How can you be sure that 100 years from now, people won’t say “boy, how could the people of the 21st cent. put people in prisons? How could these savages live with such moral standards?!”
Please tell me how do you know when the proper morality is discovered?
Is homosexuality moral or immoral? Is abortion moral or immoral? Is death penalty moral or immoral? I truly don’t know the “proper” answer to these ones. You can say that the proper morality of these issues is yet to be discovered. I say it will never be discovered. This does not stop people (including you and I) from forming their opinion on the morality of homosexuality, abortion and the death penalty. Does this mean we are wrong? Is there some hidden fact about these subjects that will be revealed in the future that will suddenly make every one “see the truth”?

and who determines what’s moral and what’s not?
To answer your first question: Like anything, you determine facts through reason. So the answer is: People, through rational faculty can determine what is moral, and what is not.
People can determine through rational faculty?? that’s a new one. Which people? All people? Some people? Can you give the name of one person who knows the proper morality of things? There is no one person in the world that can judge other people as moral or immoral. You can only state your opinion on the morality of other people. It may sound discouraging (like you said “you can concoct your own morality” – and I answer this later) and maybe we will not agree on what’s moral and what’s not but the best we can do is try to arrive at a common ground.

Your answer will shed light onto weather you believe morality to be subjective (in which case I can concoct my own morality and live/kill by it), or weather you consider morality to be objective and absoulte, (in which case no-one can escape proper rights and wrongs).
Not only you can concoct your own morality, you could also convince other people to follow your moral standards. If you’re notion gains enough support, it will eventually become the new standard (the new proper morality)
This is what happened in Nazi Germany. Today we all agree that Nazism is immoral. Did we discover the true morality of Nazism?
Another example is the rise of the “green” movements in the second half of the 20th cent., untill that time, killing of animals was not considered immoral. Then along came these crazy people with their concoction of “animal rights”. Did they discover the proper morality of the issue of killing animals?
What will future generations say about the green movements? Maybe they will become immoral in 100 years from now? So did they or didn’t they discover the proper morality?

If I consider myself 2 feet tall, does that mean that I really am 2 feet tall?
Morality is a man-made concept. It is NOT a physical/scientific phenomenon. It cannot be physically measured and to date there is no one accepted generic procedure that can be applied to human thoughts and actions to measure their morality. Morality should not be compared with physical measurements like height nor should it be compared to mathmatical equations. It should be compared with other manmade measurements such as beauty, funny, etc. Same as there is no one proper beauty rating to things, there is no one proper morality.

One last thing:
I say true proper morality does not exist. You say it does. However, if such morality does exist, I showed that we can never determine that we finally "discovered" the true proper morality of anything because
a) We will not agree on one person that “knows” the proper morality and can tell us what’s moral and what’s not.
b) we don't know what new discoveries lie in the future that may alter moral standards.
Therefore We can say that all we can ever achieve is what we consider as moral and immoral and is right for ourselves and our time. So even if proper morality exist, it is irrelevant since it is beyond our grasp.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,
OK, now for the discussion on ideology and zionism:

"All Ideologies differ in their goal. "
Arbitrary Assertion.
"This means that you cannot have two ideologies with the same goal but different Means. "
Again, Arbitrary Assertion. Why not?
Why not? Simply because there is no real life example of two ideologies with the same goal and different means. History shows that when new means are discovered (or invented) to achieve the same goal, it just establishes a new stream or cult of followers of the same ideology. One Example is Communist Russia and the Israeli Kibbutz, both followers of Marxism with different means. Another example is the rise of protestant Christianity.

(Regarding your last two statements - you has previously agreed, that an Ideology can contain a Means. (Post #105, Part 1). Your last two statements however, go against what you had previously accepted.
There is no contradiction. All Ideologies include a goal to be achieved. Some may include instructions (Means) of achieving the goal. However, the Means, when specified, do not construct the essence and identity of the ideology. They may be altered, depending upon circumstances and other factors. The ultimate goal of the ideology is what uniquely identifies it and differentiate it from rivaling ideologies.

Now, before you say that "Well, it was not completed yet, which was why he might not have specified the Means". Thats fine - but we are talking about Ideologies that have been completed, and are way past the formulation stage.
If Zionism have been completed, than it can and should be judged by whatever means were actually implemented to achieving it. The hypothetical question of what Zionism sanctions and how it could have been implemented becomes irrelevant (it is only relevant if the goal is still unaccomplished). Similarly, the question of morality of Palestinian nationalism is open until the Palestinian state is founded. This is becasue different means may be applied in the future. After the foundation of the Palestinian state, the ideology can and should be judged by all the means that were implemented.

"Ends: End the persecutions of the Jewish people.
Means: Develop the state of Israel and prepare it for the arrival of Jews, in case of future catastrophes ."
This is how modern Zionism is defined by its present followers.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"However, the topic of morality does bare strong effect on Zionism. "

Yeah. Actually, since this pertains to Zionism, then the only thing required, is to agree that forcefully evicting people from their homes be immoral. If you agree to this, then we can forego the whole Morality talk, since it really is a side matter.

Nevertheless, I will respond to the morality talk for now.

------------------------------------------------------------
On Morality:

"According to the dictionary, Xenophobia also defines a person which is “unduly contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.” "

Right. Thats why it cant be moral/immoral.

"“I don’t like black women and I’m not going to marry one” it does not make him a racist "

Wait a minute - if he is actively discriminating on the basis of race, then it doesnt matter *why* he is doing it - he becomes a racist. But being a racist can be for moral/ammoral reasons too. It *could* be immoral. But as a concept by itself, "Racism" is not inherently immoral.

Some more examples:

-- A movie director seeks to make a serious movie on the Normandy Beach Landings in WWII. He sets off to hire actors. In order to make his movie credible, and not rediculous, he *must* practice racism. Thus, if a Black actor came over and offered himself as an actor, the director would reject him, on the basis of race and *nothing* else. He would *only* hire White actors. As such, he is a racist. (The sight of thousands of Black troops storming the beaches of France would be laughable).

But the director certainly is *not* an immoral person, since his racism in this context of a credible movie is also not immoral. Its justified.

This, as opposed to someone holding the view that Blacks are not subject to the same rights as other human beings. (thus implicitly stating that they are not sentient human beings). This is racism, however, in this context it is certainly immoral.

So, again, Racism could be immoral, and it could also not be - it depends on context. It is simply a discrimination based on race. That's all it is.

-- Do not substitute the definition of racism with the negative connotation it usually conjures.

Thus, we cannot say "Racism is immoral", until we are aware in what context it is being used in.

"How can you be sure that you discovered the “true” morality of anything? "

"I had previously asked: "Is morality to be invented or to be discovered ? " To this, you stated: "Morality is a man-made concept."."

I have to question your Epistimology here. It seems as though you dont have one. Please state your Epistimology, if you indeed have one.

How can you be sure that you discovered the true 'anything ' of 'anything '? In order to live ... indeed in order to even have this conversation, you must accept, that the only method of acquiring knowledge, is through Reason. Rational *thought* is the ONLY method available to us, in order to assess our surroundings, and attain trueknowledge.

"People can determine through rational faculty?? that’s a new one. Which people? All people? Some people? Can you give the name of one person who knows the proper morality of things? "

Like I said above, since reason is the only method available in order to attain knowledge, and since Humans are capable of excecuting reason, then only people practicing rational thought on a subject can attain true facts.

"There is no one person in the world that can judge other people as moral or immoral. "

I can't judge Hitler as immoral? You just voided your own statement, when you said claimed that he was indeed immoral.

"You can only state your opinion on the morality of other people."

Sure you can. But since you "cant know morality in reality", then you also cannot act in reality as a responce to something. Thus, if someone was to come running towards you with a knife, you cannot judge him as really immoral or moral. Since you cannot judge him in reality, then by the same token you also cannot stop him in reality - why would you? He isnt immoral - since you dont know, so what right do you now have to stop someone in reality, whom you cant prove as being immoral in reality? Nothing. If followed to consistency, you would just stand there and get murdered. (Again, this boils down to your Epistimology).

"and maybe we will not agree on what’s moral and what’s not but the best we can do is try to arrive at a common ground "

That is inviting bloodshed. (But since I cant know true morality, then maybe bloodshed is moral...) By your statement, then if we all agree/consider that Nazism is "ok", then it really is "ok"?

"Today we all agree that Nazism is immoral. Did we discover the true morality of Nazism? "

Nazism isnt immoral because we all hapened to come to the same conclusion about it. It is immoral, because it violates human rights. Thus, even if 99.9% of the world considered it to be "ok", that would still not make it inherently "ok". It would still remain as evil as it really is.

"a) We will not agree on one person that “knows” the proper morality and can tell us what’s moral and what’s not. "

Non-Sequitor.

"we don't know what new discoveries lie in the future that may alter moral standards. "

TRUE Morality is changed, when whatever we derive it from, has been changed. Then please state, how *you* derive your own set of morals. By what 'feels' good? By what you 'wish'? Rational thought?

"Therefore We can say that all we can ever achieve is what we consider as moral and immoral and is right for ourselves and our time. So even if proper morality exist, it is irrelevant since it is beyond our grasp ."

The flaw here is in your Epistimology. I suspect you dont have one. So again, please state your Epistimology.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

-----------------------------------------------------------
On Zionism:

"Why not? Simply because there is no real life example of two ideologies with the same goal and different means. "

Non-Sequitor, but here is an example anyway:
Democracts, and Communists. Same Ends, vastly different Means.


"History shows that when new means are discovered (or invented) to achieve the same goal, it just establishes a new stream or cult of followers of the same ideology " (Bold and Underline Mine).

The last word in your sentence, should read "Ends", NOT "ideology". This shows that you have not accepted that an Ideology contains an End(s), and possibly a Means also. You had stated in Post#105, Part 1, that you accepted this. Your above statement shows that you dont. Please reconcile those contradictory stances by renouncing one of them.

"However, the Means, when specified, do not construct the essence and identity of the ideology. " (Bold and Italics Mine).

Essence and identity? Whatever they are, an ideology is not defined by them. Thus, I dismiss them.

"They may be altered, depending upon circumstances and other factors ."

True. Thats when they become different ideologies. But this is a Non-Sequitor.

"The ultimate goal of the ideology is what uniquely identifies it and differentiate it from rivaling ideologies "

Wrong. What differentiates one ideology from another, is simply, their difference(s). Since an ideology encompases an Ends and possibly a Means, then any difference of Ends OR Means of one ideology differentiate it from another one.

Again, you are in contradiction with your statement, Post#105 Part1. Please renounce one of those conflicting positions.

"If Zionism have been completed, than it can and should be judged by whatever means were actually implemented to achieving it. "

No, an ideology need not be implemented in order for us to judge its morality. We could easily show how Nazism was immoral even before it was implemented. One need not throw himself in a fire to make sure that he is really combustible.

""Ends: End the persecutions of the Jewish people. Means: Develop the state of Israel and prepare it for the arrival of Jews, in case of future catastrophes ."
This is how modern Zionism is defined by its present followers ."

Whatever it is called, it is not the Zionism we are talking about. It is "Modern" Zionism. The conotation of a name should usually reflect the actual concept it is naming, but its not neccessary. So I am talking about Zionism of Theodore Herzl.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

since this pertains to Zionism, then the only thing required, is to agree that forcefully evicting people from their homes be immoral.
I agree.

------------------------------------------------------------
On Morality:

"According to the dictionary, Xenophobia also defines a person which is “unduly contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.” "
Right. Thats why it cant be moral/immoral.
No – Xenophobia does not describe only a mental disturbance. It also describes feelings of contempt and hatred towards foreigners.

"“I don’t like black women and I’m not going to marry one” it does not make him a racist "
Wait a minute - if he is actively discriminating on the basis of race, then it doesnt matter *why* he is doing it - he becomes a racist. But being a racist can be for moral/ammoral reasons too. It *could* be immoral. But as a concept by itself, "Racism" is not inherently immoral.
Some more examples:
-- A movie director seeks to make a serious movie on the Normandy Beach Landings in WWII. He sets off to hire actors. In order to make his movie credible, and not rediculous, he *must* practice racism. Thus, if a Black actor came over and offered himself as an actor, the director would reject him, on the basis of race and *nothing* else. He would *only* hire White actors. As such, he is a racist. (The sight of thousands of Black troops storming the beaches of France would be laughable).
(Note: There were black troops in the US army on the invasion to Normandy.)
Type-casting is not racism. Your definition of racism is wrong.
You define racism as any kind of race differentiating.
The dictionary defines racism:
Racism:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Another definition:
1. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
2. discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
(bold mine)
For something to be regarded as Racism, it has to bare an aspect of discrimination or prejudice or abusive behavior. There is no Racism if such as aspect is missing. This is why Racism is inherently wrong and immoral.
Now do you see why having taste (e.g. my example) or type-casting (your example) do not count as racism examples?
One can say “I believe black people to be equal in all aspects to other people. I wouldn’t marry a black woman because its not my taste.” He is not a racist.
One can say “This role requires a white man between the ages of 18-25 and above 5’5”.” He is not a racist. Job requirements cannot be considered discriminative (ALL job requirements are discriminative in nature). Type-casting is especially discriminative because of the special requirements. This is not racism. Preferring a white producer over a black one *is* racism – because the job requirements do not include skin color.

"How can you be sure that you discovered the “true” morality of anything? "
I have to question your Epistimology here. It seems as though you dont have one. Please state your Epistimology, if you indeed have one.
I am a material idealist. I believe (note choice of words) in George Berkley and David Hume’s point of view:
In Berkeley's strict phenomenalism, knowledge of material objects is ideal or unachievable, not real. For Berkeley, mind-independent material objects are impossible and unknowable. In our sense experience we only have access to our mental representations, not to objects themselves. Berkeley argues that our judgments about objects are really judgments about these mental representations alone, not the substance that gives rise to them.
David Hume pursued Berkeley's empirical line of inquiry even further, calling into question even more of our common sense beliefs about the source and support of our sense perceptions. Hume maintains that we cannot provide a priori or a posteriori justifications for a number of our beliefs like, "Objects and subjects persist identically over time," or "Every event must have a cause." In Hume's hands, it becomes clear that empiricism cannot give us an epistemological justification for the claims about objects, subjects, and causes that we took to be most obvious and certain about the world.
I believe all we ever know and hold as true are our personal beliefs and perceptions. There is absolutely no a priori truth that is shared by all human beings from birth. However, as Berkley so nicely put it, It does not matter, because it is no use pondering about something that will never reveal its true nature to you. All You can do is live by your own perceptions, truths and standards.
I am aware, of course, of Emanuel Kant’s work. Specifically, his “Refutation of Material Idealism” in which he also refutes Rationalists such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. I do not subscribe to Kant’s POV (the reasons are as long as Kant’s complex arguments).

"There is no one person in the world that can judge other people as moral or immoral. "
I can't judge Hitler as immoral? You just voided your own statement, when you said claimed that he was indeed immoral.
You can, of course, judge Hitler as immoral. However, you judge him by your own personal moral standards. Another person may say Hitler was a moral man – and you cannot refute her. All you can say is that present common moral standards in the western world hold Hitler as an immoral man.

if someone was to come running towards you with a knife, you cannot judge him as really immoral or moral. Since you cannot judge him in reality, then by the same token you also cannot stop him in reality - why would you? He isnt immoral - since you dont know, so what right do you now have to stop someone in reality, whom you cant prove as being immoral in reality? Nothing. If followed to consistency, you would just stand there and get murdered. (Again, this boils down to your Epistimology).
I will repeat myself: of course I will judge that man’s morality. The fact that I don’t know if my judgement is correct or not does not diminish the validity of the judgment in my eyes . Moreover, regardless of my judgment, I will stop the person who attempts to murder me. I may later judge my own action as moral or immoral (probably moral) but this rational thinking does not stop me from acting.

"and maybe we will not agree on what’s moral and what’s not but the best we can do is try to arrive at a common ground "
That is inviting bloodshed. (But since I cant know true morality, then maybe bloodshed is moral...) By your statement, then if we all agree/consider that Nazism is "ok", then it really is "ok"?
Again... We can never know if Nazism is “really” OK or not. We can only agree among ourselves that it is not OK and that is sufficient for us . Since we can never know the true morality of Nazism (or if such a thing exists), than we need not consider this question. This is why this epistemology does not invite bloodshed. People can agree on moral standards as well as all other aspects of life – without questioning the “real” morality of things.

please state, how *you* derive your own set of morals. By what 'feels' good? By what you 'wish'? Rational thought?
I am, of course, a product of my genetics, personal history and the society I live in.
I am a left-wing liberal humanist secular Jew.
This is because of the home I was brought up in, my teachers and role models, my closest friends, my rivals, etc. I do not know if I’m right or wrong in my standards. I can only say that these are the standards and POVs I believe in - probably becasue I feel most comfortable with them and that I draw comfort in knowing that other people hold similar standards and POVs.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

-----------------------------------------------------------
On Zionism:

"Why not? Simply because there is no real life example of two ideologies with the same goal and different means. "
Non-Sequitor, but here is an example anyway:
Democracts, and Communists. Same Ends, vastly different Means.
You must be joking. Democracy and Communism? Not only the two ideologies have different goals, they are not even talking on the same subject! Democracy is a political ideology and describes a form of government. Communism is a socio-economic ideology and describes an economic system.
The historical fact remains, that whenever an ideology was implemented with different means – the two branches still referred to themselves as followers of the original ideology.

"History shows that when new means are discovered (or invented) to achieve the same goal, it just establishes a new stream or cult of followers of the same ideology"
The last word in your sentence, should read "Ends", NOT "ideology". This shows that you have not accepted that an Ideology contains an End(s), and possibly a Means also. You had stated in Post#105, Part 1, that you accepted this. Your above statement shows that you dont. Please reconcile those contradictory stances by renouncing one of them.
I accept that the definition of ideology may include Means. However, Means do not *uniquely* define an ideology. History shows that when a new ideology was invented, it was because the inventor came up with a new way to achieve happiness and justice for people (i.e. new Ends). The inventor may or may not have stated Means as instructions to achieve this new Ends but these Means are never the reason for the invention of the new ideology. Consequentially, coming up with new Means to achieve the same goal does not constitute inventing a new Ideology, but rather branching off from the same original ideology. Presidential government like in the USA differs from British parliament government and that in turn differs from Israeli parliament government. Yet these are all democracies.

Going back to my post #105 in part one, led me to my post #102 where I show how the definition of Nazism and Communism have several parts, making a distinction between: "the theoretical economical idea (def. 1), the political doctrine that aims to achieve the economical ideology (def. 2a) and the most prominent historical implementation of the political doctrine (def. 2b)." (this is about Communism) I looked in the dictionary and saw similar distinction in the definitions of Democracy, Despotism and even Zionism.

"However, the Means, when specified, do not construct the essence and identity of the ideology."
Essence and identity? Whatever they are, an ideology is not defined by them. Thus, I dismiss them.
As I have shown above, the essence and identity are the primer reason for the invention of a new ideology – the new goal that is pertained in the ideology’s definition. People (usually) decide to follow a given ideology based upon its Ends, not Means. This is the reason for the rise of the Bolshevik movement in 1917 in Russia and the rise of the Nazi party to power in Germany in the 1930s. This is also the reason for the rise of the Zionist movement in the 1880s. All these movements rose to prominence becasue people believed the new goals that the leaders of the movements have declared.

""Ends: End the persecutions of the Jewish people. Means: Develop the state of Israel and prepare it for the arrival of Jews, in case of future catastrophes ."
This is how modern Zionism is defined by its present followers ."
Whatever it is called, it is not the Zionism we are talking about. It is "Modern" Zionism. The conotation of a name should usually reflect the actual concept it is naming, but its not neccessary. So I am talking about Zionism of Theodore Herzl.
Fine. Note that Theodore Hertzl’s Zionism was realized and completed in May 14th, 1948 with the establishment of the independent state of Israel. Everything that happened after that point of time does not relate to Theodore Hertzl’s Zionism.

PS,
In my searching in the dictionary, I came across this definition of Zionism, from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

Zionism
Among the Jews, a theory, plan, or movement for colonizing their own race in Palestine, the land of Zion, or, if that is impracticable, elsewhere, either for religious or nationalizing purposes; -- called also Zion movement

[Mediocrates]

A-Pa

All of this pointless equivocating is another way of saying "I can't tell the difference between right and wrong so I'll just go with what pleases me."

So sad for the apologists who have no ego boundaries and no moral center. "Everything is everything" I Guess that plays well in the coffee houses but in the real world we call that sociopathic behavior.

[ibrodsky]

This has certainly been a long debate... but has it led anywhere?

I think Sharonbn and A-Palestinian should each present a brief summary, before going further, of what has been agreed or concluded regarding Zionism and nationalism. At least then people will know whether this debate is progressing -- or just stuck in an endless loop.

[Mediocrates]

No it's rather simple. Zionism is a process and a motivator, like saying "patriotism" or "states rights" to an American who immediately know the context. Jew haters the world over hide behind their own interpretation of that one word in order to defend their own morally bankrupt evil. It's not a philiosophy or state of mind or a zipcode on a map. But like the false posers who carp and complain about 'what a Jew is" they endlessly chase their tails telling YOU all about zionism as if they were a docent in a museum.

Because the utter simiplicity is that all the Jew haters of the world would rather debate polemics than answer direct questions about Jews or Palestinians.

Do you hate all jews y/n
Do you want to see the end of Israel y/n
Is the PLO representative of what you believe y/n
Do you advocate murdering Jewish civilians y/n
Is your struggle worth any amount of blood y/n
Would you rather be righteous than right y/n
Can Jews live in Palestine y/n

And so on....

then we can sip kaffir and talk about Kant and Hume

[MGB8]

I read through about 12 pages of this old thread nonesense.

Meaningless polemics about logic.

I wish someone had "bottom-lined" the arguments.

A-Palestinian argued that the creation of a new state that had an ethnic preference was immoral because all the land on Earth is already occupied and or claimed. He added reference to the refugee issue, arguing that Israel's existence required the Arab flight/expulsion, or otherwise there departure, and that this is immoral.

Unfortunately for him, these premises are wrong. Partition Israel did not require any Arabs to leave in order for the Zionist goal to be achieved. The Jews would have had sovereignty and a majority on land which they were legally entiteld to (Purchased land, Crown Land and some Arab private land, although apparently many Turkish titles were like English long term leases, and often NOT private title to the land, meaning that a change in the sovereign can legally invalidate this long term lease - more evidence that it WAS NOT Pal Arab land.) This is where the history, which he deems irrelevant, comes in. The Arabs invaded - an immoral act, considering that the Jews, without displacing anyone (other than national ambitions) had legal and moral right to Parition Israel. This, the ARAB ACTION, CAUSED the Arab flight and expulsion. It also caused a similar number of Jews to be expelled. Land changed hands. At this point, morallity is innaplicable. There are consequences to starting a war, and the Arabs started a war, and face the consequences.

Tangetially, He did not want to talk about the Arab original conquest of the land, the answer being essentially "two wrongs don't make a right." (but they do make things even.) Of course, when this was turned around on him in reference to Pal Arab actions, it no longer seemed so applicable to him.

So what we had was a bunch of smoke and mirrors and pointless argument and frankly, BS, based on A LIE by the Palestinian - that Israel's original existance required the forced displacement of Arabs.

[MGB8]

One more thing!

A-Palestinian got away with an outrageous false analogy.

He argued that the Creation of Israel to redress Instices to Jews is akin to A man murdering another man for a kidney to give to his ailing mother.

Thus, he set out a horrific means - Israel's creation = murder.

However, another "ends/means" story is a man stealing a loaf of bread from a market to feed his starving child.

While NOTHING WAS STOLEN in Israel's creation, the harm that occured to the Arabs, on the whole, was far closer to the loss of bread than the loss of life. The Arabs, after all, got 99% of the middle east and more than 3/4 of the Palestinians Mandate (78% is Jordan), and then, with partition, more than that, including an internationalized Jerusalem.

Again - none of the little sliver give to Jewish sovereignty done unlawfully. Then the Arabs declared war and attempted genocide, and as a result, people were killed (that happens in war) and people were expelled (Arabs AND Jews) - the Jews lost some of their own bread.

So, in final analysis, our visitors analysis was based on two fraudulent assumptions, and thus is meritless.


Finally, to SharonBN. Egypt started the '67 war. Starting a war and firing the first shot are different things. Ibrodsky used the term "causus belli." A better term, in reality, is "ACT OF WAR." Would you have required that an Israeli ship run the baracade and the egyptians fire at the ship in order for egypt to have "started the war?" That would be rather foolish. The Egyptian actions were not like the US actions before 1941 - you should be ashamed of yourself for making that comparison.

To go from a "state of peace," even if its defacto, to a "state of war" does not require a shot to be fired. To breach a cease fire does not require a shot - there are terms to the cease fire, and if these terms are breached, then war is presumed to be restarted, barring further actions on the part of parties.

The blockade was EQUIVALENT to a shot being fired. It was the use of force. If you don't see that, you are rather muddled.

[achaaban]

I am joining this debate a little late, but I will start with a definition put forward by victot (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?postid=2321)
“ Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1893 by Nathan Birnbaum.”

I tend to disagree with this definition, I see Zionism as a national movement of the Jews this movement aimed at the establishment a nation-state for the Jewish people of the world so that they could recognize their self-determination.

From this definition, The Jews have actually recognized their self-determination in a nation-state called the State of Israel meaning that the actual objective of the Zionist movement has been achieved.

Israeli national movements on the other hand have not evolved with the current realities on the ground, and those are the actual existence of a state for the people of Israel, where the citizens of Israel are Israeli citizens. Don’t you think that in today’s realities Israeli nationalism should have a totally different meaning than the aspirations of building a state, since the state is already built?

Is there a secular national movement that views Israelis in terms of being citizens of the state of Israel as it exists today? or is it that there is no such thing as Israeli nationalism in Israel?

[Gilgamesh]

Don’t you think that in today’s realities Israeli nationalism should have a totally different meaning than the aspirations of building a state, since the state is already built? Technicly speaking, Zionism has completed it purpose in the establishment of the Jewish nation State of Israel. The ideologist of my brand of Zionism, Jabotinsky, has talked about the Elevated Zionism, or which, traditional Zionism is only the first phase.

The goal of Elevated Zionism is to provide the world more original Jewish cultural, scientific and moral works for the benefit of man kind. The state of israel becomes a mare instrument for achiving the above goal.


Is there a secular national movement that views Israelis in terms of being citizens of the state of Israel as it exists today? or is it that there is no such thing as Israeli nationalism in Israel?Yes there is, but they consider themselves part of the far radical left extrem of the map. Meaing they will create a totalitarian communist society as soon as they have reached power.

[achaaban]

The goal of Elevated Zionism is to provide the world more original Jewish cultural, scientific and moral works for the benefit of man kind. The state of israel becomes a mare instrument for achiving the above goal.

could this aspiration be achieved through peaceful means or is the armed struggle a must to achieve these objectives. A military campaign was surely the only method to achieve the state. Now if the idea of evolving entails a cultural and moral development of ideals, such an act requires an army of intellectuals and not an army of warriors.

[Gilgamesh]

could this aspiration be achieved through peaceful means or is the armed struggle a must to achieve these objectives. A military campaign was surely the only method to achieve the state. Now if the idea of evolving entails a cultural and moral development of ideals, such an act requires an army of intellectuals and not an army of warriors.

Self defense is a basic human right. Denail of human rights from Jews is anti semetism. Pure and simple.

When self defense requaires the use of force, and the causing death to the enemey, it is justified and condoned by me. Personaly, I served in the IDF, and so were many Israelis. Although I have never participated in combat, I am ready to do so in defense of my homeland and my people rights. Even if I may die or maimed in the proces. With this attitude, I am not different or unusual among my people in any way.

Israel very existance is still under threat. Jews peace and personal security have yet to be achived. With out our army and our defense tactics... the Arabs had free hand to do their way, which is to genocide the Jewish people in Israel. For many decades they have proclaimed and openly declared that is their aim. If we Jews won't be allowed to exist, surely we may have some difficulties to create aditional cultural feats.

Skew political motives prevent the army from bringing the violance to a close. Not enough military power is employed in order to bring peace to the region.

I hate the idea of employing violance, yet I am sure we have exhusted all other options to preserve our lives infornt of Arab ongoing aggression. We have the right of self defense, and we will use it when ever we feel threatened. We cannot ignore the reality of Arab beast like mindless crimminal murderus barbarity. Armed struggle becomes a must.

[achaaban]

Self defense is a basic human right. Denail of human rights from Jews is anti semetism. Pure and simple.

Who talked about aggression, and how does self-defense fit the topic of promoting Jewish culture. We are talking about the point of the achievement of the state and the idea of nationalism beyond the state of war and aggression. It seems quite difficult to talk to an Israeli nowadays and not be hit with anti-Semitism or self-defense as a response even when both issues are irrelevant to the topic.

[Mira]

Who talked about aggression, and how does self-defense fit the topic of promoting Jewish culture. We are talking about the point of the achievement of the state and the idea of nationalism beyond the state of war and aggression. It seems quite difficult to talk to an Israeli nowadays and not be hit with anti-Semitism or self-defense as a response even when both issues are irrelevant to the topic.

Just reading this page alone, it appears that you are the one who diverted the topic when you responded to Gil's post with:


could this aspiration be achieved through peaceful means or is the armed struggle a must to achieve these objectives. A military campaign was surely the only method to achieve the state. Now if the idea of evolving entails a cultural and moral development of ideals, such an act requires an army of intellectuals and not an army of warriors.

You do realize that Israel has universities, and medical, engineering, science and computer industries, and not just an army?

[achaaban]

Just reading this page alone, it appears that you are the one who diverted the topic when you responded to Gil's post with:

You did not read ( and on this page alone) my post, which is actually talking about Zionism, this is the topic of discussion.


You do realize that Israel has universities, and medical, engineering, science and computer industries, and not just an army?

This does not answer my original question about Israeli nationalism objectives after the constitution of the State of Israel, or if Israeli nationalism at this stage does require the concept of military aggression to achieve its objectives. Let us be realistic in here, you are not really saying that as long as Israel is here we will be in a continuous state of war because Israel is on continuous state of self-defense.

[Mira]

You did not read ( and on this page alone) my post, which is actually talking about Zionism, this is the topic of discussion.



This does not answer my original question about Israeli nationalism objectives after the constitution of the State of Israel, or if Israeli nationalism at this stage does require the concept of military aggression to achieve its objectives. Let us be realistic in here, you are not really saying that as long as Israel is here we will be in a continuous state of war because Israel is on continuous state of self-defense.

At this stage, the country has been built and it's instiutions are being molded. Israel has succeeded in creating a unique culture that is different from Jewish culture in the diaspora, taking into consideration a very complex fabric of people from many different countries, experiences, and including different religions, languages and heritages. All of this has happened very quickly and it is pretty amazing what has been accomplished so far. I don't think that the ME will see a comprehensive and complete peace in our lifetimes. I don't know when it will occur, but what is requried to make this happen is tremendous. I fear that in one place or another, things will get much worse before they get better.

[MGB8]

achabaan,

you are missing something. it is not just establishing the Jewish national home, but maintaining it. that home has been under attack since its inception, and still is. the divisions between likud pro disengagement and likud anti are just about the best means to preserve the Jewish state.

It is dishonest to forget about the fact that Israel is under assualt - politically, militarily, and demographically.

[KettleWhistle]

could this aspiration be achieved through peaceful means or is the armed struggle a must to achieve these objectives.
Yes, it could if the Arabs haven't been waging their campaign of extermination.


A military campaign was surely the only method to achieve the state.

The military campaign was action of self-defense, one that was not desired by the Jews.

[Gilgamesh]

Who talked about aggression, and how does self-defense fit the topic of promoting Jewish culture. No Jewish self defense = No Jews = No further Jewish contribution to humanity.


We are talking about the point of the achievement of the state and the idea of nationalism beyond the state of war and aggression. Yet we cannot ignore the reality of fellow citizens and Jews world wide, falling victims to Arab and Islamist terrorism, as well as the chances of another full scale war with the Arabs.


It seems quite difficult to talk to an Israeli nowadays and not be hit with anti-Semitism or self-defense as a response even when both issues are irrelevant to the topic.The issues are always relevent to the topic. One cannot be without the other. No self defense = no Jews. Untill the Arabs get less barbaric, we will have to defend ourselves.