- 13 Dec 2020 02:29
#15142944
Really? That distinction is a pure demagoguery in style of the old Bundist revolutioners of 1915 in Russia. It might work with many, but not with me.
You should know that such distinction cannot possibly exist in the context of defensible sovereignty. People are 'of the country'. People make up the country. If such country can persist, as Israel does, then there is no distinction can be made. Logic simple does not allow it.
However, an old school Marxist-Leninist made a business claiming exactly what you are claiming and just look where it got them!
You are a fan of revisionist history, are you? Your effort to delegitimize Israel will not work, as it cannot be supported by facts as we know them. I'll make it simple for you, - nobody cares 'who' or 'what' carved the State of Israel, - be it Britain or UN or Jesus himself. It is not relevant any longer.
Do you know what is relevant? What is relevant is the ability of Israel to project power in the context of modern world, - nothing else. Perhaps your rhetoric would have worked in 1948, when the Arabs tried push the Jews into the sea, and the world at large waited to see what would would happen and who would win. At the time, your rhetoric would have fallen on ears willing to listen, but after the war of 1967 and definitely after 1973, all you can do is spit, but no longer bite.
Don't you understand that there is no argument to be had regarding legitimacy of a sovereign state that is a regional superpower. Don't you understand that if you say anything like this in a polite company of well-meaning, educated and informed people, they will laugh at you and think you simpleton.
You do need to find another argument, and let the Bundist approach die.
No they were not. Not that it matters.
History records Jewish majority in Jerusalem for example at nearly all times in the history except 13th century if memory serves, but you can google this to make sure. Jews have always lived where Israel is today. I hope that you will not dispute that the Jews do predate Muslims in the Land. OK?
So, I was right, - Marxism-Leninism at all costs! It is a failed ideology, as history has shown. Why do you grab on to it?
The flavour of Socialism that you desire can't exist in the context of developed economy, - that is developed enough in order to compete successfully. Look at China, grasping for straws, building an impressive economic gains on the backs of the impoverished people, while brainwashing them into the sense of duty, just like the old USSR did.
They even created a rich class, so that they can show their perceived benevolence. It is just a matter of time for China to follow USSR. When they come to the crashing end of their economic reality, they will try go to war, which hopefully we will avoid as we did with USSR.
This is your socialism in action, - a very temporary pretentious success with no long term prospects.
My politics? I am not saying anything new, - it is politics the world. Yes, the land is often acquired through military expansion. Let me give you a distinction here, keeping the ill-gotten lands is not possible in the context of modern political climate. The World will eventually force you to either give it back or to find a formula for compensation.
So, - what does that tell you in relation to Israel? I hope you already see it, - Israel's gains are not ill-gotten. The world is in no mood to force Israel to change its policy. The US gave necessary recognition to Golan and Jerusalem. Area C is next. We are done. Israel is integrated into both European and US economy. Forcing Israel to change is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Your sentiments are at least 60 years too late.
Yes, it is... and only on Star Trek.
No, I would not have supported the Nazies. Never. Nobody should and most did not. Please note that the Nazis did not win, they barely lasted 11 years. The world rose up and did them in. They could never win and it was known in 1939.
The best they could do is to stall behind defensive lines and either wait for the nuclear weapons or try to force and agreement. The agreement could have happened but even then only temporary. Want to know why? Because the economy of the World would never support a superpower like Nazie Germany. And if superpower status could not be achieved then the war would settle this as the war did.
The Nazies were never winning, - they had a temporary success. Again the economy would be a decisive factor in the decision to annihilate them.
However, I must question why do you bring this up? Israel has nothing to do with the nazies, nothing at all. Israel simply does not want to have citizens who are the enemy of the state. No country would want that.
PLease understand that you can't have it both ways, - you can't fault Israel for not giving Palestinian Arabs citizenship, while advocating for the right of said Arabs to work towards the demise of Israel.
Logic is your friend...use it if you can.
ckaihatsu wrote: I make a distinction between the *people* of a country, and the nation-state *entity* itself, in the contexts of nationalism and geopolitics.
Really? That distinction is a pure demagoguery in style of the old Bundist revolutioners of 1915 in Russia. It might work with many, but not with me.
You should know that such distinction cannot possibly exist in the context of defensible sovereignty. People are 'of the country'. People make up the country. If such country can persist, as Israel does, then there is no distinction can be made. Logic simple does not allow it.
However, an old school Marxist-Leninist made a business claiming exactly what you are claiming and just look where it got them!
ckaihatsu wrote:It's not like Jews *spontaneously* self-organized the State of Israel -- it was *carved out* for them by Britain, as a *colonial* project.
You are a fan of revisionist history, are you? Your effort to delegitimize Israel will not work, as it cannot be supported by facts as we know them. I'll make it simple for you, - nobody cares 'who' or 'what' carved the State of Israel, - be it Britain or UN or Jesus himself. It is not relevant any longer.
Do you know what is relevant? What is relevant is the ability of Israel to project power in the context of modern world, - nothing else. Perhaps your rhetoric would have worked in 1948, when the Arabs tried push the Jews into the sea, and the world at large waited to see what would would happen and who would win. At the time, your rhetoric would have fallen on ears willing to listen, but after the war of 1967 and definitely after 1973, all you can do is spit, but no longer bite.
Don't you understand that there is no argument to be had regarding legitimacy of a sovereign state that is a regional superpower. Don't you understand that if you say anything like this in a polite company of well-meaning, educated and informed people, they will laugh at you and think you simpleton.
You do need to find another argument, and let the Bundist approach die.
ckaihatsu wrote:The Palestinians were there *before* Israel, just as the Native Americans were there before the United States.
No they were not. Not that it matters.
History records Jewish majority in Jerusalem for example at nearly all times in the history except 13th century if memory serves, but you can google this to make sure. Jews have always lived where Israel is today. I hope that you will not dispute that the Jews do predate Muslims in the Land. OK?
ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not for pan-Arabism for its own sake. It would have to be a stepping-stone to *socialism*, for the reasons you're giving, empirically. In other words no country can really be a 'liberated' island in an overall global sea of capitalism.
So, I was right, - Marxism-Leninism at all costs! It is a failed ideology, as history has shown. Why do you grab on to it?
The flavour of Socialism that you desire can't exist in the context of developed economy, - that is developed enough in order to compete successfully. Look at China, grasping for straws, building an impressive economic gains on the backs of the impoverished people, while brainwashing them into the sense of duty, just like the old USSR did.
They even created a rich class, so that they can show their perceived benevolence. It is just a matter of time for China to follow USSR. When they come to the crashing end of their economic reality, they will try go to war, which hopefully we will avoid as we did with USSR.
This is your socialism in action, - a very temporary pretentious success with no long term prospects.
ckaihatsu wrote:You conveniently forgot to mention that those 'lands' were acquired through Western *militarism* and genocide. Your politics so far can be summed-up as 'Might makes right'.
My politics? I am not saying anything new, - it is politics the world. Yes, the land is often acquired through military expansion. Let me give you a distinction here, keeping the ill-gotten lands is not possible in the context of modern political climate. The World will eventually force you to either give it back or to find a formula for compensation.
So, - what does that tell you in relation to Israel? I hope you already see it, - Israel's gains are not ill-gotten. The world is in no mood to force Israel to change its policy. The US gave necessary recognition to Golan and Jerusalem. Area C is next. We are done. Israel is integrated into both European and US economy. Forcing Israel to change is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Your sentiments are at least 60 years too late.
ckaihatsu wrote:'Resistance is futile', huh?
Yes, it is... and only on Star Trek.
ckaihatsu wrote:Would you have supported the *Nazis* if you were there when they were winning?
What are / should-be the requirements to get a passport, according to you?
No, I would not have supported the Nazies. Never. Nobody should and most did not. Please note that the Nazis did not win, they barely lasted 11 years. The world rose up and did them in. They could never win and it was known in 1939.
The best they could do is to stall behind defensive lines and either wait for the nuclear weapons or try to force and agreement. The agreement could have happened but even then only temporary. Want to know why? Because the economy of the World would never support a superpower like Nazie Germany. And if superpower status could not be achieved then the war would settle this as the war did.
The Nazies were never winning, - they had a temporary success. Again the economy would be a decisive factor in the decision to annihilate them.
However, I must question why do you bring this up? Israel has nothing to do with the nazies, nothing at all. Israel simply does not want to have citizens who are the enemy of the state. No country would want that.
PLease understand that you can't have it both ways, - you can't fault Israel for not giving Palestinian Arabs citizenship, while advocating for the right of said Arabs to work towards the demise of Israel.
Logic is your friend...use it if you can.