'Nothing is more anti-semetic than Zionism'

This phrase was coined by British political rapper, Lowkey.

My question is: Do you agree/disagree with this statement? Why!

I'd rather refrain from posting my viewpoint, I'm more interested in seeing what other people have to say.

 

From my general understanding of "Zionism" It's clear to me that Zionism stands in the way human progress and is another form of doctrine that attempts to grab on to all Jews and refuses to let them assimilate into other cultures/attempts to maintain cultural traditions. I often correlate principles from Zionism to those of the Amish. ( not technology, but the standoffish separation from other societies. )


It impedes human progress as a whole and I would say that Zionism, even with the principles of protecting jews and their culture, is actually more negative than positive.


Edit; also, the premise of bringing all Jews back to Israel is not only religiously motivated but stupid as HELL. First off, there won't be a rapture if all the jews return to Israel, Jesus came the jews killed him, Muhamed came the jew rejected him, are they now waiting for their prophet or what? Secondly, LETS CLUSTER ALL THE JEWS TOGETHER IN A SMALL LAND MASS, THEN SEE IF ARABS ATTEMPT TO NUKE/BOMB THEM.

 

I've never heard the song before, but maybe it means that Zionism, in particular Israel and it's ever expanding settlements, does more to engender hate (antisemitism) than anything. By occupying lands around it in the name of security, the world turns away from Israel.

The real problem is that to Jews Zionism is God's promise of a homeland and dictated by the Torah. But to non-jews Zionism is just imperialism as if any other country in the world taking over outside lands.

 

Consider the original settlement after WW2, then look at the land stolen since then.

I agree with your first statement, but remember that the term anti-Semitism has a popular misconception in the west, and so people believe it means hatred towards Jews, which is not it's actual meaning.

It was always going to cause hostilities but I feel the main problem is that the UN looks on as Israel steals all of Palestine's land. So they created and boiling pot, and they let it spillover.

 

I fail to see what your point is. Israel is rapidly expanding and has taken land from egypt and palestine. People have been fighting over jerusalem and the surrounding area for centuries. This is neither a new nor unprecedented situation. Israel is also surrounded by quasi-fascist holocaust-denying theocracies with nuclear programs sworn to destroy her. What can the UN do? Israel is a NATO ally. The united states will veto any/every security council resolution that would militarily inhibit Israel.

Herp

Code:

an·ti–Sem·i·tism noun 
\ˌan-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm, ˌan-ˌtī-\

Definition of ANTI-SEMITISM

: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

Zionism is a slightly misguided attempt at creating greater jewish unity. Prominent zionist politicians may be belligerent/overly agressive, but I don't see how zionism could be logically construed as anti-semitic. Zionism may provoke anti-semitic responses from the surrounding countries, but zionism is also widely used as a scapegoat.

Sudan blames Zionist-American plot for unrest

I think a more accurate title for this thread would be "Muslim/Arab perception of zionism contributes to contemporary anti-semitism, and Israeli militarism incites extremism".


Also Lowkey is a buffoon. I agree that zionism causes unnecessary bloodshed and is a destabilizing force, but Lowkey buys into the whole zionist conspiracy. Lowkey is also a Chavez apologist, which is an altogether ignorant viewpoint. Most American Jews are actually opposed to zionism.

 

"Israel is rapidly expanding" Made me laugh, didn't know land mass was expanding - this is actually a very "ignorant viewpoint".

Again, you are wrong, and give into western misconception. Instead of using a google definition, try a dictionary. Anti-Semitism is discrimination towards SEMITES, not Jews in general. That is to say that both Arabs and Jews are Semitic people; Palestinians are Semitic. Hence the irony in the phrase; you didn't even understand it yourself. You've been educated :love:


Most of what you have said has been off-topic, don't think you even answered the question, just pushing a totally different agenda, and no the title is fine, you are just wholly off-topic.

 

I obviously meant that the borders of Israel were expanding. I fail to see how anyone could feasibly interpret my post as stating that the land Israel occupies is literally expanding. You're just babbling.

You're so goddamn arbitrary. I don't understand how you can just categorically classify my post as off-topic. I adressed the origination of the quote, provided a correct definition of anti-semitic, put in an article about scapegoating, and responded to your picture about israel/west bank.

Nope. I know what semitism is. Semite refers to ancient languages from the Arabian peninsula. The phrase "anti-semitism" does not literally mean "against semitic languages". You're surprisingly pedantic for someone who doesn't even know the meaning of anti-semitic. You can't just make up your own meanings for words based on misconstrued etymology, that isn't how semantics work. No matter how hard you believe that jews have been erroneously victimized, anti-semitism will still mean "The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish."


Here are a bunch of legitimate sources that prove you wrong.

Code:

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage.

-wikipedia

Code:

an·ti–Sem·i·tism noun 
\ˌan-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm, ˌan-ˌtī-\

Definition of ANTI-SEMITISM

: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

Merriam-Webster (a legitimate print dictionary)

Code:

anti-Semitism
Translate anti-Semitism into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of anti-Semitism
noun
hostility to or prejudice against Jews.

Oxford Dictionaries

Also could you respond to my article about sudan? Stop trying to argue the validity of my points, and just respond to them. Thanks.

 

If you push back even further before World War II the Palestinians didn't even show up until a couple thousand years after the Jews had already settled in the area that we call Israel. Then they were taken over by the Romans, then several other peoples and it switched hands through Caliphates and European Kingdoms because of the Crusades. Fast forward to World War I - the Ottoman Empire held that entire area of the middle east and when they were defeated the newly created League of Nations sanction British mandate over a newly create country called Palestine that was given to an ethnic group called the Palestinians. Then I am sure we are all familiar with what happened after World War II. None of this is anything new. The middle east has been unstable since humans could wage war.

Zionism, as Snatcha pointed out, is an easy scapegoat for the surrounding anti-semitic Islamic theocracies. Also, if you're getting your political philosophy from rap music you may want to rethink your position.

 

lol your using a picture to prove your point? The reason Israel grew within that time period was from wars in which Palestinians striked first, and Israel retaliated and gained land. In fact, Israel could have conquered more land, but surrendered a lot back to the enemy.

Read up on the 6 day war and yom kippur war

 

False false false false other than the 1973 war Israel has started all wars, and even in that "war" Egypt and Syria just wanted their occupied land back. The UN even told Israel to withdraw from these lands, but they never compiled.

Also here read up on the wars you listed yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Appearently Israel is the one waging war against Iran and Iran has not been in
any war for over 20 years, but Israel on the other hand is in conflicts with all the countries surrounding it. And not least, almost every violation of the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, it is actually Israel that has stood for?

 

Again, you take the google approach and get it wrong once more. Try using your own logic, it's common sense really, I already told you that you would take the Google approach to attempt to prove your point, and it would be western misinterpretations. Again, you are wholly failing to use your head on this one, you are ignoring what the word Semite actually means. I've proved my point whether you agree or not.

What does anti mean? It means you are against something.

What is a Semite? Well you seem to have taken a nice paragraph from Wikipedia there lmao, the most credible source in the world right? Regardless, it explains it well.

Edit: I read the Sudan article, I'm not saying I don't agree with it, but surely that's irrelevant? Zionism may be used as a scapegoat by some, but is that relevant?

In relation to the conflicts in Palestine, Israel, since the settlement, you could be as subjective as you like and say oh Israel started it, as could I, but is that the point? No. The fact is, the action of taking land, the "cost" being the lives of innocent people, is part of the Zionist movement. Now sure, that's gonna spark anti-Semitic sentiment towards Israel; Jews. But, the question is, do you feel that the movement in itself is anti-Semitic.

It has nothing to do with running over to Wikipedia or Google for a definition. But you are still 200% misguided about what anti-Semitism really is, and that's what this thread was meant to expose, that's what I believe the phrase actually means.

 

First point is common sense, although not all factually correct, but do you even know of the % of population that were Jewish in "Palestine" prior to the WW2 settlement? Have a guess. Yes, we all know the land was well-walked over, that isn't what this topic is about, anyone can and evidently has just opened Google to give an unnecessary history education. What is your point? You're wholly off-topic I feel.

Sure, I agree, some people are anti-Semitic towards Jews because of religious beliefs, but what of Zionism in itself? After all, that's what the topic is meant to be about. You've not really mentioned anything relevant.

Do you not feel that current events in Israel/Palestine could go against Judaism at all. Would that be considered anti-Semitic or not?

What about the fact that arabs are infact Semites? If Zionism, whatever it is, causes the murder of innocent people that are also Semites, that are also home to the region, is that not anti-Semitic?

Try to stay on topic, and try to use your own words please ^_^

Your statement about rap was very naive and ignorant, ill-educated almost. Clearly you have no knowledge of the power of music. You won't find history in textbooks, for the most part, you don't appear aware of bias, need to think outside the box. It's easy not to challenge what Wikipedia might tell you, brainless.

 

You're arguing semantics and not actually producing a true argument towards the point you are trying to make. Antisemitism is, as clearly been shown by Snatcha, hostility towards those of the Jewish heritage. If you want to just argue semantics and language syntax then this is an wholly different argument, Semites are peoples who's language originated from a language family that covers most if not all tribes of peoples from the near east/middle east.

Zionism is the attempt for the Jews to make a united Israelite state based on the original land that the 12 Tribes once occupied and the area that they consider the 'Promise Land'. It is much akin to the theory of manifest destiny that was attributed to the expansion the the United States. Your entire argument is based on a false definition of Antisemitism. The meaning of antisemitism is not a blanket term meaning hate towards groups of semitic origins. It is, and has been established as hatred or discrimination of people based on Jewish heritage - not even Jewish faith. If you want to break down the colloquial meaning and make up your own then that is fine, but by doing that you won't be able to make an acceptable argument. Now, are you wanting to argue that Zionism, as a movement is wrong, or Zionism is antisemitic? Because it seems you are arguing the former and titling it the latter.

if you want to argue if antisemitism is wrong then I will both agree and disagree. I believe there should be peace between the factions/peoples and the blood shed should be stopped, but I agree that the Jews should, just as any ethnic group should, have a nation to call home. Zionism is defined by Wikipedia as a particular brand of Nationalism or national pride that leads to the Isreali push to establish a foothold in the land that they believe is their own. What difference is this from any other ethnic group (such as the Kurds) push for their own home land or land they believe is theirs based on historical accounts, besides the fact that these are Jews? The push for land by groups of related peoples is nothing new. Zionism is just what many of the Middle Eastern Islamic nations blame. Just consider that a pre-existing antisemitic air is already there, and then you have a Jewish movement that has caused violence on both sides - it is the perfect excuse if you are a leader looking to rally your supporters.

 

Again, you're wrong, and if you read up more on antisemitism it was simply a phrase coined to express the hate towards Jews, in the west. That doesn't change the fact that hate towards a Semite would and is expressed as Anti-semetic. It's wordplay really. You're wrong some more, it's not key to my 'argument', I'm simply expressing the irony in the phrase. After all, the phrase also refers to how Zionism is not compatible with Judaism.

I know what zionism is, and here's my point, you google it, and spill what Wikipedia has to say all over the page, that's not intelligent discussion in my opinion. Further you ignore that Wikipedia is the least credible source of information in the world, and it's tendency for bias/crap.

Well, if you wanna talk about who owns the land, that's a huge debate right there, and I don't think you can really say anyone owns it. The fact is, a boiling pot was created, but consider that Israel are killing and stealing land? Don't forget that a resolution was made, Israel were a huge minority but they were given more land, and the population was vastly migrants. Do you know how the land was divided in terms of %? Or the population of Jews before the settlement? Find out. Also consider that both the Palestinians and Jews need a homeland. They have that, but Israel is undergoing a genocide of the Palestinians, and stealing their country.

The idea is that zionism is a total hypocrisy, it goes against Judaism wholly. Is it right to create a new homeland at the slaughter and murder of another people?

Are you agreeing that it's necessary for Israel to wipe out the Palestinians to have their "promised land", as Hitler had done?

Have you been to Gaza? It's a ghetto.

Modern Israel of course was created from the land of Palestinians who had been inhabiting it for about two thousand years. Lots of right wing nut jobs and zionists like to go right back to ancient times to claim the Israelis were the original inhabitants of the land but even back then the Palestinians inhabited quite a large proportion of what is present day Israel. However aside from that, modern Israel is not a continuation of ancient Israel, modern Israelis are not the same people as the ancient Hebrew/Jewish people. The vast majority are Jews that have migrated there in the past fifty years from Europe, Russia and other Middle Eastern countries. Racially, the Palestinians would be far more closely related to the ancient Jews/Hebrews than modern Israelis, which just shows how ridiculous a notion zionism really is.

If Jews had retained the same genetic lineage from ancient times they should basically all look much the same no matter what part of the world they came from but modern Israelis are quite a diverse bunch and are certainly not racially homogeneous. Yes intermarriage of Jews was quite rare in Europe but it did happen - even in medieval times, and in the 18th and 19th centuries it became much more common. Also Israel's Law of Return allows people who are married to Jews or who have Jewish grandparents to migrate there, which means many Israelis have only tenuous links to even the medieval Jews never mind the ancient Jews.

 

Please, feel free to link me to a source that states that Antisemitism is hatred towards all semitic peoples. As I have already stated you are arguing semantics and, another key word here, colloquially (Meaning in common speech/conversation refers to) meanng the hatred or discrimination of Jews.

Let's see what a number of reputable, non-editable sources have to say about anti-semitism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-semitism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-semitism
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/40258.htm
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&s=antisemitism
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf (Notice, a non-US based website)

Are you trying to argue that the definition of antisemitism should be widened to include all of the Semitic groups? You're arguing in a circle all hinging on that single term.

Then you are source Yahoo Answers? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100921160122AAAKY45

You must be joking. Let me go post on my Y!Answers account so I can reference it. Be right back.


I am not arguing that the fighting is right. I am just arguing the simple fact that your entire argument is hinging on a non-standard definition of antisemitism. I am sure that if you look up any legal definition for antisemitism in any country it will deal with hate acts towards people of the Jewish faith or Jewish heritage based on that soul fact. If the definition of antisemitism was hate acts towards any semitic group then you would be right.

 

That is the essence of Zionism.

Nobody has claimed this, and the two situations aren't even remotely similar.

There were no Palestinians 2,000 years ago.

Race has nothing to do with ethnic identity.

 

You didn't answer 90% of what I said, you just seem focused on the "meaning" of antisemitism, my point was it's easy to jump on google and paste stuff, as you did once more :laugh: As I stated everything I've mentioned points in the direction to say that Zionism is just a total hypocrisy, as I explained, it is anti-Semitic regardless of which way you want to look at it, but you didn't really say anything constructive or reply to me ^_^

You can sit on google and argue the meaning of the word all you like, it doesn't change the fact that it's exactly what I expected of you; if the US wasn't full of sheep, then there wouldn't be a country. It's easy to believe what you might read, but thinking for yourself is what this forum is about, in my opinion. I don't think "intelligent discussion has a right or wrong, because if it did, then it's hardly intelligent discussion.

 

Did you not see the question mark?

Incorrect. Explain please?

True, but I think you wholly misinterpret what it's saying. It's saying that if the land belongs to anyone, then it is the people that it has been home to, not migrants that have no ties to the land.

Anyhow I don't think it's worth trying to argue who the land belongs to, I wish someone had the sense to not indulge in such mindless debate. I recall it fell under Palestinian rule following WW1, and then was sliced up some more following WW2, so typical of the UN/Britain/France to throw around land like they own the world.

You ignored the majority of what I had to say, so I assume you agree with me, but were just trying to pick out anything you could to question

 

I am questioning the base of an entire argument that is relying on a base of falsehoods and misrepresentation of terms. Arguing anything that branches from that is wrong because of the misconception that is at the base.

I can see arguing with you is pointless because you are just going to keep trying to say 'Google, google, google.' You sourced Yahoo! Answers! What the hell man, that is just about as bad is it can get - that is even worse than wikipedia. At least there are WikiNazis that patrol wikipedia fact checking. No one does that for Yahoo! Answers.

How can my opinion, supported by facts, not be mine just because I can support it with concrete facts. Do you write many argumentative essays? Do you know what you do when you source information to back up your opinion? You cite it and so have I. You clearly only see what you want to see and therefor posting any further is a waste of time. You argue with a certain cockiness that will make it impossible to argue any other view point than your own, because you think you're right. When you decide that you want to make an argument then find me.

 

Again, not a constructive response and you've basically just thrown everything I said to you, back at me. Lol. Nope, I can accept where I am wrong, and nothing about what I previously posted was anything to do with the term "antisemitic" and how you naively misinterpret the word, solely from a term that was coined to express hatred towards Jews. Whether you feel it includes Semites or not, it makes no difference you are just babbling on about nothing, and ignoring the points that I actually made. Go back two posts, and stop saying the same thing.

Also, you are wrong, in my mind at least, any idiot can just pull up google and claim just because google says it's the right definition, then it must be right. Again, I don't consider that intelligent discussion, and I don't think there is a right or wrong in intelligent discussion, after all there wouldn't really be a discussion then. I had asked you a few questions, given you ignored them I am left to assume you have tended to my viewpoint, and continue to ramble on about the one part that is debatable, but doesn't actually change anything. Ignoring that part, which we won't agree on, you aren't possible to actually say anything constructive about the topic atall? I mean, it's nothing to do with one silly definition.

It was you that decided to throw in the history lesson suggesting that the land was owned by Jews, however off-topic, since you have shifted away from that agenda and ignored my questions.

You speak of cockiness, yet your first response reeked of it, the mere fact that all you do is pull up google then paste in "history" just proves you don't know much of what you are talking about, and it's not even your opinion, just western or biased perception I would assume. Yes, I do read, however assumptive you may be, you don't know the first thing about me, so don't pretend to. If you're going to get personal in a first post, don't complain about my replies. Simple.