Posts
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Massacre in Gaza: Palestinian government to be toppled
Israel has killed scores in Gaza concentration camp in what ammounts to the single largest zionist massacre since 1967. The attack cannot be justified obviously - but well Israel itself can't be either.
But what is more intriguing is that some already think it is the prelude of a toppling of the democratic Palestinian government to replace it by the deslegitimated Zionist lapdog Mahmoud Abbas. It seems pretty clear by now that Abbas and Mubarak are in agreement with this operation that has only begun and will get many many more killed before it's over.
In September I mentioned certain key information where this attack had been agreed between the Fatah and Zionist leaders. It was also mentioned that Abbas, whose term ends this month of January would ilegally extend it for a whole year in order to acomplish this takeover.
This is the beginning of the takeover. Israel has not concentratd all Palestinian refugees in Gaza to allow the ghetto to become a resistence base but to exterminate them or at least keep them in total subservience. The man of Israel in the remaining Palestine is Abbas and Fatah after the supression of Arafat has become a mere puppet of the Zionist Apartheid, the pathetic bantustan dictator that is more interested in the perpetuation of his masters power, on whom he's become totally dependent by now, than in the rights and survival of the Palestinian nation.
It will be a murderous New Year time in Palestine. It will not be over, probably, before the legitimate Hamas government has been deposed and meanwhile the Zio-Nazi airplanes will fly over Gaza bombing the impoverished homes of the Palestinians imprisioned in such a tiny fraction of their own homeland.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
but well Israel itself can't be either.
Indeed, Israel is as legitimate as Pakistan. But we have to move ahead.
Not sure why you claim that. Pakistan is much more legitimate, because it's founded on the free will of the natives.
I also think that India should have remained together and that religion should be no grounds for ethnic definition (in fact religion should be abolished alltogether - Hoxa has been the only leader to effectively supress not just religion but specifically that annoying Islam with permanent effects) but what really matters is the upholding of the right of self-determination and the rejection of racism and colonialism.
Israel is as illegitimate as Apartheid South Africa and requires the same kind of solution. Pakistan is a totally different case and resembles more that of Croatia and Serbia.
because it's founded on the free will of the natives.
Then you know nothing about partition of the sub-continent. It is founded on the ignorance and egoism.
I just know the basics. That Indian Muslims (their representatives) wanted to create a separate state. And that it caused massive migrations. As I don't think that religion creates ethnicity, I don't think it was fully justified, but you can't really oppose with legitimacy the will of the people, even if misguided.
In any case it's not comparable to the racist colonization/genocide of Palestine, I think. It's more like the Croatia-Serbia nonsense (the only difference among them is also religion, often just the religion of their ancestors, as many are atheist or agnostic now).
Will: determination, decission, resolution. It has nothing to do with such decission being wise or not.
Consciousness and willpower are two different aspects of the human mind: one is "passive" or "reflexive" and the other "active" or "creative". They are related but you can be a determined idiot and you can also be an erudite procrastinator, unable to take any action, maybe out of hyperrational doubt. Of course, it's ideal that consciousness and willpower are in agreement, and that both are powerful... but this does not always happen.
I didn't get you. Anyway, for an atheist, Hamas is Palestinian version of Zionist movement, if Zionist movement is Jewish version of Nazi movement( You didn't agree with me when I said Nazi racist ideology is basically West Asian ideology. I still hold that Nazi "Aryan", people chosen by the nature, is in response to Jews being the people chosen by god.)
I'm a second class citizen in any of these ideologies.
You didn't agree with me when I said Nazi racist ideology is basically West Asian ideology. I still hold that Nazi "Aryan", people chosen by the nature, is in response to Jews being the people chosen by god.
I don't recall that discussion. Maybe you had it with someone else.
Anyhow, according to both Christian and Muslim doctrines, Jews are not anymore the "chosen people", Christians and Muslims are respectively. In the case of Christian doctrine, that I know better, Jews (i.e. non-Christian Jews - as Christianism was originally a 100% Jewish sect) lost that privilege when they supposedly supported getting Jesus, i.e. God, crucified.
En fin...
I didn't get you. Anyway, for an atheist, Hamas is Palestinian version of Zionist movement, if Zionist movement is Jewish version of Nazi movement
I despise all kind of fundamentalists but there are fundies and fundies and Hamas is the intellectual and dialogant version of that scum. They have very wisely distanced themselves from Al Qaeda and their murderous and divisive methods and have a constructive attitude for such kind of ideology.
In any case, they are the coherent ones, while Al Fatah has been treachorusly dismantled from inside, including the likely murder of Arafat. Palestinians are not dumb and therefore voted for Hamas, mostly as punishment to Abbas and his minions (many do not support fundamentalism but find that Hamas is simply much more coherent and truly Palestinian than the surrendering and hyper-corrupt Fatah of Abbas).
Palestinians just want their land back, Fatah has not only surrendered that but has accepted all the humilliations imposed by Washington and Tel Aviv. The "peace of the brave" between Arafat and Rabin was betrayed from inside both camps (but specially the Zionist one - Abbas mostly followed suit, accepting his pathetic role as bootlicking vassal of Israel). After that the only force that was not merely mad or pretty much corrupt was Hamas. In Israel there's simply not one leader or faction who is not totally corrupt...
In brief: I don't support Hamas, I could not, but I fully support the Palestinian cause. Israel is a historical aberration and must be supressed for the good of all, including Jews.
En fin...
Come on Maju, Don't give some irrelevant doctrine to me.
Let's look at the greatest and the most coherent of all Anti-Semites Martin Luther's views:
From Wikipedia.
Luther's first argument is that all races are equal, therefore the Jews should not boast about their lineage. [33]
"there is no difference whatsoever with regard to birth or flesh and blood, as reason must tell us. Therefore" neither Jew nor Gentile should boast "before God of their physical birth . . . since we both partake of one birth, one flesh and blood, from the very first, best, and holiest ancestors. Neither one can reproach or upbraid the other about some peculiarity without implicating himself at the same time." (148).
Check his emotional love for Jews initially.
... When we are inclined to boast of our position [as Christians] we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are...If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love. We must receive them cordially, and permit them to trade and work with us, that they may have occasion and opportunity to associate with us, hear our Christian teaching, and witness our Christian life. If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either.
If you read the first passage it is clear;
- Luther's anti-Semitism was a kind of anti-racism.
I find this face of Luther more credible considering he removed the hierarchy in church and made position of priest equal to other regular Christians.
We can certainly guess how his direct contacts with Jews might have humiliated him. His praise of better lineage of Jews was more likely a magnanimous gesture because as an outsider he might have observed they being treated inhumanely. He probably never expected Jews to hold the same view.
The later Germans forgot Luther's all races created equal belief but became racist Jews themselves.
Regarding Palestine/Israel:
Wise Palestinians could have supported Communist party of Palestine. I can only say Palestinians are as wise as Israelites when it comes to choosing their political parties.
You may be right about Lutheran "Semitism" (Hebraism) rather than "anti-Semitism" (anti-Hebraism). Protestantism has always been considered as the more Judaic of Christian sects. The others basically ignore the Jewish part of the Bible, considering the important part the New Testament only. But Protestants with their emphasis in literal interpretation of the Bible rather than doctrine, approach much better the Judaistic roots of Christianism for sure.
Luther may have been pro-Hebraic but he was a reactionary bitch anyhow who hated the popular classes and asked the aristocrats to kill the rebel Protestant peasants "like rabid dogs". I don't feel any sympathy for him, sincerely.
But I do feel some sympathy for some other protestants and proto-protestants, like the Hussites and very especially the Albigensians, who allowed "sin" for all who could not be "perfect" (they believed in reincarnation).
The later Germans forgot Luther's all races created equal belief but became racist Jews themselves.
Don't know. I don't see why German racism (only really prominent under Hitler) would have Jewish roots. Racism was a product of the success of colonial imperialism. Europeans, buffered from the rest of the World by Muslims, were unprepared to meet such different peoples. While religion was first the pretext of slavery and colonial opression, race became later the ideal "cause" - spcially as religion became less important and secular doctrines took its place.
As Ren commented at Dienekes, you can take races as "macro-races" or as "micro-races" of ethnic/national dimension. In the 19th century and even the early 20th century, the concepts of race and language/ethnicity were still confused and often taken as the same. Hence the idea of a Germanic race was born. This may have to do with the ethnic concept of nation (language) spoused by German ideologists, as opposed to the republican concept (people's will) spoused by the French (these two concepts clashed specially in regard to Alsace-Lorraine).
I fail to see Jewish influence in all this process, sincerely. If anything, Jews (prior to Zionism) have been prominent internationalists - either in the capitalist or the socialist way.
In fact the founding father of Zionism, T. Herlz, initially believed in assimilation via conversion to Christianism. But later he realized that ethnic nationalism was by then too strong and prominent, so he developed his (very European in a sense) idea of a national homeland for ethnic Jews.
So I'd rather say that Zionism is "German" rather than erman nationalism/racism being "Jewish".
But, who knows?, you may have a point anyhow, after all European ideologies have been in the past very much embedded of Christian (Judaic) mythological themes and influences. Nevertheless I see that ethnic nationalism and the related xenophobia (that may be imagined in terms of race) is something you find everywhere: people are social and societies need ideological justifications to feed their internal solidarity and cohesion versus others. Ethnicity is clearly the more natural and spontaneous of such ideologies and even the most assimilationist of imperial projects, like Rome or Islam, have never renounced to certain form of ethnic nationalism, even if it has been adapted according to needs. Racism is just an extremist and pseudo-scientific verson of this so common and natural ethnocentrism.
Wise Palestinians could have supported Communist party of Palestine. I can only say Palestinians are as wise as Israelites when it comes to choosing their political parties.
I understand that commies/panarabists have suffered from corruption scandals in the past and even have cooperated in occasion with some Nazis, not to mention the many splits. While I'm not sure of the reasons that eroded the legitmacy of factions like the PFLP, it does seem like many voters of Hamas choose them even with major disagreements because they saw them as the strongest and more coherent option. Inversely Hamas has avoided being too extremist and is in fact surely the most tolerant Islamist regime in the whole world. Palestine is after all not any Oman but a very "western" society (of the kind of Syria or Lebanon), where extremist Islamism can't be accepted. But extremist Palestinian nationalism instead is mainstream (logically) and Hamas embodies that: moderate Islamism and radical uncompromsing nationalism, and the cherry is their fame of incorruptibility.
you may have a point anyhow, after all European ideologies have been in the past very much embedded of Christian (Judaic) mythological themes and influences.
No, that is not point. I don't consider doctrines and people's views always go hand in hand. Doctrines have too many contradictions but people's views generally get stereotyped for a particular norm.
Palestine is after all not any Oman but a very "western" society (of the kind of Syria or Lebanon)
I'm sure many morons in these regions stereotype themselves as "western" society. They are just the ideals they adopt which don't have any geographic affinities. For whatever it's worth so called ideals of "western" isn't all that uncommon in other societies(probably expressed by a minority in the past) and most likely in tribal societies. Many of European social norms resemble simple tribal communities of India.
I'm sure many morons in these regions stereotype themselves as "western" society.
If you compare with Arabia...
The Levant has always been anyhow very much looking to the Mediterranean, probably more than any other Muslim region with the exception of Anatolia maybe.
For whatever it's worth so called ideals of "western" isn't all that uncommon in other societies(probably expressed by a minority in the past) and most likely in tribal societies.
I probably have to agree with this. Tribals and moderns have social simplicity as common rallying point. They differ in technology and relation with Nature though.
As a side note, it's often argued that places like Britain could jump to modernity more easily than others precisely because their "primitivism", because they lacked the social constrains of most of continental Europe (much weaker caste system, greater gender equality, loads of free farmers...). Sometimes "civilization" may become a handicap.
No, that is not point. I don't consider doctrines and people's views always go hand in hand. Doctrines have too many contradictions but people's views generally get stereotyped for a particular norm.
Can you exlain this? I don't really understand what you mean.
Anyhow, there's people who think the inverse of what you suggested above: that Zionism is merely Jewish Nazism, that it was German ethno-racist nationalism what inspired Zionism. If we look at the evolution of Hertzl's thought, it seems kind of self-evident (though I would not exclude much greater complexity).
Can you exlain this? I don't really understand what you mean.
Doctrines are open to interpretation. They don't stand for certain exclusive thought. However, human tendency is to generalize or stereotype certain aspects. It leads one dominant aspect either expressed by a dominant set or by a dominant person becomes a rallying point within an identity group. One can find that aspect even in the doctrines too. However, doctrines are adopted across different identity groups. That makes the picture complex.
Consider Buddhism. In China an emperor(with tribal background) abolished untouchability like practices as it was against Buddhist teaching of equality. However, the same Buddhism was identified with Japanese untouchability, mainly because of political reasons. The doctrines can be interpreted with prevailing dominant ethos of an identity group. On other hand, the concepts within doctrines could be forced by a strong minority to the general population.
In totality, doctrines play a second fiddle. Their background matters. It may be complex or simple(if properly studied) interplay between technological advancement and length of civilized life along with interplay between tribal society and civilized society based upon dominance of either tribal society or civilized society.
Probably, I need to make distinction of Jewish racism and racism of Nazis. Jewish racism is a philosophical one that you find in the caste system of India. Underlying principle is purity-impurity beliefs. I would think Philosophical racism might have given rise to physcial level discrimination just like India had Jews were the masters of their lands. I suppose I have written a blog on development of purity-pollution in Jewish society and how Gentiles(impure) were barred from temples in Jewish regions of West Asia. This was a typical feature in the caste India.
However, Nazi racism is a more physical one. Though their main target were Jews is no surprise.
Anyhow, there's people who think the inverse of what you suggested above: that Zionism is merely Jewish Nazism, that it was German ethno-racist nationalism what inspired Zionism. If we look at the evolution of Hertzl's thought, it seems kind of self-evident (though I would not exclude much greater complexity).
At least, Wikipedia article didn't give me the idea what you are suggesting here that Herzl's thought was inspired by German ethno-racism. Of course, his solution for acquiring land from Palestines could have been termed as downright stupid and hilarious had it not for the cruelty behind its implementation. But I don't know whether Herzl's thoughts for Jewish homeland in Israel was mainly because of his family's association with Zionist thought (which is returning back to land of glory ... abominable in my opinion) or popular view that he found hopelessness of Jewish question in the lands dominated by Christians (understandable ... in my opinion). I may lean towards the former and find the latter as the excuse he used.
I understand what you say about doctrines and praxis, and of how doctrines can be like rubber gloves, that may fit all sizes of hands after due stretching.
You may be even right when you say that background is what matter. Though it's more like up to a point - doctrines also modify that pre-existent background, specially in the mid-run. For instance without Christianism there's no way to explain how Europeans would feel so identified with Jews and the mythological (historical too but specialy mythological) Jewish homeland - same for Muslims to an extent. Ideology helped Albanians to overcome Islam (and Christianity), and similar ideologies, even if often underground, helped Western Europeans to overcome religion too. Ideology ratifies processes but can also create processes and transform reality.
I need to make distinction of Jewish racism and racism of Nazis. Jewish racism is a philosophical one that you find in the caste system of India. Underlying principle is purity-impurity beliefs.
That's exactly what racism is about: the "purity" of "race". And that's exactly what Hitler and minions promoted in Germany and the conquered/allied countries in the 1930s and 40s.
And I'd say that this racial purity ideology is what drove the caste system originally too, albeit with different language (but caste and race both mean ancestry, lineage). Of couse "racial purity" is a myth, but any kind of "purity" is necesarily. Chaos is essentially impure and all orders ("purities") are just subsets of impure Chaos and subject to it.
And, of course, Zionism and classical Jewish racism is the same bullshit.
You just happen to think that when these racist/casteist ideas are religiously ratified, then they are "philosophical", while when they are based on more mundane comcepts like deformations of science, they are not.
I ask you: how can religion be more "philosophical" than secular thought? Religion is essentially anti-philosophy, because philosophy is the open and critical search of truth and religions all have their pre-made absolute truths and fear to be challeneged by critical thought, i.e. philosophy.
I think you must mean "ideological", not "philosophical". So in the end it's the serpent biting its own tail: ideological layer on ideological substrate and their interactions along time and in particular contexts.
At least, Wikipedia...
Wikipedia is, sadly, not a good reference for any matters related with Zionism or AIPAC. The tentacles of the Israel Lobby are long and all-pervading. It's one of the reasons I am not anymore active in the Wiki.
Herlz realized that ethno-racial concepts had replaced the classical religious ones that separated Christians and Jews. He once had thought on assimilation through conversion but then he thought that ethno-racism would block that process that had in the past worked. That's at least what my father told me from his own writings. I have never read his thoughts myself - nor I probably will, sincerely.
In any case, until the Nazi Holocaust, nearly nobody supported the Zionist option. Even within Jews very few saw migrating to Palestine as a viable or desirable option. Most were actually interested in assimilation within their own nations, except maybe a few, specially in Britain. The Holocaust actually triggered and propelled Jewish ethnic nationalism like nothing else would have done. After WWII, in just one year, the apportion of Jews in Palestine evolved from 10% to more than 30% (under British protection, of course). Now it's like 50% but it's clearly decreasing.
That's exactly what racism is about: the "purity" of "race". And that's exactly what Hitler and minions promoted in Germany and the conquered/allied countries in the 1930s and 40s.
And I'd say that this racial purity ideology is what drove the caste system originally too, albeit with different language (but caste and race both mean ancestry, lineage). Of couse "racial purity" is a myth, but any kind of "purity" is necesarily. Chaos is essentially impure and all orders ("purities") are just subsets of impure Chaos and subject to it.
This is where I make the distinction. I probably mixed my words here. However, as I have said before there is a strong difference between physical and philosophical nature of racism. You are handicapped by Spanish-American model which can't be used in genetically diverse old world. The philosophical nature of racism doesn't mind economic power and economic freedom of lower groups. However, physical nature has problems with it as it can't accept the financial power of lower groups. Anyway, Nazi racist identification with caste system is a work of Western Europeans who thought early Vedic people where Europeans and their culture was European. A rather misguided one I must say. I haven't seen racist ideology of Central Asians. The idea is rooted in philosophical nature of racism of West Asia. Even Islam is religiously racist philosophy. If you see the name of the organization like Laskhar-e-Taiba (Army of the pure) you get the idea. In my opinion, caste system, Jewish chosen people, Islamic religious purity are all philosophical purism different from Nazi physical purism.
[I use philosophy in a neutral sense...it can be bad or it can be good but never neutral in itself. I suppose it can be exchanged with ideology...but that is just wrangling over semantics]
Herlz realized that ethno-racial concepts had replaced the classical religious ones that separated Christians and Jews. He once had thought on assimilation through conversion but then he thought that ethno-racism would block that process that had in the past worked. That's at least what my father told me from his own writings. I have never read his thoughts myself - nor I probably will, sincerely.
Now, I must they way I look at the things and you look at the things are entirely different. You consistently give noble nature to Herzl's Zionism but the one I deduced from Wikipedia isn't very flattering(last message).
Wikipedia article in fact gives ambiguous background for his quest for Jewish homeland. Your words support the popular view that he found the hopelessness of Jewish question in Christian lands. And considering that majority Jews supported the idea only after the Holocaust makes the Zionist movement, a movement for survival rather than quest for (physical) racist glory. However, it still doesn't negate the fact that the solution they came up was wrong even if they didn't have any other alternatives.
Even Islam is religiously racist philosophy.
And Christianity too. They are assimilationist yet xenophobic ideologies (not "philosophies"; philos=affinity, sophos=truth, normally translated as "search of the truth", i.e. science or scientifical thought). But Roman identity for instance was too, even before Christianity. As the empire developed, more and more people became Romans, yet this also served to make a new distinction between "we" and "they" (be "they" Persians, Germans, Arabs or Huns).
It's all about expanded identity and those who don't fit in that expanded identity. Assimiliationist ideologies are willing to incorporate the other but the other must become "one of us" in that process, more purely "racist" ideologies are not willing to assimilate but rather to separate (not all racism is imperialist, see for instance modern "defensive" white racism).
I don't care if Aryans were European or whatever, what I see in any case is that Hindu castes work like racism by another name in any case. "Race" need not to be defined in modern terms, the very term race originally just meant lineage, stock, nothing else. And castes are lineages certainly, so the term race can be applied albeit in a rather unmodern sense.
I use philosophy in a neutral sense...it can be bad or it can be good but never neutral in itself. I suppose it can be exchanged with ideology...but that is just wrangling over semantics
It gets me confused because philosophy means science and ideology means often anti-science, irrational prejudiced thought. I understand that you mean something like "school of philosophy" or rather "school of thought" (because once the school has been fixated into a doctrine, philosophy as such disappears). Ideology (system of ideas) is a much more proper term.
Philosophy may led to ideology but the opposite is hardly the case (it would have to be the ideology of no ideology, of scienific critical thought).
Now, I must they way I look at the things and you look at the things are entirely different. You consistently give noble nature to Herzl's Zionism but the one I deduced from Wikipedia isn't very flattering(last message).
I did not mean that. In any case I admit I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable of his thought to judge properly. I just understand that it was European increasing racism what drove him to develope his own Jewish racist ideology.
And considering that majority Jews supported the idea only after the Holocaust makes the Zionist movement, a movement for survival rather than quest for (physical) racist glory.
For the common European Jew it may have been that, and also for many Arab and Berber Jews later on. But it's only so terribly obvious that the natives of Palesine were totally ignored in this (and were eventually genocided). And that is not justifiable, except from a racist viewpoint.
It is a rather good example of the Gandhian idea that violence feeds violence.
In fact, many have argued that Zionists cooperated to some extent with the Nazis (both agreed in ethnic separation and opposed assimilation, and opression of Jews favored Zionist ideas quite directly) and that some even hoped to get a Jewish homeland somewhere (probably not Palestine because the Nazis tended to be allied with the Arab nationalists, but Uganda and Madagascar were speculated upon certainly before the "final solution" began).
In any case the Holocaust was the most direct cause of Jewish emigration to Palestine and in general raised support for the Zionist cause, within the Jewish comunity certainly but also among many others. When Israel was created it was very widely supported, in spite of the obvious injustice to Palestinians, by most of the internationally active powers (it was still a colonial world reality largely). Only the few independent Muslim countries, India, Greece and Cuba opposed it. The Soviet bloc as a whole supported it then and Czechoslovakia's arm deliveries to the Zionists were decisive in the war that ensued.
Post a Comment