Any 'pro-Palestinian' atheists here?

WildCat said:
You don't have the slightest idea what colonialism is, do you?
Click to expand...

Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. Colonialism is a process whereby sovereignty over the colony is claimed by the metropole and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonists - people from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships: between the metropole and the colony; between the colonists and the indigenous population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism
 
WildCat said:
You don't have the slightest idea what colonialism is, do you?
Click to expand...

I understand that Israeli partisans don't like the label colonizer because they think that Jewish European colonizers are on a higher moral plane than the other European colonizers.

ETA: I need to leave, and I need to write this in a hurry, but I wanted to amend what I said above a bit.

In many ways the Israeli colonizers have been less harsh than the other European colonizers that proceeded them in other areas of the world. This is not surprising based just on the time frame. The world is a different place than when earlier Europeans were colonizing indigent populations justified by ideas of racial superiority or just the idea that if they didn't do it somebody worse would. But the reality is also as Thunder describes it in the paragraph below, a lot of Europeans moved onto land that had been occupied by others and it is ridiculous to think that wasn't going to cause enormous harm to many in the indigenous population.
 
Last edited:
It is a fact that Palestine was settled by 600,000 people who were not from the region. They came there to build a new country, at the expense of the natives and local population. Being victims of bigotry and persecution does not make colonialism less immoral.

And having ancestors that might have lived in that same region, 2,000 years ago, really doesn't justify colonialism. Nor does having a culture or religion which has history in the region.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. Colonialism is a process whereby sovereignty over the colony is claimed by the metropole and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonists - people from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships: between the metropole and the colony; between the colonists and the indigenous population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism
Click to expand...
Whose territory is "Europe"?
 
Thunder said:
It is a fact that Palestine was settled by 600,000 people who were not from the region. They came there to build a new country, at the expense of the natives and local population. Being victims of bigotry and persecution does not make colonialism less immoral.

And having ancestors that might have lived in that same region, 2,000 years ago, really doesn't justify colonialism. Nor does having a culture or religion which has history in the region.
Click to expand...

How many of those people paid cold cash for their land?
 
I understand that Israeli partisans don't like the label colonizer because they think that Jewish European colonizers are on a higher moral plane than the other European colonizers.
Click to expand...

Well, that might have something to do with a Jewish state being there before.

Or Jews praying to return to Jerusalem for 2000 years.

Or with 60% of the Jews in Israel being from the Levant, which makes a rather odd European colonization movement.

Or with every single bit of land the Jews "colonized" being paid for to the owners, until the 1947 Arab war which tried to push the Jews into the sea -- which would make, say, Blacks moving into a White neighborhood "colonization" that, apparently, must be resisted by force, as in "throw the Blacks into the sea".

Or with my grandparents becoming "European colonizers" because they were told in Europe, "Jews! Go to Palestine! You have no place here!".

Or with...

...well, you get the point. Strange, isn't it, how we dare to think the re-establishment of the Jewish state is not actually "colonialism"?

Jews coming to Palestine is not "European colonialism" any more than Jews not coming to Palestine is "being foreign parasites on the living body of European society". This, of course, didn't stop the Jews being blamed for both.

If your going to be blamed no matter what -- for "colonialism" if you have your own country and for "being a parasite" if you don't -- why bother to go into all the bother of going back to Europe? Just for a change of air, to be blamed for something else for a change?
 
davefoc said:
I understand that Israeli partisans don't like the label colonizer because they think that Jewish European colonizers are on a higher moral plane than the other European colonizers.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps the historical analogy you are trying to promote is simply wrong. For instance, South America was colonized by Spain and Portugal, the US by great Britain, etc.

Can you tell me which country, in your opinion, has sent these Jews to colonize in its name?

The reality is that these Jews wanted to escape their original countries. They were not sent by them.

Another important distinction can be made. Colonies were typically constructed with disregard to the local laws. In contrast, the large majority of Jews who immigrated to Israel were legal immigrants, who were given permission by the local authorities.

So what exactly made them colonists in your opinion? Is it the fact that they came from Europe? If the first Jews to come were ones from Arab lands and not from Europe -but the history would have evolved along paralel lines - then they would not have been colonists? Does being a colonist is determined by some criteria other than the land you were born in? I would hope so, since I do not think that the place you were born in can determine such things.
 
Doctor Evil said:
Another important distinction can be made. Colonies were typically constructed with disregard to the local laws. In contrast, the large majority of Jews who immigrated to Israel were legal immigrants, who were given permission by the local authorities. .
Click to expand...

ehh...not exactly.

the "local" authorities, where the British, who allowed mass Jewish immigration against the desire of the native population.

do you really think 600,000 Jews would have been allowed to move to Palestine, if it was already an Arab state in 1919?
 
Skeptic said:
Or with 60% of the Jews in Israel being from the Levant, which makes a rather odd European colonization movement.
Click to expand...

not..in 1948.

in 1948 there were 600,000 Jews in Palestine, and the GREAT majority of them were from Europe.

mass immigration of Jews from the Middle East only started after Israel was declared and the 1948 War was over.
 
Thunder said:
I consider the $3 billion a year given to Israel on a yearly basis since 1981, to be welfare on a massive scale.

It was the beginning of America's bribery relationship with Israel, whereby we give them money, and they try to behave...or just thumb their nose at us and accuse of anti-Semitism when we ask them to be diplomatic and reasonable.
Click to expand...
Yet again, this has been answered here: America's $2.75 billion dollar gift to Israel

Not a gift, not welfare (:confused: a new one I guess), and yet again, the hapless anti-semitism card.

Answer in that thread regarding the around $2.5 billion of the over $30 billion military purchases from Israel towards the US private military industry per year in the thread linked above or cease with this derail.

You've done it twice now in this thread and have to audacity of accusing me of a derail when I yet again, confront you about it. Put up or shut up.
 
Thunder said:
the "local" authorities, where the British, who allowed mass Jewish immigration against the desire of the native population.

do you really think 600,000 Jews would have been allowed to move to Palestine, if it was already an Arab state in 1919?
Click to expand...
British restricted immigration and looked the other way when it came to Arab migration. British land reforms of the mid 1920's favored the Arabs as well without proof of ownership.

There was no Arab state in 1919.

Cease with the derails. You've failed in every other thread and have subsequently abandoned all the threads where you have shoveled this drivel, and will continue to.
 
bigjelmapro said:
Cease with the derails. You've failed in every other thread and have subsequently abandoned all the threads where you have shoveled this drivel, and will continue to.
Click to expand...

um....every word after "cease with the derails", is a derail.

:p
 
bigjelmapro said:
Yet again, this has been answered here: America's $2.75 billion dollar gift to Israel

Not a gift, not welfare (:confused: a new one I guess), and yet again, the hapless anti-semitism card.

Answer in that thread regarding the around $2.5 billion of the over $30 billion military purchases from Israel towards the US private military industry per year in the thread linked above or cease with this derail.

...
Click to expand...

I don't know what all this is supposed to mean.

The US has been dumping about 2.5 billion dollars worth of military aid into Israel a year since about 1967 and about a billion dollars worth of civilian aid. The civilian aid, I believe, has been reduced or eliminated of late because of the Israeli settlements (again I'm not sure). Did the US dump military aid on Israel out of the goodness of its heart? I'm not exactly sure why they did, but self interest of the politicians and their attendant benefits from local employment and kickbacks to their campaigns and other benefits channeled to them via AIPAC were certainly factors. In addition to this there are all the other little benefits like early transfer of aid and debt forgiveness that is part of Israel's US benefit package.

Your post also implies, but doesn't quite say that the US gets some sort of employment benefit because it gives stuff to Israel. Well, yes it does, sort of. Hiring people to run around town breaking windows also increases employment in specific industries, but the net effect is not increased employment and a loss of resources to the town hiring the window breaker. This is of course obvious, sort of. But somehow, people think that when the US gives weapons to Israel that the US doesn't suffer a loss of resources as a result. This is no less inaccurate a characterization of the situation than claiming the town that hired the window breaker is better off as a result.
 
buying billions of dollars in fighter jets for another country to use, is not fiscally responsible way to stimulate jobs.

especially in times of massive federal deficits.

why doesn't Israel pay for the jets themselves?
 
I'll admit that I hold Israel's behavior to a higher standard than I do Palestine's. I don't hold the oppressed to the same standards as the oppressor. I don't hold the weak to the same standards as the powerful.
 
Thunder said:
buying billions of dollars in fighter jets for another country to use, is not fiscally responsible way to stimulate jobs.

especially in times of massive federal deficits.

why doesn't Israel pay for the jets themselves?
Click to expand...

The F35 program is in serious trouble. Giving some away might also a part the attempt to get enough volume to make it viable. Britain just effectively dropped out of their committment to buy jets. They will only be buying a token amount now.

I like the Russian approach, they will take payment in kind. Thailand was toying with the idea of buying Russian fighters in exchange for chickens.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/339618/cpf_backs_chicken_for_fighter_jets_plans_to_barter_with/

Dec. 24--Leading chicken producers and exporters have thrown their full support behind a government proposal to exchange chicken for Russian Su-30 fighter jets.
"This barter trade is a good concept to push our farm exports," said Adirek Sripratak, the president and CEO of Charoen Pokphand Foods Plc (CPF).
"It is not necessary to trade the jets only with chicken. Other farm products; rice, rubber and shrimp should be considered."
According to Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the government is still shopping around different countries for new fighter jets. Although it is considering trading farm products, chicken is preferred for the Russian Su-30 jets.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom