[David Henry]

Jina, first of all, David isn't Israeli- so it's not his children wich he talk's about. And he didn't said that he is a jew, as well- if I recall it. So don't come to fast conclusions

Furious Angel

Yes I'm Australian, not Jewish....my argument is based on the truth and the truth of human nature, ie, you can't negotiate with the irrational, and when the irrational pose risks, you must mitigate or eliminate those risks....that's the essense of Kissingers seminal 1955 paper by which the rational countries are pro-active for the long-term benefit and stability of ME peace.

Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in that day, knowing that the Jews are most vulnerable in that day

Some might consider that strategic, I call it cowardice.
Don't worry, the whole ME is will be democratized...of course it would be easier if people were more realistic about it.

[GandalfTheGrey]

zionism is a political movement, not a religious movement. Jews who are true to their faith reject zionism because it ignores God's command to live in exile until the coming of the messiah.

David Henry:
Zionism isn't the solution for jews because it necessitates the displacement of native inhabitants from their land. This will ultimately backfire on the jews - as we are seeing now. Jews will never find peace as long as their solution is land grabbing and displacing people from their land.

The state of Israel will be destroyed sooner or later, and there is nothing that can be done about it. Why? Because already 20% of the population of Israel is Arab, and this section of the population is breeding at a far higher rate than the jewish citizens. Eventually non-jews will become a majority, and the state of Israel will lose its jewish identity. All we can hope for is that jews and arabs will be able to live together in harmony as they did so succesfully for hundreds of years before jews became infected with the racist zionist movement. Many people fear that the arabs will seek to destroy the jews in Palestine, given their animosity towards the jewish state. This fear is groundless because 1. arab hostility was towards the state of Israel, and racist zionism - not the jews themselves, and 2. jews and arabs lived together in harmony for hundreds of years before zionism.

Zionism is evil and racist because it seeks to annex the entire region of Palestine and drive the inhabitants off their land. Zionism is the ideology behind the settlements, and jews have very successfully and subtly taken over about 50% of the west bank - not by the land taken by the settlements themselves, but through the settlement's regional and municipal boundaries. (see BTselem for more details - http://btselem.org). We know for a fact that this is the zionist dream because zionist founder Theodore Herzl said so himself. Two former Israeli Prime Ministers - David Ben-Gurion and Menachim Begin are on record as saying that their goal is to take over the entire region of Palestine. Many Israeli Prime Ministers - including so called "doves" Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin have been personally involved in carrying out attrocities to help fulfill the zionist dream.

But apart from zionism being immoral, it is impractical in the long term and is doomed to failure. For one thing, it is entirely dependent on US support. Currently racist zionists in America have disproportionate power in influencing the US government's policies in Israel. They also have powerful allies in the military-industrial complex as well as the fundamental christians. However, the face of America is changing - literally. One of the fastest growing ethnic groups in America is the from the arab world. They are at this point in time consolidating their resources and attempting to build a lobby group that will rival the racist zionists. Future presidents and congressment may think twice in the future before they submit blind support to the zionists. Also, like all racists, the zionist lobby group thrives on ignorance. They are able to exert undue influence over the American people because, quite frankly, the American people simply don't know what is going on in the ME. All the zionists have to do is conjur up images of the holocaust and play on American's guilt regarding their refusal to help jews during the holocaust and support for Israel is assured. But this is changing: information is power, and we now live in an information age. Suddenly people are getting the real picture of the middle east through the internet. Israeli leaders and zionists are finding it harder and harder to cover up their crimes. Americans will finally begin to question the unconditional support their government gives to the crimes of the zionists. It is inevitable.

The destruction of the Israeli state is inevitable. In its place we can only hope and pray that jews and arabs will once more live together side by side in harmony. The arabs have consistently demonstrated that this is what they want, and a majority of peace loving jews have also demonstrated that this is what they want. The people who ensure that the immoral occupation continues are, and always have been in the minority, and soon the voices of the majority - who want peace, not never ending war, will be heard. The days of zionism are numbered.

[David Henry]

Jews will never find peace as long as their solution is land grabbing and displacing people from their land.

Gandalf

You favour bizarre Arabs, I favour rational democratic countries and the democratization of the entire ME as the most rational goal one can aspire to for that region.
ISRAEL wants the West Bank and Gaza for the WATER, it must have water to maintain and develop itself....to hand this territory over would threaten the economic strength of Israel and obviously favours the Arabs and the continuance of Arab Irrationality and HOMICIDE BOMBERS.

Zionism is evil and racist because it seeks to annex the entire region of Palestine and drive the inhabitants off their land

If they were rational, and had a developed economy and military strength they could defend themselves, they don't as they're irrational{get it}, IOW, their economy and lifestyle is proof that they're irrational, and that the HOMICIDE Bombers are obviously irrational, but you don't mind them at all by the sounds of it.
Zionism isn't evil, ...supporting the IRRATIONAL is definately EVIL...and the ME is full of evil irrational states which peace loving civil societies must invade and install rational gov{Kissinger 1955}.

." Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin have been personally involved in carrying out attrocities to help fulfill the zionist dream.

Atrocities, LOL, what the hell do you call a HOMICIDE BOMBER?

But apart from zionism being immoral, it is impractical in the long term and is doomed to failure. For one thing, it is entirely dependent on US support

.

Yes and that's why more money and moral support should go to Israel.
Those who are decent should vote for Bush and morally support Sharon.

Currently racist zionists in America have disproportionate power in influencing the US government's policies in Israel. They also have powerful allies in the military-industrial complex

Oooohhh, it's a big conspiracy now is it??

The destruction of the Israeli state is inevitable. In its place we can only hope and pray that jews and arabs will once more live together side by side in harmony. The arabs have consistently demonstrated that this is what they want, The days of zionism are numbered

.

You really are optimistic.
Zionism is necessary as the other ME states are irrational, now unless you can tell us HOW we negotiate with these Islamaniacs, then you're blowing hot air.

The economic conditions and the HOMICIDE BOMBINGS are the objective proof that the other ME states are irrational and must be modernized and democratized.

[Furious Angel]

zionism is a political movement, not a religious movement. Jews who are true to their faith reject zionism because it ignores God's command to live in exile until the coming of the messiah.

Who are you that will decide who is true in his faith and who is not. A Judaism expert? A Rabbi, maybe?

As I said before, there is no commandment of living in exile until the coming of messiah- it is only one interpretation to one sentence in the bible. Long after the falling of second temple some of the Rebbis in the exile made this interpretation so that the Jews will be loyal to their counties in which they were. It doesn't written in the bible in exact words- actually, the bible endes at the return of Jews to Israel and the building of the second temple. There is nothing in the bible that say's what to do after the second exile. There are some people that say that there are clues for it in the bible- but it has no base.

David Henry:
Zionism isn't the solution for jews because it necessitates the displacement of native inhabitants from their land. This will ultimately backfire on the jews - as we are seeing now. Jews will never find peace as long as their solution is land grabbing and displacing people from their land.

Again, who said that the main idia of Zionism is to displace Arabs? All that Zionism aspire to is a creation of Jewish Democratic state in the land of Israel. Nothing else. In the principles of Zionism there is nothing about displacing Arabs or the occupation of the territories.

The destruction of the Israeli state is inevitable. In its place we can only hope and pray that jews and arabs will once more live together side by side in harmony. The arabs have consistently demonstrated that this is what they want, and a majority of peace loving jews have also demonstrated that this is what they want. The people who ensure that the immoral occupation continues are, and always have been in the minority, and soon the voices of the majority - who want peace, not never ending war, will be heard. The days of zionism are numbered.

Zionism has lived long time before you- and it will live long time after you.

[Monkey Angst]

Lets settle with the fact that most Zionist's are JEWISH.....and those that hate themselves are unworthy of our respect.

All right, so how does it follow that Jews who are not Zionists are self-hating? You have made this claim and have not backed it up. Zionism is the movement to create and sustain a Jewish homeland. It is possible to be a Jew and not have that goal. How does that make a Jew self-hating?

The term was coined as it accurately describes the INTENT of the Islamaniac, you see the Islamaniac could have jumped off a cliff, but he didn't, he chose to KILL innocent children instead.
How dare you rationalize and support this

You know, when I entered this thread your posts appeared like they would contain rational arguments. I challenge you to point to anything I've said even vaguely supporting suicide bombing. I merely called attention to the fact that you were parroting a silly term coined by rightists to distract attention from the larger debate over Israel.

Historically, Zionism was established first, but what Kissinger did was to rationally justify taking what we might call "affirmitive action" in the ME.
He said look, the ME is full of Irrational people{expect his own Zionist state Israel}, so rather than allow the Islamanics to hit us with Homicide Bombers, we should invade and install democracies in these nutjob states.

All nations are full of irrational people, including Israel. Your use of nonsensical made-up jargon like "Islamaniacs" points to this very well. Kissinger's own state, by the way, was and continues to be the United States.

[Monkey Angst]

Again, who said that the main idia of Zionism is to displace Arabs? All that Zionism aspire to is a creation of Jewish Democratic state in the land of Israel. Nothing else. In the principles of Zionism there is nothing about displacing Arabs or the occupation of the territories.

That is technically true. But look at the parameters of a Zionist state:
1) It must be democratic. That is, the population gets to determine the character of the nation.
2) It must be Jewish in nature. If there are too many Arabs in the population, an attempt to keep a Jewish characters violates parameter 1.
3) It must be located in Palestine. There are millions of Arabs living in Palestine. If one does not wish to enfranchise them (satisfying Parameter 1 but violating Parameter 2) one must displace them or keep them under occupation. This is not part of the principles of Zionism, but is a necessary reality that those principles run into.

[David Henry]

All right, so how does it follow that Jews who are not Zionists are self-hating? You have made this claim and have not backed it up. Zionism is the movement to create and sustain a Jewish homeland. It is possible to be a Jew and not have that goal. How does that make a Jew self-hating?

Monkey

Based on the nature of the criticism{favouring irrational Arabs ahead of their own kind, who have proven to be rational,'''' unless democracies aren't rational entities in your esteemed view}'.

The most likely explanation for why someone of Jewish extraction would criticize Zionism,..... which immediately favours irrational Arabs{undisputed}...is that they hate themselves.

I merely called attention to the fact that you were parroting a silly term coined by rightists to distract attention from the larger debate over Israel.

That it's a "silly term" is your ludicrous opinion, and worthless IMO.
I've already comprehensively explained why the term Homicide bomber is superior, but you reject it as you're a ArabApologist, IOW, the supporter of irrationality.

No champ, YOU missed the point that whilst definitions aren't arbitary{although can be}, Homicide Bomber more accurately reflects intent and outcome , and also that the dictionary just records words, it doesn't create them...only one thing creates them, and that's popular usage.
Homicide Bomber immediately indentifies a hardcore killer, not some poor sap who was depressed, which might be a connotation of suicide bomber.

And how does using proper terminology detract from the debate?

All nations are full of irrational people, including Israel. Your use of nonsensical made-up jargon like "Islamaniacs" points to this very well.

It's an apt generalization.

Kissinger's own state, by the way, was and continues to be the United States.

The US is his physical homeland, but he's spiritually in love with Israel and the full enactment of the Zionist agenda, which will replace all irrational terror states with thriving democratic societies that favour reason and technology for a better life for its residents.

There's too much momentum with Zionism for it to be halted by the self-haters of this world.
Irrational is as irrational does.

[Furious Angel]

Again, who said that the main idia of Zionism is to displace Arabs? All that Zionism aspire to is a creation of Jewish Democratic state in the land of Israel. Nothing else. In the principles of Zionism there is nothing about displacing Arabs or the occupation of the territories.

That is technically true. But look at the parameters of a Zionist state:
1) It must be democratic. That is, the population gets to determine the character of the nation.
2) It must be Jewish in nature. If there are too many Arabs in the population, an attempt to keep a Jewish characters violates parameter 1.
3) It must be located in Palestine. There are millions of Arabs living in Palestine. If one does not wish to enfranchise them (satisfying Parameter 1 but violating Parameter 2) one must displace them or keep them under occupation. This is not part of the principles of Zionism, but is a necessary reality that those principles run into.

We aware to this problem. But the Israeli Arabs will never be majority unless we will annex the territories with the Arab population of it- and even that will happen only after 19 years.

one must displace them or keep them under occupation. This is not part of the principles of Zionism, but is a necessary reality that those principles run into.

I disagree. Though, there were parts in Israel's history when it had to move the Arabs from some places- but it was in the middle of war, and it was necessary to do so that the Zionists will win and won't be slaughtered. However, if the Arabs weren't initiating war, then the Jews could become majority in un-violent way: massive Jewish emigration to Palestine, for example. But the Arabs chose to attack the Jews and try to kill them- and that is the result of their actions.

[Monkey Angst]

Based on the nature of the criticism{favouring irrational Arabs ahead of their own kind, who have proven to be rational,'''' unless democracies aren't rational entities in your esteemed view}'.

Being opposed to Zionism (again, Zionism being the movement to construct a Jewish state) does not necessarily favor Arabs. It is one thing and one thing only, opposed to the creation of the Jewish state. Your argument does not follow logically.

The most likely explanation for why someone of Jewish extraction would criticize Zionism,..... which immediately favours irrational Arabs{undisputed}...is that they hate themselves.

First, do not use the word "undisputed" to describe assertations that are easily disputed. Second, where to even start in that sentence? First, you continually describe Arabs as "irrational," which is an extremely simplistic generalization. All societies, and I want to reiterate that word -- all societies produce irrational individuals. Israel certainly does. next, you again assert that Jews who oppose Zionism favor Arabs over their own people. This is a non-sequitur. How does opposition to the creation of a Jewish state favor Arabs, or any other nationality for that matter?

I've already comprehensively explained why the term Homicide bomber is superior, but you reject it as you're a ArabApologist, IOW, the supporter of irrationality.

First, you have done no such thing. Do so and I will drop my criticism. Second, you continue to invent absurd loaded terminology like "ArabApologist," seriously undermining your credibility. Finally, upon what do you base your assertion that I, personally, support Arabs, or even that I oppose Zionism?

Homicide Bomber immediately indentifies a hardcore killer, not some poor sap who was depressed, which might be a connotation of suicide bomber.

The connotation you mention does not exist. The term merely exists to differentiate bombers who kill themselves, such as the 9-11 hijackers, from those who do not, such as Timothy McVeigh. One can argue whether such a distinction is important or not, but the fact remains that that is the reason for the separate terms.

It's an apt generalization.

Generalizations are not apt.

The US is his physical homeland, but he's spiritually in love with Israel and the full enactment of the Zionist agenda, which will replace all irrational terror states with thriving democratic societies that favour reason and technology for a better life for its residents.

No, the Zionist agenda is nothing more than the continuation of the state of Israel. Any other agendas tacked on are wishful thinking on the part of well-meaning individuals.

And Kissinger is a US citizen, choosing to live in the United States instead of living in Israel. I merely dispute your description of Israel as "his" land -- the man has chosen and continues to choose not to make aliyah. So any support of Israel on his part comes as an outsider.

[Furious Angel]

The most likely explanation for why someone of Jewish extraction would criticize Zionism,..... which immediately favours irrational Arabs{undisputed}...is that they hate themselves.

True, the Jewish history is full in Jews who tried to proove that they are "objective" by taking extremely anti-Jewish side and almost brought death on themselves and their people by it.

And even now there are such people. They think that it's "un-cool" to support their own people- so they choose the other side. In the global Academic communities, if you're not ANTI-Israeli than they look at you like on a ignorant. So, if some Israeli profesor want's that other profesors will respect him- he have to say that he's a leftist and Israeli goverment opposer. I think it's absurd.

[Monkey Angst]

And even now there are such people. They think that it's "un-cool" to support their own people- so they choose the other side. In the global Academic communities, if you're not ANTI-Israeli than they look at you like on a ignorant. So, if some Israeli profesor want's that other profesors will respect him- he have to say that he's a leftist and Israeli goverment opposer. I think it's absurd.

I think, like David, you fall into the trap of equating opposition to Zionism with support for terrorism. You seem to also equate support for Arabs with support for terrorism. Correct me if I have that wrong. But neither of these is the case.

[David Henry]

Being opposed to Zionism (again, Zionism being the movement to construct a Jewish state) does not necessarily favor Arabs. It is one thing and one thing only, opposed to the creation of the Jewish state. Your argument does not follow logically.

Monkey

The practical outcome of your opposition to Zionism exposes your anti-semitism.
Israel needs the West Bank for water, what would you do, give it back to the irrational Arabs{proven by their societies and standards of living}.

First, do not use the word "undisputed" to describe assertations that are easily disputed

.

LOL, so in your mind, their third world status and homicide bombings are proof that their society is rational overall?

Second, where to even start in that sentence? First, you continually describe Arabs as "irrational," which is an extremely simplistic generalization.

No it's an obvious OBJECTIVE statement as proven by what they've accomplished, unless you consider third world status, homicide bombers/Islamaniacs as a great achievement.

ll societies, and I want to reiterate that word -- all societies produce irrational individuals. Israel certainly does.

We're not talking about "some" individuals, we're refering to{or at least should be} their societies and OBJECTIVE judgements about the rationality of their practical and intellectual behaviours.

This is a non-sequitur. How does opposition to the creation of a Jewish state favor Arabs, or any other nationality for that matter?

By virtue of what would actually happen if we opposed and successfully restrained Zionism, ie, they would suffer...and it appears that you favour allowing rational people to suffer rather than the irrational{who can't be negotiated with}.

First, you have done no such thing. Do so and I will drop my criticism.

I've done it, you need to go back and read it.

Finally, upon what do you base your assertion that I, personally, support Arabs, or even that I oppose Zionism?

Quote:

Well stop dicking around and come out and say what you think, I have.

The connotation you mention does not exist. The term merely exists to differentiate bombers who kill themselves, such as the 9-11 hijackers, from those who do not, such as Timothy McVeigh. One can argue whether such a distinction is important or not, but the fact remains that that is the reason for the separate terms.

They're YOUR reasons, and they're very poor ones.
McVeigh was a terrorist, that's an accurate description of him.

No, the Zionist agenda is nothing more than the continuation of the state of Israel. Any other agendas tacked on are wishful thinking on the part of well-meaning individuals.

LOL, I wasn't aware you were THE authority on truth.
Of course the Zionist agenda is that, and it's a rational goal that needs the support of American taxpayers and voters{Bush 04}

So any support of Israel on his part comes as an outsider

.

Fundamentally irrelevant as he's spiritually connected to Israel and is best serving her via his US based influence.

[David Henry]

[
True, the Jewish history is full in Jews who tried to proove that they are "objective" by taking extremely anti-Jewish side and almost brought death on themselves and their people by it.

Furious Angel
Hate and irrationality go hand in hand.

So, if some Israeli profesor want's that other profesors will respect him- he have to say that he's a leftist and Israeli goverment opposer. I think it's absurd

People seem to think they can support what they've defined as morally superior and then reject any view that breaches those "subjective" parameters.
The fact is that Israel is a democracy and everyone knows that Jewish people are often high-achievers, so they're targets and victims of their success and assaulted by those of actual and intellectual insignificance.

[Monkey Angst]

The practical outcome of your opposition to Zionism exposes your anti-semitism.

Congratulations. You've finally devolved all the way to name-calling. But you've also moved forward in your logic, so I suppose that evens out.

All right, we get to the crux of your argument. The practical effect of opposition to Zionism would be detrimental to the Jewish people. Taking that as an assumption (and we will later be dealing with whether it is a valid one), one could say that an anti-Zionist is on some level anti-Semitic, since they wish ill upon the Jewish people even if they do not realize it. OK. That I can see. Even if someone bears no ill-will towards Jews, they oppose something which is necessary for the well-being of the Jewish people, therefore they are unconsciously anti-Semitic. Have I summed up your argument?

Now the question is whether Zionism is necessarily tied to the well-being of the Jewish people. Please make an argument that it is.

LOL, so in your mind, their third world status and homicide bombings are proof that their society is rational overall?
...
We're not talking about "some" individuals, we're refering to{or at least should be} their societies and OBJECTIVE judgements about the rationality of their practical and intellectual behaviours.

No, the third-world status of Arab nations and the presence of suicide bombers proves only one thing: The Arab states are third-world nations and they have suicide bombers. It does not speak to wether Arabs as a whole are rational or irrational.

When judging the overall character of a society one must take into account a great number of factors, such as economic prosperity, access to resources, and outside influence. These determine whether a nation is safe or dangerous, aggressive or passive, or stable or unstable. Not some blanket generalization about the people being "rational" or "irrational." People are the same in this respect.

Well stop dicking around and come out and say what you think, I have.

OK, here's what I think: It is in no way anti-Semitic to oppose Zionism. Zionism is one philosophy among many that are indemic to Jewish thought. To say that a Jew must think in a certain way could itself be considered anti-Semitic as it denies the plurality of the Jewish experience. And let us for a moment deal with the fact that many, many expressions of belief get lumped under "anti-Zionism." If a Jew states that Israel has a right to exist, but that the fence should follow the Green Line, they get called anti-Zionist. It is not anti-Zionist to criticize Israel, and it is for damn sure not anti-Semitic. Anti-Zionism is nothing more than opposition to the existence of the state of Israel, and even that is not anti-Semitic. Jews are not Israel. They existed when there was no Israel, and they will continue to exist when Israel and all other nations we recognize have disappeared from the map. Your interpretation of what is or is not Jewish is highly limited, confined to a particular worldview in a particular place and time. It's too small to do justice to G-d.

[David Henry]

Congratulations. You've finally devolved all the way to name-calling

Monkey
Ohhh, I get it, you can talk all manner of unjustifiable nonsense and I can't use a term that is commonly known to desribe YOUR position...righhhhht, I'm with ya

But you've also moved forward in your logic, so I suppose that evens out.

My logic is sound and has not been refuted....disputation by those championing anti-semitic notions are NEVER going to qualify as rational discourse.

Even if someone bears no ill-will towards Jews, they oppose something which is necessary for the well-being of the Jewish people, therefore they are unconsciously anti-Semitic. Have I summed up your argument?

I 'll pay that, but realistically, you can't threaten a countries major water supply and pretend your on its side....both your ideological and practical views are up for scrutiny.

Now the question is whether Zionism is necessarily tied to the well-being of the Jewish people. Please make an argument that it is.

The creation of the state of Israel{a necessity of ethnic cleansing by the orginal and the baddest, the Nazi's}.
And only a buffoon would do nothing or give way to irrational terror states, therefore the TOTAL Democratization of the ME is a necessary and valid extension of the Zionist agenda.
It's ludicrious to have to create a state so as to avoid terror, and then fail to eliminate terror in the neighbourhood, especially as the replacement states would be of rational kind{long-term}

No, the third-world status of Arab nations and the presence of suicide bombers proves only one thing: The Arab states are third-world nations and they have suicide bombers. It does not speak to wether Arabs as a whole are rational or irrational.

You must be kidding me, you really must be pulling my leg
Unless you view democracy and technology as undesirables, then of course other societies which reject them in favour of Islamaniacism are irrational and ALL first world countries by contrast are rational, ie, they've accepted the scientific method and utilized its practical advantages{technology}, IOW, a lack of democracy and technology are the twin hallmarks of irrational societies, not to mention the good ole HOMO BOMBERS.

People are the same in this respect.

Rationality and the scientific method are intimately linked, knowledge of rationality is the basis of the development and success of science and technology, thus anyone who rejects it is irrational.....you've got no room to wiggle here.

OK, here's what I think: It is in no way anti-Semitic to oppose Zionism.

No, anit-semitism is exactly what it is.

Zionism is one philosophy among many that are indemic to Jewish thought.

Yep, intelligent people are rather imaginative, but nevertheless, they shouldn't hate themselves and bite their own feet off.

If a Jew states that Israel has a right to exist, but that the fence should follow the Green Line, they get called anti-Zionist. It is not anti-Zionist to criticize Israel, and it is for damn sure not anti-Semitic. Anti-Zionism is nothing more than opposition to the existence of the state of Israel, and even that is not anti-Semitic. Jews are not Israel

MY GOD....Jews are in Israel because people like you think it's wonderful that they have minority status everywhere and then cop the brunt of any **** up which might occur where they're residing.
Anyone who rejects the state of Israel{and offers no safe alternative...AND happens to favour irrational Arab states is without question an ARABAPOLOGIST or anti-semite...take your pick}

They existed when there was no Israel

What was the impetus for the creation of Israel???

Your interpretation of what is or is not Jewish is highly limited, confined to a particular worldview in a particular place and time. It's too small to do justice to G-d.

And you're prone to meaningless criticism and endless absurd rationalizations which favour Arab states and would obviously be anti-democracy.

[Monkey Angst]

You know, David, I have been doing nothing but arguing in good faith, and you continue with nothing but name calling. After each of your posts I have tried to find the most rational points to address, but I'm afraid I'm vexed in that enterprise this time. When asked to provide any support for your arguments, you merely repeat them. When asked why anti-Zionism is equated with anti-Semitism, you reply that it's self-evident and then proceed to call me an anti-Semite for challenging that assumption. You seem to be a very young, not particularly bright, individual with a lot of zeal for the nation of Israel (although if I had to guess I would say you are probably not a Jew).

You also seem to have a lot of contempt for Arabs, which you justify by claiming that their situation in the world is evidence that they are "irrational" people (a claim levelled commonly against African-Americans in the US). This attitude is not only blatantly racist, it absolves the speaker of any responsibility for rectifying the injustices that brought about these peoples' circumstance in the first place. The use of terminology like this is just demonization, name-calling. It's lazy and weak, and you are lazy and weak for resorting to it.

And you call me an anti-Semite, despite knowing nothing about me beyond that I disagree with your definition of anti-Semitism. You call me this, not because I am an anti-Zionist (which I am not, not that you bothered to ask), but because I challenge your definitions of what constitutes anti-Semitism with regard to anti-Zionism. Apparently in order to be an anti-Semite, one doesn't have to hate Jews, one only has to disagree with one man's opinion of what one should believe with respect to the state of Israel. This kind of doctrinaire brainwashing is exactly the sort of thing Jews should know enough to be watchful for. Fortunately, most are.

[naked_turk]

[mb edit: he has been warned]
^ Thanks Bill.

[Monkey Angst]

He has repeatedly used the term "monkey" to refer to Monkey Angst, a personal attack which I find quite offensive.

Actually, that seems to just be an abbreviation of my nick. I get that a lot on every board. That's not a problem. Being called an anti-Semite is a little more problematic.

[David Henry]

You know, David, I have been doing nothing but arguing in good faith, and you continue with nothing but name calling.

You can try and get out of the debate however you wish.

When asked to provide any support for your arguments, you merely repeat them. When asked why anti-Zionism is equated with anti-Semitism, you reply that it's self-evident and then proceed to call me an anti-Semite for challenging that assumption.

The repetition is necessary as you've ignored the factual/truthful content of what I post, and continue to ask away as though I must be wrong.
When you ask for the truth, that's what I plan on giving.
And if your ideological support threatens Israel and favours the irrational, then how else would one define your position?

You seem to be a very young, not particularly bright,

Then you should stop whinging and highlight the logical and factual errors in my arguments{which you're unable to do}.

You also seem to have a lot of contempt for Arabs, which you justify by claiming that their situation in the world is evidence that they are "irrational" people (a claim levelled commonly against African-Americans in the US). This attitude is not only blatantly racist,

You're confused again...RACISM is the irrational dislike of other races/ethnicities....my portrayal of the other ME states is accurate...unless you think rejecting democracy and technology is the sign of rationality?

The use of terminology like this is just demonization, name-calling. It's lazy and weak, and you are lazy and weak for resorting to it.

Wrong...demonization is when the speaker fails to logically justify his views...I've made it clear that the reason the other Arab states are irrational is based on their rejection of democracy and technology.

I am an anti-Zionist (which I am not, not that you bothered to ask),

I asked you to clearly state your views, in the absence of compliance with that reasonable request, I 'm forced to assume your position as it's ANTI mine...what else could I do if you're not forthcoming?

It seems that you've terminated debate without being able to counter my assertions and are being dogmatic.

[Monkey Angst]

You can try and get out of the debate however you wish.

There is no debate, David. In a debate, one does not refer to one's opponent by names such as "anti-Semite" and one does not make blanket unsupported statements such as "Arabs are irrational." And before you get all bent out of shape, yes, that assertion is unsupported. Looking through your posts, I see exactly three points that seem to serve, in your mind, as "proof" that Arabs are irrational. They are:
1) They have rejected technology. This is simply not true. Go to any Arab country and you will see satellite TV, cell phones, pagers, faxes, and, yes, military hardware... all the technology they can afford.
2) They have rejected democracy. Yes, at present all Arab states have minimal democratic institutions at best. Many are outright monarchies. The ones that have stronger democratic institutions have had them hijacked by dictators such as Hussein and al-Assad (and here I refer to Hafez rather than Bashar, about whom I know little). The fact that they do not have the same form of government as your country (as, indeed, mine doesn't) does not make them irrational.
3) There are many terrorists among the Arabs. Yes, this is true. Suicide bombing (here distinguished by that term from other forms of bombing) is unique to the Arab world. This is a vivid illustration of the desperation pervasive in many countries of this region, where jobs are so scarce and hope so remote that the only way some young men feel they can make a difference is by slaughtering innocents and themselves along with them, where they give themselves over to be brainwashed by cowardly holy men who dupe them into serving the devil under the guise of serving G-d. Ever heard of a suicide bomber from Oman? From Jordan? From the UAE? Where hope exists, terror doesn't. The entire Arab world is not plagued with this sickness, it thrives like mold where conditions are right. To write off an entire ethnic group with an epithet like "irrational" only plays into the hands of the clerics whose ammunition is young men who feel helpless and full of hate.

You're confused again...RACISM is the irrational dislike of other races/ethnicities....my portrayal of the other ME states is accurate...unless you think rejecting democracy and technology is the sign of rationality?

I've noticed this a few times... when I ask you to support the assertion that Arabs are irrational, you accuse me of saying that Arabs are rational. I do not hold that there is a rational group of people (ethnically speaking -- in smaller groups, you could find some) on the planet. I do not believe that Arabs are especially irrational.

And if your ideological support threatens Israel and favours the irrational, then how else would one define your position?

My support is for the idea that plurality of ideas is not only acceptable but necessary in public debate. To put it another way, condemnation of Israel is neither anti-Semitic nor harmful to Israel, but indeed strengthens Israel as a democratic state. To paint one side of the debate with a term like "anti-Semitic" (certainly a hot-button term here, to say nothing of Israel) and thus to portray the other side as not only wrong, but incapable of even being heard, is much more damaging to Israel, perhaps not as a Jewish state, but as a democratic one.

Wrong...demonization is when the speaker fails to logically justify his views...I've made it clear that the reason the other Arab states are irrational is based on their rejection of democracy and technology.

I asked you to clearly state your views, in the absence of compliance with that reasonable request, I 'm forced to assume your position as it's ANTI mine...what else could I do if you're not forthcoming?

Well, and this is just a thought, you might take my words at face value. I told you every bit of my position that is relevant to the debate. Whether I am pro- or anti-Zionist, whether I am Jewish or not, whether I have six toes on my left foot or gills, is not relevant to this debate.

It seems that you've terminated debate without being able to counter my assertions and are being dogmatic.

Get this, guys, I'm being accused of being dogmatic. I've arrived.