Israel / Gaza / Hamas Mega-Thread

[Estrain (Ancient)]

While I disagree about the inevitable war part of this statement, I agree one hundred percent with the rest.

Here's to hoping in vain that this whole ethnic blood feud does not end in genocide.

Well I am an optimist, so, sure.

[Evraim]

The difference being that the Germans had engaged in Lebensraum and Generalplan Ost.

The Palestinians arguably tried to pull the same stunt during the 1948 war, at least that's what their rhetoric suggests. In any case, committing ethnic cleansing is still wrong, regardless of who started it.

[Evraim]

Fuck the UN. The UN didn't have the authority to tell the people of Palestine that they didn't own their own land.

A Marxist talking about national land ownership? How quaint.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Fuck the UN. The UN didn't have the authority to tell the people of Palestine that they didn't own their own land.

A Marxist talking about national land ownership? How quaint.

A Marxist that accepts that there are stages before full equality and communism?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Here's to hoping in vain that this whole ethnic blood feud does not end in genocide.

Well I am an optimist, so, sure.

The history of the region is not promising to the optimists. The best one can do is watch horrified from the side lines as they start murdering each other again for whatever recent peace treaty both side decided to break for the prospect of killing off the other.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

Well I am an optimist, so, sure.

The history of the region is not promising to the optimists. The best one can do is watch horrified from the side lines as they start murdering each other again for whatever recent peace treaty both side decided to break for the prospect of killing off the other.

I mean, optimism never really "makes sense," but I'll remain one. And while I personally do not believe in a state of Israel and believe that Palestine is the Palestinian's land, I believe that a two state solution is the only viable and realistic goal. I'll hold out belief that a two state solution will lead to peace in Palestine, only because that's our only option at this point.

[Evraim]

A Marxist talking about national land ownership? How quaint.

A Marxist that accepts that there are stages before full equality and communism?

His statements suggest that national land ownership is an intrinsic right. That's not something Marx would have found agreeable. In fact, Marx wasn't a nationalist at all, so, no, Marx couldn't have supported the claims of Palestinians consistently.

[Vazdania]

the hashtag #BringBackOurBoys has become popular among Jews around the world. We hoped our boys, 3 teenagers, one of them was an american citizen, will come back to their families. Unfortunately, 3 dead bodies were found...
The bodies are the 3 boys that we hoped to see alive again. Those Hamas dogs inhumane bastards planned to kidnap them and ask for a ransom. Appearently, the boys managed to call the police, but the dogs shot them to death when it happened. For 2 and a half weeks we searched for them, while we didn't realize we were looking for their bodies. May all of them rest in peace, and G-d avenge their death. 3
People thA were never mature enough to start living their own life, or explore the world.
You dont need to like the Jews or Israel to condemn an innocent killing for no reason of 3 teenagers that could have been me, or WILL be me tomorrow, or anyone else. some of you will say Israel 'does worse things...', some of you will even praise it, but this is a national tragedy. Yes, maybe some Arabs and Muslims dont see it as a tragedy because for them maybe, slaughtering 100 children a day is not tragic, but just 3 teenagres for us, IS A NATIONAL TRAGRDY!
Obama instead of condeming this thing, or at least condemn the fact one of them was american, says we should move forward and work for peace. does it seem to you that for now any Israeli (Rightist or Leftist, but Leftist for temporary period), will even think about how Palestine should be created since their people just did, that?
What do you say about it?

I'm glad the response was tenfold.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

A Marxist that accepts that there are stages before full equality and communism?

His statements suggest that national land ownership is an intrinsic right. That's not something Marx would have found agreeable. In fact, Marx wasn't a nationalist at all, so, no, Marx couldn't have supported the claims of Palestinians consistently.

Hi Evraim, once again...
But he also would not have supported the claims of the Israelis. Beyond that, just because someone identifies with a certain political ideology, doesn't mean they believe in it completely and agree with all of it.

[Evraim]

Hi Evraim, once again...

Shalom again.

But he also would not have supported the claims of the Israelis.

Beyond any doubt, he would have railed against Israeli claims too, though the kibbutzim might have appealed to him somewhat, minus their nationalistic tendencies.

Beyond that, just because someone identifies with a certain political ideology, doesn't mean they believe in it completely and agree with all of it.

Traditional Marxism literally leaves no room for the nation-state. Supporting both constitutes a logical flaw in one's paradigm, something that would aggravate the inconsistencies that plague Marxism already. Marxism-Leninism, at least under Stalin, combined nationalism and socialism, but, then again, Stalin didn't really provide an adequate justification for this. He simply did it because he could. Ergo, talking of national rights to ownership as a Communist strikes me as silly when most Communists continually deny such rights or at least deny them to ethnic minorities.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

A Marxist that accepts that there are stages before full equality and communism?

His statements suggest that national land ownership is an intrinsic right. That's not something Marx would have found agreeable. In fact, Marx wasn't a nationalist at all, so, no, Marx couldn't have supported the claims of Palestinians consistently.

Marx may not have supported the Palestinians in terms of "their ethnicity belongs on this soil on account of their blood", but he probably would have supported the Palestinians over the Israelis in terms of Israel being blatantly aggressive and imperialistic in its aims, which can be deduced from his various speeches in support of French resistance to the German in the Franco-Prussian War (even if he admits that getting rid of that dunce, Napoleon III was a good thing).

[Saiwania]

Not any more unreasonable than the the creation of Israel.

If Israel's creation was unreasonable, the Arab states had a chance in 1948 to drive the Jews into the sea. They failed despite repeated attempts since then, so it looks like Israel is here to stay.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

Traditional Marxism literally leaves no room for the nation-state. Supporting both constitutes a logical flaw in one's paradigm, something that would aggravate the inconsistencies that plague Marxism already. Marxism-Leninism, at least under Stalin, combined nationalism and socialism, but, then again, Stalin didn't really provide an adequate justification for this. He simply did it because he could. Ergo, talking of national rights to ownership as a Communist strikes me as silly when most Communists continually deny such rights or at least deny them to ethnic minorities.

My understanding of communism, as you see it in a technical way especially, is little. Though I do find interest in it, I'm not a strict follower of it. And while you may see it as impossible to believe in the Palestinian right to land, and communism, he may not. That being said, I'm not quick to defend him that much, considering what his signature says about Stalin. The only nice thing I'd ever say about Stalin was that he was very hot when he was young, beyond that, nah son.

[Evraim]

Marx may not have supported the Palestinians in terms of "their ethnicity belongs on this soil on account of their blood", but he probably would have supported the Palestinians over the Israelis in terms of Israel being blatantly aggressive and imperialistic in its aims, which can be deduced from his various speeches in support of French resistance to the German in the Franco-Prussian War (even if he admits that getting rid of that dunce, Napoleon III was a good thing).

His support of the French seemed to contradict his paradigm as a whole, though. He maintained, for example, that class was more important than race or ethnicity in establishing a true politics. Struggles between nations were merely a ploy to usurp the struggle between classes within those artificial constructs, to create disunity within the proletariat for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. The situation was also quite different from what is happening today. Germany was growing at an exponential rate with overt nationalistic aims. Israel is growing at a much slower rate, and their nationalism is counter-weighted by an equally intense Palestinian nationalism.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The history of the region is not promising to the optimists. The best one can do is watch horrified from the side lines as they start murdering each other again for whatever recent peace treaty both side decided to break for the prospect of killing off the other.

I mean, optimism never really "makes sense," but I'll remain one. And while I personally do not believe in a state of Israel and believe that Palestine is the Palestinian's land, I believe that a two state solution is the only viable and realistic goal. I'll hold out belief that a two state solution will lead to peace in Palestine, only because that's our only option at this point.

I am, personally, a Zionists, I believe that the state of Israel has the right to exist as much as any other nation, I do hope for a peace that does not result in ethnic clensing, I do hope that both side may live in harmony either in a two state or single state solution, I don't care. I also have long ago accepted the fact that it is probably not going to end until one or the other side is eliminated off the face of the earth.

[Benuty]

Ugh...I sense the warmonger baiting has already begun casting that lure to cause a damn excuse for conflict.

[United Marxist Nations]

Hi Evraim, once again...

Shalom again.

But he also would not have supported the claims of the Israelis.

Beyond any doubt, he would have railed against Israeli claims too, though the kibbutzim might have appealed to him somewhat, minus their nationalistic tendencies.

Beyond that, just because someone identifies with a certain political ideology, doesn't mean they believe in it completely and agree with all of it.

Traditional Marxism literally leaves no room for the nation-state. Supporting both constitutes a logical flaw in one's paradigm, something that would aggravate the inconsistencies that plague Marxism already. Marxism-Leninism, at least under Stalin, combined nationalism and socialism, but, then again, Stalin didn't really provide an adequate justification for this. He simply did it because he could. Ergo, talking of national rights to ownership as a Communist strikes me as silly when most Communists continually deny such rights or at least deny them to ethnic minorities.

It wasn't just Stalin; his pamphlet, Marxism and the National Question was generally accepted as a proper Marxist analysis of nationality and the rights of a nationality to self-governance.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... 913/03.htm

[Evraim]

My understanding of communism, as you see it in a technical way especially, is little. Though I do find interest in it, I'm not a strict follower of it. And while you may see it as impossible to believe in the Palestinian right to land, and communism, he may not.

I believe he is an acolyte of Stalin, which means he attempts to reconcile nationalism and socialism. I wouldn't have a problem with simply stating that such a political community exists because of various historical occurrences and that its values have become powerful social mores. My problem is that he seems to suggest the existence of intrinsic national rights, applied unequally mind you, and still dabbles in ideology. I'm not too enthusiastic about ideology.

That being said, I'm not quick to defend him that much, considering what his signature says about Stalin. The only nice thing I'd ever say about Stalin was that he was very hot when he was young, beyond that, nah son.

Truly? I'll need to do more... um, research...

It wasn't just Stalin; his pamphlet, Marxism and the National Question was generally accepted as a proper Marxist analysis of nationality and the rights of a nationality to self-governance.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... 913/03.htm

We've discussed Stalin and nationalism prior to this, and I continue to assert that his characterization of what constitutes a legitimate nation is seriously flawed. In any case, he had no problem assimilating inferior cultures into Russia and Georgia, without legitimate philosophical rationalizations. I wouldn't complain if he didn't render his arguments in the manner in which he rendered them.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

I mean, optimism never really "makes sense," but I'll remain one. And while I personally do not believe in a state of Israel and believe that Palestine is the Palestinian's land, I believe that a two state solution is the only viable and realistic goal. I'll hold out belief that a two state solution will lead to peace in Palestine, only because that's our only option at this point.

I am, personally, a Zionists, I believe that the state of Israel has the right to exist as much as any other nation, I do hope for a peace that does not result in ethnic clensing, I do hope that both side may live in harmony either in a two state or single state solution, I don't care. I also have long ago accepted the fact that it is probably not going to end until one or the other side is eliminated off the face of the earth.

I also hold those hopes, but I do find the idea of accepting the idea that ethnic cleansing is inevitable is very scary.

[Fascistic Pan-Asian Autocracy of Japan]

Israel runs Hamas, the Government of Israel is filled with Freemasons and satanists, it would not surprise me if they were ritually sacrificed.

[Gulf Coast Federation]

The Israeli government probably killed them.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

My understanding of communism, as you see it in a technical way especially, is little. Though I do find interest in it, I'm not a strict follower of it. And while you may see it as impossible to believe in the Palestinian right to land, and communism, he may not.

I believe he is an acolyte of Stalin, which means he attempts to reconcile nationalism and socialism. I wouldn't have a problem with simply stating that such a political community exists because of various historical occurrences and that its values have become powerful social mores. My problem is that he seems to suggest the existence of intrinsic national rights, applied unequally mind you, and still dabbles in ideology. I'm not too enthusiastic about ideology.

Fair enough, I just wanted to defend him a little, but like I said I'm very wary of doing that. I personally find nationalism a scary thing, when applied to political ideas and the like. While you won't see me pushing American nationalism when it comes to war or politics, you'll sure as hell see me pushing it when watching the US play in sporting events, especially the World Cup.

That being said, I'm not quick to defend him that much, considering what his signature says about Stalin. The only nice thing I'd ever say about Stalin was that he was very hot when he was young, beyond that, nah son.

Truly? I'll need to do more... um, research...

Haha, for sure the hottest dictator. Young Stalin is the bae.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Marx may not have supported the Palestinians in terms of "their ethnicity belongs on this soil on account of their blood", but he probably would have supported the Palestinians over the Israelis in terms of Israel being blatantly aggressive and imperialistic in its aims, which can be deduced from his various speeches in support of French resistance to the German in the Franco-Prussian War (even if he admits that getting rid of that dunce, Napoleon III was a good thing).

His support of the French seemed to contradict his paradigm as a whole, though. He maintained, for example, that class was more important than race or ethnicity in establishing a true politics.

His support of the French didn't, because, while he maintained that the entire war between the French and the Prussians was one driven by economic interest and the idiocy of Napoleon the Third, he was pragmatic enough to realise that an Prussian autocratic Germany (which he experienced first hand already) is never a good thing and that Germany is, at that stage, simply an agressor.

Struggles between nations were merely a ploy to usurp the struggle between classes within those artificial constructs, to create disunity within the proletariat for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.

The English working class stretch the hand of fellowship to the French and German working people. They feel deeply convinced that whatever turn the impending horrid war may take, the alliance of the working classes of all countries will ultimately kill war. The very fact that while official France and Germany are rushing into a fratricidal feud, the workmen of France and Germany send each other messages of peace and goodwill; this great fact, unparalleled in the history of the past, opens the vista of a brighter future. It proves that in contrast to old society, with its economical miseries and its political delirium, a new society is springing up, whose International rule will be Peace, because its national ruler will be everywhere the same – Labour! The pioneer of that new society is the International Working Men’s Association.

-Marx, The Civil War in France

The situation was also quite different from what is happening today. Germany was growing at an exponential rate with overt nationalistic aims. Israel is growing at a much slower rate, and their nationalism is counter-weighted by an equally intense Palestinian nationalism.

Regardless, I doubt that he would support Palsetine as a nation founded upon this "Palestinian Race", or that he would give full and unconditional support to either side.

[Benuty]

So I saw the story on ABC news but source?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Ugh...I sense the warmonger baiting has already begun casting that lure to cause a damn excuse for conflict.

And this won't happen anyways?