Anti-semitism and criticism of Israel

[livius drusus]

Not the sentiment, the connotation is a soft one compared to the horrible and awful ones you refer to in your post. My point is simply that just because your definition is more of an I'm okay, you're okay thing than, say, Morroskye's definition doesn't mean that suddenly out of nowhere a word connoting a happy thing turned into a word connoting an awful thing.

The wide range of definitions has been out there all along. Your family used the one that suited your perspective, which, I think, is pretty much what everyone does.

[natasha]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

The wide range of definitions has been out there all along. Your family used the one that suited your perspective, which, I think, is pretty much what everyone does.

Okay, thank you for clearing it up.

[Sauron]

blip

[livius drusus]

What the... ? We're having a general discussion about accusations of anti-Semitism in Middle Eastern politics threads, not a discussion about Middle Eastern politics.

Do you have any comment on my OP or any actual post in this thread?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

What the... ? We're having a general discussion about accusations of anti-Semitism in Middle Eastern politics threads, not a discussion about Middle Eastern politics.

Do you have any comment on my OP or any actual post in this thread?

No. I'll remove my post.

[livius drusus]

K, thanks.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by natasha

Well, I and my family always did, and others I know. All we meant by it was "cool, finally a place for Jews to live in peace." Suddenly it became a horrilbe word, with all kinds of awful connotations.

That's interesting, in that it's certainly not what I, or anyone else I've bothered to discuss the topic with, means by 'Zionist'. I think that might possibly be because your meaning is so uncontroversial (or, to borrow liv's term, 'wishy-washy') that virtually everyone is a Zionist under it (although, obviously, this wasn't always true), and there's little point to even having the label. The more controversial meanings are more often discussed or debated, and so few people own up to them that 99% of the time you see the term used, it's an epithet.

As far as the term suddenly acquring negative connotations, you did mention that it seems to have happened in the last 15 years or so, which would date roughly conincidentally with the publication of images from the first intifada of Israeli tanks facing down Palestinian children with stones. I think those images did a lot to shift public opinion of Israel (at least among those on the left, people who, almost by definition, support the underdog) from an underdog beset by enemies to a military powerhouse bullying weaker neighbors. Of course, as evidenced by the results of their two wars with their neighbors, Israel hadn't actually been an underdog in some time, but it took those widely publicized images to shift public opinion, IMO.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

I use the word to describe the Jewish supremacist movement and the settlers, Kahanites.

Then you are using it incorrectly.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Adam

As far as the term suddenly acquring negative connotations, you did mention that it seems to have happened in the last 15 years or so, which would date roughly conincidentally with the publication of images from the first intifada of Israeli tanks facing down Palestinian children with stones. I think those images did a lot to shift public opinion of Israel (at least among those on the left, people who, almost by definition, support the underdog) from an underdog beset by enemies to a military powerhouse bullying weaker neighbors. Of course, as evidenced by the results of their two wars with their neighbors, Israel hadn't actually been an underdog in some time, but it took those widely publicized images to shift public opinion, IMO.

This is an excellent point, Adam, although I would say this seachange is not so much about connotations of the word zionist per se.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

I'm defining a religious state as a nation that is ruled by one supreme institutionalized faith, like Israel, Tibetan seperatists, Iran, Saudi Arabia and perhaps the USA one day if we keep electing Christian fundamentalists. A state with it's leadership beholden to a specific religious doctrine/beliefs and the laws that enforce them.

Here we another negative term often loosely bandied about in political discussions: "Christian fundamentalist." I often wonder what it means to those who use it, other than it's a bad thing, as "Zionism" so often is now.
I pretty much avoid discussing politics on message boards because the meanings of such terms shift like sand.

[fatherphil]

maybe i'm anti-democracy

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Seven of Nine

Here we another negative term often loosely bandied about in political discussions: "Christian fundamentalist." I often wonder what it means to those who use it, other than it's a bad thing, as "Zionism" so often is now.
I pretty much avoid discussing politics on message boards because the meanings of such terms shift like sand.

True that. I've certainly seen the term fundamentalist bandied about as if everyone agreed on its meaning when of course it has had just as many meanings and connotations as zionist.

Incommensurate definitions are one of the main reason so many political and philosophical threads are little more than a cacophony of egos.

[Godless Dave]

If we must put a name on the political idea I hate that is held by many, I'd call it "expansionism", in this case Israeli expansionism.

Or we could call it Netanyahuism. It isn't entirely accurate but it's funny because it ends in "yahoo".

[natasha]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

If we must put a name on the political idea I hate that is held by many, I'd call it "expansionism", in this case Israeli expansionism.

Now that's a good point .

[Morroskye]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Then you are using it incorrectly.

According to....... You?

[Morroskye]

For what it's worth; A zionist to me is anyone that believes Jews are entitled to Palestine, or any other nation they declare belongs to them, as written in their particular holy book. That encompasses most of the Israeli population. Maaretz and Left is the exception, with the Jewish population.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

True that. I've certainly seen the term fundamentalist bandied about as if everyone agreed on its meaning when of course it has had just as many meanings and connotations as zionist.

Incommensurate definitions are one of the main reason so many political and philosophical threads are little more than a cacophony of egos.

Yes, when such terms are used as epithets, such discussions are a waste of time, when they aren't virtual bloodblaths.
It's not my intent to single out Morroskye, but right now "Christian fundamentalist" could be used equally to describe Bob Jones III or Billy Graham, although its meaning is changing, thanks to good ole Bob and his cohorts.

Then, when I read this exchange, I suddenly felt like a thawed out relic from the Iron Age:

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

How many people actually self-identify as Zionists, anyway?

Originally Posted by Adam

Yeah, I thought that was more a 1950's sorta thing.

OUCH! Suddenly I felt much like I do when I post that I'm a Christian humanist at CF.

What natasha's family and mine believed to be Zionism was Zionism, and it was a controversial stand where I live, and still is, believe me, because my region of the country is still fighting the War between the States, and, not so long ago (from my POW), Jews weren't allowed to join country clubs, Groucho Marks being a notable example.

Are my most cherished values outdated now? Should I be in Florida playing shuffleboard with DoubleARP members, intead of spending my time on message boards?

Or worse, are they now dismissed as naive? I had no idea idealism might be infra dig until I joined internet communities.

[Morroskye]

I'm brand new here and I'm still getting familiar with everyone and the lingo. But it is surprising how simple political and or religious terms have no definition or multiple definitions here. Christian fundamentalist means exactly that, at least in my little world! A Christian that takes the Bible literally. An intolerant militant. No one seems to have multiple meanings or problems with the term Islamic fundamentalist though. A Hindu militant would be one that is intolerant of other faiths and takes his holy teachings literally. Zionism is of course different in that it enables/entitles those of the Jewish faith a state of their own, wherever their holy scripture says it is, and or areas it includes. I'm a very slow one finger typer so I can't do a Natasha and argue the meaning of each word but I thought I'd toss this out there and see if I'm the only one noting this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

For what it's worth; A zionist to me is anyone that believes Jews are entitled to Palestine, or any other nation they declare belongs to them, as written in their particular holy book.

FWIW, that's actually pretty close to how I understand the term 'Zionist', although I intentionally edited out the commentary on who actually holds this belief. I typically read it to mean a person who believes that, for religious or cultural reasons, the Jewish people are entitled to possess Palestine, or some portion thereof, as their homeland.

This definition makes two important (IMO) exlusions. First, it excludes the less specific 'hooray, a land where Jews can be safe' sentiment, expressed earlier in this thread (although a definition that excludes at least some people who self-identify as Zionists is obviously problemetic). Second, it excludes those who believe, as I do, that the people of Israel are entitled to at least some portion of the territory they now occupy simply because they are living there (and conversely, that the Palestinians are entitled to some portion of that same territory because they are/were living there).

From what I read in the links liv posted, at least some Zionist organizations seem to use a definition close to mine, as every page I browsed specifically mentioned Palestine as the historical/mythical/religious Jewish homeland.

Welcome to political/ideological definition wars, I guess.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Seven of Nine

What natasha's family and mine believed to be Zionism was Zionism, and it was a controversial stand where I live, and still is, believe me, because my region of the country is still fighting the War between the States, and, not so long ago (from my POW), Jews weren't allowed to join country clubs, Groucho Marks being a notable example.

Are my most cherished values outdated now? Should I be in Florida playing shuffleboard with DoubleARP members, intead of spending my time on message boards?

That's interesting as well. As I kind of said earlier, the definition of Zionism you and natasha are using is, to me, anyway, and to most of the people I know, so uncontroversial that it barely deserves to even have a label. Our different perspectives might well account for at least part of the changing definition of Zionism. When Jews are oppressed, Zionism means fighting for equal rights, but when Jews are (in most places) treated no differently from anyone else, Zionism begins to sound like a demand for special rights. Many of the peopel you met in internet debates (myself included) simply don't have first hand memories of a time when Jew jokes were typically painful, rather than staples of Seinfeld's routine, or when Israel's existence was threatened, thus, to many of us, Zionism, the way you are using it, doesn't make any visceral sense.

Does that make any sense?

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

I'm brand new here and I'm still getting familiar with everyone and the lingo. But it is surprising how simple political and or religious terms have no definition or multiple definitions here.

Well, it's just that words can mean different things to different people, so you can't assume that just because it feels clear to you that everyone else is going to share that clarity. This is especially true, I think, in an environment like online discussion boards where many people from all over the political spectrum and all over the world congregate.

Christian fundamentalist means exactly that, at least in my little world! A Christian that takes the Bible literally.

That is a Biblical literalist or inerrantist. As a theological position, fundamentalism covers a lot more ground than that.

An intolerant militant.

Intolerant of what? Militant about what? Do you think everyone who self-identifies as a fundamentalist is intolerant and militant? William Jennings Bryant was a fundamentalist, and he was one the highest profile progressives in US history.

No one seems to have multiple meanings or problems with the term Islamic fundamentalist though.

What makes you say that? I have problems with the term, the main one being that I think it carries a unique connotation of violent extremism which strikes me as a kind of racial or ethnic stereotyping. Not every Muslim who takes his holy teachings literally is looking to kill in their name. Not even the majority of them, I dare say, and yet, that seems to be implied in the term.

I'm a very slow one finger typer so I can't do a Natasha and argue the meaning of each word but I thought I'd toss this out there and see if I'm the only one noting this.

I'm a slow typist too and I really appreciate your being willing to dig into this discussion. Thank you.

[Morroskye]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Well, it's just that words can mean different things to different people, so you can't assume that just because it feels clear to you that everyone else is going to share that clarity. This is especially true, I think, in an environment like online discussion boards where many people from all over the political spectrum and all over the world congregate.

That is a Biblical literalist or inerrantist. As a theological position, fundamentalism covers a lot more ground than that.

Intolerant of what? Militant about what? Do you think everyone who self-identifies as a fundamentalist is intolerant and militant? William Jennings Bryant was a fundamentalist, and he was one the highest profile progressives in US history.

What makes you say that? I have problems with the term, the main one being that I think it carries a unique connotation of violent extremism which strikes me as a kind of racial or ethnic stereotyping. Not every Muslim who takes his holy teachings literally is looking to kill in their name. Not even the majority of them, I dare say, and yet, that seems to be implied in the term.

I'm a slow typist too and I really appreciate your being willing to dig into this discussion. Thank you.

HOORAY! A fellow slow typer! It would take me 3 weeks to crank out some of the posts here!! I have never met a fundie of any stripe that didn't have a stealthily maintained hate list with which to condemn entire segments of humanity. All of the encounters I have had with Christian fundies (militantly defensive and aggressive about their beliefs) have confirmed they condemn gays to hell, pro-choicers too. They condemn to hell ALL that do not succumb to their rigid philosophy of Bible worship and self righteous arrogance. Anyone that declares themselves a Christian fundie (IMO)is an intolerant bigot with limited mental skills as thinking is discouraged in the hardliner strains of all religions. except perhaps Buddhism. Someone that states they are a fundie in any faith is letting you know they will not tolerate any deviation from their brand of worship. You are a mongrel until you are 'Saved.' I live in an area loaded with these types and I can think of no one more threatening to freedom than they are.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

I'm brand new here and I'm still getting familiar with everyone and the lingo. But it is surprising how simple political and or religious terms have no definition or multiple definitions here. Christian fundamentalist means exactly that, at least in my little world! A Christian that takes the Bible literally.

Some Christians say that they're Bible literalists, but that's an impossibility, and most recognise that. LOL
Are you interested enough for me to explain futher?

An intolerant militant.

No. Not necessarily, but they're the ones who get the media coverage.

No one seems to have multiple meanings or problems with the term Islamic fundamentalist though.

I do; every much so.

A Hindu militant would be one that is intolerant of other faiths and takes his holy teachings literally.

I hindu militant may be a contrdiction in terms?

Zionism is of course different in that it enables/entitles those of the Jewish faith a state of their own, wherever their holy scripture says it is, and or areas it includes.

I kind of doubt that, too. Not the entire area, and not to be peopled entirely by Jews. Have you ever been to Israel, btw?

I'm a very slow one finger typer so I can't do a Natasha and argue the meaning of each word but I thought I'd toss this out there and see if I'm the only one noting this.

You know, it seems to me that whatever we may feel very strongly about, we are inevitably joined by people we would would dearly love to get off our side somehow!

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

I have never met a fundie of any stripe that didn't have a stealthily maintained hate list with which to condemn entire segments of humanity.
<snip>
Anyone that declares themselves a Christian fundie (IMO)is an intolerant bigot with limited mental skills as thinking is discouraged in the hardliner strains of all religions.

Of course even if it were true that you have never met a fundamentalist that wasn't a hatemonger (which seems highly unlikely to me) it doesn't follow that all fundamentalists are hatemongers. Isn't it possible that your assessment of others is distorted by your preconceptions of what fundamentalists stand for? After all, the fact that you think a term like 'fundamentalist' is uncontroversial reveals that you haven't spent much time in serious discussions of the subject with people who don't share your definition of the term.

[Seven of Nine]

[QUOTE=Morroskye]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Well, it's just that words can mean different things to different people, so you can't assume that just because it feels clear to you that everyone else is going to share that clarity. This is especially true, I think, in an environment like online discussion boards where many people from all over the political spectrum and all over the world congregate.

That is a Biblical literalist or inerrantist. As a theological position, fundamentalism covers a lot more ground than that.

Intolerant of what? Militant about what? Do you think everyone who self-identifies as a fundamentalist is intolerant and militant? William Jennings Bryant was a fundamentalist, and he was one the highest profile progressives in US history.

What makes you say that? I have problems with the term, the main one being that I think it carries a unique connotation of violent extremism which strikes me as a kind of racial or ethnic stereotyping. Not every Muslim who takes his holy teachings literally is looking to kill in their name. Not even the majority of them, I dare say, and yet, that seems to be implied in the term.

I'm a slow typist too and I really appreciate your being willing to dig into this discussion. Thank you.

HOORAY! A fellow slow typer! It would take me 3 weeks to crank out some of the posts here!!

I'm also a slow typist.

I have never met a fundie of any stripe that didn't have a stealthily maintained hate list with which to condemn entire segments of humanity.

Wowser. How many have you met?

All of the encounters I have had with Christian fundies (militantly defensive and aggressive about their beliefs) have confirmed they condemn gays to hell, pro-choicers too. They condemn to hell ALL that do not succumb to their rigid philosophy of Bible worship and self righteous arrogance. Anyone that declares themselves a Christian fundie (IMO)is an intolerant bigot with limited mental skills as thinking is discouraged in the hardliner strains of all religions. except perhaps Buddhism. Someone that states they are a fundie in any faith is letting you know they will not tolerate any deviation from their brand of worship. You are a mongrel until you are 'Saved.' I live in an area loaded with these types and I can think of no one more threatening to freedom than they are.

I guess you've already made up your mind, leaving me with nothing to say, except that that many fundamentalists have stopped calling themselves that now. I suppose that those who hold your attitude might be one of the reasons?

I live in an area loaded with people like that, too, and I suspect I've had many of the same bad experiences with those people as you, but that's not what Jesus taught.
Why do you personally call a Christian who believes in the fundamentals of Christianity without being a bigot? Do you believe such Christians even exist?