[itai195]

Just read an article I think some folks here might be interested in. It's about the various left-wing Jewish groups that have risen in response to the right-wing AIPAC, ADL, and other Jewish organizations in the United States. This is a hopeful sign for those of us concerned that the US government has taken a highly unbalanced position in the conflict. AIPAC pressures politicians into blind support of almost anything Israel does, and as we've seen the Sharon government takes this unconditional US support for granted. If some of these peaceful organizations can gain a strong voice then perhaps we can reverse that trend. I don't support everything some of these groups stand for (like a binational state, or divestment) but I think it's great that there are organized groups out there that realize being pro-Israel does not mean you have to be pro-Sharon.

Link

[undotwa]

Although strong, the right wing Jewish lobby isn't as strong as it used to be. The US hasn't for a while blindly listened to Sharon. As of late, it has been Sharon doing the listening.

[itai195]

Would you say so? It seems the way Bush went along with Sharon's plan to permanently annex parts of the West Bank, and furthermore the way Kerry quickly swooped in to agree with the president are indicative of the exact opposite.

[eklipse]

Good article. Very encouraging.

Hopefully the more fascist-elements on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict will self-destruct soon and more level-headed individuals will move towards the political forefront.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by itai195:
Would you say so? It seems the way Bush went along with Sharon's plan to permanently annex parts of the West Bank, and furthermore the way Kerry quickly swooped in to agree with the president are indicative of the exact opposite.

Forgive my ignorance, I am not aware of any Israeli plans to annex parts of the west bank. As well, do you believe it would be Sharon's plan, against the wish of his Likud party to remove the settlements on the Gaza Strip and Westbank? Certainly it was done through US influence.

[Logic]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Forgive my ignorance, I am not aware of any Israeli plans to annex parts of the west bank. As well, do you believe it would be Sharon's plan, against the wish of his Likud party to remove the settlements on the Gaza Strip and Westbank? Certainly it was done through US influence.

I think you need to read up on the "disengagement plan". Sharon's proposal is to withdraw about 7500 settlers in Gaza but to make about 100-200 thousand settlers and their towns permanent within the West Bank.

So please read up on the disengagement plan.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Although strong, the right wing Jewish lobby isn't as strong as it used to be. The US hasn't for a while blindly listened to Sharon. As of late, it has been Sharon doing the listening.

Yes it's weakened a bit. But I don't think sharon is doing any of the listening... if he were, then the peace process would be much further along.

Originally posted by undotwa:
Forgive my ignorance, I am not aware of any Israeli plans to annex parts of the west bank. As well, do you believe it would be Sharon's plan, against the wish of his Likud party to remove the settlements on the Gaza Strip and Westbank? Certainly it was done through US influence.

Umm... not sure where you've been, but that's a revisionist plan. Each time, the 'removal' has been shrinking. It no longer covers anything signifigant.

So he's reacting to US influence... but not responding.

He's reacted about as well as Arafat with his 'condemnations of terrorism'. Just superficial talk, with nothing behind it. Each time revising it a bit going back to the way things used to be.


Sharon and Arafat are really separated brothers.

[phoenixboy70]

almost all jewish people/israelis i know are REALLY nice people. nothing at all like the scum that posts here from time to time.

hadn't it been for the palistinian issue, i think israel would have been one of those places where socialism actually could have worked.

some of the early pioneers of "zionism" (not the nationalist ideal that you see today) were strong supports of marxism and social democracy. some people actually argue that that's why the nazis really were so interested in persecuting them, not the other way around.

here in germany you still see strong ties between jewish communities and the social democratic party.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
almost all jewish people/israelis i know are REALLY nice people. nothing at all like the scum that posts here from time to time.

You are really unbelievable.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
almost all jewish people/israelis i know are REALLY nice people. nothing at all like the scum that posts here from time to time.

hadn't it been for the palistinian issue, i think israel would have been one of those places where socialism actually could have worked.

some of the early pioneers of "zionism" (not the nationalist ideal that you see today) were strong supports of marxism and social democracy. some people actually argue that that's why the nazis really were so interested in persecuting them, not the other way around.

here in germany you still see strong ties between jewish communities and the social democratic party.

Thers's little doubt that's part of the reasons the nazi's targeted them.

It's also due to the skilled labor. Jewish values in western europe put extremely (some say excessive) value on being a skilled worker (rather than unskilled as many western workers were during a majority of the industrial age). As a result, they had a stable economy within an unstable one. Especially in Germany many Jewish families ran their own businesses. most often skilled labor. As a result, even as german economy became unstable, they still had work, since their services were 'essential' in terms of society...

hence some jealosy came about. Fueling the nazi's false reasoning that the jews caused all the problems.

On the very surface it looked true. They were doing quite well, and the rest weren't.

During WWII, the jews were sometimes taken out of concentration camps because of this. Quite a few that survived ended up working as skilled slaves for the germans. From designing weapons, to forging the british currency (I've posted about that before), among many other tasks.

Even the Nazi's couldn't afford not to use the skilled labor that existed in this group. Despite the nazi's claiming to be the 'superior race'.

socialism most likely won't work in it's true form anywhere but a dictatorship (as awkward as that sounds), since the fatal human flaw breeds easily in socialism: Greed. All it takes is a few to ruin it for all. While 98% may be pure and work great. There's always that 2% who will ruin it for all. Only in a system where there's some way to weed them out, and ensure it doesn't happen (the dictator assuming he isn't corrupt himself) could it actually work.

This is why communism failed. If Stalin was a saint... the US would have been in massive trouble. Russia would have thrived. But Stalin was greedy, evil, and power hungry. He rewarded those like him, and helped him. Punished all who called him on it. And Russia (as a whole) suffered under him.

That's why many today put so much stock in democracy... when done right, it has a system of checks and balances, which ensure nobody can abuse the system like that. Though as the US is now showing (and other countries have shown in the past), even those may not be as foolproof as previously thought.

The problem with democracy is people scare easy, and scared people become irrational. Hence the reason terrorism is an effective war tactic (the US used it on some military states, which have a smiliar response in places like South America). All it takes is 1 event, to destabalize democracy. For example 9/11. Now we have an internal conflict over even simple things like Freedom of Speech, Religion, and due process.

Prior to 9/11, nobody would argue about the right to a trial. Now the nation is split of anyone (regardless of nationality) has a 'right' to a trial in case of murder/attempted murder. Or if it's a 'privilage' as many feel, that can be revoked.

THAT is why terrorism came about in recent times (terrorism was used back in time under other names, and on smaller scale, due to logistics and technology limitations).


Perhaps the ideal system is a combination of the two? One that doesn't have the weakness of socialism or communism... but doesn't have the mass scare vulnerability of democracy.

The creepy thing about terrorism is how easy it is to cripple a democracy. A few calculated attacks can ruin: economy, derail social efforts, even democracy itself. That's the vulnurability the US is fighting right now. The fact that a few calculated attacks, could potentially wipe the US economy to the point where the great depression wasn't so bad after all.

But I digress... socialism wouldn't really work. Social aspects of society that are evident prove it. It's human nature. What would work, is a combination, if someone can strike that delecate balance.

The best the US can do is try to pull the nation back to the middle of the political circle, since when there's a balance between the Lib/Conserv groups... we have a tendency to be more stable as a nation.

"A house divided can not stand", said a wise man President Washington also commented on political parties and how it damages a nation in his fairwell address.

When in the middle, each side can handle it's strong points, ensuring the government doesn't stray from the democracy, and keeps moving in a strait line of progress.

It's when either side gets control that things get ugly.... and that's what caused communism to fail. One man, one side.... abused and ruined it for all.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
On the very surface it looked true. They were doing quite well, and the rest weren't.

The Arabs do well too. There is a reason for this. It was a promise made long ago.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
...socialism most likely won't work in it's true form anywhere but a dictatorship (as awkward as that sounds), since the fatal human flaw breeds easily in socialism: Greed. All it takes is a few to ruin it for all. While 98% may be pure and work great.

sorry, i'll have to disagree with you here. i have (of course) heared this argument a million times before, and wonder, if the peolpe who use it, actually KNOW what triggers humans to be "greedy". (i'm not saying that you don't...i've just heared this line waaay to often)

see, i for one, don't believe in "human nature". while psychology might not be the perfect tool to describe everything that makes up the human "being", the lower "instincts" have been pretty much explained.

the two major reasons why societies based on "solidarity" rather than "competition for limited resources" haven't worked out that well are, imho, twofold:

a) complexity. i think in order for something like "socialism" to work, you would need fairly small groups of independent and strong minded people.

b) lack of spirituality (i DON'T mean religion here). something that binds people together beyond their physical manifestations...this is where marx was very wrong (yet, being how ****ed up religions were at the time and still are, you really can't blame him).

just my theory on the whole issue.

btw, again, the israelis i know are some of the least greedy people i have ever met.

[macvillage.net]

When put in the situation, you'd be suprised.

When people have an easy way to gain more, they have a tendency to take it.


Most people abide by authority. When the law says, work for your paycheck, you do just that.

But when there's money in a pile, and your told to take your share and no more... and nobody is there... people grab a little extra.


It's an inate human instinct that ultimately leads back to: survival of the fittest.

Take what you can now, don't know if there's a bad winter, or a famine in the future.


Doesn't take many to ruin the system. It takes only a handful to ruin a good thing.

Look at how many companies now require all sorts of checkpoints, and trainings, all because of 1 case of someone doing something stupid at the workplace like sex with a coworker, or sexual harassment.

Did all the workers do it? MOst likely not. May literally be 1 in all of them... but can the company afford a repeat? Nope.

Takes 1 person to spoil the fun. And don't say Israel is crime free, and the jails don't hold 1 guilty person.

[itai195]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
almost all jewish people/israelis i know are REALLY nice people. nothing at all like the scum that posts here from time to time.

hadn't it been for the palistinian issue, i think israel would have been one of those places where socialism actually could have worked.

Yeah, I don't know much about it but my father's parents actually had quite strong communist leanings apparently. Even still, some of that spirit survives in the form of the kibbutz, which a lot of younger Israelis seem interested in. I think my parents spent some time at one.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
Hadn't it been for the palestinian issue, I think Israel would have been one of those places where socialism actually could have worked.

Yeah, I agree, with all the landstealing, and the expropriations of areas with water-sources, with all the violent driving outs of palestinians, as well as with the yearly 3 billion dollars official financial support by the US, not counting the donations by jews living in Europe and USA and elsewhere, and the use of palestinian workslaves, yes, with all that I also think that the socialism in Israel could have worked..

Taliesin

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Logic:
I think you need to read up on the "disengagement plan". Sharon's proposal is to withdraw about 7500 settlers in Gaza but to make about 100-200 thousand settlers and their towns permanent within the West Bank.

So please read up on the disengagement plan.

I was aware of that, but no 'annexion' plans.

[lil'babykitten]

Interesting article, itai195. It's good to hear that the more moderate Jewish groups are finding a voice and working to shift the balance of power.