Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:Emphasis, Mine.

I think you answered your own question.

Only if you assume that every Israeli is a Zionist, which would be very, very wrong.

Wasn't my implication. My point is why not call Israelis, I don't know, Israelis?

Why not call them humans? They are humans, after all.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:There was substantial flaming and attacks on a particular nation in the thread. Attacks on a particular nationality are not permitted either.

Generally if it can get you in trouble with the EEOC its generally right out. Plus there were personal flaming going on.

Yeah, this is what I suspected. There's a peculiar sensitivity in the US that a criticism of Israeli policy is an attack on the state itself. It's very odd considering Israel itself has no such sensitivity, if you ever get a chance you should read some of the debate that goes on amongst Israelis over their foreign policy.

Both sides of the debate actually know what they're talking about.

Ahtman wrote:It is a loaded word that means different things to different people and often carries a negative connotation.

I agree that the term has been used by anti-semitic groups, and it needs to be used carefully. But there are Israelis who self-identify with the term, what word should we use when we talk about them?

I agree with Sebster here, both comments are in fact related.

There is a fear of critique of Israel that is largely generated by a well oiled propoganda machine. This is reinforced by the connotation that criticism of Zionism is anti Semitism. Any reasonable person can see that this is not true but the connotation exists nonetheless due to propoganda technique of false allegory.

Few opportunities are lost by some Zionist groups especially the ADL to presume a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The link by Chibi above quoted Martin Luther King, who assumed so. This concept is also often encouraged at Holocaust memorial ceremonies, and is often echoed by surviving victims. However this doesn't make the concept any more true, though the ante is raised as then a tenuous link can be assumed between Nazism and anti Zionism through the assumed connection to anti-Semitism. At the very least it encourages the train of thought by which a vocal anti Zionist is questionably supected to be a possible or potential Neo-Nazi. This in turn explains why few politicals dare critique Israeli policy in some countries, especiallt the US where this propoganda has a strong hold on the public imagination, and also conversely why most of the most fervent critics of Zionism are Jews; as they have little to fear in that regards.

Evidence can be found to support this interpretation in holocaust memorial pressure groups, particularly in Europe. In some European countries including Germany pressure was placed on the authorities to separate Jewish memorials from other memorials to the victims of Nazism. The Berlin memorial was initially built to commemorate Jewish dead but under counter-pressure included the other victims of the extermination camp system.
This raises the question as to why pressure groups insist on Holocaust memorial being reserved for Jewish victims, and that can be linked to one of the tents of the new Israeli state by which the Jews are 'unique in suffering'. This taken to its logical conclusion in the minds of some Zionists that places Jews in a different moral category in regards to the right of survival to other persons, this in turn fuels a lot of the attitudes which resulted in events such as those discussed earlier. It is true that many anti-Zionists are sympathisers of far right or Islamic militant organisations, in fact one could say that most of the latter are a subset of anti-Zionists. This is by no means any excuse to assume all or indeed the majority of anti-Zionists are in any way sympathetic to any extreme right or Islamic fundamentalist group. In fact compassion rather than hatred drives most critics distain of Israeli policy, many people are concerned with the plight of the Palestinians and yet supportive of Israel in other means, or at least critical of opposing states such as Iran. This would not make sense if anti-Zionism was fueled by hatred - as we are encouraged to assume, rather than a care for humanity.

However conversely not all Zionists, let alone all Jews have these hang ups. Modern Zionism is a product of the late Victorian era and long predates Naziism and modern islamist movement. Furthermore many in fact likely most anti-Zionists are peaceful opponents of Israeli policy but are not necessarily in any way opposed to the existance of the State of Israel.

The fact remains though that the carefully manufactured hype regarding Zionism that some find copy in assuming that anyone with an anti-Zionist agenda is hateful or engaged in militancy. This can be easily observed in the words used to define aid workers and accompanied observers by members of the Israeli government and their apologists to the media. The fact that this in som e way works is a proof of the effectiveness of such propoganda. Where else would assaulted aid workers be considered the wrongdoer. Aid workers have an almost saintly persona in the media, not necessarily deserved as individuals. However anti -Zionist ait workers however can become 'threats', 'militants', 'terrorists' or 'racist anti-Semites' without any actual proof to such allegations. I cant think of any other theatre where a faction could get away with such a slander.
Unfortunately propoganda works.

Trying a lockdown due to the word 'Zionism' is not any attempt to keep Dakka neutral, while the word itself is neutral the accusation generated around it holds some strong partisan opinions. Frazzie might as well have said 'some Dakka mods support Israel, so end of discussion'. No wonder this has gone down badly.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why not call them humans? They are humans, after all.

I believe that was already implied. If not I can go back and edit my previous post so that there is no confusion.

This thread needs to be locked itself, for bargain, I give you this.



Simple reasons for locks, I hated reading the israeli hate in that thread.

Karon wrote:
Simple reasons for locks, I hated reading the israeli hate in that thread.

Why assume hatred? Can you think you can critique without hate, then assume we can, if you cannot do so silence yourself, not us, because we (both sides) still maintain that we can.

Anyone who doesn't realize that the term "Zionist" can be used in a nasty way should do a bit of research, or if you don't want those sites dirtying your computer just trust Frazzled that it is so.

Monster Rain wrote:Anyone who doesn't realize that the term "Zionist" can be used in a nasty way should do a bit of research, or if you don't want those sites dirtying your computer just trust Frazzled that it is so.

Anything can be used in a 'nasty' way. Cabbage might be healthy and good for you, if I were to call you one it would be an insult.
Zionism is over a century old, like most words it crosses the lips of many people, just like the word 'peace' does? Do you want the 'peace' of Bin laden? Likely you wouldn't want peace under his terms, but the word itself is not evil.

Rise above the propoganda, if critique of Zionism raises heckles to you ask yourself why. Why would you would assume that we Dakkaites are such a force of evil. Would it not be preferable to understand that we are not evil, but reasonable people with reasonable opinions and that the assumption of evil in daring to critique is itself the lie.

Bless us, the semantics are overwhelming tonight. The N-Word is used in a variety of ways too, Orlanth. It has a long history and the people who like to use it have their own justifications for doing so. Start throwing it around Dakka and see where it gets you. Anyway, my point was that having read the thread the term Zionist could have been easily interpreted to have been used in a less than flattering way. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

Monster Rain wrote:Bless us, the semantics are overwhelming tonight. The N-Word is used in a variety of ways too, Orlanth. It has a long history and the people who like to use it have their own justifications for doing so. Start throwing it around Dakka and see where it gets you. Anyway, my point was that having read the thread the term Zionist could have been easily interpreted to have been used in a less than flattering way. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

A good allegory, for me.
We cannot even say n---er even if we wanted to, the censorship would take it away. When mentioned in an educational context, as you have done it should not be considered offensive. If it is offensive in any circumstances then it doesnt account why black persons use the N-Word word all the time, this reinforces the point that the distain for the word is societal rather than due to any inherent rudeness.

In any event since Apartheid shut down there is no need to connect such imagery with international politics and current affairs. Zionism is an international current event issue that affects pretty much everyone.

Monster Rain wrote:Anyway, my point was that having read the thread the term Zionist could have been easily interpreted to have been used in a less than flattering way. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

How do we flatter Zionism as a concept in light of recent events. If anyone else did this there might be choice words about their quality of leadership and national character. Why is it a race hate issue if the forces involved are specifically Israeli.
Opening fire on a ship crowded with aid workers, aid workers... remember that, what would we be saying if Obama or Cameron or Iran or the Chinese ordered this. Would we be bigots to critique them?

Sorry it is NOT racist to critique Israel. It is NOT bigoted to be anti-Zionist. I am a grown man in my forties, and the Palestinians have been oppressed by occupation for longer than I have been alive. I cannot imagine living all my life under that yoke. No matter what Hamas do I challenge anyone to say they have no sympathy for these people without outing himself as heartless. Noone deserves that, nothing excuses that in this day and age.
But excused it is, and those who are concerned for these people are themselves in danger of being labeled as bigots.

There is only one way this can make sense, and that is if artificial moral baggage had been heaped upon critics of Zionism, and that can only be achieved by propoganda.

I am sorry Monster Rain but I think you and many here, particularly those from the US who fear a 'rise' of anti-Semitism have been deceived. This comment is written without any hatred or intention to disrespect.

Monster Rain wrote:Bless us, the semantics are overwhelming tonight. The N-Word is used in a variety of ways too, Orlanth. It has a long history and the people who like to use it have their own justifications for doing so. Start throwing it around Dakka and see where it gets you. Anyway, my point was that having read the thread the term Zionist could have been easily interpreted to have been used in a less than flattering way. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

No it isn't. You've done an excellent job of illustrating Orlanth's point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:
I believe that was already implied. If not I can go back and edit my previous post so that there is no confusion.

Yes, excellent work in missing the point.

So, "Usurer" is still cool, right?

dogma wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:
I believe that was already implied. If not I can go back and edit my previous post so that there is no confusion.

Yes, excellent work in missing the point.

By all means, please explain the point. I've been more than civil and your snark isn't well received.

Nurglitch wrote:So, "Usurer" is still cool, right?

Oh, you are awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:
By all means, please explain the point. I've been more than civil and your snark isn't well received.

The point is the same one which underlines proper names. Specificity is an asset, and eliminating it by referring to someone only in accordance with their nationality is equivocational at best, and slanderous at worst.

Should we refer to fundamentalist Christians as American in the context of a discussion about religion?

Well you know what they say about making assumptions.


It is bandied around a lot by Neo-nazi's, Nation of Islam, and others (such as Iran's current President) to mean much more then just reference to religious geographic history. Finding one definition on the internet doesn't mean that is the only way a word is used, or how it is wielded politically.

With regard to finding one definition:
There were plenty of others with the same definition. It would have been very tedious to quote them all. Especially as they had the same basic
I am very aware that there may e other meanings that I was unaware of.

I assume that if I don't know something it is a good idea to ask a question.
That way some kind soul will answer and put me right!

thank you for doing so. I have learned something.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:Wasn't my implication. My point is why not call Israelis, I don't know, Israelis?

Why do we call them Democrats and Republicans when we can just call them Democrats? Because it is important to distinguish people with Democratic beliefs from people with Republican beliefs.

Not every Israeli citizen is a Zionist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Anyone who doesn't realize that the term "Zionist" can be used in a nasty way should do a bit of research, or if you don't want those sites dirtying your computer just trust Frazzled that it is so.

We realise it, I acknowledged in my first post on the thread. The word Jew is also affiliated with a lot of hate speach. That doesn't mean we can't use the word Jew in non-hateful ways, especially when so many people self-identify with 'Jew'.

Similarly, when a lot of people self-identify with the term Zionist, and argue for the political values attached to the concept, it only makes sense for us to talk about them as Zionists.

I can understand the irritation about the thread being locked but at the end of the day, this is a forum about toy soldiers with an OT appendage attached - hardly the place for political cut and thrust.

Kilkrazy wrote:Mods will also lock a thread which throws up too many alerts, because it becomes such a hassle to deal with.

Ah, so 'moderating' at Dakka is just an interesting way of saying 'out of sight, out of mind'.

Gotcha.

Explains the knee-jerk reactions we get here.

filbert wrote:I can understand the irritation about the thread being locked but at the end of the day, this is a forum about toy soldiers with an OT appendage attached - hardly the place for political cut and thrust.

That's an argument to not have an OT forum. But note this forum is here and is full of political cut and thrust, there is almost always at least one lengthy debate going on. But we also have a lot of people who don't understand the difference between criticism of Israeli foreign policy and anti-semitism.


By the way, here is a list of goods allowed and prohibited by the blockade of Palestine. Is mentioning that the Israeli policy makes little sense in terms of preventing terrorism anti-semitic? What about if I suggested the list seemed dedicated towards stopping the Palestinians developing any industry of their own? Would that be anti-semitic?

sebster wrote:
That's an argument to not have an OT forum. But note this forum is here and is full of political cut and thrust, there is almost always at least one lengthy debate going on. But we also have a lot of people who don't understand the difference between criticism of Israeli foreign policy and anti-semitism.

Very true, I have seen quite a number of similar threads crop up in OT but that's not to say that the OT is necessarily the best (or most well-informed) place for them. The trouble with OT is that for every 1 informed and well mannered user, there are ten squawking idiots who don't really have a clue about the subject matter but do have an opinion to shout from the rooftops. Consequently any attempt to start reasoned debate almost invariably ends in tears. I can appreciate why the mod team feel that the OT forum takes up a disproportionate amount of their time moderating it because of the raucous opinions. All I am saying is that perhaps political and emotive debate is best served placed on a forum where the mod team are solely devoted to that task.

filbert wrote:Very true, I have seen quite a number of similar threads crop up in OT but that's not to say that the OT is necessarily the best (or most well-informed) place for them. The trouble with OT is that for every 1 informed and well mannered user, there are ten squawking idiots who don't really have a clue about the subject matter but do have an opinion to shout from the rooftops. Consequently any attempt to start reasoned debate almost invariably ends in tears. I can appreciate why the mod team feel that the OT forum takes up a disproportionate amount of their time moderating it because of the raucous opinions. All I am saying is that perhaps political and emotive debate is best served placed on a forum where the mod team are solely devoted to that task.

Sure, if the owners of the site decide that OT isn't worth the hassle, it's their choice to shut it down. I wouldn't like that decision for my own sake, but it's their site to be run for their purposes, and they have the right to make the call. But that'd be quite different to shutting down debate on some issues while letting just as much silliness carry on for page after page on other equally emotive topics.

I apologise if you got the impression the second part of my post was directed at you, by the way, that wasn't my intent. I should have put more spaces in there.

sebster wrote:Sure, if the owners of the site decide that OT isn't worth the hassle, it's their choice to shut it down. I wouldn't like that decision for my own sake, but it's their site to be run for their purposes, and they have the right to make the call. But that'd be quite different to shutting down debate on some issues while letting just as much silliness carry on for page after page on other equally emotive topics.

I apologise if you got the impression the second part of my post was directed at you, by the way, that wasn't my intent. I should have put more spaces in there.

You have no idea how many times it has almost shut down due to users who think the OT forum is their own personal penis waving platform.

Fortunately for the users here more mods/admins want it kept (for various reasons) than closed down.

Orlanth wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:There was substantial flaming and attacks on a particular nation in the thread. Attacks on a particular nationality are not permitted either.

Generally if it can get you in trouble with the EEOC its generally right out. Plus there were personal flaming going on.

Yeah, this is what I suspected. There's a peculiar sensitivity in the US that a criticism of Israeli policy is an attack on the state itself. It's very odd considering Israel itself has no such sensitivity, if you ever get a chance you should read some of the debate that goes on amongst Israelis over their foreign policy.

Both sides of the debate actually know what they're talking about.

Ahtman wrote:It is a loaded word that means different things to different people and often carries a negative connotation.

I agree that the term has been used by anti-semitic groups, and it needs to be used carefully. But there are Israelis who self-identify with the term, what word should we use when we talk about them?

I agree with Sebster here, both comments are in fact related.

There is a fear of critique of Israel that is largely generated by a well oiled propoganda machine. This is reinforced by the connotation that criticism of Zionism is anti Semitism. Any reasonable person can see that this is not true but the connotation exists nonetheless due to propoganda technique of false allegory.

Few opportunities are lost by some Zionist groups especially the ADL to presume a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The link by Chibi above quoted Martin Luther King, who assumed so. This concept is also often encouraged at Holocaust memorial ceremonies, and is often echoed by surviving victims. However this doesn't make the concept any more true, though the ante is raised as then a tenuous link can be assumed between Nazism and anti Zionism through the assumed connection to anti-Semitism. At the very least it encourages the train of thought by which a vocal anti Zionist is questionably supected to be a possible or potential Neo-Nazi. This in turn explains why few politicals dare critique Israeli policy in some countries, especiallt the US where this propoganda has a strong hold on the public imagination, and also conversely why most of the most fervent critics of Zionism are Jews; as they have little to fear in that regards.

Evidence can be found to support this interpretation in holocaust memorial pressure groups, particularly in Europe. In some European countries including Germany pressure was placed on the authorities to separate Jewish memorials from other memorials to the victims of Nazism. The Berlin memorial was initially built to commemorate Jewish dead but under counter-pressure included the other victims of the extermination camp system.
This raises the question as to why pressure groups insist on Holocaust memorial being reserved for Jewish victims, and that can be linked to one of the tents of the new Israeli state by which the Jews are 'unique in suffering'. This taken to its logical conclusion in the minds of some Zionists that places Jews in a different moral category in regards to the right of survival to other persons, this in turn fuels a lot of the attitudes which resulted in events such as those discussed earlier. It is true that many anti-Zionists are sympathisers of far right or Islamic militant organisations, in fact one could say that most of the latter are a subset of anti-Zionists. This is by no means any excuse to assume all or indeed the majority of anti-Zionists are in any way sympathetic to any extreme right or Islamic fundamentalist group. In fact compassion rather than hatred drives most critics distain of Israeli policy, many people are concerned with the plight of the Palestinians and yet supportive of Israel in other means, or at least critical of opposing states such as Iran. This would not make sense if anti-Zionism was fueled by hatred - as we are encouraged to assume, rather than a care for humanity.

However conversely not all Zionists, let alone all Jews have these hang ups. Modern Zionism is a product of the late Victorian era and long predates Naziism and modern islamist movement. Furthermore many in fact likely most anti-Zionists are peaceful opponents of Israeli policy but are not necessarily in any way opposed to the existance of the State of Israel.

The fact remains though that the carefully manufactured hype regarding Zionism that some find copy in assuming that anyone with an anti-Zionist agenda is hateful or engaged in militancy. This can be easily observed in the words used to define aid workers and accompanied observers by members of the Israeli government and their apologists to the media. The fact that this in som e way works is a proof of the effectiveness of such propoganda. Where else would assaulted aid workers be considered the wrongdoer. Aid workers have an almost saintly persona in the media, not necessarily deserved as individuals. However anti -Zionist ait workers however can become 'threats', 'militants', 'terrorists' or 'racist anti-Semites' without any actual proof to such allegations. I cant think of any other theatre where a faction could get away with such a slander.
Unfortunately propoganda works.

Trying a lockdown due to the word 'Zionism' is not any attempt to keep Dakka neutral, while the word itself is neutral the accusation generated around it holds some strong partisan opinions. Frazzie might as well have said 'some Dakka mods support Israel, so end of discussion'. No wonder this has gone down badly.

Very well put


I have supported israel in the past, and can no longer find the heart to do so.

That thread was a lot less aggressive than other threads I've read, and far more enlightening.

P.S. I like frazz as a mod. But I think he jumped the gun a bit

You know, it always amuses me when people say that there's a 'fear of critique of Israel'. Mainly because over here, the BBC is so pro-palestinian it's scary. Whenever anything happens with regard to Israel over here, ever, every single liberal in the country jumps on a platform and starts denouncing their evil oppressive policies.

I'm not saying I'm for or against Israel here, just that I find it hilarious that people think that the Israeli's have some kind of immunity to criticism, when picking up the nearest newspaper here will prove the exact opposite a good 80% of the time.

Nurglitch wrote:So, "Usurer" is still cool, right?

What, as in 'a person who lends money and charges interest'? Yeah, it's a little anachronistic but why not? If a person used that word to refer to Jewry in its entireity then that would be EXTREMELY problematic and offensive. We're all more classy than that though.

In other news, I'm off to tell the Jewish kids down the street that their 'Pro-Zionist' t-shirts are racist.


Wish me luck.

Ahtman wrote:
It is bandied around a lot by Neo-nazi's, Nation of Islam, and others (such as Iran's current President) to mean much more then just reference to religious geographic history. Finding one definition on the internet doesn't mean that is the only way a word is used, or how it is wielded politically.

Exactly.
If I want to hear racism, I'll go to California college campus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
Trying a lockdown due to the word 'Zionism' is not any attempt to keep Dakka neutral, while the word itself is neutral the accusation generated around it holds some strong partisan opinions. Frazzie might as well have said 'some Dakka mods support Israel, so end of discussion'. No wonder this has gone down badly.

The level of bs on this thread is increasing faster than the British can pollute the Gulf of Mexico.
This is a board about toy soldiers. Dakka does not permit more than jocular attacks on a country. If you don't like it, post somewhere where thats freaking appropriate, BUT IT AINT HERE.

This thread is closed. People bugging me about this via PMs will not be received politely.