Colin Phillips
At the Start
Thank you, Simmo and Krizon, for showing us that it is possible to have a robust discussion/argument without resorting to personal abuse.
A lesson for us all, I believe.
A lesson for us all, I believe.
Hope No-ones Intending To Fly This Week....
- Thread starter Shadow Leader
- Start date
Thing is, Colin, I very much like and respect old simbums. He is someone I feel I can have a good blast around a subject with, veer off a bit, have a bit of a tug-o-war over a few points, come back to the subject, and then both of us can leave it without the need to entirely grind the other to dust. We've several points of agreement and disagreement, which is how most debates go. Warbler would be another person with whom one could enjoy an ideas/issues work-out, too. I enjoyed that, simmo, and I will try to use a particular word a bit less! 
Unfortunately, Warblers little red envelope wasn't lighting up properly, even though a new posters name would appear. Since it was the same names though, i didn't necessarily realise the thread was running until such time as a buffer zone had been established and an EU peace keeping force had been installed, in which case it didn't seem right to start a fresh conflageration.
However, the points that occur to me :lol: concern the blurring of when a philosophy (in this case predominantly religious) becomes politicised, and ultimately comes to embody a sense of nationalistic expression. This I believe is the case with Zionism, and for that matter any other 'ism' that tends to have political or religious connurtations. The issue therefore is at what point does the blurring occur, where by the two can no longer be viewed as being mutually exclusive?.
Most philosophies start life as an hypothesis. Zionism might lack the intellectual depth of say Marxism, but its also a step above say, a stanadard nationalistic cause. As it gets banded about it gathers momentum and followers. History has taught us that splinter groups spin out of such 'movements'. Therefore a philosophy that encompasses such a radical overhaul of the establishment will always appeal to militant elements, and when a vacuum of opportunity presents itself this momentum, under certain conditions, can be translated into 'delivery'.
It's at this point that the philosophy starts to manifest itself differently, and is not untypically subjected to many revisions along the way. To a large extent its ceased to be an invisible idea/ concept, but has metamorphised into something visible/ physical instead. In this case a nation state. That nation state is not only a product of the philosophy, but it now embodies it to the point where it becomes 'its' standard barer. In many respects this represents the natural (some would say legitiamte) continuity of the original philosophy. Effectively the tail starts to wag the dog. In essence the state and the rulers that embraced the philosophy are now repsonsible for its interpretation, development and ultimately future execution, and the potential for them to corrupt aspects of it can become dangerously discrentionary. The Soviet Union between the wars would be an example of the dynamic I'm alluding to (in some peoples eyes)
It's not surprising therefore that dispora Jews who were seduced by the concept of a Zionist philosophy that ultimately manifested itself as a nation state were likely to wish to demonstrate this support by living in Israel. Those with a more internationalist perspective were seemingly happier to stay where they are. Lets not forget there's more Jews in New York state than Israel, and in my experience they tend to be pretty liberal in outlook. My experience of Israelis however, is quite the opposite, and it is indeed a distinction worth making. Even within Israel different concentrations exist, with Tel Aviv being distinctly less Zionist than Jerusalem.
In that respect I believe on balance that Israel probably is the nationalistic manifestation of a philosophy based on a religious/ nationalist aspiration (its difficult to argue otherwise). Importantly though, it has gone past the point where it is a philosophy in isolation any longer though. The state can therefore be legitimately viewed as a manifestation of this philosophy, to the point where it has in fact become it?. Differentiating between the apparatus of state and its people is never easy, but as Israel are quick to remind us, they are a democracy and therefore her governments must reflect some level of popular sentiment?.
I think its also of critical importance though to recognise that this philosophy encompassed in the concept of nation state, is now being devleoped without the originating instruction manual that over saw its conception. It is therefore fluid by nature, and constantly evolving in line with prevailing circumstances and the maturation process. Its realised many of its initial aspirations, to a level where the original founding philosophy becomes increasingly redundant as new challenges and issues emerge, and has to be replaced by its revised successor.
The other point I'll touch on briefly concerns generalisations and labelling thus. Unfortunately, its impossible to get round, and an exception to every 'tag' can always be found. Personally I've never really liked this defence being invoked as a mechanism to stifle debate though. I'm sure everyones aware of the flaw in generalising, and as far as possible we try and qualify it, but sometimes in order to articulate a point, (especially if its of a generic nature) its largely unavoidable.
I'm only to aware of the dangers of drawing on my own experiences of travelling in Israel, Jordan, Egypt and New York, as the general impression one forms (esepcially between the first and last named locations) is quite marked
However, the points that occur to me :lol: concern the blurring of when a philosophy (in this case predominantly religious) becomes politicised, and ultimately comes to embody a sense of nationalistic expression. This I believe is the case with Zionism, and for that matter any other 'ism' that tends to have political or religious connurtations. The issue therefore is at what point does the blurring occur, where by the two can no longer be viewed as being mutually exclusive?.
Most philosophies start life as an hypothesis. Zionism might lack the intellectual depth of say Marxism, but its also a step above say, a stanadard nationalistic cause. As it gets banded about it gathers momentum and followers. History has taught us that splinter groups spin out of such 'movements'. Therefore a philosophy that encompasses such a radical overhaul of the establishment will always appeal to militant elements, and when a vacuum of opportunity presents itself this momentum, under certain conditions, can be translated into 'delivery'.
It's at this point that the philosophy starts to manifest itself differently, and is not untypically subjected to many revisions along the way. To a large extent its ceased to be an invisible idea/ concept, but has metamorphised into something visible/ physical instead. In this case a nation state. That nation state is not only a product of the philosophy, but it now embodies it to the point where it becomes 'its' standard barer. In many respects this represents the natural (some would say legitiamte) continuity of the original philosophy. Effectively the tail starts to wag the dog. In essence the state and the rulers that embraced the philosophy are now repsonsible for its interpretation, development and ultimately future execution, and the potential for them to corrupt aspects of it can become dangerously discrentionary. The Soviet Union between the wars would be an example of the dynamic I'm alluding to (in some peoples eyes)
It's not surprising therefore that dispora Jews who were seduced by the concept of a Zionist philosophy that ultimately manifested itself as a nation state were likely to wish to demonstrate this support by living in Israel. Those with a more internationalist perspective were seemingly happier to stay where they are. Lets not forget there's more Jews in New York state than Israel, and in my experience they tend to be pretty liberal in outlook. My experience of Israelis however, is quite the opposite, and it is indeed a distinction worth making. Even within Israel different concentrations exist, with Tel Aviv being distinctly less Zionist than Jerusalem.
In that respect I believe on balance that Israel probably is the nationalistic manifestation of a philosophy based on a religious/ nationalist aspiration (its difficult to argue otherwise). Importantly though, it has gone past the point where it is a philosophy in isolation any longer though. The state can therefore be legitimately viewed as a manifestation of this philosophy, to the point where it has in fact become it?. Differentiating between the apparatus of state and its people is never easy, but as Israel are quick to remind us, they are a democracy and therefore her governments must reflect some level of popular sentiment?.
I think its also of critical importance though to recognise that this philosophy encompassed in the concept of nation state, is now being devleoped without the originating instruction manual that over saw its conception. It is therefore fluid by nature, and constantly evolving in line with prevailing circumstances and the maturation process. Its realised many of its initial aspirations, to a level where the original founding philosophy becomes increasingly redundant as new challenges and issues emerge, and has to be replaced by its revised successor.
The other point I'll touch on briefly concerns generalisations and labelling thus. Unfortunately, its impossible to get round, and an exception to every 'tag' can always be found. Personally I've never really liked this defence being invoked as a mechanism to stifle debate though. I'm sure everyones aware of the flaw in generalising, and as far as possible we try and qualify it, but sometimes in order to articulate a point, (especially if its of a generic nature) its largely unavoidable.
I'm only to aware of the dangers of drawing on my own experiences of travelling in Israel, Jordan, Egypt and New York, as the general impression one forms (esepcially between the first and last named locations) is quite marked
A man has been arrested in Houston for allegedly having traces of explosives on his clothes.
When I returned from my trip to LA 2 years ago I was taken aside and searched as apparently my rucksack had traces of explosives. I have had this bag for 6 years, there is probably very little that it doesnt have traces of on it! Worrying that people are being arrested for trace evidence when I am an example that they may well have done nothing wrong
When I returned from my trip to LA 2 years ago I was taken aside and searched as apparently my rucksack had traces of explosives. I have had this bag for 6 years, there is probably very little that it doesnt have traces of on it! Worrying that people are being arrested for trace evidence when I am an example that they may well have done nothing wrong
<< To reverse the pro-mobility bias in planning and tax policy would reverse these malign tendencies. An anti-mobility bias would promote family and neighbourhood cohesion and protect communities whose decline is so bewailed by the same politicians who pander to hyper-mobility. It would help make us - and the planet - healthier. >>
An anti-mobility bias would also kill horse-racing stone dead. Or return it to its old role as the sole prerogative of the Rich. I do wish btw that the racing authories would condict a proper survey among raicng professional and racegoers concerning the tax grabbed by the Exchequer from all the money we spend on fuel.
An anti-mobility bias would also kill horse-racing stone dead. Or return it to its old role as the sole prerogative of the Rich. I do wish btw that the racing authories would condict a proper survey among raicng professional and racegoers concerning the tax grabbed by the Exchequer from all the money we spend on fuel.
I've just quoted a little of the very interesting and thoughtful post from Warbler.
I was in Israel for about 8 months in 1965. I'd just left school, and in January I went off with some pals to dig at Masada, Herod's palace on the Dead Sea. After that I hitched around, working on a kibbutz for a while and also as chambermaid in a hotel in Eilat, then the far pointy Southern end of the country on the Red Sea, surrounded by hostile armies in Jordan and Egypt. This was before the first invasion of Israel; at Masada we were constantly buzzed by planes from Jordan, and in Eilat if anyone ventured into the water a bit too far they'd be shot at. People were killed quite regularly. In the North, there were constant invasions from Lebanon, and kids were attacked in their schools etc etc and sometimes kidnapped. Anywhere near the borders or even the sea one had to be vigilant, and armed national servicemen [inc females] and armed police were everywhere.
Most Israelis in those days had been through 'The War'. They weren't Zionists - they were there because they had no-where else to go, all their homes, money, land and possessions having been taken by the Nazis. They were of all nationalities - in the hotel, about 16 countries were represented in a staff of around 25, and interpreters were often needed. The majority of older people were Europeans, however. Most of the holocaust survivors were good humoured, tolerant, highly intelligent and positive; it was a privilege and an education to be among them. You'd get the odd one whose scars were too deep for forgiveness - at Masada we had several young Germans who volunteered in a spirit of atonement, and a couple of the archaeologists, who'd surved the Nazis, refused to have them in their 'section', but this was rare. for the most part, the ethos of the entire country was to co-operate and to build - it was a great time to share. It was incredibly easy to hitch rides anywhere - and you'd almost always be invited to stay in the driver's home, sometimes for days or even weeks. At the very least you'd get bought a meal.
The Arabs were in the main treated with respect, and their schemings against the state were looked on with humorous understanding. The big mistake the Israelis made with them, imho, was not to give them citizens' rights - they couldn't vote for example, and they couldn;t get passports to leave the country - but that's a digression. Jews from Arab countries of course had full citizenship - I met quite a few from eg Morocco and the Yemen. I also met a lot of professional class Arabs who were Christians; they were better off financially than many immigrants, but deeply resented their 'second class status'. They were just as hospitable as the Jews, btw.
Later, the nature of the Jewish immigrants changed. You got many from repressive political systems such as Soviet Russia alnd Romania, and these people, like the increasing number of Zionist Americans, were - still are - quite reactionary in their views and in their voting habits. The extreme liberalism of the early years which always threw up Labour governments has transmuted to a quite unpleasant rightist and intolerant mindset and political stance, with consequences we can all see. The voting system which is a particularly finicky form of porportional representation compounds this, giving disproportionate power to tiny minority religious groups.
It's important to realise however that Israel is very small, and was minute back within its original borders - you could hitch from Eilat at the bottom to Sfad at the top, for lunch. Israel never however invaded anyone else until it was itself attacked in the 6 Day War; and it then attempted to push back the borders to give itself a buffer or safety zone, eg later by occupying the Golan Heights from whcih it had been relentlessly attacked for many years. Having taken land following conquest in the face of aggression, it has continually sought to trade 'land for peace' - but the Arab countries have always refused to countenance peace. They still refuse to concede the fundamental point - Israel's right to exist. It's hardly surprising if regrettable that the country has developed such an agressively defiant stance.
Another point which people forget, or rather are never told, is that the original state of Israel encouraged the Palestinians to stay when the United Nations conceded the area to the Jews - but mass panic was engendered by the neighbouring countries notably Jordan, who advocated flight. The people thus displaced were then herded into 'Refugee Camps' which were to all intent and purposes prison camps, from which they have NEVER been released in three generations. In this way Syria, Lebanon and Jordan have cynically bred generations of stateless, purposeless and disaffected people with nothing to lose by resorting to violence against Israel. Most refugee camps in any country disperse within a few years - but these have been with us since the late 1940s, and the inhabitants prevented from living elsewhere. Why? Whom or what does this serve?
It's quite difficult to marshall all the relevant history, since the relentless propaganda war [now on both sides] has never allowed much space for rational debate, or truth, to get a look in; and this has been compounded over the years. But a simple 'Israelis bad, Palestinians innocent' is a gross oversimplification imho.
I grieve for the country I knew, and its wonderful optimism and energy.
.
It made sense to me as I was writing/ over dosing on it. Having said that, when re-reading it, it does look more than just a tad self indulgent and sounds as if I was thinking out aloud in an attempt to understand it myselfOriginally posted by krizon@Aug 24 2006, 11:51 PM
What?
. I'll try again, but the upshot of it, is that I think the phrase can be used to describe the government of Israel.In the first case, its probably helpful to examine the roots of the so called philosophy. If you strip away the religious dogma that undserwrites the basis of the philosophy, then the residue is not significantly different to a nationalist agenda, of which history has plenty. Would you describe the SNP's manifesto as a philosophy? Probably not. It's a nationalist aspiration wrapped up in a socialist philosophy I'd suggest?.
Therefore it is the relationship between the religious input that gives it the tenuous qualification as a philosophy, and the subsequent political manifestation of this that defines its character. The adoption of its aspirations therefore by certain advocates, and its consequent politicisation are critical in how you might apply it. Most philosophies start life as a hypothesis and can only extent so far into the future on a limited horizon, given that they are essentially hypothetical guides reacting to the most pertienent circumstances at any given period in time. Events over take them, and it becomes necessary to revise them. The various strands of communism would be an example. Although rooted in Marxism, certain movements/ philosophies have emerged that have earned their own appellations (Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Gramscian etc and that's before you look at some of the anarchist philosophers).
The question I was trying to pose (a hypothesis of sorts in its own right) was something along the lines of, at what point does a philosophy cease to be solely a philosophy as originated, and becomes a visible and physical entity in its own right and therefore something else? I thus offered the opinion that when it involves a government and the founding of a nation state, that this point has been reached, and the country and government concerned can be labelled accordingly. Labelling the people en mass is of course a slightly different issue.
In this case Zionism was the founding hypothesis, and the state of Israel the nationlistic manifestation of the polticisation of the quasi philosophy/ religious dogma that attracted certain people to gather under its banner. Those who follow the philosophy continue to develop it, and thus act according to their interpretation of it. Hence why we talk about Zionism rather than Israelism. As things develop though, those who've adopted the dogma will find it necessary to revise it in line with the challenges posed to the philosophy, or in this case its physical manifestation - the state of Israel. (Hence my observation about the instruction manual becoming obsolete, and getting re-written according to interpretation). This is a critical point in any philosophies development i feel, as in many cases it is moving beyond the original founding ideas, and transferring the philosophy into a policy and ultimately a series of actions. It is these actions that define the nature/ manifestation of the philosophy, and to some extent something akin to 'philosophical capture' might have occurred and thus morphed. Essentially, the word can be used to describe both the philosophy and its manifestation therefore in my humble opinion
By way of parallel, (and in context it might not be the most appropriate) but Nazism is sometimes accorded the status of a philosophy. Where as I wouldn't dispute fascism could be described as a philosophy, and there is a body of work by right wing thinkers that atests to this, (and others who were subsequently adopted by the right), Nazism was much more about a political parties application of a philosophy. In this case the manifesto was National Socialism, which mutated into Nazism, a tag that has its roots in the name of a political party that implemented it, rather than any philosophical base. I'm not totally convinced that Nazism is a 'true' philosophy therefore, but rather a revisied derivative of other philosophies. Zionism by contrast is much more specific, but without the religious input is largely nationalism. Therefore its the isolation of this religious component that is largely responsible for its uniqueness, and hence why I believe it can be applied to the various governments of Israel (though with different degrees of conviction). Mind you, there is an inherrant contradiction in my assertion here, and I can't pretend I'm comfortable with it, and so if pushed on the subject, I'd probably have to conceed that Nazism is a stand alone philosophy?.
Essentially, the original philospohy/ hypothesis has moved on to a point where it embodies something else through the politicisation of religious expression, and manifests itself now as a product - a nation state, that reflects the sentiments to a greater or lesser extent of its people.
Now if that sounds convaluted, I do apologise, and I'm sure some of you have detected I'm far from comfortable with the explanation myself, any more than I'm necessarily convinced i'm correct, or even talking anything that might survive an interrogation by the word 'sense'
If you look at any form of philosophy's 'how to live' most change into something far removed from their original intent, Warbler. National Socialism did not set out with the agenda to murder millions or make an appalling second world war. Communism (in broad rather than sectarian terms) set out to better the lives of the masses, not give Uncle Joe carte blanche to murder millions, etc., etc. These were, however, political philosophies, divorced from a religion impetus.
The Land of Zion was a religious promise for the Israelites, not brought to actuality until a degenerated National Socialism, assisted initially by Russian Communism (oh, how we love life's ironies!) enacted the Holocaust of Jews (in particular, though we forget the holocaust of Romanies, other nationals, and homosexuals at our peril), providing the necessary post-war international hand-wringing angst to enact the Balfour Treaty (politics) and sweep away (dispossession) the legitimate land of Palestine and award it as 'Israel' (not Zion) to the Israelites as the long-denied, promised homeland. Since when, as we all must surely be aware, previously neighbourly relations between Palestinian Arab and Israeli Jew have been less than warm.
You can't take religion out of Zionism, because that was its original basis. Israel could just as well have been called Zion, although that would've been an EXCLUSIVELY Israelite land, with far wider boundaries, than the land of mixed nationalities and mixed religions (and, indeed, a few of no religion) that it is today. I know that you are saying one has to say it is 'Israeli' ambition because that's the name of the country, and obviously the name of the country's government and the country's people. But that would not be right in toto. 'Israel' had its bounds set, and 'Israel' (under the aegis of a Zionist agenda - which is to gain the full bounds of the religiously-promised 'Land of Zion') has been accruing, illegally, wider and wider bounds since 1967. Hence Jimmy Carter's no-nonsense assertion that if Israel would only restrain itself to the lands bounded in the original homeland agreement, all would be well. Which it probably would be, given the chance.
Therefore, the ambitions which drive the continuing grab of Palestinian lands and homes are Zionist, not Israeli. Israel was formed to provide a homeland for dispossessed Jews. 'Zion' would be, in fact, all of the lands into which the Israeli military now push, and which true Zionists believe form the historical bounds, not the political bounds, of the true homeland.
Therefore, it is THOSE ambitions, obsessions even, to create the full-size Land of Zion which drive the Palestinians out, in their own diaspora. The additional land which Israel has grabbed over the past 40 years is NOT legally Israel's. It has battered the Palestinians out of them and annexed them to the legal boundaries of Israel.
Israel has no intention of ever 'giving them back', especially since it's supported and supplied by America (where the bombs are made), which has had its bomb-supply aircraft refuelled, en route from the USA to Israel, in stopovers in jolly old Blighty. Just one reason why Mr Blair can't do anything other than back America's stance on the issue. You can hardly refuel the planes bringing Israel its bombs to drop on the Palestinians, and the Lebanese in their own country, and wag a finger at the country doing the bombing, can you?
Honestly, I'm knackered now. I can't think of anything else I really want to say about this. It's all out there in black and white for anyone to read about, in endless tomes, UN manifestos, government articles, news online, etc., if they really want to. There is a history, there is a current situation, and there is no resolution, in spite of all of the billions of words spoken and written - unless Israel stops these 'boundless' ambitions and withdraws to the land it was given.
The Land of Zion was a religious promise for the Israelites, not brought to actuality until a degenerated National Socialism, assisted initially by Russian Communism (oh, how we love life's ironies!) enacted the Holocaust of Jews (in particular, though we forget the holocaust of Romanies, other nationals, and homosexuals at our peril), providing the necessary post-war international hand-wringing angst to enact the Balfour Treaty (politics) and sweep away (dispossession) the legitimate land of Palestine and award it as 'Israel' (not Zion) to the Israelites as the long-denied, promised homeland. Since when, as we all must surely be aware, previously neighbourly relations between Palestinian Arab and Israeli Jew have been less than warm.
You can't take religion out of Zionism, because that was its original basis. Israel could just as well have been called Zion, although that would've been an EXCLUSIVELY Israelite land, with far wider boundaries, than the land of mixed nationalities and mixed religions (and, indeed, a few of no religion) that it is today. I know that you are saying one has to say it is 'Israeli' ambition because that's the name of the country, and obviously the name of the country's government and the country's people. But that would not be right in toto. 'Israel' had its bounds set, and 'Israel' (under the aegis of a Zionist agenda - which is to gain the full bounds of the religiously-promised 'Land of Zion') has been accruing, illegally, wider and wider bounds since 1967. Hence Jimmy Carter's no-nonsense assertion that if Israel would only restrain itself to the lands bounded in the original homeland agreement, all would be well. Which it probably would be, given the chance.
Therefore, the ambitions which drive the continuing grab of Palestinian lands and homes are Zionist, not Israeli. Israel was formed to provide a homeland for dispossessed Jews. 'Zion' would be, in fact, all of the lands into which the Israeli military now push, and which true Zionists believe form the historical bounds, not the political bounds, of the true homeland.
Therefore, it is THOSE ambitions, obsessions even, to create the full-size Land of Zion which drive the Palestinians out, in their own diaspora. The additional land which Israel has grabbed over the past 40 years is NOT legally Israel's. It has battered the Palestinians out of them and annexed them to the legal boundaries of Israel.
Israel has no intention of ever 'giving them back', especially since it's supported and supplied by America (where the bombs are made), which has had its bomb-supply aircraft refuelled, en route from the USA to Israel, in stopovers in jolly old Blighty. Just one reason why Mr Blair can't do anything other than back America's stance on the issue. You can hardly refuel the planes bringing Israel its bombs to drop on the Palestinians, and the Lebanese in their own country, and wag a finger at the country doing the bombing, can you?
Honestly, I'm knackered now. I can't think of anything else I really want to say about this. It's all out there in black and white for anyone to read about, in endless tomes, UN manifestos, government articles, news online, etc., if they really want to. There is a history, there is a current situation, and there is no resolution, in spite of all of the billions of words spoken and written - unless Israel stops these 'boundless' ambitions and withdraws to the land it was given.
BrianH
At the Start
Yes - except anything by Jeffrey Archer.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
It's just liquids which are prohibited in hand luggage now TS - that encompasses all cosmetics, even lip balms too. However once you've passed through into the departure lounge you can buy liquids and take them onto the plane as hand luggage.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
NP - enjoy Cyprus! Off to Ayia Napa for the clubbing scene are you?! 
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
The Tombs of the Kings are worth visting near Paphos - as is the beach where all the turtles nest (of which I forget the name!!).