User:Kriegman/Fred Bauder

Fred Bauder's "Zionism"
Fred, you wrote:


 * I will set forth my personal view of Zionism: I think was a bad idea, but I support the right of the state of Israel to be fully accepted internationally and regionally. My opinion of notions of Greater Israel is very negative. I am not Jewish. Fred Bauder 21:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To which someone responded:


 * If I am wrong and you do support the right of the Jewish people (the people not the religion) to be like any other people and have a homeland of their own then you are Zionist (even though you may not know it) so please clarify if you do support Zionism in the sense that it is the right of the Jewish people to forever have a national homeland in the land of Israel, at least in the 67 borders.

And you responded:


 * According to you I am a Zionist. Still a bad idea to try to establish a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it. But it has happened and peace would be to everyone's benefit regardless of the past. Fred Bauder 16:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree with either of your two final points, both of which I find eminently reasonable:


 * "[it's] a bad idea to try to establish a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it"


 * "it [Israel's creation] has happened and peace would be to everyone's benefit regardless of the past"

While your second point suggests support for the State of Israel, the first (along with "My opinion of notions of Greater Israel is very negative.") makes it clear that you are not a "Zionist." However, you have been accused of being biased against Israel, and I would like you to consider that possibility, despite your second point and its suggestion of support for Israel's existence.

Why should you have any "more negative" notions about "Greater Israel" than about the US? After all, the US was also established as "a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it." And that existing population was greater than 20,000,000, most of whom were killed and replaced by a smaller European population (that only grew larger after the near genocide was completed).

But, you might respond that your view of the European takeover of North America is also "very negative."

OK. Then what regional population group's establishment of their presence in their current location do you not view negatively? In virtually all cases (except the most extreme places where survival can barely be established), the location "already had a different people in it" before the current inhabitants arrived. In the vast majority of cases, the violence that accompanied the arrival of the current inhabitants' ancestors included a far greater degree of genocide and or murder than the establishment of "Greater Israel" (as violent as that has been).

Since I said that I agree with your two points, I am saying that "[it's] a bad idea to try to establish a new country with a new population in a place that already had a different people in it." But if we are going to be consistent and not antisemitic, we would have to then add that all nationalism, regional ethnic takeovers, establishment of racial homogeny, etc. are notions about which we are very negative.

That you seem to have no awareness that simply stating your negative view of the creation of Israel—without mentioning the fact that you view all establishing of ethnic regions and religious/ethnic/racial nationalism negatively (that is, if, as I am assuming, you are consistent and not antisemitic)—seems to indicate antisemitic bias.

"But," you might reply, "Why do I have to say I don't like Brussels sprouts [here, I am assuming you are a normal human being and do not like them ;-)] when I say I don't like spinach in order for you to think I am not biased against spinach?" There are at least two reasons:


 * There have not been repeated, horrendously murderous campaigns to eliminate spinach from the world. Nor has spinach been historically treated as greatly inferior to Brussels sprouts as a faux vegetable.  It would be unreasonable for a Southern misanthrope to be outraged when a statement like "I don't like blacks" is taken to indicate racism when, in his case, his antipathy is equal for all people.  Another example:  You may have a "negative" view of significant aspects of male group behavior.  But, at least in a public forum, you would probably never say "I don't like the way black men behave in groups," without being aware of how racist that could sound without any contextualization or explanation.  Why is it then that, if you have a negative view of the establishment of any regional ethnicity at the expense of the preexisting population (i.e., if, like  I do, you have a negative view of most of human geopolitical history), in this case you feel free to mention your negative feelings (without providing any caveats or context) about the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel without being aware of how antisemitic that sounds?


 * Assuming you support the creation of a Palestinian state (as I do) and say so publicly, then such a statement about Israel seems quite biased. How would it look if you claimed to dislike all green leafy vegetables equally, yet for some reasons (even if they are good ones), while going around occasionally mentioning that you dislike spinach and think it was a mistake to ever plant it (but don't believe it should be weeded from the world), you also mention that you support the planting and growing of Brussels sprouts?

While it is entirely possible that the types of bias in your viewpoint are just semantic and apparent (i.e., not real), the fact that so many liberals use this type of biased wording about the Arab-Israeli conflict when they would never do the same about race relations in the US and never seem to be as eager to mention the "negative" ugliness of Palestinian nationalism suggests that some real bias may be operating. And, of course, even if this is true, any bias you may have is not even in the same league of a Zero000 or an Ian Pitchford. Kriegman 10:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)