I have no problem with ethnic states either (though I would disagree the Roma desire one - whom would they steal from?), however I have grown extremely weary of  influential Jews and Jewish organizations (on both the Left and Right) in the United States who advocate mass immigration while loudly denigrating as racists Americans who oppose it. It would be nice if they could show the same tolerance and respect to their fellow Americans they demand for Israel.

We've had this argument before.  Find me an actual source that advocates "mass immigration" to the United States that is a primarily Jewish source, and I will find you one that is primarily non-Jewish.  The link to the ADL you pointed to last time said "a balanced approach to immigration which controls illegal immigration and yet allows enough people in to continue businesses" or something equally mealy-mouthed.  Kind of you like your president's view, I think.

I have not found a marked difference in the approach to immigration between Jews and non-Jews.  If you can demonstrate such a difference, I would be curious to see it.  Otherwise, you're just spouting racist tripe, as far as I can see.

Thalia

"Find me an actual source that advocates "mass immigration" to the United States that is a primarily Jewish source, and I will find you one that is primarily non-Jewish"

I realize there is no shortage of non-Jews who favor mass immigration, but unlike Jews, most of the non-Jews who favor mass immigration (meaning white people in favor of mass immigration) don't simultaneously support an ethnic state elsewhere in the world. This is the "marked difference in the approach to immigration between Jews and non-Jews."

My pointing this double standard out is not "spouting racist tripe", it's asking for consitency and fairness, and given the pronounced Jewish presence in the media it's an angle that will be inevitably be brought up in an honest discussion. If I don't begrudge Isreal its racially based immigration policies, and I don't, why can't Jewish activist groups and Jewish opinion columnists stop branding those who wish a less immigration to the US as racists?  (While were at it, maybe we could stop labelling the merest mention of anything less than adulatory about Jews as bigotry.)

"Kind of you like your president's view"

Whatever. Bush is militantly pro-Mexican immigration.

So you're saying that the fact that GWBush supports an ethnic state (that would be Israel) while being pro-immigration in the U.S. makes him... Jewish?  The "Jewish" angle I simply do not get (except as racist tripe).  Most of the supporters of Israel as a Jewish state are not Jews.  So what makes a Jewish supporter of Israel different from a Christian supporter of the same state?

I seriously do not get where you're coming from.

Thalia

I'm sorry you don't "get it", but I think the problem is in your reading comprehension, not with the clarity of my writing.

I'm sorry you don't "get it", but I think the problem is in your reading comprehension, not with the clarity of my writing.

Dang Gordo...this is another one of those dirty-argument-tricks again, isn't it?  Ummmm, er...ad something.  Ah shit, something about attacking the man, not the argument...but that doesn't make sense since Thalia is a chick.

But thanks anyway, Gord.  I am learning more about how to make shitty arguments from you than any other person I can think of.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Way to not respond to my question.  So, what DOES make a Jewish supporter of Israel different than a Christian supporter of Israel?  And why is GWBush's support for immigration & Israel less inconsistent than Jews', in your world?

Thalia

Where was it you responded to what I said?  I don't see why this needs explaining, but since I'm bored: Bush and Christians do not support Isreal out of an ethnic interest, so no parellelism exists between thier support of Isreal and their views on immigration.  

So, what DOES make a Jewish supporter of Israel different than a Christian supporter of Israel?

I realize that I was not the poster that this question was posed to but I feel compelled to address it.

Jewish supporters of Israel: well, what one would think.  Support of an ethnic/religious state that is tied in to/supports/etc their religion, ethnicity and historical experiences.  Pretty simple.

A great deal of Christian supporters of Israel (note leading qualification - where said qualification encompasses many of the Hardcore Conservative Christians in question - relating to GWBs support): Support of a ethnic/religious state that figures into their mythology.  If Israel ceases to exist, then there is no place for the Jews to go back to and be killed so as to meet one of the requirements of their mythology for their desired eschaton/armageddon to take place.

I understand that taking help from wherever you can get it is a tried and true human impulse.  However, how a group that has taken so much ethnic/religious shit in recent history (ie: the Jewish people) would welcome support from people (the Left Behind Series-style Christian crowd) that ultimately wish them death (to trigger their own little religious party) has always escaped me.

And other lampoonery of such kind.

" However, how a group that has taken so much ethnic/religious shit in recent history (ie: the Jewish people) would welcome support from people (the Left Behind Series-style Christian crowd) that ultimately wish them death (to trigger their own little religious party) has always escaped me."

Well, they'll be given a chance to convert to Christianity first.

I can't believe you are dignifying Urkel's trolling with a reply.  He's just seeing what kind of chain pulling he can do here.

Quite frankly, the guy should either go back where he came from, or go off to some third world dicatorship that already suits his tastes and leave America to the real Americans, those of us who actually believe in liberty and justice.

I presume that this means you wish to dismantle all other religious states at the same time?  Or is this the "let's get rid of the Jewish state but the Pashtun state, the Persian state, the Arab states can all stay"?  

Thalia

I presume that this means you wish to dismantle all other religious states at the same time?

Yes, absolutely. I think basing states on exclusive categories is ridiculous. Ideally, state identity should come from ideas, not race or religion. Those who argue for a Jewish state in Israel, like it or not, are of the same intellectual tradition as a Le Pen or any of the other racial ideologues in Europe.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Ideally, state identity should come from ideas, not race or religion.

Race and religion are ideas. What kind of ideas do you have in mind? National identity is inherently exclusive. Elsewhere you mention successful multicultural states. What are the non-ridiculous categories that bind multicultural states together?

National identity is inherently exclusive

Race and religion are categories that a person cannot change (or in the case of religion, that we generally agree people should not be compelled to change). National identity, while exclusive, is malleable. I know plenty of immigrants to the US who consider themselves to be 100% American. How many people do you know that were born with white skin who believe they are 100% black?

What are the non-ridiculous categories that bind multicultural states together?

Political ideology, economic system, shared values - any number of things.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Which of course means that those that advocate for the Saudi state, or any other Middle Eastern state are also racist?  So why don't you go and spend some energy advocating against the existence of all these other ethic states?  Might I also suggest that you include Japan (which effectively refuses to grant citizenship to non-Japanese), and of course the U.S. which grants many more green cards to whites than to non-whites.  Heck, while we're at it, I hear there are people in France and Germany who have been living there for generations but aren't getting citizenship because they're the wrong color.  

Thalia

Which of course means that those that advocate for the Saudi state, or any other Middle Eastern state are also racist? ...

Racist - no. Racialist - yes. I realize that might be a bit hair-splitting, but I do think there's a difference. As I said above, I don't think Jews (or Saudis, or anyone who advocates race or religious based nation-states) are necessarily racist - that would imply that they believe other races are inherently inferior - but I nonetheless oppose the idea of mono-ethnic or mono-religious states.

Might I also suggest that you include Japan

Yes, you may - and in fact I think that Japan's unwillingness to allow for immigration has in fact been a substantial contributor to its current demographic implosion. Additionally, I would go so far as to say that the Japanese are on average, more racist than Israelis.

So why don't you go and spend some energy advocating against the existence of all these other ethic states?

How do you know that I don't? I'm not being inconsistent here - I'm opposed to any mono-ethnic or mono-religious state, period - and particularly so when that mono-ethnicism is bound up in the identity of the state (as it is with Israel, or Saudi Arabia or Japan as you mentioned - this is also true in many other states, of course, such as Korea). I don't think that it's a successful model for state building, particularly as we move into a post-sovereignty international realm. The states that will be the most successful in the future will be the ones most willing to adapt and change their identities. Mono-ethnic or mono-religious states are by their very nature are limited in their adaptibility.

U.S. which grants many more green cards to whites than to non-whites.

Actually, not true - the three largest groups of legal immigrants are Mexicans, Philippinos, and Chinese. The US certainly has issues, but we're far better than most countries when it comes to dealing with diversity. That doesn't mean I'm saying we don't have a long way to go, mind you, but at least we're pointed in generally the right direction.

Heck, while we're at it, I hear there are people in France and Germany who have been living there for generations but aren't getting citizenship because they're the wrong color.

Indeed - and that's why France and Germany have had endemic problems with assimilation over the last 30 years.

Anyway - do you realize what you're doing? You're defending Israel by saying - "Hey look, these countries have all been championing exclusivist and occasionally racist policies for the last two centuries - it's not fair that Israel can't do the same thing!!!" Does that make sense to you, or am I misunderstanding your argument?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

I am just as against theocratic as I am against racist states.  I was quite happy when Bush attacked Afghanistan*, and one of the things I fault Clinton for is not being aggressive enough toward the Taliban.  Had he provided Ahmad Shah with sufficient aid, there's a good chance we and the  Afghans would be in a lot better shape today...and maybe those giant stone Buddhas wouldn't be rubble.

I'd also like to see some solid action to protect Bali and Timor from the jihadists in Indonesia.

*Of course Bush screwed that pooch the same way he has screwed everything he has ever touched.

You have found the nut when it comes to ethnically defined states.  There is a movement here in Hawaii to establish an ethnically defined state, and I have heard its advocates make, without any awareness of the irony, the same sort of argument that white separatists make for an ethnically pure state.

The function of the state is to provide order within a society.  I think it's pretty apparent by this time that using ethnicity as a basis for social order is an unsuccessful strategy, since it ultimately leads to greater disorder.  Ultimately, I think we have to come to the conclusion about a non-ethnic state as Churchill came to about democracy: it's the worst form of government except for the rest.

Nice full frontal attack on a TnT poster, Bob.  If I told you to shut the fuck up, would I get modded "brilliant" too?  

Instead, I'll ask, why don't you take a lesson from Port 1080 and address the argument instead of wasting our time with ad hominem crap?

Um. You didn't present an argument. You expressed an opinion.  On an opinion.

What would a "response" to your post look like exactly?

"I don't agree with your opinion of that opinion piece."?

I think that was implied pretty clearly so that can't be it.

I'm not really interested in going through a point-by-point rebuttal of the entire editorial if that's what you're looking for but I'd be happy to directly address any passages you found particularly convincing. Briefly my impression of the piece is:

Muslims are teh devil.
Librulz don't agree.
Therefore librulz are stoopid.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

Muslims are teh devil.
Librulz don't agree.
Therefore librulz are stoopid.

Yeah, like, real good synopsis. Wow, do I feel stupid, er, stoopid, now.

I sincerely hope you weren't being sarcastic, Sue.

Seems marduk and I got the same impression of the article.  I wrote my synopsis before I saw his.

I wasn't referring to marduk_kur's synopsis.

"It's just so...complicated..." doesn't quite strike me as a persuasive argument.

I don't think you quite understand. Poole's piece is not a rebuttal, it is a criticism; his site is not about the evils of US/Israel, but about the manipulation of language.