This is fast becoming the convenient redefinition thread. Not initiating force does not make one a pacifist.

Not helping bullies does.

"I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory."- Irving Kristol

"From the anti-Stalinists who became conservatives – including James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Irving Kristol – the Right gained a political education and, in some cases, an injection of passion. The ex-radicals brought with them the knowledge that ideological movements must have journals and magazines to articulate their perspectives. In 1955, for example, William F. Buckley, Jr., launched National Review at the urging of Willi Schlamm, a former German Communist. In its early years, National Review was largely written and edited by the Buckley family and a handful of former Communists, Trotskyists, and socialists, such as Burnham and Chambers. It played a major role in creating the Goldwaterite and Reaganite New Right and in stimulating an anti-Soviet foreign policy."- Seymour Martin Lipset

I have actually read what it means to be a libertarian and our philosophy on foreign wars.

But there seems, does there not, a crippling unwillingness to -- actually win?

And I'd read from your quote not a Trotskyite root -- but an anti-Trotskyite one. These thinkers matured enough to drop Trotskyist philosophy and come up with something better -- and antithetical.

If actually attacked, you fight to win in a way that is productive.

The problem with advocating the Neo Con position initiating violence is that is was borne of the Trotskyite desire for international socialist revolution. It is incompatable with the Western ideal of self-determination.

Not our fight.

So how do you get that someone who opposes that == antisemite == opposition to aggressive settlement of disputed territories?

How so? I think that Israel should be combined with Palestine to make one united state. I do not want to kick out the Jews.

There are a lot of conspiracists that are anti-Zionist but not all anti-Zionists are conspiracy theorists. I am actually not a true anti-Zionist either. A separate Jewish state will not work in the Middle East but I am not against a non-violent Zionist state that would be placed somewhere that peace is possible.

There are many different types of Zionists. That is why you can't give one definition. They all believe that the Jews should have its separate state but then they views usually split from there.

Or, you could pick the best argument which is subjective. There are many aged people with doctorates that are pro-Zionists and there are many aged people with doctorates that are anti-Zionists.

I am also curious on how I live in the perfect demographic to be seduced by fascism's blandishments. Could you explain?

So we should just kick them out? How about we bet them both live there since no one group deserves a piece of land over any other group especially when both groups have been there for the past 1,500 years.

I know both sides of the argument and I have picked my side. I accept other sides and agree with them on some issues like I did with Undertoad. You on the other hand will never even look into the other side making you bias.

Most people, IMHO, who claim to be anti-Zionist are in fact also anti-Semitic. They just don't want to be accused of something else so they hide behind this other idea while appearing not to be associated with tacit support of the terrorist policy of the Arabs. The only group of people who support the "Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine" and hence support the modern notion of "the support and development of the state of Israel" are Jews or those who would profit off of such establishment of a Jewish homeland. Hence they are in fact anti-Semitic. The policy of "aggressive settlement of disputed territories" is a policy being pursued by the more radical elements of the Jewish religion and was supported and encouraged by the mainstream government of Israel. Hence they are all related. You cannot divide the issue up because you don't want to appear anti-Semitic (a term which has been oft abused and used). It sounds so much more PC to be anti-Zionist.

I would like to see one state created with no special treatment for either group. All former borders returned to UN specifications. All land stolen by Israel from their neighbors in the name of "god promised", ever, is returned.
Not a bit at a time, not with concessions, just returned.

That might have been possible at one time, but that little '67 war thingy and the one that followed a few years later, now followed by Iran going after a nuke, I doubt that will ever happen. But I bet you that the Persians would be willing to sacrifice the Arabs just to drop the big one on Israel. :3eye:

Exactly. So if you oppose that, you are opposing radicals and a particular governmental policy of Israel. No connection to antisemetism there. And it's only partially linked to anti-Zionism, in that if you don't support Israel then you most likely don't support its expansion. But it doesn't go the other way.
"Related" is pretty loose language. Sure, they're related. But antisemetism is also "related" to Zionism, in the same way that plenty of racists were fans of the "back to Africa" movement. "Sheep from the same flock" is wrong, however.
No, but you can divide "the issue" up because it is more than one issue in the first place.

Ok, I think you are wrong and it does go both ways. That has been my experience. I have been to Israel. I have been to the Middle East. The people over there don't just hate the presence of the Jewish State.... They hate Jews. The rest of that is a ruse by anti-Jewish supporters of the Arab cause.

(note I have not taken a side on the issue so don't paint me into this picture)