What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »
But both sides you guys! Both sides!
The status quo is obviously the only way to do this, right guys?
LOL, keep beating that horse, MyTie. Keep telling us how you’re for both sides, but the only solution is for everything to stay exactly the same.
Oh, and when you write off educated, critical evaluation of the whole thing as “America hating”, you really are displaying how fucking willfully ignorant you are.
Sure. There’s obviously nothing to see here; just more zionist bullshit behind a veil of tuo quoque bullshit.
> *Originally posted by **[softest\_voice](/forums/9/topics/312832?page=8#posts-6662185):***
> But both sides you guys! Both sides!
> The status quo is obviously the only way to do this, right guys?
> LOL, keep beating that horse, MyTie. Keep telling us how you’re for both sides, but the only solution is for everything to stay exactly the same.
> Oh, and when you write off educated, critical evaluation of the whole thing as “America hating”, you really are displaying how fucking willfully ignorant you are.
> “Fuck off”?
> Sure. There’s obviously nothing to see here; just more zionist bullshit behind a veil of tuo quoque bullshit.
Ok, let’s try this another way:
Why are you so Pro-Palestinian? Why are you so one sided? Why are you so anti-sematic. It’s obvious that you just want the destruction of Israel.
Note: No matter what you say, I’ll just keep repeating these questions, so you get a nice big dose of your own medicine.
> Why are you so anti-sematic.
Amusing errors aside, it’s particularly ironic to use the last ditch defense of the hardened zionist (“You’re criticizing Israel? Must hate Jews!”), IMMEDIATELY after saying
> *Originally posted by **[MyTie](/forums/9/topics/312832?page=8#posts-6660647):***
> Dude, you skipped us straight to criticisms of the Marshall Plan. Not even noting the great good that it did. It’s apparent you just want a fight. I’m busy talking about ways to help the Palestine/Israeli conflict become a resolved issue. I don’t have time to fight you. You’re idea of them being justified in their fight, and the idea that Israel should give money directly to Hamas, aren’t helpful ideas. **They aren’t going to move the conversation forward.**
Even David Bowie is impressed.
Your use of him shows that you don’t want to move the conversation forward, and instead just want to insult anyone who doesn’t hate Israel like you do. Why are you so one sided? Why are you so anti-sematic?
> *Originally posted by **[Pereking](/forums/9/topics/312832?page=8#posts-6662726):***MyTie’s post was a sarcastic response to softest’s name calling. MyTie realizes that softest’s posts make him anti-semitic about as much as his own posts make him a “Zionist”.
They get it, but they’d never admit they got the joke. To do so would require them to admit they know why it is funny, which would require them to admit that calling me a “Zionist” is a load of horse shit.
Imma go have a beer, and watch a movie. See ya later!
> As for the term “Zionist”, I believe it used to have meaning but has since devolved into an insult and a way to devalue a person’s argument, much like the term “Nazi” before it.
Zionist has the same label value as nazi? Really? Well, let’s talk about labels, then.
I checked your profile, so I know you’re from israel. So I know you’re well aware how much concentrated bullshit that statement is…while I have met plenty of ignorant Israelis, they tend to be hasids, and as you haven’t mentioned “G-d” in your arguments as yet…Well, Mytie IS a zionist, whether he admits it or not. You, on the other hand, I’d put as pro-israeli, but not Zionist…your arguments thus far merely criticize anti-israelis, rather than advancing the distinct Israel First Right or Wrong agenda that Zionism demands – which also happens to be the one that mytie has put forward, cloaked under a supposed ‘fair and balanced’ act which is anything but. Foreign aid, really? Softest, I don’t doubt, is anti-israeli, but that’s faaaar from anti-semitic. That’s what makes the analogy ridiculous rather than sly and clever, as he was going for. Hence Bowie.
Zionism is akin to Nazism only in two ways:
1) Just as Nazism was the driving force behind Germany’s war-time success, Zionism was Israel’s driving force. Note the past tense. As any student of war-time history would tell you, Nazism quickly became more of a burden than an aid for Germany popularly, tactically and economically, and post-war Germany does just fine without it. Zionism is quickly becoming a burden for Israel as well, and I’d like to think they could do just as well without it.
2) Both ideologies are essentially based in ethnicity, despite propaganda suggesting other sources; they don’t like outsiders. During the war there were many in England – and other European countries – who were fond of Nazism. The Nazis used these people (take Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII as prime examples) to garner outside sympathy and support for their cause, but that’s entirely different from actually welcoming them into the fold. Similarly, Israeli Zionism has alliances with Gentile Zionist organizations from other countries (like the US), but that’s distinct from actually granting them citizenship…I’d be surprised if the number of non-Jew Zionists with Israeli citizenship numbered over 10,000. The crucial evidence for me is the cool reception that converts to Judaism receive. They have to go over through pretty strict immigration procedures before they become full citizens. What that demonstrates is that Zionism hasn’t changed much from its early roots; it’s NOT about the religion, it’s a break from the religion, which forbids the sort of interceding human agency that God alone is supposed to deal with at the appointed time. Zionism is therefore focal point for Jewishness transcended from mere religion. So American Zionists are welcome to preach a pro-Israel message, encouraged with funding even, but at the same time they remain useful idiots.
As I say, Zionism remains the driving force behind Israeli policy, so the idea that it’s become a non-entity, a simple slur for pro-israelis, is just plain ignorance. The super-liberal J-Streeters label themselves Zionists, but many among both the pro-Israel front (like Abraham Foxman) and anti- (like Finkelstein) are quick to dismiss their pretensions. Why would J-Street even want to be considered Zionist if they’re being rejected by both sides? Because Zionism still has currency, and, perhaps, because Zionism is flexible enough to accomodate them alongside the hawks that typify Zionist literature. I’d believe that. Zionism is a dangerous ideology, but that’s the nature of ideology. It’s only become ossified because of its adherents, mostly from the US, but also Israel, who simply use the same tired arguments over and over again ([for example](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8303274/The-Israel-Projects-2009-Global-Language-Dictionary)), not because they have much chance of convincing, but because they’re placeholders, stop-gaps, until something better comes along.
> Do you have a source for this Zionist agenda? Are you in charge of the categorization of Zionists for the International Institution of Zionism?
I have plenty of sources, from Herzl, who did indeed create a sort of League of Zionists, to more modern examples, but as you’re twisting around for some sort of objective definition, when these are merely (informed) opinions, I suppose I needn’t bother.
> The Nazis used to be a party in Germany. Today, you can pretty much label anyone you disagree with as a Nazi, as the word has devolved into an insult. Similarly to Zionist, yes. Zionists were part of a group of Jews that supported the idea of having a Jewish state in the area of Israel. This has already happened, and once it had, the term Zionism lost its meaning. Since then, I have mainly seen the term used by Pro-Palestinians like yourself to describe and undermine the arguments of those who disagree with them. I guess that’s where you were trying to go with me too.
I’ve already explained how it isn’t at all like the Godwin fallacy. I mentioned you because as an Israeli – who i perceive as someone who by location ought to be rather more informed to the facts on the grounds than the Zionazi mudslinging that defines israel/palestine discourse in N.America – you should know better, but fine, think of it as an insult as you like. I’m pretty boggled how you can expect to give up Zionism to the realm of simple slur without an effective ideology for the current Israel policy platform, but okeydoke.
> Perhaps an argument can be made that Zionists are those who believe that the entire Palestinian territory should also be a part of Israel, but MyTie clearly never said anything close to that.
You mean ‘Greater Israel’? That’s a small subcategory of Zionism, of which today perhaps only Avignor Liebermann and a handful of other far-rightists still believe in. The Ultra-Orthodox believe in it too, but for different reasons, so I wouldn’t count them. As it is, it’s like mytie saying he’s not a zionist because he doesn’t believe in an Israeli-controlled Jerusalem…it ignores the tree to point at the branches, so to speak.
The way you define zionism seems much the same way, to point to another archaic ideology, that Bolshevikism was defined, as an interest-oriented ideology. So just as the state was supposed to gradually disappear following the October Revolution (and obviously didn’t), Zionism was supposed to disappear following the meeting of its goal: the creation of Israel. Instead it just changed from creation to preservation – at all costs.
> As for whether or not MyTie is a Zionist, it doesn’t matter. Something that is obvious to me, and should be to you as well, is that not agreeing with someone is not an excuse for name calling.
It’s not name-calling. I have absolutely no patience with people who paint themselves as fair to both sides of this conflict when they’re anything but. I was just as incensed as when Finkelstein showed up at my university promoting Gandhi-like strategies for peace and tolerance while touting a Hamas flag. NOBODY is fair about this issue. Not mytie, not you, not me. We all have our causes. The way to move forward in a discussion therefore becomes somewhat similar to an ecunemical debate: without giving up our basic interests, how can they compromised insofar as everybody’s ends up advanced, if not precisely intact. I would say it comes from everybody taking a small cup of honesty before speaking. I’m being honest when I label mytie; it’s not about insulting him, it’s about demanding that he shake off this skin of ‘fairness’, accept what he’s saying and who he’s saying it for (not for the sake of the palestinians, that’s for damn sure), and move on.
I accept the same standard applied to myself. The truth is, I don’t like Zionism at all. I despise its central axiom, the maintenance of a ‘Jewish Character to the State’ necessitating compacting the Palestinians in the OT like sardines, and I’m ok with Hamas rocket attacks if nothing gets done, because as it’s been said, they have little other option to voice their grievances. They either give up violence and become PAers, relying on the capriciousness of the world community to sort them out, which anyway will lead to harsher attacks from the more radical militants like Islamic Jihad, or they keep attacking, doing little actual casualty damage but creating exactly the sort of atmosphere of fear that the more hawkish Zionists in the Knesset rely on to maintain the stranglehold over the OT.
But, as long as I’m being honest, I prefer the secular Israeli ideology, hawks and all, to the alternative. The birthrate problem on the palestinian side will, if a permanent peace hasn’t been established, push ever more palestinians up against the walls, eventually ensuring the creation of an authentic Israel Apartheid State to manage the population. Versus, the Hasid birthrate, which will shortly overcome the secular Tel Aviv-clubbin’ majority vote in the Knesset. If the Ultra-Orthodox ever find themselves in a position of overwhelming majority, they’ll be the ones who nuke Iran, and anybody else that looks threatening. They’ll be the ones that change the constitution to more draconian, old testament language. I don’t like Zionism. But they’re a damn sight better than the guys who want to turn Israel into the Jewish version of Saudi Arabia, and to that extent I can see common ground between Hamas and Likud et al.
NB: I’m grouping the haredi together as one large mass, which is slightly unfair, as they come down on both sides as extremely anti-zionist (like the ones who showed up for ahmadinejad’s anti-semite conference a few years back) and extremely Israel-first (ie. the illegal settler movement). What they all have in common, though, is a high birth-rate and a strong predilection towards civil disobedience and rioting to get what they want. It’s really the only thing that makes them unsuitable for some sort of takeover; by and large they aren’t geared towards conflict resolution through parliamentary process. It doesn’t altogether negate the threat they pose, however. Right now they’re like a scorpion held by the Netanyahu administration – they might help pad out the IDF in a big way, but they could just as easily create bigger problems.