If Israel are "colonizers"...

[AsianActivist]

Then how did Morocco and Indonesia become islamic when islam originated in Mecca?

How did South America become catholic when the catholic church originated in Rome (Italy)?

Why is it that the only country which is a Jewish nation, existing in the historical homeland of the Chosen People, is considered a "colonial" state?

Also, why is it that 67 countries have English as an official language, Spanish is spoken in 36 countries, Arabic is spoken in 35 countries, yet Hebrew is spoken in only one?

 

[sun rise]

Yes, all of the Americas were colonized along with China taking over Tibet and so forth. The history of England is replete with invaders taking land there. And so it goes.

 

[England my lionheart]

Then how did Morocco and Indonesia become islamic when islam originated in Mecca?

I’ll throw this out there,invasion?.

How did South America become catholic when the catholic church originated in Rome (Italy)?

I’m going Jesuits and the Holy See.

Why is it that the only country which is a Jewish nation, existing in the historical homeland of the Chosen People, is considered a "colonial" state?

“Chosen” is problematic imo,it may be more correct to say “recolonisation”,just my opinion.

Also, why is it that 67 countries have English as an official language, Spanish is spoken in 36 countries, Arabic is spoken in 35 countries, yet Hebrew is spoken in only one?

I’m pretty sure Hebrew is spoken in many synagogues in many countries.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jewish nation, existing in the historical homeland of the Chosen People,

These are just religious claims, and others could make those claims, too. It's the homeland of Christianity and they traditionally viewed themselves as the Chosen People, too. They ruled it for a long time and reconquered it for a time with the Crusades. Maybe they'll decide they'll want it back one day and boot the Zionists out. Would be funny, actually. Maybe Canaanite revivalism will become a thing, and they'll throw the Abrahamics out. Lol.

There's no genetic test to be taken for a Jew to gain Israeli citizenship. Just have a Jewish mother or be a valid convert. You don't need to prove any lineage from ancient Levantine peoples. Which many Jews don't have, whether they're recent converts themselves or maybe their families converted many centuries ago. I could literally convert to Judaism with an Orthodox rabbi and gain Israeli citizenship as a Jew, even though I have no Jewish ancestry. It's ultimately a religion. You can't convert to being a Palestinian, though.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Maybe they'll decide they'll want it back one day and boot the Zionists out. Would be funny, actually. Maybe Canaanite revivalism will become a thing, and they'll throw the Abrahamics out. Lol.

"Would be funny, actually." Your antisemitic sense of funny is despicable.

 

[anotherneil]

Then how did Morocco and Indonesia become islamic when islam originated in Mecca?

How did South America become catholic when the catholic church originated in Rome (Italy)?

Well, let's go back and establish some things, first - who is calling Israel colonizers, and what are they saying about what has been colonized, by Israel, or is planning to colonize?

I generally associate colonization with monarchies, and the State of Israel (as opposed to the ancient Kingdom of Israel from around 3,000 years ago) is a republic.

Usually when I think of this region of the Southern Levant in terms of colonization, I also think of it as being colonized by Europeans in the previous century.

Prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the region had an indigenous population which consisted mainly of Arab Christians & Muslims, Jews (mainly Sephardi, Mizrahi, and Ashkenazi), and some Druze, Samaritans (similar to Judaism), and Armenians (predominantly Christians); they were the ones who were colonized by Europeans over the centuries - the "British Mandate" (British Empire), the Crusader States (1099–1291), the Byzantine Empire, and the Roman Empire; BTW it was also colonized over the centuries by non-European kingdoms, empires, etc.

So to me, the most recent "colonizers" there were Europeans, specifically the British Empire; although people say that the British Empire no longer exists (because of some arbitrary-sounding semantics criteria), there still is a British empire in existence today (note that I'm using lower-case "e" for "empire", here).

These places you mentioned - Morocco, Indonesia, and South America became as you described, probably or mainly because of missionaries who traveled to these regions to convert inhabitants of those regions, or by conquering them & forcing them to convert.

I'm curious - why didn't you include North America and Protestantism in such a list of questions?

Why is it that the only country which is a Jewish nation, existing in the historical homeland of the Chosen People, is considered a "colonial" state?

It's not the only Jewish nation; there are plenty of other nations with citizens/subjects who are Jewish. There are more Jews living in the US than in Israel, so the US - not Israel - is also the top Jewish nation in terms of Jewish population comparison: Countries with largest Jewish population 2022 | Statista

Also, why is it that 67 countries have English as an official language, Spanish is spoken in 36 countries,

Because the British and Spanish empires were colonizers and conquerors of these places.

Arabic is spoken in 35 countries,

35? The search results I got gave me 25 countries.

Arabic isn't a language analogous to English and Spanish, since there are different dialects, so it's more like a language dialect group. As far as I know, anyone who speaks English can understand anyone else who speaks English & anyone who speaks Spanish can understand anyone else who speaks Spanish; this isn't true for "Arabic" since the different dialect speakers might not be able to understand each other.

Anyhow, I'm not familiar with the details behind how 25 countries became Arabic speaking; maybe that's the result of Islamic missionaries or conquerors.

yet Hebrew is spoken in only one?

It's not spoken in only one: Hebrew - Worldmapper.

This article describes Hebrew being spoken regularly as having been a language that was "all but dead" (almost dead) prior to being revived & that seems similar to the condition of Latin, today, which makes it interesting that Greek is still alive and well.

 

[anotherneil]

Yes, all of the Americas were colonized along with China taking over Tibet and so forth. The history of England is replete with invaders taking land there. And so it goes.

So is the history of Spain, which is my ancestry on my mother's side; they did some atrocious things to the indigenous people in the Americas (also my ancestry on my mother's side) back during the colonization era.

 

[anotherneil]

These are just religious claims, and others could make those claims, too. It's the homeland of Christianity and they traditionally viewed themselves as the Chosen People, too. They ruled it for a long time and reconquered it for a time with the Crusades. Maybe they'll decide they'll want it back one day and boot the Zionists out. Would be funny, actually. Maybe Canaanite revivalism will become a thing, and they'll throw the Abrahamics out. Lol.

There's no genetic test to be taken for a Jew to gain Israeli citizenship. Just have a Jewish mother or be a valid convert. You don't need to prove any lineage from ancient Levantine peoples. Which many Jews don't have, whether they're recent converts themselves or maybe their families converted many centuries ago. I could literally convert to Judaism with an Orthodox rabbi and gain Israeli citizenship as a Jew, even though I have no Jewish ancestry. It's ultimately a religion. You can't convert to being a Palestinian, though.

Post liked for successfully achieving a ridiculous triggered rage response.

I think you make as legitimate a point as can be made & all that is fair game. There's no basis for saying one case of a claim by one group or team is acceptable and another by a different group or team isn't, at least that I'm aware of for this Southern Levant region situation anyways & saying that one is and another isn't would be a double standard. There's no justification for someone to say that something that doesn't belong to them, does belong to them, because their own establishment of religion or their religious texts & beliefs say so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why is it that the only country which is a Jewish nation, existing in the historical homeland of the Chosen People, is considered a "colonial" state?

Not many people are actually in their "historic homeland." Things change, people move around, conquerors come, and there would inevitably be conflicting claims. Like, do we give Europe the descendants of the Celts, who once predominated Europe, or to descendants on the Germanic tribes who came after?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Post liked for successfully achieving a ridiculous triggered rage response.

That is, of course, the most absurd and ridiculous reason for liking something. You like it because it's anti-social and got a well received criticism? This speaks volumes of your character.

 

[anotherneil]

That is, of course, the most absurd and ridiculous reason for liking something.

Thank you for your opinion.

You like it because it's anti-social and got a well received criticism?

No.

This speaks volumes of your character.

That doesn't matter; I'm not here on this forum for the sake of my character.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No.

You just literally said:

Post liked for successfully achieving a ridiculous triggered rage response.

That doesn't matter; I'm not here on this forum for the sake of my character.

It may not be your goal, but your character is strongly revealed when you say something like "post like for successfully achieving a 'ridiculous' triggered rage response." There was nothing ridiculous about it. There is nothing funny when people are forcefully driven from their home. It deserved to be called out because creating such suffering isn't funny. And here you are liking it because it was rightfully called out, except according to you the idea of a Jew calling out such a thing that would resemble a pogrom is "ridiculous."

 

[InChrist]

Then how did Morocco and Indonesia become islamic when islam originated in Mecca?

How did South America become catholic when the catholic church originated in Rome (Italy)?

Why is it that the only country which is a Jewish nation, existing in the historical homeland of the Chosen People, is considered a "colonial" state?

Also, why is it that 67 countries have English as an official language, Spanish is spoken in 36 countries, Arabic is spoken in 35 countries, yet Hebrew is spoken in only one?

Good questions. I don’t think most people care about historical context or reality.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Post liked for successfully achieving a ridiculous triggered rage response.

I think you make as legitimate a point as can be made & all that is fair game. There's no basis for saying one case of a claim by one group or team is acceptable and another by a different group or team isn't, at least that I'm aware of for this Southern Levant region situation anyways & saying that one is and another isn't would be a double standard. There's no justification for someone to say that something that doesn't belong to them, does belong to them, because their own establishment of religion or their religious texts & beliefs say so.

I have that person on ignore so their outburst will never read by me. They can stay mad and continue to scream into the void.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is, of course, the most absurd and ridiculous reason for liking something. You like it because it's anti-social and got a well received criticism? This speaks volumes of your character.

What about it is "anti-social"?

 

[anotherneil]

No.

You just literally said:

Post liked for successfully achieving a ridiculous triggered rage response.

Non sequitur reply with regard to my "No." that you're replying to & yes, of course I "just literally" said what you're quoting that I said (you're doing nothing but giving a tautology with this), and I also "just literally" went on to say this:

I think you make as legitimate a point as can be made & all that is fair game. There's no basis for saying one case of a claim by one group or team is acceptable and another by a different group or team isn't, at least that I'm aware of for this Southern Levant region situation anyways & saying that one is and another isn't would be a double standard. There's no justification for someone to say that something that doesn't belong to them, does belong to them, because their own establishment of religion or their religious texts & beliefs say so.

That doesn't matter; I'm not here on this forum for the sake of my character.

It may not be your goal, but your character is strongly revealed when you say something like "post like for successfully achieving a 'ridiculous' triggered rage response."

Since my character doesn't matter anyways, why are you beating this dead horse?

There was nothing ridiculous about it.

Yes it is; it entails an absurd use of language and a disregard for underlying hypocrisy.

There is nothing funny when people are forcefully driven from their home.

I think you may be confusing this thread with another or for something else. Not that this can't have any relevancy to the thread topic, but up to this point, this specific type of issue hasn't been presented; no one has stated anything about anyone being forcefully driven from their home on this thread.

It deserved to be called out because creating such suffering isn't funny.

Unsound argument, but yes, you are correct, regarding creating suffering by forcefully driving people from their home not being funny; I would assert that myself, and ad that destroying peoples' homes, indiscriminately killing them, and genocide also are not funny.

And here you are liking it because it was rightfully called out,

Wrong; that's not why I liked it.

except according to you the idea of a Jew calling out such a thing that would resemble a pogrom is "ridiculous."

I never so much as used the word "Jew" in that sentence; here it is again: Post liked for successfully achieving a ridiculous triggered rage response.

Do you see the word "Jew" anywhere in this sentence? If you do, please highlight it for me, otherwise I suggest you dispense with any further defamation (not just against me, but anyone else, anywhere else, at any time).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes it is; it entails an absurd use of language and a disregard for underlying hypocrisy.

There's nothing hypocritic about it. Someone said harming another would be funny, it was called out, and you applauded the offending post and said it being called out was a ridiculous rage response.
Own up to your ****.

I never so much as used the word "Jew" in that sentence; here it is again: Post liked for successfully achieving a ridiculous triggered rage response.

You didn't say it, no, but the person you claimed had a ridiculous rage response IS Jewish.

Wrong; that's not why I liked it.

Own up to your ****! We can all see that is exactly what you said.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What about it is "anti-social"?

Saying it would be funny if people were driven from their homes. People need to find a way to get along, not giving reasons to continue fighting.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Saying it would be funny if people were driven from their homes. People need to find a way to get along, not giving reasons to continue fighting.

That's not the point. I was pointing out that these arguments are based on religious beliefs at the end of the day and others can make those same claims. It may well come back to bite them in the ***. People need to stop looking for things to get offended over when reading a post, and remember that irony and sarcasm exist. No one is literally thinking people being thrown out of their homes is a good thing, ffs.

 

[anotherneil]

There's nothing hypocritic about it.

(Ok fine, I'll bite.)

Why not?

Someone said harming another would be funny, it was called out, and you applauded the offending post and said it being called out was a ridiculous rage response.
Own up to your ****.

Let's compare an analogical scenario; suppose someone said that it would be funny if the KKK was booted out of town. Who's getting "harmed" by this?

You didn't say it, no, but the person you claimed had a ridiculous rage response IS Jewish.

Oh, so apparently what you were attempting to do, but failed miserably to accomplish, was to falsely portray me as engaging in a bigoted ad hom attack against that person.

I can only surmise that it's your own propensity to bigotry - having that sort of mindset - that made you conjure up such a narrative/scenario.

It makes no difference to me what the other person is; does it matter to you?

I only attack flawed arguments and unfounded, dubious, or unbelievable claims, not individuals.

What if that person was not Jewish? What would that have changed?

I'll give you a "hint": absolutely nothing at all. If you think it would've changed anything at all, then - well, I'll just put it this way: I'm not the one with some sort of bigotry problem.

Own up to your ****! We can all see that is exactly what you said.

I never claimed that it was rightfully called out; it's your position that it was rightfully called out & you're entitled to your opinion and to disagree with me, but there's a difference between me not saying it was rightfully called out and you saying that it was; you seem to be having some difficulty making such a stark distinction.