This is not Anti-Semetism- Why Zionism and the state of Israel are WRONG

[Pithyoneliner]

I believe that the Balfour declaration is right up there with the slave trade as one of the most dispicable things the British govt ever condoned.

Given that the diaspora took place in the first century BC, I have a little trouble acknowledging Isreal's right to that particular patch of real estate, especially given that folks are/were already living there. Does this mean that I as an anglo-saxon have a right to the heligoland bite? As my ancestors left there in the 5th and 6th centuries I have a more recent claim than the israelis, lets not even get into the Native Americans, Canadian First Nations or Australian Aboriginees - all of whom have more recent claims to the respective territories stolen from them.

The fact of the matter is that in absolute moral terms the Romans had no right to expel the Jews, just as the British and American settlers had no right to expel / murder / disposses their various victims. But history is largely based on migration and volkerwanderung and we cannot turn back the clock.

In their current policies (specifically - no right of return to the expelled palestinians) the Isreali state is simply repeating the sins of previous ages in an era when we really should know better.

The solution? Well the world is getting warmer, I'm sure the Danes would be willing to cut a deal for the right price... Isrealis, how do you feel about Greenland?

But of course I jest, the problem is that unfortunately Isreal is still using that tried and tested argument "God said we could have it" (manifest destiny...) which brooks no argument.

 

[Caladan]

In their current policies (specifically - no right of return to the expelled palestinians) the Isreali state is simply repeating the sins of previous ages in an era when we really should know better.

It was done by UN mandate.

But of course I jest, the problem is that unfortunately Isreal is still using that tried and tested argument "God said we could have it" (manifest destiny...) which brooks no argument.

All Israeli ruling parties have been secular, it would help the debate if you get some basic education about Middle eastern politics first.

 

[Pithyoneliner]

1) the Balfour declaration preceded the UN declaration (or even the UN) by some 20 years, and Israeli settlement was firmly established by then (but the UN declaration gave us a handy excuse to get the hell out of the mess we had made)

2) The Israeli Gevernment has been a coalition throughout their history, nearly always containing ultra-conservative religious parties such as Shas

3) The Isreali's were offered a homeland within the British Empire in a less contentious (but equally morally indefensible) territory in East Africa - but did not accept it, because... it wasn't their religious homeland.

You're right of course I know nothing about middle-eastern history and politics

 

[Caladan]

1) the Balfour declaration preceded the UN declaration (or even the UN) by some 20 years, and Israeli settlement was firmly established by then (but the UN declaration gave us a handy excuse to get the hell out of the mess we had made)

Then why talk about 'current policies' when any informed person understands that the British have created alot of conflicts and tensions in the middle east.

2) The Israeli Gevernment has been a coalition throughout their history, nearly always containing ultra-conservative religious parties such as Shas

Key word 'conataining', the ruling parties themselves have ALWAYS been secular, Israel itself was born out of a secular movement.

3) The Isreali's were offered a homeland within the British Empire in a less contentious (but equally morally indefensible) territory in East Africa - but did not accept it, because... it wasn't their religious homeland.

The choice of Israel is rooted in great part on Jewish traditions (and historical ties), the Zionists were largely secular peopole who worked out of political pragmatism and not religious convictions.

You're right of course I know nothing about middle-eastern history and politics

Then start educating yourself. bringing the amateur 'God gave the land' misconception should have been eradicated by now, by the simple fact that Israel was established by a secular movement and by the basic understanding of the circumstances around Jewish immigration into Israel.

 

[Pithyoneliner]

Then why talk about 'current policies' when any informed person understands that the British have created alot of conflicts and tensions in the middle east.

Absolutely - Britain (and others) should leave the middle East the hell alone! Historically and more recently our involvement in the region has nearly always been disasterous.

"The choice of Israel is rooted in great part on Jewish traditions (and historical ties)" I am curious as to how you divorce "jewish traditions" from "and Moses took them to the land of Canaan yarda yarda promised land"

And which historical connections would these be? are we back to my great great ... great grandfather (1800 years ago) had a nice little taverna just outside Acre? Sorry that doesn't wash - see earlier argument. Note that the Ottomans welcomed the Jewish diaspora (following the Spanish expulsion) - but that invitation was largely not exercised.

I do think you are being disingenuous by claiming the "God said we could have it" argument plays no part in settlement... Jerusalem is considered the ancestral capital not because Herod had his palace there but because of the temple, (same applies to the Palestinians of course as well)

(sorry I've just noticed your location - I don't mean to be personal, I'm guessing you're not keen on the Greenland suggestion ;o)? But that does mean I am all the more interested in your perspective)

 

[Cypress]

You can't throw the anti-semite card at me for this, I am a Jew myself, I have Jewish parents. According to Judaism, Jews have no right to have a state until the messiah comes and makes it holy. See: www.nkusa.org (Nuterei Karta- Jews against Zionism). Even if you do believe Israel has the right to exist, you cannot say that what the Israeli state does to the Palestinian people is right, or in line with Jewish ethics. Let's face it, Jewish ethics don't allow for treating people like the Israeli government treats Gazans. The majority of Jews in Israel are secular Jews, with no real sense of what it means to be Jewish, I know because some in my family still practice Judaism. The secular Jews in Israel just keep moving to Israel because Israel gives them land and government support, but is it right?

Once I saw a documentation about Israel on tv.
They interviewed a Jewish couple from USA who had moved to Israel.
The man was in retirement and when they were asked for their motivation
because buying a house and enjoying a certain living standard is cheeper there than in Florida.
Are there many people who go to Israel for such reasons, do you know any?

How it can be justified that 3000yrs after Abraham apparently blacked-out and thought a god wanted to give him some land hundreds of miles away, that it should be handed over to a group of people, most of whom are not even from that part of the world in the first place.

I can't see how this situation will ever be resolved. What evidence is there to suggest they have any claim to the land at all?

Abraham had no claim to the land! Except for his own hallucination! The only people who have a claim to land is the people who live there.

Religious claims are a private matter, not a judicial basis to displace the inhabitants of a huge tract of land and have them subjugated. The Aztec Gods promised the Mexica the blood of neighbouring tribes. Does this justify Mexico in annexing land from the USA? No. So why the heck would the Judeo-Christian's promise to Abraham justify Jewish occupation of Palestine?

I wonder why anbody takes claim of Israel being promised land serious.
Over history there were countless emigrations of nations, if we all were to go back to where our forefathers came from in bronze age hardly folk would stay where it lives now.
And all white US-americans would have to go back to Europe.

If Isarel can't exist, then why can Egypt or USA or Japan or France Exist?

I think Israel should exist, if only because it is the only democratic country in the region.
But there must also be room for a Palestine state, and I just don't see how a working Palestinian state can be formed when Israelian settlers keep on building settlements in Israeli-occupied territory.
There are extremists on both sides and as long as they continue to opose every rational sulution nothing will change for the better.

However, when did the Arabs, or more specifically the Muslims, loose control over Palestine?

When England made it part of their empire.

By the time that Israel was given over to the Jews, the Muslims didn't even have power over Palestine anyways. So the Muslims had really no political right to the land anyway.

Indeed, Palestinians had political rights - first of all the right to form a government of their own & decide about their own future.
They should have had the oportunitly to elect a provisional government and hold a referendum about their future.
Instead they were occupied by Jews who migrated to Palestinia even while the British were mandatory.

 

[Caladan]

"The choice of Israel is rooted in great part on Jewish traditions (and historical ties)" I am curious as to how you divorce "jewish traditions" from "and Moses took them to the land of Canaan yarda yarda promised land"

With ease. the Jewish people are not simply people united by religion as many people in Israel today are not religious, it is an ethnic identity, cultural identity and social identity. Jews have always had historical ties to Israel, in the last couple of centuries, with the rise of secularism many Jews have toned down or departed from a [Jewish] religious identity, but continued to have a cultural and social Jewish identity with the Zionist movement prior to the creation of the state focused on finding solutions to discrimination and persecution against Jews in Europe, as a distinct national group and not as a religious minority.

And which historical connections would these be? are we back to my great great ... great grandfather (1800 years ago) had a nice little taverna just outside Acre? Sorry that doesn't wash - see earlier argument. Note that the Ottomans welcomed the Jewish diaspora (following the Spanish expulsion) - but that invitation was largely not exercised.

There were always Jews living in Israel, after the Roman destruction, after the Crusaders massacres in the land, Jewish communities were still present.

I do think you are being disingenuous by claiming the "God said we could have it" argument plays no part in settlement... Jerusalem is considered the ancestral capital not because Herod had his palace there but because of the temple, (same applies to the Palestinians of course as well)

Ancestral implies something more than claiming 'God given right'. Jews immigrated into Israel out of much more practical reasons, such as escaping war torn Europe.

 

[Caladan]

When England made it part of their empire.

Really? are you saying that the Arabs had sovereignty over Palestine before the British colonization?

 

[Pithyoneliner]

No the ottomans did (Turks)

 

[Pithyoneliner]

And it wasn't colonisation as such, but a League of Nations (UN) mandate that only lasted 28 years, which was plenty of time for us to screw the place up!