Zionism

[Assad91]

I have a particular "dog in this fight" as I am, indeed, a Native American...
How?
My earliest ancestor moved to North America from England in 1652.

Nice contradiction.

 

[nash8]

What worry's me more is the fact that the US dollar is not backed by Gold.. not to mention the federal reserve is privately owned. Someones making a lot of money through interest on loans made to the Government..every time the US goes to war...the general consensus among Muslims is...I don't know if that would be racist..I don't think it would..If someone told me I was good with money..Id be happy..There is a widespread belief amongst Muslims that most American corporations including the federal reserve are owned by Jews..

That's not just amongst Muslims my friends, and Jewish banks don't actually "own" American corporations, or the federal reserve, but I said something similar earlier in this thread, and a Jewish member jumped down my throat saying that I was appealing to propaganda proposed in the protocols of the elder zion or whatever that stupid pamphlet was.

I then posted this link

Banking and Bankers

that basically documents the large loans made to U.S. and English governments to fund various objectives. And stated my opinion that these documented conditions had the ability to create an atmosphere where Jewish banks would be able to control the economies of these countries because if they called upon the repayments of these debts then it would for all constructive purposes collapse the economy of these two countries. I didn't get a reply from that member after that post .

Let me be clear, I do not promote a Jewish "conspiracy" to control the world or anything of the sorts. I simply see that Jewish banks capitalized on financial opportunities presented to them. And they did so in a very ingenuitive and cooperative way, so much so that I wish more people would take the same approach in regard to other aspects of life. And if their is any enmity that I feel towards the parties involved, it would be towards the heads of state of the U.S. and British governments for obtaining loans that they had no business obtaining, to fund projects that I very highly doubt that the populations they were supposed to be representing, would support. In all honesty, I feel better with Jewish people controlling the economy rather than the heads of government and major corporations. I just wish the Jewish banks would find a way to give more back to the little guy, while continuing to make the heads of governments look stupid. Because in the end were the ones getting screwed, while they play world leaders for fools because of their ignorant pride and lust for power.

While there is no real point in participating in these threads because of the usual recycling of ignorance and denial, I have to say that usually the Jewish members (at least most of them) are much more opened for constructive and informative discussion and are less eager to go into childish bickering than the other side which is prone to sensationalism and polemics.
The point remains that the majority of people who post these threads with the supposed objective purpose of debating the issue are completely ignorant about these issues and they keep repeating what they've been brainwashed with about Divine promises of land, as if average Israelis are actually concerned with that. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has much more down to earth elements than theological ones.
In addition, I can never bring myself to listen to the self-righteousness of members who live in a nation who still ethnically cleansed native Americans while my family legally bought lands and dried malaria infested swamps in order to settle these lands.
Like you say: This will fall on deaf years, but Zionism was a largely secular movement with practical reasons. And while Zionists may have been Jews, their identity was much more culture based than religiously motivated. To keep repeating the mantra about people fighting over a land they believe was given to them by God is to be in denial about the real issues involving this conflict.

As you can see the two points inquired about in the Original Post, have been answered constructively, but regrettably yet predictably these answers were ignored or shrugged off. A first point is that Jews already settled the land in the century prior to WWII. WWII, only saw the influx of Jewish holocaust refugees into an already established Jewish society in the British Mandate of Palestine. In addition, the second point while dripping from race obsession has also been corrected: Jewish Israeli society is hardly exclusively European. In terms of percentage its components neatly include a European decent and a Middle Eastern descent pretty much in a fifty-fifty statistics, and today a large generation which is a mixture of both.

I don't normally participate in these threads, primarily because neither side typically wants to discuss anything and is much more content bickering and mud slinging. But, after following this one through its entirety, I've decided to add my two cents (even though it is probably a mistake).

First of all, Zionism has nothing to do with most of what has been posted in this thread. Simply put, Zionism is the drive to establish a Jewish state where Jews can govern themselves and live without being persecuted for being Jewish. Since a Jewish state has been established, it has been expanded to also mean the survival of that state. It doesn't mean there's a Divine mandate for Jews to push the Palestinians into the sea or that Jews are somehow more "special" than any other group. History, both ancient and modern, has shown time and time again that Jews, no matter how hard the assimilate into their adopted countries or how hard they work to support them, are constantly at risk of being singled out for persecution, exile, murder, and all manner or other atrocities.

That being said, I fully support the Jewish state. I also fully support a Palestinian state, and deeply regret that the UN's plan did not go forward. No one should be forced off land to make room for another groups, and no one should loose land for any reason without just compensation (eminent domain). But this a problem that isn't contained within Israel, nor is it completely Israel's doing. The Palestinian people have long been at the mercy of politicians (both theirs and other nations'), and have been treated as pawns in regional struggles since before WWII. Hell, the British (who controlled the area) promised it to damn near everyone in the area.

I fully support the state of Israel, but not all of its policies.

Two of the best posts I have seen on this forum, not to mention this thread (other than all of mine of course ).

I do find it quite ironic and quite humorous that a NGE/OAI member of African descent and a Native-American Christian are arguing about the concepts and results of Zionism lol.

And if everyones so worried about the Palestinians and the Jews, what about the f'n Kurds. They've been getting screwed for what seems like eternity, and noone speaks a word about them. They're the largest ethnic group in the world without a country of their own, and you wanna know what happen to of all Suddahm Hussein's WMD that the U.S. sold him? Ask the Kurds, they probably have a good idea.

 

[nash8]

I wonder how heads of Jewish banks get along with Middle Eastern oil Sheiks? Pretty good I would imagine lol.

 

[xkatz]

I wonder how heads of Jewish banks get along with Middle Eastern oil Sheiks? Pretty good I would imagine lol.

Yes, let's just stereotype all Semitic peoples!

 

[tumbleweed41]

I would love to see how these anti-Zionist Liberal hippies act in similar situations. I would love to see what they'd do if a Native American tribe set up shop in their back yard and started clamoring for them to leave since it's "their land", even though the Jews are basically the Native Americans in this case.

Funny you should say this.

The way America has treated Native Americans over the last few centuries, occupying land, passing laws that remove them from land they occupy. Forcible relocation. Reacting with righteous indignation when they demand equal treatment under the law. The massacre of unarmed tribes-members in retaliation of insurrection.
Deplorable actions, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Funny you should say this.

The way America has treated Native Americans over the last few centuries, occupying land, passing laws that remove them from land they occupy. Forcible relocation. Reacting with righteous indignation when they demand equal treatment under the law. The massacre of unarmed tribes-members in retaliation of insurrection.
Deplorable actions, wouldn't you agree?

The treatment of the Native Americans by Anglos was a bit more one-sided. In most cases the Whites didn't even need to fight - they just swindled the land from under the Native Americans' feet, and failing that they had firearms vs people on horseback with bows and arrows.

Needless to say it's a lot more complicated with Israel/Palestine, since the Jews can be considered a native people who were forced off the land and then returning. While Israel is not perfect, they have acted with a lot more morality and restraint than most other countries in history have. The other example that comes to mind kind of off the top of my head is Tibet/China. Palestinians obviously have it a lot better living next to Israel than the Tibetans have under China.

I would love to see how these anti-Zionist Liberal hippies act in similar situations. I would love to see what they'd do if a Native American tribe set up shop in their back yard and started clamoring for them to leave since it's "their land", even though the Jews are basically the Native Americans in this case.

Just for the record, I'm pretty liberal on a lot of issues, but I'm not an anti-Zionist.

 

[Monotheist 101]

Needless to say it's a lot more complicated with Israel/Palestine, since the Jews can be considered a native people who were forced off the land and then returning. While Israel is not perfect, they have acted with a lot more morality and restraint than most other countries in history have.

Do you believe that both the Americas and Australia should be returned to the natives and the current residents kicked out?

 

[Shermana]

Funny you should say this.

The way America has treated Native Americans over the last few centuries, occupying land, passing laws that remove them from land they occupy. Forcible relocation. Reacting with righteous indignation when they demand equal treatment under the law. The massacre of unarmed tribes-members in retaliation of insurrection.
Deplorable actions, wouldn't you agree?

Funny you should dodge the point.

Deplorable, but nothing close to what happened to the Palestinians. More like what happened to the Jews. If the Native Americans violently attacked the colonists, would you say the Colonists weren't right to defend themselves? The two situations aren't remotely comparable in that particular regard, since the Jews didn't start the hostilities. The Jews BOUGHT the land. The Arabs attacked them and tried to be "Indian givers". You should consider learning the actual history objectively (Not just from the Palestinian sites that even deny the Jews buying the land or ignore anything that's remotely pro-Jewish) before you try to throw your full weight into this. For some strange reason, people without any inkling of what actually went down feel the urge to participate as if they know all the facts.

Now answer the question: If Native Americans set up shop, demanded your house and asked you to leave, what would you do? Claim it's been too long to matter?

 

[Moishe3rd]

What tribe are you from?

The farthest I can trace back would be the Scots from Moray, hence de Moravia. That would be around 1296 CE.

 

[Shermana]

Do you believe that both the Americas and Australia should be returned to the natives and the current residents kicked out?

Indeed. We should ask these anti-Zionists the same thing.

Somehow I have a feeling they wouldn't want the same thing they're asking from Israel for their own homes. Just sayin'.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The farthest I can trace back would be the Scots from Moray, hence de Moravia. That would be around 1296 CE.

I meant what Native American tribe... You said you were Native American. Having a European ancestor that moved here before the US was a country doesn't make you a Native. LOL I think you need to look at the definition of Native American.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Funny you should dodge the point.

Deplorable, but nothing close to what happened to the Palestinians. More like what happened to the Jews. If the Native Americans violently attacked the colonists, would you say the Colonists weren't right to defend themselves? The two situations aren't remotely comparable in that particular regard, since the Jews didn't start the hostilities. The Jews BOUGHT the land. The Arabs attacked them and tried to be "Indian givers". You should consider learning the actual history objectively (Not just from the Palestinian sites that even deny the Jews buying the land or ignore anything that's remotely pro-Jewish) before you try to throw your full weight into this. For some strange reason, people without any inkling of what actually went down feel the urge to participate as if they know all the facts.

Now answer the question: If Native Americans set up shop, demanded your house and asked you to leave, what would you do? Claim it's been too long to matter?

1. Native Americans did attack colonists and settlers. Justifiably so.
2. The land currently being taken was not bought.
3. "Indian Givers" is a pejorative and an insult to Native Americans.
4. At issue is the current treatment of Arabs living in Israel and occupied lands.

 

[Shermana]

1. Native Americans did attack colonists and settlers. Justifiably so.
2. The land currently being taken was not bought.
3. "Indian Givers" is a pejorative and an insult to Native Americans.
4. At issue is the current treatment of Arabs living in Israel and occupied lands.

1. Yes, "Justifiably so". So were the Colonists supposed to submit to being scalped and not fight back? Considering the Jews are truly the "Native Americans" in this case since they have a 1600 year lead on the Arabs and never were completely driven out, are they not justified in fighting back against the Arab squatters and imperialists? Or do the terms change because a certain number of centuries have gone by?

2. The land currently being "Taken" was not the Palestinians' to begin with, and it was taken from JORDAN in defensive war, who took it from...no one in 1948, and the Palestinians want all the land that Israel bought in the first place in addition to land that was never legally "theirs" in any sense of the term. There is no reason to conclude that Judea-Samaria is "their land" or that Israel is currently "taking land" that wasn't already "taken" in 1967 from JORDAN.

3. It certainly is, and I even used it in a thread where a person of Native American heritage is on my side on this debate, with quotation marks added for a reason. But the meaning of the phrase remains the same. Maybe we should change it to "Arab givers", since they did in fact try to take by force the land that the Jews bought.

4. Okay, and we've established that they were in violation of zoning laws and building codes. Any other country would do the same. Especially to those living under allegiance to violent separatist groups who refuse to acknowledge that country's sovereignty. Why single out Israel?

 

[nash8]

Yes, let's just stereotype all Semitic peoples!

LOL, how is this stereotyping all semetic peoples. I didn't say that all semetic people are either oil sheiks or bankers.

In all honesty, I was trying to make the point that they probably get along very well despite the fact that they are of opposing ethno-religious groups according to the common mans perspective.

More specifically, I was trying to make the point that I don't believe that these two particular groups of "semetic people" hold dear to any of the ideas that any of us have been arguing in this entire thread, or any religious/ethnic superiority in general for that matter. And these ideals of one religions/ethnic groups right to a specific piece of land etc, are irrelevant to them. And if the people that are fighting over this land realized this, and turned their agression towards the elite instead of fighting amonst themselves, then everyone would be a lot better off.

 

[Monotheist 101]

2. The land currently being "Taken" was not the Palestinians' to begin with, and it was taken from JORDAN in defensive war, who took it from...no one in 1948,

Wait what happened to the Ottomons..I doubt the Jordanian took it from "no one"

 

[tumbleweed41]

1. Yes, "Justifiably so". So were the Colonists supposed to submit to being scalped and not fight back? Considering the Jews are truly the "Native Americans" in this case since they have a 1600 year lead on the Arabs and never were completely driven out, are they not justified in fighting back against the Arab squatters and imperialists? Or do the terms change because a certain number of centuries have gone by?

2. The land currently being "Taken" was not the Palestinians' to begin with, and it was taken from JORDAN in defensive war, who took it from...no one in 1948, and the Palestinians want all the land that Israel bought in the first place in addition to land that was never legally "theirs" in any sense of the term. There is no reason to conclude that Judea-Samaria is "their land" or that Israel is currently "taking land" that wasn't already "taken" in 1967 from JORDAN.

3. It certainly is, and I even used it in a thread where a person of Native American heritage is on my side on this debate, with quotation marks added for a reason. But the meaning of the phrase remains the same. Maybe we should change it to "Arab givers", since they did in fact try to take by force the land that the Jews bought.

4. Okay, and we've established that they were in violation of zoning laws and building codes. Any other country would do the same. Especially to those living under allegiance to violent separatist groups who refuse to acknowledge that country's sovereignty. Why single out Israel?

Revisionist history form Israel to America.
Tired of dealing with the denial. I think I have made my POV clear to all those not blinded by hatred of the "other".

 

[Shermana]

Revisionist history form Israel to America.
Tired of dealing with the denial. I think I have made my POV clear to all those not blinded by hatred of the "other".

Revisionist history? So that's your way of avoiding the issues? Calling it revisionist history and facepalming? Sheesh I talk to Palestinians themselves who try harder than that and at least try to debate. By all means, explain what's so revisionist. Yes, I'm tired of dealing with denial too. Such as the denial and inability to directly answer questions that you've been given. I guess we can just accuse each other of being in denial, except I'll actually back my claim about the history. You've made your POV clear that you are militantly ignorant about the situation you feel the gall to interject your views on and want your own revisionist history and are unwilling to address issues that poke holes in your POV. Basically, anyone who disagrees with your revisionist view of events must be revisionist. We can just call each other revisionist all day, except I will actually address questions and comments to my view, instead of just calling it "Revisionist" and claiming the other person is in denial. Check yourself about this denial thing. Unless I hear back from you on your hit and run claim of "Revisionist history" and want to substantiate, I think you've made it clear that you're not interested in being taken seriously. Thank you for your time though. It's been fun.

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Revisionist history? So that's your way of avoiding the issues? Calling it revisionist history and facepalming? Sheesh I talk to Palestinians themselves who try harder than that and at least try to debate. By all means, explain what's so revisionist. Yes, I'm tired of dealing with denial too. Such as the denial and inability to directly answer questions that you've been given. I guess we can just accuse each other of being in denial, except I'll actually back my claim about the history. You've made your POV clear that you are militantly ignorant about the situation you feel the gall to interject your views on and want your own revisionist history and are unwilling to address issues that poke holes in your POV. Basically, anyone who disagrees with your revisionist view of events must be revisionist. We can just call each other revisionist all day, except I will actually address questions and comments to my view, instead of just calling it "Revisionist" and claiming the other person is in denial. Check yourself about this denial thing. Unless I hear back from you on your hit and run claim of "Revisionist history" and want to substantiate, I think you've made it clear that you're not interested in being taken seriously. Thank you for your time though. It's been fun.

Sometimes there is just no debating with people who are so set in their ways they can't see their own hypocrisy.

Good on you for toughing it out on these forums.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Sometimes there is just no debating with people who are so set in their ways they can't see their own hypocrisy.

Not saying the pro-Zionist crowd has been doing just that in this thread, but... the pro-Zionist crowd has been doing just that in this thread.

 

[Shermana]

Not saying the pro-Zionist crowd has been doing just that in this thread, but... the pro-Zionist crowd has been doing just that in this thread.

By all means, point to an example.