Zionism

[Levite]

To say that jews have been defending that land in the middle east for 3,000 years is an ignorant statement that leaves out 1850 years were there were practically no jews anywhere near isreal.

Without attempting to defend the entirety of the previous poster's comments, it is nonetheless worth pointing out that, though there was a stretch between around 300 or 400 CE and the beginning of the 20th century where Jews made up the minority of the population of the Land of Israel, there were always some Jewish communities left there. There was never a time when there were no Jews in Israel. And during that time, there were sizable Jewish communities in Egypt, what is today Syria and Lebanon, and other parts of the Middle East. It is simply historically inaccurate to say that there were 1850 years when there were practically no Jews anywhere near Israel.

 

[1robin]

Without attempting to defend the entirety of the previous poster's comments, it is nonetheless worth pointing out that, though there was a stretch between around 300 or 400 CE and the beginning of the 20th century where Jews made up the minority of the population of the Land of Israel, there were always some Jewish communities left there. There was never a time when there were no Jews in Israel. And during that time, there were sizable Jewish communities in Egypt, what is today Syria and Lebanon, and other parts of the Middle East. It is simply historically inaccurate to say that there was 1850 when there were practically no Jews anywhere near Israel.

There has been a Jewish presence in Israel for more than 3000 years. I cannot tell exactly what your saying. What I bolded seems to contradict what was not.

 

[Levite]

There has been a Jewish presence in Israel for more than 3000 years. I cannot tell exactly what your saying. What I bolded seems to contradict what was not.

Yes, I know. That is, in fact, precisely what I was saying.

 

[Flankerl]

Why do i have this deep and inextinguishable dislike(well actually i hate it) for pro zionistic christians?

Its just so... meh.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Without attempting to defend the entirety of the previous poster's comments, it is nonetheless worth pointing out that, though there was a stretch between around 300 or 400 CE and the beginning of the 20th century where Jews made up the minority of the population of the Land of Israel, there were always some Jewish communities left there. There was never a time when there were no Jews in Israel. And during that time, there were sizable Jewish communities in Egypt, what is today Syria and Lebanon, and other parts of the Middle East. It is simply historically inaccurate to say that there were 1850 years when there were practically no Jews anywhere near Israel.

I stand corrected, thanks. But it does remain that, as a political force, the absence is significant.

For the record, I don't support anyone throwing anyone out of their homes. The way I see it the establishment of Isreal last century was an atrocity. It does not excuse current atrocities any more than it is excused by previous atrocities. If I were a jew living in israel, I wouldn't vacate. And if I were a palastinian I wouldn't stop fighting.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

There has been a Jewish presence in Israel for more than 3000 years. I cannot tell exactly what your saying. What I bolded seems to contradict what was not.

A presence yes. A meaningful presence in any politcal or military sense, no. There has also been an african, european, and asian presence there for 1000s of years. "A presense" does not have any 'practical significance' is what I should have said.

 

[Levite]

I stand corrected, thanks. But it does remain that, as a political force, the absence is significant.

For the record, I don't support anyone throwing anyone out of their homes. The way I see it the establishment of Isreal last century was an atrocity. It does not excuse current atrocities any more than it is excused by previous atrocities. If I were a jew living in israel, I wouldn't vacate. And if I were a palastinian I wouldn't stop fighting.

Either the establishment of the State of Israel was not an atrocity, or the establishment of all independent states are atrocities, since the establishment of the State of Israel was not significantly different from any other establishment of an independent state.

You may certainly choose to define every establishment of an independent state as an atrocity. But I personally think that devalues the word enough to render it meaningless, and thus a moot point.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Either the establishment of the State of Israel was not an atrocity, or the establishment of all independent states are atrocities, since the establishment of the State of Israel was not significantly different from any other establishment of an independent state.

You may certainly choose to define every establishment of an independent state as an atrocity. But I personally think that devalues the word enough to render it meaningless, and thus a moot point.

You can't have winners without losers.

 

[Levite]

You can't have winners without losers.

I think the "winner/loser" paradigm is unnecessarily shallow and black-and-white for application to most real-world sociopolitical situations. But if it were applied here, having a winner and a loser simply does not equal the perpetration of an atrocity, unless every conflict of every kind is defined as an atrocity. Which, again, would devalue the word into essential meaninglessness.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I think the "winner/loser" paradigm is unnecessarily shallow and black-and-white for application to most real-world sociopolitical situations. But if it were applied here, having a winner and a loser simply does not equal the perpetration of an atrocity, unless every conflict of every kind is defined as an atrocity. Which, again, would devalue the word into essential meaninglessness.

I think the word atrocity means what it means. Either everything is an atrocity or nothing is? Rejected. An atrocity is an atrocity. Word games like 'using the word devalues the word' are nothing more than red-herrings.

Before the establishment of israel as an independent state, it was the Jewish Agency in charge of illegle settlement and paying the british overlords to look the other way. It was the Haganah that was the terrorist organisation in charge of killing innocents and scarring arabs out of the few prime locations. Yes, the word atrocity might get used more often than one would like. I'd hate to devalue the word 'black' by sticking it to every kettle.

 

[Moishe3rd]

If one understands anything of pre-history, history, or human nature, it should be obvious that there is not a square inch of the Earth controlled by someone who has a 'right' to it. Britian, Uganda, China, Australia, Hondurous, etc. etc. all lands have been taken, lost, and taken again. The jews killed all the inhabitants to take the land. Before that it was controlled by babylonians, egyptians, assyrians, etc., etc. and since then it has been controlled by greeks, romans, mongols, moors, and turks.

Someone says the britan, the rightful authority...LMAO what a joke! They stole the land from turkish athority only 30 years before the mandates.

Israel has the right by conquest? Might as well admit that arab's have the right to keep fighting to take control again.

I think displacing the palastinians and mandating the land to Isreal was a cold, heartless, political and economic ploy that only a monster could somehow see as a moral imperative.

I also think the same applies to the treatment of the jews by the nazis, and what happened to native americans.

No one has a birth right to own or controll land. Everyone has a right to struggle and fight for land. If there were a god we wouldn't have these issues because everyone would be in their place. But on this earth you have what you hold, and if you can't hold it you have no right to it.

Are you including yourself in this equation?
Are you "struggling" or "holding" Your Land?
Either way, what makes your struggle or holding onto your land different than anyone else.
Why bother castigating Israel or anyone for the principles that you appear to believe in which are the right to struggle to keep land or just to hold on to what you have?

 

[Moishe3rd]

Your views are insainly inconsistent. You talk about how arab's, turks, british had no authority, yet you previously listed being given the land by the righful authority (briton) as one of the reasons israel has a right to the land. You say no one has right to speak for god, then you say god agrees with you (what arrogance). You say I condemn a side for taking land and then you say I should not object when someone fights me for my land.

I recommend you type up a DRAFT response, read through it a few times. Maybe even read it outloud.

I would also like to point out that nowhere did I say isreal should give up what they have.

Mostly I'm absolutly amazed how little you know of native americans. Most certainly did not come from Canada. In fact they filled the continents of both North and South America all the way from Alaska to Patagonia and southern Chilie. And to say that they were worse than street gangs somehow makes me feel you really have very little to offer in the way of thoughtful discourse. Yes they were savage, they practiced war, and they offered nothing in return. So more or less you are saying they were just like the europeans, or asians, or africans, or jews, or arabs, or anybody else.

To say that jews have been defending that land in the middle east for 3,000 years is an ignorant statement that leaves out 1850 years were there were practically no jews anywhere near isreal.

1) You write about the original native immigrants to the Americas as if they were some kind of unified peoples. They weren't. They were, indeed, just like every other people or culture that has migrated from place to place over the last ten or twenty thousand years. They conquered and enslaved and tortured and destroyed previous inhabitants and each other just as every culture and people have throughout history (except, admittedly speaking, the previous native inhabitants of the Americas, believed in physical torture as a high art form that enhanced the bravery of their enemies, making their use of torture more prevalent than in their later European conquerors)

2) The Jews have indeed had a continuous presence in the Land of Israel for over 3,000 years. There was a hiatus from Jerusalem for all of maybe a total of 300 years during that time when Jews were slaughtered by the various peoples who conquered Jerusalem and forbidden to live there at those times but, other than that, there has also been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem, the acknowledged heart of Israel, for over 3,000 years.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I stand corrected, thanks. But it does remain that, as a political force, the absence is significant.

For the record, I don't support anyone throwing anyone out of their homes. The way I see it the establishment of Isreal last century was an atrocity. It does not excuse current atrocities any more than it is excused by previous atrocities. If I were a jew living in israel, I wouldn't vacate. And if I were a palastinian I wouldn't stop fighting.

Based on your rather prevaricating response that "everybody" should fight or stay, "everybody" is or has been committing your definitions of "atrocities" for all of history.
Why single out Israel or Zionists for your disapprobation?
I happen to disagree with your assessment regarding the establishment of Israel and your contention that everybody should keep on fighting but, from your point of view, what does it matter?

 

[Moishe3rd]

I think the word atrocity means what it means. Either everything is an atrocity or nothing is? Rejected. An atrocity is an atrocity. Word games like 'using the word devalues the word' are nothing more than red-herrings.

Before the establishment of israel as an independent state, it was the Jewish Agency in charge of illegle settlement and paying the british overlords to look the other way. It was the Haganah that was the terrorist organisation in charge of killing innocents and scarring arabs out of the few prime locations. Yes, the word atrocity might get used more often than one would like. I'd hate to devalue the word 'black' by sticking it to every kettle.

You don't appear to have a very good grasp on history.
You are now claiming that (sic) "it was the Jewish Agency in charge of illegle settlement and paying the british overlords to look the other way."
This is inaccurate and untrue.
I would suggest you study some history on the matter and reassess your point of view.

And, you also claimed that (sic) "It was the Haganah that was the terrorist organisation in charge of killing innocents and scarring arabs out of the few prime locations."
This is also inaccurate and untrue. More study is needed on your part.
It is not hard to learn basic facts regarding the establishment of the State of Israel and the establishment of the Haganah.
You might also look into your "prime locations" notion which, of course, is also untrue.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Are you including yourself in this equation?
Are you "struggling" or "holding" Your Land?
Either way, what makes your struggle or holding onto your land different than anyone else.
Why bother castigating Israel or anyone for the principles that you appear to believe in which are the right to struggle to keep land or just to hold on to what you have?

No I am not struggling to keep my land, other than complaining about taxes.

I don't recall castigating Israel of anyone else. I joined the conversation to speak against the idea that there is some god-given born-with right to remove anyone else from the land.

I don't see any difference in how Israel was established with just about any other county, i.e. when a people become established, someone else gets booted.

It's the idea, very similar to 'manifest destiny,' that somehow destroying another tribe is ok because god wants us to. I call BS on that!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

1) You write about the original native immigrants to the Americas as if they were some kind of unified peoples. They weren't. They were, indeed, just like every other people or culture that has migrated from place to place over the last ten or twenty thousand years. They conquered and enslaved and tortured and destroyed previous inhabitants and each other just as every culture and people have throughout history (except, admittedly speaking, the previous native inhabitants of the Americas, believed in physical torture as a high art form that enhanced the bravery of their enemies, making their use of torture more prevalent than in their later European conquerors)

2) The Jews have indeed had a continuous presence in the Land of Israel for over 3,000 years. There was a hiatus from Jerusalem for all of maybe a total of 300 years during that time when Jews were slaughtered by the various peoples who conquered Jerusalem and forbidden to live there at those times but, other than that, there has also been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem, the acknowledged heart of Israel, for over 3,000 years.

You will have to point out where I indicate the native americans were somehow unified over 2 continents. And as you point out, one can say the europeans stole the americas from them, but in fact they stole it from each other countless times. The inca committed wholesale genocide. Comanche pushed a lot of prairie tribes into the hills. Apache murdered Comanche. and so on. I think, and you seem to be guilty of this as well, when we say 'native american' it seems to indicate we are speaking of every one in general.

 

[Moishe3rd]

No I am not struggling to keep my land, other than complaining about taxes.

I don't recall castigating Israel of anyone else. I joined the conversation to speak against the idea that there is some god-given born-with right to remove anyone else from the land.

I don't see any difference in how Israel was established with just about any other county, i.e. when a people become established, someone else gets booted.

It's the idea, very similar to 'manifest destiny,' that somehow destroying another tribe is ok because god wants us to. I call BS on that!

As a Jew who believes in doing what G-d Commands us to do, I don't know of any Commandment from G-d that has told either Jews or Israelis to "boot" anyone off of their land for the last 3,000 years or so.
So, I never argue that G-d commands Jews or Israelis to do anything regarding the establishment of the Jewish, albeit secular, State of Israel.
However, I strongly approve of the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel and I favor the Arabs called Palestinians coming to grips with the idea that they are NEVER going to regain or own what they claim is "their land."
History demonstrates that even if Israel were not to exist, some other Arab tribe or despot would claim the land that the "Palestinians" seem to believe is theirs...

 

[Moishe3rd]

You will have to point out where I indicate the native americans were somehow unified over 2 continents. And as you point out, one can say the europeans stole the americas from them, but in fact they stole it from each other countless times. The inca committed wholesale genocide. Comanche pushed a lot of prairie tribes into the hills. Apache murdered Comanche. and so on. I think, and you seem to be guilty of this as well, when we say 'native american' it seems to indicate we are speaking of every one in general.

Okay.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Based on your rather prevaricating response that "everybody" should fight or stay, "everybody" is or has been committing your definitions of "atrocities" for all of history.
Why single out Israel or Zionists for your disapprobation?
I happen to disagree with your assessment regarding the establishment of Israel and your contention that everybody should keep on fighting but, from your point of view, what does it matter?

My point of view is that if there was any chance of peace, it was destroyed when a people were disenfranchised and evicted from their homeland. As long as israel is there and Palestinians are there, how can there be peace? Peace comes when one side is made irrelevant, as jews were irrelevant in the middle-east for the better part of the past 2000 years.

How do you expect a jew, born and raised in israel, to give up. How do you expect a Palestinian, thrown off their land, to give up? I don't like fighting and war, but to expect peace is like asking one side or the other to fall off the face of the earth. There hasn't been a day's peace since israel was established. You can't take everything a people have and wonder why they don't just accept it.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You don't appear to have a very good grasp on history.
You are now claiming that (sic) "it was the Jewish Agency in charge of illegle settlement and paying the british overlords to look the other way."
This is inaccurate and untrue.
I would suggest you study some history on the matter and reassess your point of view.

And, you also claimed that (sic) "It was the Haganah that was the terrorist organisation in charge of killing innocents and scarring arabs out of the few prime locations."
This is also inaccurate and untrue. More study is needed on your part.
It is not hard to learn basic facts regarding the establishment of the State of Israel and the establishment of the Haganah.
You might also look into your "prime locations" notion which, of course, is also untrue.

I'll look into it further. Perhaps you'd care to point me to a reliable source.