Zionism

[Sha'irullah]

Hence, we can talk all day about what we're entitled to, but at the end of the day, it's about fighting the amoral people until they give in.

Words are meaningless. The sword is mightier than the pen. Much mightier.

WRONG! The Shipon 83mm anti-armor missile ptojection system is far more mightier then either pen or sword. Did I mention itis homemade in Israel?
I suggest you move into the 21 century and upgrade your weaponry bro

 

[Sha'irullah]

The problem is that the arabs there don't want peace.

Israel has gone out of it's way to make peace. However, they have an unwilling partner.

The arab idea of peace is the destruction of Israel.

Israel was a former British colony. The arab countries never accepted the partition.

The first day of Israel's independance they invaded.

They lost, they need to deal with it.

As of now it seems Israel is tired of making any peaceful efforts. Obama has been stepping in to try and influence this again but he doe snot know the truth.
Filisrinians nor the Arabs yet alone Muslims involved in this matter want peace. They want an Islamiyyah unity in the Middle Eastern territory and the expulsion of Western presence

 

[Shermana]

WRONG! The Shipon 83mm anti-armor missile ptojection system is far more mightier then either pen or sword. Did I mention itis homemade in Israel?
I suggest you move into the 21 century and upgrade your weaponry bro

See, this is the problem with the modern times. No one wants to fight like a man anymore! All this killing from range. The Greeks didn't like Archers and ranged weapons because it wasn't honorable, same with the Medieval Knights, and I completely agree. And look, now all we have is ranged weapons! We have a bayonet here and there, but only as a last resort.

Bring back the swords and axes I say! Even pens!

 

[1robin]

I never claimed that the Palestinians, or anyone that argues for Palestine, share my feelings on the issue. Nor do I make any kind of argument FOR the Palestinians; only AGAINST Jewish entitlement to Israel. I'm not saying the Israelis should pack up and leave then give the Palestinians their land back. I'm saying they should say that Israel is theirs because they conquered it, not because they have some divine right to the land.

I am not commenting on what you claim but on why you claim it. If might is the arbiter of land then on what basis do you claim Israel should even give back the land that is disputed which they took by force. I am also saying that since Israel could take over most of the Middle East would you then claim they have the right to it? The argumentation is just unusual and even more on Israel's side than any birth right or mandate argument. Israel has all the might why are you using what they have a monopoly on as an argument for Palestine?

 

[1robin]

As of now it seems Israel is tired of making any peaceful efforts. Obama has been stepping in to try and influence this again but he doe snot know the truth.
Filisrinians nor the Arabs yet alone Muslims involved in this matter want peace. They want an Islamiyyah unity in the Middle Eastern territory and the expulsion of Western presence

It is a wonder to me especially since Obama is selling them out that they have not just said the heck with it and took over the middle east. They have far more restraint that even most Christians I know.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I am not commenting on what you claim but on why you claim it. If might is the arbiter of land then on what basis do you claim Israel should even give back the land that is disputed which they took by force. I am also saying that since Israel could take over most of the Middle East would you then claim they have the right to it? The argumentation is just unusual and even more on Israel's side than any birth right or mandate argument. Israel has all the might why are you using what they have a monopoly on as an argument for Palestine?

I'm not arguing FOR Palestine, I'm arguing AGAINST Zionist entitlement. I never said Israel should give the land back, just that they should admit to being conquerors rather than saying they have in some way been wronged and deserve the land by right. And yes, if the Israelis take over the entire Middle East I'm not going to try and stop them or speak out against it, as long as they don't make the ridiculous claim that it belonged to them the whole time by right.

 

[1robin]

I'm not arguing FOR Palestine, I'm arguing AGAINST Zionist entitlement. I never said Israel should give the land back, just that they should admit to being conquerors rather than saying they have in some way been wronged and deserve the land by right. And yes, if the Israelis take over the entire Middle East I'm not going to try and stop them or speak out against it, as long as they don't make the ridiculous claim that it belonged to them the whole time by right.

That is such an unusual stance that I will not reply until later. I am out of time so have a good one. BTW I have never heard a Jew say they deserved Israel because of the holocaust. They deserve the land IMO because God gave it to them but on a secular level they have legal right by UN mandate. That is the only standard that matters. Palestine refused their mandate and so have no rights but yet Israel has never attempted to take what they have beyond what is used to kill Jews from.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

That is such an unusual stance that I will not reply until later. I am out of time so have a good one. BTW I have never heard a Jew say they deserved Israel because of the holocaust. They deserve the land IMO because God gave it to them but on a secular level they have legal right by UN mandate. That is the only standard that matters. Palestine refused their mandate and so have no rights but yet Israel has never attempted to take what they have beyond what is used to kill Jews from.

The Palestinians have a duty to refuse the mandate and fight for their homes, in my opinion. To roll over and accept an invasion because a piece of paper says you have to is extremely weak. And I have definitely heard more than a few Jews say the holocaust entitles them to a country.

EDIT: I said "right" at first, but it wasn't the right word to express my point

 

[Sha'irullah]

It is a wonder to me especially since Obama is selling them out that they have not just said the heck with it and took over the middle east. They have far more restraint that even most Christians I know.

Obama has many good intentions but the thing is he is a liberal and despite his economics which I love and his other foreign successes his social issues are by far pitiful. Liberals are more like corporations CEO's that actually have fairness but just like a corporation they have no concept of how people actually feel.

Obama like many liberals just look at both parties and say "lets compromise". Compromising is good and Democrats have done it well over the years while Republicans are pitiful at achieving anything but this issue is something I call quackery upon.

Obama believes everybody has rights and does not draw the line on knowledge but on emotional pity. Yes I would pity a people who are oppressed.................until I dig through history and find out THEY ARE THE OPPRESSORS!
Obama knows nothing on Israeli history and this may have been a result of his schooling in Indonesia. Obama was never a Muslim and took after his mother while his fathers were more of a mystery to him. Without a doubt some of his views possibly result from this.
He sympathizes with both parties sadly.

 

[Juhurka]

For or Against?

I am opposed to Zionism for 2 reasons:

1)The only reason the Jews were given Israel was because they were oppressed by the Nazis. I find it hypocritical that they would turn around and do essentially the same thing to the Palestinians.

2)Zionism claims that Israel belongs to the Jews by right of birth, but the majority of displaced Jews in Israel are of European descent and just happen to follow the Jewish religion. They have no more of a "blood" claim to Israel than I do.

I am new on this forum but I think you are confused, can you define Zionism? only, after properly defining what Zionism is you can have an argument, so far you have not done that and as a result your argument is worthless as it is based on nothing but your perception.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I am new on this forum but I think you are confused, can you define Zionism? only, after properly defining what Zionism is you can have an argument, so far you have not done that and as a result your argument is worthless as it is based on nothing but your perception.

You should probably keep reading...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Defenders of Zionism say it is a national liberation movement for the repatriation of a dispersed socio-religious group to what they see as an abandoned homeland millennia before

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Here's your definition

 

[CMike]

Zionism is the desire for the jewish homeland of Israel.

 

[PastorClark]

I never said I was superior to you, just that your grammar sucks.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

Again if money had no value, you couldn't buy anything with it. Money has no STANDARD, but it still has VALUE because you can buy things with it, as I've already said. This isn't a hard concept to understand. Go to the grocery store and try to pay them with a gold chain, they'll look at you like you're crazy.

I never said money has no value, I'm talking about paper currency has no real value. Since its not made of gold or silver It's only valuable because the government said so. At one point in time Gold and silver wasn't of value, until someone made it valuable. And so, this is where paper currency comes in having no value, its only valuable because the people believes it to be of value.

Name one animal that's capable of taking our homes from us and wiping out our species. If you can't, that definitely makes us superior.

This is not what i'm referring to, what i'm Actually referring to, is that humans don't owned this planet. The animals have more rights to this planet then we humans, given the fact that animals was here first. Let me more put it in a more inform terms. The human race wasn't here first, so therefore we're just guest to this planet. If we was here first, then only then humans would have legal rights to the planet. Now is that more clearer to you.

never said we were the only life in the universe, just the superior life form on Earth.

Really, if we're such a superior race, then why don't we fly, why don't we have immortality, why can't we breath under water by nature. Why do we make irrational choices, such as killing humans, killing animals, making war with a different continent. Why haven't we got out of this debt, matter of fact why are we in debt in the first place. No my friend, we're nowhere near superior then animals.

Never let your ego control you, you control it not the other way around.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I never said money has no value, I'm talking about paper currency has no real value. Since its not made of gold or silver It's only valuable because the government said so. At one point in time Gold and silver wasn't of value, until someone made it valuable. And so, this is where paper currency comes in having no value, its only valuable because the people believes it to be of value.

1)Paper money does have value... If it didn't, you couldn't buy anything with it.
2)If our money only had the value "the government" said it does, it wouldn't be worth anything in another country. I'll have you know the dollar works just fine outside the country
3)Our government doesn't even make our money; the Federal Reserve does. The Federal Reserve is a private company.
4)Gold used to be the STANDARD for our money's value, meaning our money was worth whatever gold was on the market. I think you're confusing value with the backing of a standard.
Do some research on money before you attempt to teach me about it...

This is not what i'm referring to, what i'm Actually referring to, is that humans don't owned this planet. The animals have more rights to this planet then we humans, given the fact that animals was here first. Let me more put it in a more inform terms. The human race wasn't here first, so therefore we're just guest to this planet. If we was here first, then only then humans would have legal rights to the planet. Now is that more clearer to you.

Inform terms?:sarcastic... Informing people requires that you be informed...
1)We ARE animals, so even by your flawed logic this is still our planet
2)No living thing has a "legal right" to any land, let alone the whole planet... We own the planet because no other animal is strong or evolved enough to keep us from doing what we want to with it. Is that more CLEAR to you?

Really, if we're such a superior race, then why don't we fly, why don't we have immortality, why can't we breath under water by nature. Why do we make irrational choices, such as killing humans, killing animals, making war with a different continent. Why haven't we got out of this debt, matter of fact why are we in debt in the first place. No my friend, we're nowhere near superior then animals.

... Seriously? Is this really the standard you're putting on superiority? Immortality? Really? Our superiority comes from technology. We weren't able to fly like birds so we built airplanes. We couldn't breathe underwater so we invented scuba gear and submarines. We couldn't kill larger, stronger animals with our hands, so we invented weapons. We build skyscrapers and have TV. You're using a computer to communicate with a stranger miles and miles away via the internet... What other life form on this planet can do that?

Never let your ego control you, you control it not the other way around.

I am my ego... It's not some outside force to be controlled.

 

[PastorClark]

Whats the different between, "paper money" and "writing paper", for me i see no differences in the two.

No living thing has a "legal right" to any land, let alone the whole planet... We own the planet because no other animal is strong or evolved enough to keep us from doing what we want to with it. Is that more CLEAR to you?

You just contradict yourself there, by saying.

No living thing has a "legal right" to any land, let alone the whole planet

follow by.

We own the planet because no other animal is strong or evolved enough to keep us from doing what we want to with it.

We ARE animals, so even by your flawed logic this is still our planet

This may be our home planet, as far as we're aware. But my agreement lies on the fact that we humans wasn't here first, are you aware of the first come and first served term.

Our government doesn't even make our money; the Federal Reserve does. The Federal Reserve is a private company.

No the Federal Reserve isn't a private company, it is independent entity within the government, so thereby it isn't owned by anyone.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Whats the different between, "paper money" and "writing paper", for me i see no differences in the two.

You can't buy anything with notebook paper; that's the difference...

You just contradict yourself there

How is that a contradiction? Just because you own something doesn't mean you have a right to it. Somebody can take it from you...

This may be our home planet, as far as we're aware. But my agreement lies on the fact that we humans wasn't here first, are you aware of the first come and first served term.

1)This is our home planet because we live on it...
2)If you're going by "first come, first served", this planet belongs to single-celled bacteria.

 

[PastorClark]

You can't buy anything with notebook paper; that's the difference...

Come on now, i'm asking you to specifies between the two.

How is that a contradiction? Just because you own something doesn't mean you have a right to it. Somebody can take it from you...

So i can just go straight up to you, and proceed on cutting your legs and arms off. Because you have no rights to them, would this be correct by your logic?

1)This is our home planet because we live on it...
2)If you're going by "first come, first served", this planet belongs to single-celled bacteria.

The planet would belong to rock, seeing that the single-celled bacteria came after the rock was formed.

 

[Caladan]

1)The only reason the Jews were given Israel was because they were oppressed by the Nazis. I find it hypocritical that they would turn around and do essentially the same thing to the Palestinians.

Jewish pioneers began to work the land of Israel already in the 19th century. Legally buying land and drying swamps when Palestine was under Ottoman administration. The aftermath of WWII only came many decades later.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian issue, comparing it to the Jews in WWII has become nothing but a joke. The Jews were German and European civilians who were robbed of their civilian identity and systematically annihilated with a death tolls in the millions. On the other hand the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine competed for the land, and after the Arab rejection of sharing the land the two sides fought for it with the Arab side being backed by several armies of the Arab states. Nothing to compare to the Jews and the Nazis. In addition the death toll of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict counts at about 15,000 casualties in over 60 years Israelis and Palestinians combined. The Arabs who were later began to be defined as 'Palestinians' never administrated themselves and lived under Turkish rule, then British rule, and then Egyptian and Jordanian military rule, with those Arabs who stayed in Israel after the first Israeli-Arab war receiving Israeli citizenship from the State of Israel.
So please, check the background before you try to make demagogic statements about the Nazis, WWII, or the current unrelated Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2)Zionism claims that Israel belongs to the Jews by right of birth, but the majority of displaced Jews in Israel are of European descent and just happen to follow the Jewish religion. They have no more of a "blood" claim to Israel than I do.

I always wonder what's the obsession with 'race'. Ashkenazi Jews, or European Jews have always been considered a Jewish ethnicity, so please lets not try to reinvent history when it's comfortable for us.

Just like many other dozens of Arab Muslim states were established in the aftermath of the postcolonial Middle East, the UN also allowed the creation of one Jewish state. And while there are still religious and ethnic minorities who are largely discriminated or actively persecuted in the Arab Muslim states, the Jewish state has been a new beginning of independence and self governing for Jews of various regions including Europe and the Middle East.
If we compare that the to nations around Israel, like Syria where different sects are now massacring each other, or to Lebanon were the same has been happening for decades, or Jordan where Jordanians and Palestinians fought each other in a civil war, or Egypt which has had several revolutions and still counting... then Israel is possibly the only successful postcolonial experiment in the region.

 

[Caladan]

You can say something belongs to you until you're blue in the face, you're not going to get it back until you fight for it... The Jews have no more right to Israel than the Japanese do. If they want Israel, they're going to have to fight to keep it; nobody is entitled to any land by birth.

I'm not sure you got the memo, the Jews have won Israel a hundred times over. After all, aren't you the one comparing a small state to the Third Reich? perhaps the most powerful empire in the history of the world?