Zionism

[Leftimies]

Seeing how many people would like to see Jews leave Israel, I suppose we can all agree on white americans returning to Europe (white population of USA, Canada, Mexico, Argentine, Brazil), Australians and New Zealanders/Kiwis returning to Europe, Russia dismantling its Siberian possessions, Japanese leaving Ryukyu lands (Okinawa) and Ainu lands (Hokkaido), China giving Tibet and Xianjiang and Outer Mongolia independence, Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway) giving Sami people their own country and Denmark giving up Greenland.

Does any one of you come from reality? This would not happen, yet it is also required from anti-Zionist logic. Where is the critique towards these policies? Why don't you address it? Especially since Tibet actually used to be its own empire in the past, as Ryukyu kingdom used to be as well. Both great, influential regional powers, stripped of it all - yet they do not complain. Then we have Palestine...little pretentious people who never had a state and make a big, violent deal of it.

I fail to see coherence in this subject. Why is it so visible in media? Why does it matter? Why do people kill each other over it? Can someone give me rational, unbiased, factual answer? Why is nationalism on either side preferable?

edit: obviously Tibet complains. it still works for Ryukyu kingdom and Ainu lands. As well as the people of former Siberian khanates.

 

[Levite]

Much like the rest of the world.

What I am trying to understand here is, what gives the Jews more right to this land than anyone else, other than conquest and occupation?

We never relinquished our claim to the land. We made no secret of that: rather, we openly said to all and sundry that we intended and wanted to go back, and would do so as soon as we had the strength and ability to do so. For 1500-odd years, we were absolutely clear on that.

It's our homeland. The fact that others were squatting in it while we were forced out of it doesn't change that. (And had the non-Jews living there in 1948 simply not opposed the creation of the State of Israel, and accepted Israeli citizenship when they had the opportunity, on the moment Israel came into being, they would still be living there peacefully.) Time only erases a claim to a land if the claim is not actively being perpetuated, or if the people who made the claim no longer exist.

 

[tumbleweed41]

We never relinquished our claim to the land. We made no secret of that: rather, we openly said to all and sundry that we intended and wanted to go back, and would do so as soon as we had the strength and ability to do so. For 1500-odd years, we were absolutely clear on that.

It's our homeland. The fact that others were squatting in it while we were forced out of it doesn't change that. (And had the non-Jews living there in 1948 simply not opposed the creation of the State of Israel, and accepted Israeli citizenship when they had the opportunity, on the moment Israel came into being, they would still be living there peacefully.) Time only erases a claim to a land if the claim is not actively being perpetuated, or if the people who made the claim no longer exist.

Does this mean the claim extends to all lands once held by Israel and Judah?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Seeing how many people would like to see Jews leave Israel, I suppose we can all agree on white americans returning to Europe

Does any one of you come from reality? This would not happen, yet it is also required from anti-Zionist logic.

Not true at all. I am against Zionist entitlement, but never expressed a desire for the Israelis to leave the land. I just wish they would call the conquered land spoils of war rather than their birthright... If you were wearing shoes that belonged to my great great great great great (you get the point) grandfather, but were taken from him and passed down through generations by your family, and I were to knock you out and take them, I wouldn't say I'm taking my rightful shoes back from you. I'd have no problem saying they were in fact your shoes, but they're mine now. I also wouldn't listen to anyone that said I should give them back to you, but it wouldn't be because the shoes belonged to my ancestor. It would be because I fought you for them and won.

 

[Caladan]

Much like the rest of the world.

What I am trying to understand here is, what gives the Jews more right to this land than anyone else, other than conquest and occupation?

The 'Jews' actually agreed on a partition plan. Two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Arabs rejected, and lost it all.
Such is life. People have to stand behind their mistakes and miscalculations. Today the reality is that most forces involved strive for a two state solution (again).

 

[Leftimies]

Not true at all. I am against Zionist entitlement, but never expressed a desire for the Israelis to leave the land. I just wish they would call the conquered land spoils of war rather than their birthright... If you were wearing shoes that belonged to my great great great great great (you get the point) grandfather, but were taken from him and passed down through generations by your family, and I were to knock you out and take them, I wouldn't say I'm taking my rightful shoes back from you. I'd have no problem saying they were in fact your shoes, but they're mine now. I also wouldn't listen to anyone that said I should give them back to you, but it wouldn't be because the shoes belonged to my ancestor. It would be because I fought you for them and won.

Hmm...I can see the reasoning behind that point. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Levite]

Does this mean the claim extends to all lands once held by Israel and Judah?

In theory, yes, but I believe that the cost of peace dictates that Israel not try to reacquire those portions of the fullest extent of the ancient bounds of the Land now considered part of the nations of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon (and no, I do not include the portions captured in 1967 that Syria and Lebanon continue to claim, but which Israel has annexed and incorporated into the State of Israel). And I believe that, unfortunately, the cost of peace also dictates that Israel give up control over most of the West Bank and Gaza to a Palestinian state, once peace talks can reasonably conclude the matter with guarantees of recognition and security, and incorporating a land swap for those areas of the West Bank (in the environs of Jerusalem) that Israel should not give up, but should legally annex.

I do believe in the two-state solution, but not because I think the Palestinians have any inherent right to the land, or any just grievance that Israel exists: but because the violence won't end until they get their pound of flesh, and our only other choices besides giving them a state are either to be killed by them or to have to kill them, neither of which is an acceptable solution.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Wouldn't the Palestinians have a claim to land they have occupied longer than the the former Kingdoms of Israel and Judah existed?

 

[Levite]

Wouldn't the Palestinians have a claim to land they have occupied longer than the the former Kingdoms of Israel and Judah existed?

First of all, there are no "Palestinians." There are groups of Arabs who were living in the Land of Israel prior to modern Zionism paving the way for the State of Israel. Some of these lived in the Land of Israel for some hundreds of years, but the idea that these are the same, continguously identified and coherent group of people, bound together in any way beyond being Arabs, who lived in Israel since 135 CE is simply unfounded. The influx of various peoples imported by Rome was varied, and mostly not what we would today call Arabs, but various other peoples of the ancient world. Arabs didn't appear in the Land of Israel until the rise of Islam, and populations shifted considerably as different powers controlled the land, even within the Muslim world. There is little room for supposing that any significant number of the families living in "British Palestine" or "Ottoman Palestine" prior to 1948 had been there longer than three or four hundred years, at the very outside, and most likely less than that.

And they were called "Palestinian" to reside merely because they happened to reside in the Land while it was called "Palestine:" Jews and Christians born there during those times were also called "Palestinian." The concept of an Arab national identity called "Palestinian" is an invention of political revolutionaries of the 1950s and '60s: no such thing ever existed before then. We may call them Palestinians now because of standard usage, but that's only a name, not a validation of their fabricated claims of ancient residency, or connection to any of the ancient peoples who lived in or near the Land during Roman or Hellenic or Biblical times, none of which have any truth to them.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Honestly, I am getting a sense of elitism concerning this issue.
Yes, everyone living in what was once known as Palestine was considered Palestinian. Much like any people living in a geographical location become associated with that location. Americans are American based on the location they live in, not through any hereditary claim.
Notice the mixing of cultural and religious identities. Jews and Christians lived there, and Arabs. Arabs only describes those semitic peoples who are not Jewish. Palestinian Arabs describes those non-Jewish semitic people who live, or recently lived, in what was once known as Palestine.

I think for Israel to continue to exist, it needs to reverse this elitist thinking. Otherwise I think the entire area will continue to be a bloody and ungodly mess.

 

[Levite]

Honestly, I am getting a sense of elitism concerning this issue.
Yes, everyone living in what was once known as Palestine was considered Palestinian. Much like any people living in a geographical location become associated with that location. Americans are American based on the location they live in, not through any hereditary claim.
Notice the mixing of cultural and religious identities. Jews and Christians lived there, and Arabs. Arabs only describes those semitic peoples who are not Jewish. Palestinian Arabs describes those non-Jewish semitic people who live, or recently lived, in what was once known as Palestine.

I think for Israel to continue to exist, it needs to reverse this elitist thinking. Otherwise I think the entire area will continue to be a bloody and ungodly mess.

If Israel disregards its Jewish identity, it will cease to exist in short order. It will become just one more Arab state where Jews are either unwelcome or are second-class citizens, and the Jewish People will lose their homeland again.

We are done trying to satisfy everyone else's expectations of what Jews should or shouldn't be or do, or what we supposedly "deserve." We are entitled to our own State in our own homeland. If that displeases others, they don't have to live there. It's one dot of land no bigger than the American state of Delaware, surrounded by Arab countries many, many times that size. It's absurd and untenable that this should be too much for us.

 

[Flankerl]

Palestinian Arabs describes those non-Jewish semitic people who live, or recently lived, in what was once known as Palestine.

Well actually it was known as South Syria for a pretty long time.
The whole idea of "Palaestina" stopped once the romans lost the area.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well actually it was known as South Syria for a pretty long time.
The whole idea of "Palaestina" stopped once the romans lost the area.

Really?

Not only does my original edition of Will Durants 'The Age of Faith', printed in 1950, refer to the area as Palestine, in both a modern ('50's) and historical sense, but we also have a map from T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) in 1918;

Coins;

and much more historical evidence that the region of Palestine 'existed', including the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

Foreign Office
2nd November 1917 ​

Dear Lord Rothschild: I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of our sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour ​

I find it appalling that Zionists use the misleading "Palestine never existed" revisionism, as if that excuses the forced expulsion of non-combatant non-Jewish residents of occupied lands. A lie popularized by Golda Maier, and apparently if repeated enough times, becomes the new truth.

 

[Moishe3rd]

There was never a time previous to 1948 and after the days of Abraham when Hebrews did not live there. I imagine that the official nation of Israel faded away over time during Roman occupation. I will ask a Jewish poster as now I am curious what the exact dates were. Never mind I see Levite has already done so.

There were a few periods when Jews were barred from living in Jerusalem, both under the Crusaders and some of the Muslim Empires.
However, when Jews were free to live in Jerusalem, it always developed a Jewish majority of citizens.
The main areas of settlement in the Land of Israel throughout this whole period of time were Jerusalem; Sfas; Tiberius; and Hevron.
The Jews were only driven from the Jewish city of Hebron when the Arabs unexpectedly massacred the Jewish population in 1929.

The only reason that there has not always been a majority of Jews living in or about Jewish Holy sites is that Muslims and Christians tended to massacre the Jews and then prohibit them from visiting their Holy sites for long periods of time - a practice that continues to this day when Arabs and Muslims can get away with it.
For instance, as soon as Nablus was under the PA in accordance with the Oslo Accords in 1995, the Arabs ransacked; defiled; and largely destroyed the traditional Jewish Tomb of Joseph, located there (the traditional site of Shechem).

 

[Moishe3rd]

Much like the rest of the world.

What I am trying to understand here is, what gives the Jews more right to this land than anyone else, other than conquest and occupation?

From a purely practical point of view, totally secular and devoid of history and religion - absolutely nothing.
Any more than the Pope has a "right" to Vatican City or the Saudis have a "right"to rule Mecca or any other historical religious paradigm.

However, this is true of EVERY SINGLE country and peoples on this planet. Why single out Israel for umbrage and condemnation?
There are only about 300 other better candidates for disapprobation regarding cruel conquest and occupation, including nearly every single Muslim and Arab country in the world.

However, if one does favor history and religion, then the simple fact that Jews have lived continuously in the Land of Israel for at least 3,000 years, unlike any other people and... the two main religions and peoples that want to claim that the Jews have no claim to Israel are 100% based on Jewish claims to the Land of Israel - tends to favor the idea that Jews have the better claim.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Why single out Israel for umbrage and condemnation?
...

Because this is a thread on Zionism.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Because this is a thread on Zionism.

Yes?
I don't follow your logic.
Why single out Zionism for umbrage and condemnation?
What is it about Israel or Zionism that is different from any other nation on this planet?
I don't get the confusion.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes?
I don't follow your logic.
Why single out Zionism for umbrage and condemnation?
What is it about Israel or Zionism that is different from any other nation on this planet?
I don't get the confusion.

No confusion. If you want to discuss the human rights violations of another modern country, start a thread.

Do you feel that the fact that other countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Uganda, commit human rights violations excuse the actions of Israel?

 

[Moishe3rd]

No confusion. If you want to discuss the human rights violations of another modern country, start a thread.

Do you feel that the fact that other countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Uganda, commit human rights violations excuse the actions of Israel?

Nope.
I am quite certain that Israel is one of the most just countries on Earth and commits far, far less "human rights violations" than most other countries on Earth.
However, Israel gets condemned far, far, far more than any country on Earth.
That is totally illogical.
This thread on Zionism is part and parcel of that overabundance of condemnation.
How many threads in this or any other forum discuss the sickness of Islamism or Arabism practiced by nearly every Arab and/or Muslim government on this planet?
Pretty much none.
Why.
Because, for most people, Arab injustice or Muslim injustice or African injustice or Chinese injustice or European injustice, etc., are all pretty much null issues.
Nobody cares.
However, talk about a country that represents less than .001% of all of humanity; Israel, then "injustice" is an issue.
I find that a very disjointed and bizarre perspective by humanity at large.

 

[tumbleweed41]

A very quick and basic search on these forums alone found over 15 threads on human rights violations in Islamic countries.

This thread is about Zionism.

Why are you attempting to divert attention away from the subject at hand?