Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

why Palestinians had to share their land?

Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 5:09:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
back in 1947, why they were to share their land? in what basis?

what they were obliged for? just because there were jews who escaped hitler and came there? there are immigrants frm syria to european union, does it mean european union have to share their land with the syrians and give them new state?

or was there something different between the two waves of immigration?

you live in your country, victims come and take your land as their state, when you fight them you become terrorist... what a great story
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 7:19:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
As I read the events, in 1947 the UN voted to partition Palestine into a Arab state and a Jewish state. That was done over the heads of the Palestinian people, completely ignoring the issue of sovereignity. It wasn't a partition demanded by the situaton on the ground or as a punitive measure after a war, it was done because of pressure from Zionism to establish their state in what they considered 'the promised land'.

Clearly justified legal challenges from the Arab world were brushed aside.

There was nothing new in the Zionist's aspiration, but post war conditions at last made it possible. The Zionists used every possible politiclal lever and trick to ensure the partition was on the most favourable terms to themselves and it is clear they had no intention of sharing anything in the long term.

In 1947 the zionists were politically savvy, organised and ruthless. The Palestinians were politically insignificant and their Arab allies unco-ordinated and ineffective and the UN voted 33 to 13 for partition, effectively dismantling the Palestinian state and creating the state of Israel. The only thing the Palestinans did wrong was live where the Zionists wanted to be.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 5:11:17 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 7:19:20 PM, keithprosser wrote:
As I read the events, in 1947 the UN voted to partition Palestine into a Arab state and a Jewish state. That was done over the heads of the Palestinian people, completely ignoring the issue of sovereignity. It wasn't a partition demanded by the situaton on the ground or as a punitive measure after a war, it was done because of pressure from Zionism to establish their state in what they considered 'the promised land'.

Clearly justified legal challenges from the Arab world were brushed aside.

There was nothing new in the Zionist's aspiration, but post war conditions at last made it possible. The Zionists used every possible politiclal lever and trick to ensure the partition was on the most favourable terms to themselves and it is clear they had no intention of sharing anything in the long term.

In 1947 the zionists were politically savvy, organised and ruthless. The Palestinians were politically insignificant and their Arab allies unco-ordinated and ineffective and the UN voted 33 to 13 for partition, effectively dismantling the Palestinian state and creating the state of Israel. The only thing the Palestinans did wrong was live where the Zionists wanted to be.

When has Palestine ever existed as a country?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 9:51:26 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Whether Palestine is called a region, a country a state or anything else, in 1947 the people living there had the best parts of their land taken away and allocated to foreigners, most of whom had had no connection with the area for hundreds or thousands of years.

Modern immigration into europe doesn't seem to be the same thing at all. The avowed intent of zionsist immigration and diplomacy was the establishment of a zionist state in Palestine, which they consder their rightful home. Modern immigration is done from practical expediency. It is driven by economics, not ideology.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:19:05 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 9:51:26 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Whether Palestine is called a region, a country a state or anything else, in 1947 the people living there had the best parts of their land taken away and allocated to foreigners, most of whom had had no connection with the area for hundreds or thousands of years.

Modern immigration into europe doesn't seem to be the same thing at all. The avowed intent of zionsist immigration and diplomacy was the establishment of a zionist state in Palestine, which they consder their rightful home. Modern immigration is done from practical expediency. It is driven by economics, not ideology.

Why no mention of the Ottomans?
Why no mention of the Ottomans defeat by the British in WW1?
Why no mention of anything in the way of facts when looking that the history of the region?

Here are a couple of links to the history of that scrap of land, now known as Palestine.
This history does conflict quite a bit with what you have claimed. These should clear up all of your misconceptions.
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org...
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 11:40:09 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I didn't mention the Ottomans because I was trying to specifically address the first part of the OP:

back in 1947, why they [the Palestinians] were to share their land? in what basis?


In short, it was because the Zionists wanted the Palestinians' land (based on the superstition it had been 'promised' by God) and 1947 the zionists got the UN to back them against the interests and wishes of the indigenous population.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 12:04:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 11:40:09 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I didn't mention the Ottomans because I was trying to specifically address the first part of the OP:

back in 1947, why they [the Palestinians] were to share their land? in what basis?


In short, it was because the Zionists wanted the Palestinians' land (based on the superstition it had been 'promised' by God) and 1947 the zionists got the UN to back them against the interests and wishes of the indigenous population.


That would be an incorrect assertion.

"The conflict has been going on since the early 1900s, when the mostly-Arab, mostly-Muslim region was part of the Ottoman Empire and, starting in 1917, a 'mandate' run by the British Empire. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were moving into the area, as part of a movement called Zionism among mostly European Jews to escape persecution and establish their own state in their ancestral homeland. (Later, large numbers of Middle Eastern Jews also moved to Israel, either to escape anti-Semitic violence or because they were forcibly expelled.) Communal violence between Jews and Arabs in British Palestine began spiraling out of control."
[Editor's Note: In his book, Divided Jerusalem, author Bernard Wasserstein estimated that in 1910 the population of the city of Jerusalem was approximately 69,900. Of that total, 45,000 were Jews (64.4%), 12,000 were Muslims (17%), and 12,900 were Christians (18.4%).]"

This wasn't a sudden occurrence. Jews had been traveling to what is modern day Israel for half a century to escape persecution in Europe and around the Middle East. A large population of Jews already existed in long before 1947.
To be honest, it seems to me that you are just another run of the mill anti Semite, trying to justify your hatred, by attempting to rewrite history.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 1:16:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
In short, it was because the Zionists wanted the Palestinians' land (based on the superstition it had been 'promised' by God) and 1947 the zionists got the UN to back them against the interests and wishes of the indigenous population.

That would be an incorrect assertion.

It is not incorrect that the zionists wanted the Palestinians land, nor that their claim was based on scripture, nor that the UN voted in their favour in 1947.

you are just another run of the mill anti Semite, trying to justify your hatred, by attempting to rewrite history.


I will excuse you for accusing me of anti-Semitism. I have no opinion about Jews, no more than I do about Italians, or Welshmen. But I do think that Zionism is an evil thing. I don't believe that Reuben has a better claim on Palestine then Abdi just because Ruben is a Jew while Abdi was only born there. Zionism is a blot on the character of the Jewish people.

It is a shame that any criticism of zionism is often taken - or presented - as hating the Jews. It is as if criticising apartheid was taken as a due to an irrational hatred of South Africans. I abhor racism in all its forms including zionism, apartheid and the KKK but I do not hate Jews, 'Boks or Americans.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 12:45:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 5:09:01 PM, Artur wrote:
back in 1947, why they were to share their land? in what basis?

Well, during that period there was no recognised (sovereign) Palestinian land. It was simply a land, not a country, that had Muslims, Jews, and Christians residing in it--the population was no where near the amount that it presently is today.

what they were obliged for? just because there were jews who escaped hitler and came there?

Many of the Jews that helped cultivate the land arrived before WW2. In fact, there was Ashkenazi immigration from the 1800's onwords. In addition to that, some Middle Eastern Jews obviously lived there--namely in Jerusalem.

there are immigrants frm syria to european union, does it mean european union have to share their land with the syrians and give them new state?

That is beyond stupid.

or was there something different between the two waves of immigration?

What?

you live in your country, victims come and take your land as their state, when you fight them you become terrorist... what a great story

Again, this is a ridiculous statement. If you want to argue in favour of Palestine (I have myself), you could at least do it more intelligently.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 1:11:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 12:45:49 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/19/2016 5:09:01 PM, Artur wrote:
back in 1947, why they were to share their land? in what basis?

Well, during that period there was no recognised (sovereign) Palestinian land. It was simply a land, not a country, that had Muslims, Jews, and Christians residing in it--the population was no where near the amount that it presently is today.

what they were obliged for? just because there were jews who escaped hitler and came there?

Many of the Jews that helped cultivate the land arrived before WW2. In fact, there was Ashkenazi immigration from the 1800's onwords. In addition to that, some Middle Eastern Jews obviously lived there--namely in Jerusalem.

there are immigrants frm syria to european union, does it mean european union have to share their land with the syrians and give them new state?

That is beyond stupid.
well, I am from europe, I have been to russia many times, let me give example from Russia. let us consider all of your reasons and read it from the year 2316, assume israel and palestine still exists, russia no longer exists and imagine chechenistan, yakutia and others gained independence. Majority of republics of modern russia never existed as a soverein state but in majority of them there are many newcomers/immigrants from central aisa, Turkey and africa, they work they live there nowadays. Imagine, they are there for 200 years {like some jews were in palestine since 1800}, can those immigrants claim a land from yakutia, chechenistan, dagestan when they gain independence? can you imagine, Turks or one nationality from Central aisa taking land from Dagestan? Yakutia is obliged to share modern day Yakutia. can you imagine that story?
or just imagine, let us say syrian refugees of nowadays live in germany up untill 2316 and claim land in germany in 2316 when germany collapses into two state as they were 3 decades ago? Do you think Germany is obliged to share their land with them in if the descendants of refugees want to create a state for themselves?
or was there something different between the two waves of immigration?

What?

you live in your country, victims come and take your land as their state, when you fight them you become terrorist... what a great story

Again, this is a ridiculous statement. If you want to argue in favour of Palestine (I have myself), you could at least do it more intelligently.
I am in favour of victim, if it was the jews whose land was taken for newcomers, now I would have asked "why Israel had to share their land with Palestinians"
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 1:13:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I am in favour of victim, if it was the jews whose land was taken for newcomers, now I would have asked "why Israel had to share their land with Palestinians"

I meant, if the jews have been living there for centuries and palestinians started to come there in 1800 and their land was split into two so that palestinians can have a state, now I would have asked "why israel had to share their land"
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 1:28:32 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 1:11:49 AM, Artur wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:45:49 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/19/2016 5:09:01 PM, Artur wrote:
back in 1947, why they were to share their land? in what basis?

Well, during that period there was no recognised (sovereign) Palestinian land. It was simply a land, not a country, that had Muslims, Jews, and Christians residing in it--the population was no where near the amount that it presently is today.

what they were obliged for? just because there were jews who escaped hitler and came there?

Many of the Jews that helped cultivate the land arrived before WW2. In fact, there was Ashkenazi immigration from the 1800's onwords. In addition to that, some Middle Eastern Jews obviously lived there--namely in Jerusalem.

there are immigrants frm syria to european union, does it mean european union have to share their land with the syrians and give them new state?

That is beyond stupid.
well, I am from europe

So? I am too.

I have been to russia many times, let me give example from Russia. let us consider all of your reasons and read it from the year 2316, assume israel and palestine still exists, russia no longer exists and imagine chechenistan, yakutia and others gained independence. Majority of republics of modern russia never existed as a soverein state but in majority of them there are many newcomers/immigrants from central aisa, Turkey and africa, they work they live there nowadays. Imagine, they are there for 200 years {like some jews were in palestine since 1800}, can those immigrants claim a land from yakutia, chechenistan, dagestan when they gain independence? can you imagine, Turks or one nationality from Central aisa taking land from Dagestan? Yakutia is obliged to share modern day Yakutia. can you imagine that story?
or just imagine, let us say syrian refugees of nowadays live in germany up untill 2316 and claim land in germany in 2316 when germany collapses into two state as they were 3 decades ago? Do you think Germany is obliged to share their land with them in if the descendants of refugees want to create a state for themselves?
or was there something different between the two waves of immigration?

This is entirely out-of-context. For starters, Russia is a sovereign country with an official government; as is Germany.

In the case of Israel, you're obviously disregarding the religious and cultural aspects--that are essentially of huge significance. That particular land (Israel) has featured in Jewish religion and culture for thousands of years; it is what they believe to be their homeland--and before you use the 'immigrant' argument, a homeland can be a homeland in the cultural sense.

What?

you live in your country, victims come and take your land as their state, when you fight them you become terrorist... what a great story

Again, this is a ridiculous statement. If you want to argue in favour of Palestine (I have myself), you could at least do it more intelligently.
I am in favour of victim, if it was the jews whose land was taken for newcomers, now I would have asked "why Israel had to share their land with Palestinians"

But Jews did live there. In fact, there was a reasonable portion of Middle Eastern Jews already living in Palestine. And the present (Jewish) population of Israel is 51% Mizrahi.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 1:44:29 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 1:28:32 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:11:49 AM, Artur wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:45:49 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/19/2016 5:09:01 PM, Artur wrote:
back in 1947, why they were to share their land? in what basis?

Well, during that period there was no recognised (sovereign) Palestinian land. It was simply a land, not a country, that had Muslims, Jews, and Christians residing in it--the population was no where near the amount that it presently is today.

what they were obliged for? just because there were jews who escaped hitler and came there?

Many of the Jews that helped cultivate the land arrived before WW2. In fact, there was Ashkenazi immigration from the 1800's onwords. In addition to that, some Middle Eastern Jews obviously lived there--namely in Jerusalem.

there are immigrants frm syria to european union, does it mean european union have to share their land with the syrians and give them new state?

That is beyond stupid.
well, I am from europe

So? I am too.
acutally, this is not related to the topic but I just wanted to inform that I am going to talk about the example I am aware of, that is why I mentioned it.
I have been to russia many times, let me give example from Russia. let us consider all of your reasons and read it from the year 2316, assume israel and palestine still exists, russia no longer exists and imagine chechenistan, yakutia and others gained independence. Majority of republics of modern russia never existed as a soverein state but in majority of them there are many newcomers/immigrants from central aisa, Turkey and africa, they work they live there nowadays. Imagine, they are there for 200 years {like some jews were in palestine since 1800}, can those immigrants claim a land from yakutia, chechenistan, dagestan when they gain independence? can you imagine, Turks or one nationality from Central aisa taking land from Dagestan? Yakutia is obliged to share modern day Yakutia. can you imagine that story?
or just imagine, let us say syrian refugees of nowadays live in germany up untill 2316 and claim land in germany in 2316 when germany collapses into two state as they were 3 decades ago? Do you think Germany is obliged to share their land with them in if the descendants of refugees want to create a state for themselves?
or was there something different between the two waves of immigration?

This is entirely out-of-context. For starters, Russia is a sovereign country with an official government; as is Germany.
well, not out of context in any way. in the scenario I made, I was talking about countries that never existed {yakutia, dagestan, chechenistan} as a sovereign country, just like Palestine was not before WW2. IN case of Germany, in my scenario I was talking about a scenario in which Germany collapsed, its government failed, now germans want to establish a new nation, descendants of syrian refugees claims a land there because they have been living there for 200 years {more time than Ashkenazi jews were in israel when palestine was forced to share their land}, there are many Turks in Germany, they too claim a land there. but ok, the example of germany can be dismissed with the way you argued in your first post, you will just say "germany existed, even collapsed germany has the right to establish again", but Yakutia did not exist as a soveregin state just like Palestine did not, Chechenistan did not exist as a state just like Palestine was not, there are many people from Turkey, from Central aisa. what if russia collapses in 2316 and that central aisans and turks wants to create a state named Turkestan in modern day Yakutia? do you think Yakutia must be forced to give half of their land for that newcomers of last 200 years?
In the case of Israel, you're obviously disregarding the religious and cultural aspects--that are essentially of huge significance. That particular land (Israel) has featured in Jewish religion and culture for thousands of years; it is what they believe to be their homeland--and before you use the 'immigrant' argument, a homeland can be a homeland in the cultural sense.
I am not sure I got it right, I doubt I got it right if I am wrong, correct me please:
you mean, that land was very significant for the jews {e.g: people of Israel. do not think I am against that nationality} thus Palestine had to share their land? That significance gave the international community the right to force someone to share their land? is this what you are saying?

or you mentioned this "significance" for other reason?
What?

you live in your country, victims come and take your land as their state, when you fight them you become terrorist... what a great story

Again, this is a ridiculous statement. If you want to argue in favour of Palestine (I have myself), you could at least do it more intelligently.
I am in favour of victim, if it was the jews whose land was taken for newcomers, now I would have asked "why Israel had to share their land with Palestinians"

But Jews did live there. In fact, there was a reasonable portion of Middle Eastern Jews already living in Palestine. And the present (Jewish) population of Israel is 51% Mizrahi.
so will be Turks living in Yakutia when we look back from the year 2316, do you think Yakutia will be forced to share their land to Turks if all Turks want to create there a Turkestani state? just imagine the scenario I talked: russia collapsed in 2316, yakutia never existed as a sovereign state, the turks have been living there for more than 200 years {in fact even today there are many turks {turkic nationalities} there who have been living there for more than 2 centuries}

p.s: when I say turks, I mean all newcomers from central aisa and Turkey, they all are turkic nationalities.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 1:49:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 1:44:29 AM, Artur wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:28:32 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:11:49 AM, Artur wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:45:49 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 7/19/2016 5:09:01 PM, Artur wrote:
back in 1947, why they were to share their land? in what basis?

Well, during that period there was no recognised (sovereign) Palestinian land. It was simply a land, not a country, that had Muslims, Jews, and Christians residing in it--the population was no where near the amount that it presently is today.

what they were obliged for? just because there were jews who escaped hitler and came there?

Many of the Jews that helped cultivate the land arrived before WW2. In fact, there was Ashkenazi immigration from the 1800's onwords. In addition to that, some Middle Eastern Jews obviously lived there--namely in Jerusalem.

there are immigrants frm syria to european union, does it mean european union have to share their land with the syrians and give them new state?

That is beyond stupid.
well, I am from europe

So? I am too.
acutally, this is not related to the topic but I just wanted to inform that I am going to talk about the example I am aware of, that is why I mentioned it.
I have been to russia many times, let me give example from Russia. let us consider all of your reasons and read it from the year 2316, assume israel and palestine still exists, russia no longer exists and imagine chechenistan, yakutia and others gained independence. Majority of republics of modern russia never existed as a soverein state but in majority of them there are many newcomers/immigrants from central aisa, Turkey and africa, they work they live there nowadays. Imagine, they are there for 200 years {like some jews were in palestine since 1800}, can those immigrants claim a land from yakutia, chechenistan, dagestan when they gain independence? can you imagine, Turks or one nationality from Central aisa taking land from Dagestan? Yakutia is obliged to share modern day Yakutia. can you imagine that story?
or just imagine, let us say syrian refugees of nowadays live in germany up untill 2316 and claim land in germany in 2316 when germany collapses into two state as they were 3 decades ago? Do you think Germany is obliged to share their land with them in if the descendants of refugees want to create a state for themselves?
or was there something different between the two waves of immigration?

This is entirely out-of-context. For starters, Russia is a sovereign country with an official government; as is Germany.
well, not out of context in any way. in the scenario I made, I was talking about countries that never existed {yakutia, dagestan, chechenistan} as a sovereign country, just like Palestine was not before WW2. IN case of Germany, in my scenario I was talking about a scenario in which Germany collapsed, its government failed, now germans want to establish a new nation, descendants of syrian refugees claims a land there because they have been living there for 200 years {more time than Ashkenazi jews were in israel when palestine was forced to share their land}, there are many Turks in Germany, they too claim a land there. but ok, the example of germany can be dismissed with the way you argued in your first post, you will just say "germany existed, even collapsed germany has the right to establish again", but Yakutia did not exist as a soveregin state just like Palestine did not, Chechenistan did not exist as a state just like Palestine was not, there are many people from Turkey, from Central aisa. what if russia collapses in 2316 and that central aisans and turks wants to create a state named Turkestan in modern day Yakutia? do you think Yakutia must be forced to give half of their land for that newcomers of last 200 years?
In the case of Israel, you're obviously disregarding the religious and cultural aspects--that are essentially of huge significance. That particular land (Israel) has featured in Jewish religion and culture for thousands of years; it is what they believe to be their homeland--and before you use the 'immigrant' argument, a homeland can be a homeland in the cultural sense.
I am not sure I got it right, I doubt I got it right if I am wrong, correct me please:
you mean, that land was very significant for the jews {e.g: people of Israel. do not think I am against that nationality} thus Palestine had to share their land? That significance gave the international community the right to force someone to share their land? is this what you are saying?

or you mentioned this "significance" for other reason?
What?

you live in your country, victims come and take your land as their state, when you fight them you become terrorist... what a great story

Again, this is a ridiculous statement. If you want to argue in favour of Palestine (I have myself), you could at least do it more intelligently.
I am in favour of victim, if it was the jews whose land was taken for newcomers, now I would have asked "why Israel had to share their land with Palestinians"

But Jews did live there. In fact, there was a reasonable portion of Middle Eastern Jews already living in Palestine. And the present (Jewish) population of Israel is 51% Mizrahi.
so will be Turks living in Yakutia when we look back from the year 2316, do you think Yakutia will be forced to share their land to Turks if all Turks want to create there a Turkestani state? just imagine the scenario I talked: russia collapsed in 2316, yakutia never existed as a sovereign state, the turks have been living there for more than 200 years {in fact even today there are many turks {turkic nationalities} there who have been living there for more than 2 centuries}

p.s: when I say turks, I mean all newcomers from central aisa and Turkey, they all are turkic nationalities.
by the way, the nationality of Yakutians is of Turkic origin. or it is assumed so.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 3:57:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 1:16:17 PM, keithprosser wrote:
In short, it was because the Zionists wanted the Palestinians' land (based on the superstition it had been 'promised' by God) and 1947 the zionists got the UN to back them against the interests and wishes of the indigenous population.

That would be an incorrect assertion.

It is not incorrect that the zionists wanted the Palestinians land, nor that their claim was based on scripture, nor that the UN voted in their favour in 1947.

you are just another run of the mill anti Semite, trying to justify your hatred, by attempting to rewrite history.


I will excuse you for accusing me of anti-Semitism. I have no opinion about Jews, no more than I do about Italians, or Welshmen. But I do think that Zionism is an evil thing. I don't believe that Reuben has a better claim on Palestine then Abdi just because Ruben is a Jew while Abdi was only born there. Zionism is a blot on the character of the Jewish people.

It is a shame that any criticism of zionism is often taken - or presented - as hating the Jews. It is as if criticising apartheid was taken as a due to an irrational hatred of South Africans. I abhor racism in all its forms including zionism, apartheid and the KKK but I do not hate Jews, 'Boks or Americans.

What is so evil about Zionism exactly and how exactly does that pertain to modern day Israelis?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 8:07:03 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
What is so evil about Zionism

In theory - but perhaps it is only pie in the sky - it might have been possble to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine without riding rough-shod over the indigenous population.

But from early on Zionism adopted - in practice if not in their rhetoric - an attitude towards the indigenous population that has many of the characteristics of apartheid. Because Zionism has led to a situation where people are not equal but are discriminated on the basis of ethnicity, and in turn that discrimination has resulted in a conflict that has cost thousands of lives (80% Palestinian) I do hesitate in calling Zionism-as-it-is 'Evil' even if Zionism-as-it-could-have-been would be much less so.

how exactly does that pertain to modern day Israelis?
The present situation in Israel reflects the continuing influence of Zionism and is its legacy. Of course the situation also reflects humanity's intrinsic tendency towards xenophobia on the part of the Arab world towards Israel. How much of Arab anti-Israeli feeling is due to the Zionistists' high-handed attitude towards the Palestinan people is some things we will never know - but it couldn't have helped.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 10:53:45 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 8:07:03 AM, keithprosser wrote:
What is so evil about Zionism

In theory - but perhaps it is only pie in the sky - it might have been possble to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine without riding rough-shod over the indigenous population.

But from early on Zionism adopted - in practice if not in their rhetoric - an attitude towards the indigenous population that has many of the characteristics of apartheid. Because Zionism has led to a situation where people are not equal but are discriminated on the basis of ethnicity, and in turn that discrimination has resulted in a conflict that has cost thousands of lives (80% Palestinian) I do hesitate in calling Zionism-as-it-is 'Evil' even if Zionism-as-it-could-have-been would be much less so.

how exactly does that pertain to modern day Israelis?
The present situation in Israel reflects the continuing influence of Zionism and is its legacy. Of course the situation also reflects humanity's intrinsic tendency towards xenophobia on the part of the Arab world towards Israel. How much of Arab anti-Israeli feeling is due to the Zionistists' high-handed attitude towards the Palestinan people is some things we will never know - but it couldn't have helped.

Alright. Considering the fact that Jews had been immigrating to the area to escape oppression from all over Europe and the Middle East for nearly half a century up to that point and the land was divided up by the conquerors of the Ottoman Empire, I would say that "Zionism" is a far more peaceful conquering, if you will, of a land than has ever occurred in history.
Today, I would say that it is less of a xenophobia issue and more of an anti Semitic issue. The country existing is not necessarily what these ISLAMIC, countries have an issue with. What they do seem to have an issue with is that it is a Jewish country, the only Jewish country in the world, nestled along side theirs. Their solution to this problem being to wipe out Israel.
Israel's solution to this problem? To sternly deal with those who wish to see them wiped off the planet, but whom would be quickly annihilated if they were to try.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 11:47:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I think a lot of people - perhaps naively - thought that given the history of the Jews that they would 'get it right' and the new state of Israel would present a model of peaceful co-existence and tolerance. The Zionists' shabby treatment of the Palestinian people lost them a lot of goodwill amongst people who are not at all anti-semitic. At least in the UK where there is neither a powerful pro-Zionist lobby nor a strong tradition of anti-semitism the Palestians are seen as oppressed. The overwhemng sentiment is pro-underdog, not anti-semitic.

Arab anti-semitism is as real as it is nasty and absurd, and it can't all be put down to the Palestinian issue. I confess - I don't get it. It's not just Jews and Arabs, it's Hindus and Moslems, Croats and Serbs, Hutus and Tutsis, blacks and whites in the US.

Re modern immigration, I have no doubt that some recent immigrants are scum. But surely it would make more sense to turf out some of our indigenous scum along with foreign scum than to keep our home-grown scum and throw out foreign good guys?
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 1:00:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 11:47:57 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I think a lot of people - perhaps naively - thought that given the history of the Jews that they would 'get it right' and the new state of Israel would present a model of peaceful co-existence and tolerance. The Zionists' shabby treatment of the Palestinian people lost them a lot of goodwill amongst people who are not at all anti-semitic. At least in the UK where there is neither a powerful pro-Zionist lobby nor a strong tradition of anti-semitism the Palestians are seen as oppressed. The overwhemng sentiment is pro-underdog, not anti-semitic.

Arab anti-semitism is as real as it is nasty and absurd, and it can't all be put down to the Palestinian issue. I confess - I don't get it. It's not just Jews and Arabs, it's Hindus and Moslems, Croats and Serbs, Hutus and Tutsis, blacks and whites in the US.

Re modern immigration, I have no doubt that some recent immigrants are scum. But surely it would make more sense to turf out some of our indigenous scum along with foreign scum than to keep our home-grown scum and throw out foreign good guys?

I don't have a detailed knowledge of Israel's history, but I am sure that they have dine some bad things. But to put things in a little bit of perspective, since day one Israel has been fighting it's very existence. Every single one of its enemies despise it's very existence, because of religious reasons. Israel doesn't have the luxury of not making a big deal out of attacks and threats against her, because any show of weakness could very well trigger a major attack. Israel has tried to play nice, with the palestian's for example and even offered them everything that Yosser Arafat asked for, but the Palestians decided that they didn't like the idea of having a Jewish neighboring country and decided instead to start an intifada.
One thing to keep in mind, especially in the Middle East, is that the under dog is not necessarily the good guy, no matter how loudly they claim victimhood.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 6:53:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Yes, but its a bit like the zionists marched into an arabs house and occupied the front room, claiming ownership by divine right. No doubt they would have to fight to keep control of that room - but whose fault is that?

I think that if either side ever had the 'moral high ground', neither has it any more There is no 'goodies side' and 'baddies side' - there are just sides who hate each other.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 4:25:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 6:53:52 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Yes, but its a bit like the zionists marched into an arabs house and occupied the front room, claiming ownership by divine right. No doubt they would have to fight to keep control of that room - but whose fault is that?

I think that if either side ever had the 'moral high ground', neither has it any more There is no 'goodies side' and 'baddies side' - there are just sides who hate each other.

If Palestinians kicked out Hezbollah stopped fighting the Israelis, there would be peace. Israel doesn't want these issues. Hezbollah does. That's why their rhetoric is chock full of calls to destroy Israel and kill all Jews. That's why they start fights with Israel and then use human shields to gather those victim points from the international community. This makes the Palestinians the bad guys.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 8:08:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
The bad guys are the zionists and Hezbollah. The good guys are all the ordinary people who suffer because of their power-games. Good and bad doesn't split along racial lines - thinking it does is the unconcious basis of racism and xenophobia.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 10:01:32 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 8:08:25 AM, keithprosser wrote:
The bad guys are the zionists and Hezbollah. The good guys are all the ordinary people who suffer because of their power-games. Good and bad doesn't split along racial lines - thinking it does is the unconcious basis of racism and xenophobia.

How does Zionism apply today? A Jewish state has already been created in their sky gods holy land. They have already achieved their goal. they achieved their goal and have the most westernized, aka free, country in the entire region. What ever evil that that existed is gone now and good has come of it.