What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Bystander]

You have narrowed the definition down to only include the political aspect, ignoring the religious and cultural connotations, of what Zionism *means*.

By "religious and cultural connotations," you mean that "Zionism" means whatever the user wants it to mean? For instance, "expansionism," and, "creating a state of Only Jews," and, "The whole system revolves around the participation of taking land from Muslims and giving this to the Jews," none of which have any bases in fact. Might be interesting to see how much the Rothschilds paid the Ottomans, and/or other title holders for the land in the 19th century, and what sorts of reparations the British paid during the 1948 partitioning, but "taking land from Muslims" is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[Anttech]

By "religious and cultural connotations," you mean that "Zionism" means whatever the user wants it to mean?

I certainly don't mean that, is that what you want it to mean?

"creating a state of Only Jews," and, "The whole system revolves around the participation of taking land from Muslims and giving this to the Jews," none of which have any bases in fact.

The meaning of an 'ism' and how one would implement that 'ism' are not the same thing. I hope you understand what I mean? As for facts, it is certain and it is a fact that land has been taken from Muslims and given to Jews in the ME, and more specifically in and around the land which is known as Israel.

 

[Yonoz]

Professor Tilley's article touched on that as well:


I recommend reading the whole article.

http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html

Regardless, even if he was outright denying the Holocost like Mel Gibson's dad, that wouldn't contradict Iran's offer to back a two state solution. In the interests of resolution I'd like to see that offer taken seriously.

A world leader questions the darkest chapter in human history and that does not ring any bells for our dear Professor? Again, is this the type of person you think should have nuclear weapons - one that constantly speaks as if he's living in the time of the crusades and yet is not too familiar with the 20th century's greatest crime? Someone's overdosing on their SSRIs.

I quite certainly do recognize Israel's right of existence, and again it is in the interest of Israel's existence that I take issue with Zionism. Surely this perspective is not completely alien to you?

Seeing as the existence of Israel is the embodiment of Zionism, I find it hard to understand your stand.

 

[Yonoz]

it is to do with creating a state of Only Jews

That statement displays utter ignorance.

The whole system revolves around the participation of taking land from Muslims and giving this to the Jews.

Again, utter ignorance.

The perception within much of the world outside of Israel, and it seems the USA, is that this is unfair, and to me it looks like an appartite structure where instead of the black people being 'quarantined' it is Muslims being 'quarantined.'

Perhaps it looks that way to you because you are ill-informed.

I have seen pictures of Tel-aviv, and almost had to go there for work once or twice, but in the end I wasnt able to. It is a very nice city, somewhere I would like to visit. I have also seen pictures of Gaza, which to me looks like a war zone, and is poverty stricken.

And is Kosovo entirely its neighbours' fault?
While the dissonance between modern life in Israel and the state of the Palestinians is alarming and deeply saddening, you should not assume that Israel's advancements were made on the backs of the Palestinian people - give us a little more credit, please.
Glass houses.

If Zionism is secular, and I have read this, based on communist ideals, then why is there such a huge divide? Well because it isn't based on communist ideals, and it isn't secular by nature.

Zionism is neither secular nor communist. It is simply the realisation of the Jewish nation at its historical home.

 

[Yonoz]

The meaning of an 'ism' and how one would implement that 'ism' are not the same thing. I hope you understand what I mean? As for facts, it is certain and it is a fact that land has been taken from Muslims and given to Jews in the ME, and more specifically in and around the land which is known as Israel.

It certainly is a fact that land has been taken from Jews and given to Muslims in the ME, and more specifically in and around the land which is known as Israel. Jewish settlements were abandoned or massacred in the Arab Riots, War of Independence, return of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza pullout. The supposedly expansionist "Zionist Regime" has been de-expanding for the past quarter of a century.
EDIT: Furthermore, it is the right-wing Likkud Revisionist movement - followers of Zeev Jabotisnky who believed the State of Israel should occupy the entire "Land of Israel" - Eretz Israel - that has governed the biggest concessions and withdrawals. The vast majority of Zionists are not expansionists.

 

[Anttech]

Originally Posted by Anttech
The whole system revolves around the participation of taking land from Muslims and giving this to the Jews.

Again, utter ignorance.

Care to tell me how one would go about creating Israel, a Jewish centric country around Jerusalem, without first of all taking land from Palestine's, or rather the people who were living there before Zionism started?

Zionism is neither secular nor communist. It is simply the realisation of the Jewish nation at its historical home.

How can one realize a Jewish nation at it historical home without first displacing the people who were living there before this realisation?

There is a rather LARGE gap between the 1940's and when the Israelites left 'Israel' (You know Exodus and all that) during the old testament era . So you must have gotten the land from someone, who was it?

What an oxymoron. Katalaves?

 

[Yonoz]

Care to tell me how one would go about creating Israel, a Jewish centric country around Jerusalem, without first of all taking land from Palestine's, or rather the people who were living there before Zionism started?

Buying land.
My parents live in a village named after one of the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds bought the land during the early days of Zionism and a small group of Socialist Zionist dried some of the swamps that encompassed the region and settled there. The well-known line "If I were a rich-man" is originally "If I were Rothschild", illustrating the fame and prestige the Rothschilds gained among world Jewry when they became the most eminent patrons of the Zionist movement.
When my grandmother volunteered for a Socialist Zionist movement she was only 16. She had left her wealthy family in Vienna and formed a group. They had some agricultural training in Europe, and then they were sent to Palestine. They had to wait for the land transfer to be authorized and then came to some desolate hilltop between swamps, set up tents and started digging a well, then drying swamps and building community buildings. After a few years the vast swampland had turned into rich fertile grassland, and their few tents had turned into a highly productive agricultural socialist community. Arab villages from the Sumarea mountains who previously used the area only in summer when it was dry, set up permanent residence nearby. They lived peacefully as neighbours until the Arab riots. The tension increased over years and when the war broke out they simply left, probably of fear and confidence that the invading Arab armies would capture the land. This is just my mother's family's tale, but it is quite similar to the tales of every Israeli Jewish family I know. Some were came from Europe, some came from North Africa, Iraq, Iran, India, South America etc. Some where airlifted by Israel when they were at risk, some survived the holocaust only to be penned in a British camp in Cyprus - because all they wanted to do was leave the place they mistakenly thought was their home, and avenge the genocide they survived by building a true national home and raising a successful nation. That is Zionism.

How can one realize a Jewish nation at it historical home without first displacing the people who were living there before this realisation?

Well, at first you can hope they will live with you peacefully. That is what the first Aliyas did. They hired Arab workers and guards. As Arab nationalism began to oppose the peaceful Jewish settlement, and on account of several negative experiences with Arab workers, and most importantly - as the Socialists became dominant -the Zionist movement concentrated on "Hebrew Labour" and Arab workers were no longer needed. Obviously when you stop paying the neighbouring Arab village to "guard" your crops, they like you a lot less. From here, the road to the Arab riots and then to the first stage of the War of Independence - the "civil" war - was quite short.

There is a rather LARGE gap between the 1940's and when the Israelites left 'Israel' (You know Exodus and all that) during the old testament era . So you must have gotten the land from someone, who was it?

Wealthy land owners who had owned the lands from Ottoman times. These owners usually lived in Damascus and Alexandria and cared little for useless neither holy nor hospitable swampland.
EDIT: The Exodus was when the Israelites left Egypt for the Promised Land. You must be talking about the destruction of the second Temple.

What an oxymoron. Katalaves?

I don't quite follow.

 

[Anttech]

When my grandmother volunteered for a Socialist Zionist movement she was only 16. She had left her wealthy family in Vienna and formed a group. They had some agricultural training in Europe, and then they were sent to Palestine. They had to wait for the land transfer to be authorized and then came to some desolate hilltop between swamps, set up tents and started digging a well, then drying swamps and building community buildings. After a few years the vast swampland had turned into rich fertile grassland, and their few tents had turned into a highly productive agricultural socialist community.

Nice story

Well, at first you can hope they will live with you peacefully.

Yeah a bit like when the Ottomans came to Greece, they were hoping to they could live in Greece in peace, perhaps over time they could call Greece, --- Turkey. Do you not see a problem there?
I suppose a Better example would be, the Turks migrating to German as they are doing in there droves right now, and buying land there, over time, perhaps they can call Germany Turkey.

As Arab nationalism began to oppose the peaceful Jewish settlement, and on account of several negative experiences with Arab workers, and most importantly - as the Socialists became dominant -the Zionist movement concentrated on "Hebrew Labour" and Arab workers were no longer needed. Obviously when you stop paying the neighbouring Arab village to "guard" your crops, they like you a lot less. From here, the road to the Arab riots and then to the first stage of the War of Independence - the "civil" war - was quite short.

Seems like Jewish nationalism came to the front also.

Wealthy land owners who had owned the lands from Ottoman times. These owners usually lived in Damascus and Alexandria and cared little for useless neither holy nor hospitable swampland.

In Summary:
Israel was one big swamp that wasnt being attended to by the Palestines. most of the land that is currently under Israeli rule was bought of Rich Ottomens, by rich cartels of Jews.

Hmmmmm. Look Yonzo, I have some experience with being ejected from Land, as I am Greek. My Grandfather is actually from Asia-Minor. During the forced migration he was literally kicked off his land, there was nothing he could do. He was forceably removed by the new Government of Turkey. He was very lucky to live. I am 100% sure, Arabs were also booted off there land. I am not going to dispute that some land was bought, but after the state of Israel was ratified many people would have been ejected, to Lebanon, Palistein Egypt and Jordan.

I don't quite follow.

Its Greek, I was being clever since I had already used a bunch of Greek words in the post.

 

[Yonoz]

Nice story

This land is known by many names. Palestine comes from Philistine. The Philistines are a long-dead non-semitic ethnic group. Palestinians derived their name from the land. They still possesses names such as Al-Mazri (Egyptian) that indicate their decendence. I could also call that territory Eretz-Israel. The name is irrelevant.

Yeah a bit like when the Ottomans came to Greece, they were hoping to they could live in Greece in peace, perhaps over time they could call Greece, --- Turkey. Do you not see a problem there?

Yeah, the problem is that you picked a bad example. The Ottomans had a national home - incidentally called Turkey, and were commiting an act of conquest. Jews have no home but Israel, and the establishment of the State of Israel was done according to wishes of the UNGC at the time. It was the Arab armies that attacked the nation upon its birth, with expressed wishes to destroy it. Those that supported them quite understandably ended up on their side of the 1947 cease-fire line, be it in refugee camps or with their relatives. To the winner goes the spoils, you sure as hell cannot expect us to allow our enemy through the front gate, regarding the circumstances. The occupied territories will be the home of a Palestinian State or some other entity, it is simply a matter of negotiations. We have shown an absolute commitment to peace and territorial concessions. It is between us and the Palestinians to resolve this, the Iranian leadership is cynically using this as an excuse to promote their interests.

I suppose a Better example would be, the Turks migrating to German as they are doing in there droves right now, and buying land there, over time, perhaps they can call Germany Turkey.

Another bad example, but even so - are the Turkish immigrants doing anything wrong? They simply wish for a better life for themselves. They do not mean to harm anyone.
There have been Zionists that called for various forms of government here. Some dreamt of a Jewish-Muslim Republic or Federation in what is today Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Jordan. Those hopes were abandoned simply because they were not realistic, especially considering the tension between Jews and Arabs at the time.

Seems like Jewish nationalism came to the front also.

Quite understandably. And all we asked was that the Arabs understand this as well as the rest of the world.

In Summary:
Israel was one big swamp that wasnt being attended to by the Palestines. most of the land that is currently under Israeli rule was bought of Rich Ottomens, by rich cartels of Jews.

Nope, I never said Israel was one big swamp. That was mostly just the shallow valleys between the Mediterranean and the ridges of Judea and Sumaria. The south was a desert, as most of it has remained. Other settlements were around the Sea of Galilee, sporadically shelled by the Syrians from the cliffs at the edge of the Golan Heights.

Hmmmmm. Look Yonzo, I have some experience with being ejected from Land, as I am Greek. My Grandfather is actually from Asia-Minor. During the forced migration he was literally kicked off his land, there was nothing he could do. He was forceably removed by the new Government of Turkey. He was very lucky to live. I am 100% sure, Arabs were also booted off there land. I am not going to dispute that some land was bought, but after the state of Israel was ratified many people would have been ejected, to Lebanon, Palistein Egypt and Jordan.

I do not dispute that Arabs have been forcibly removed off their land. I also believe a lot were misled to leave their land - whether by the Arab governments or by Jews. But I believe every nation was born in sin and that the strife caused by the birth of the State of Israel was the end of a chain of completely logical action and counteraction. At the foot of the chain, the fault lies with the Arab world's refusal to accept Israel as an independent Jewish State in their midst.

Its Greek, I was being clever since I had already used a bunch of Greek words in the post.

Care to explain?

 

[Anttech]

Jew comes from a Greek word
Oxymoron comes from Greek:

It was referring to your post, which to me was an oxymoron, ie you were calling me ignorant for asserting the system that powered Zionism was the taking of land from Palistiens, yet you asserted it was the realisation of a Jewish state in Historical Old Testament lands of Jews.

Exodus is Greek

Katalaves is Greek, and means, do you understand?

 

[Yonoz]

It was referring to your post, which to me was an oxymoron, ie you were calling me ignorant for asserting the system that powered Zionism was the taking of land from Palistiens, yet you asserted it was the realisation of a Jewish state in Historical Old Testament lands of Jews.

But why does it have to involve the taking of land? There was plenty of room back then.

 

[Anttech]

But why does it have to involve the taking of land? There was plenty of room back then.

Perhaps there was room for migration, but I don't think there was room to create a new state, without the taking of Land. To realize the Zionist dream, meant taking land from someone. There is a big difference between migrating and creating communities within a state, and migrating and making your own state.

I do not dispute that Arabs have been forcibly removed off their land. I also believe a lot were misled to leave their land - whether by the Arab governments or by Jews. But I believe every nation was born in sin and that the strife caused by the birth of the State of Israel was the end of a chain of completely logical action and counteraction. At the foot of the chain, the fault lies with the Arab world's refusal to accept Israel as an independent Jewish State in their midst.

Glad you accept that. However why is every nation born from sin? Thats not true at all. Italy wasnt born from sin, Neither was spain nor Greece, nor China. Nor a host of other countries

Do you expect the Arab to accept it? Would you accept it, if someone did this to you?

 

[kyleb]

A world leader questions the darkest chapter in human history and that does not ring any bells for our dear Professor? Again, is this the type of person you think should have nuclear weapons - one that constantly speaks as if he's living in the time of the crusades and yet is not too familiar with the 20th century's greatest crime? Someone's overdosing on their SSRIs.

It sounds like you only read the beginning of what I quoted, here is the latter part of again:

This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself - i.e., "myth" as "mystique", or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the "cult" or "ghost" of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad's main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it.

http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html
But again my point is that, contrary to the myth of Iran, they support a two state solution for Israel and Palestine.

Seeing as the existence of Israel is the embodiment of Zionism, I find it hard to understand your stand.

To exemplify my position; I also oppose Sovietism, but I've always supported Russia's right of existence.

As for the land which became Israel, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/a73996728ba8b94785256d560060cd1a!OpenDocument" .

 

[Yonoz]

Perhaps there was room for migration, but I don't think there was room to create a new state, without the taking of Land. To realize the Zionist dream, meant taking land from someone. There is a big difference between migrating and creating communities within a state, and migrating and making your own state.

No, I don't think that too many countries, upon their formation, had zero objectors on their territories. The sovereign entity over that land for the past few centuries simply disappeared, and the League of Nations gave the British a mandate over Palestine. The UN came up with a partition plan, which the Jewish leadership accepted. We could have lived side by side as early as the formation of the State, but those days' Palestinians saw themselves as Arab citizens of the Arab States and their governments chose to destroy Israel. It was when some of them left their homes that they became a unique people - the Palestinians. The ones who remained are today known as Israelis.

Glad you except that. However why is every nation born from sin? Thats not true at all. Italy wasnt born from sin, Neither was spain nor Greece, nor China.

"Roma o Morte"? Reconquista? The Huns vs. the Ming Dynasty?

Do you expect the Arab to accept it? Would you accept it, if someone did this to you?

Well the ones that accepted it are living among us today with full rights and even privileges.

 

[Yonoz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_War_of_Independence" :

In Europe, the Greek revolt aroused widespread sympathy. Greece was viewed as the cradle of western civilization, and it was especially lauded by the spirit of romanticism that was current at the time. The sight of a Christian nation attempting to cast off the rule of a Muslim Empire also appealed to the western European public.
...
On 20 October 1827 the British, Russian and French fleets, on the initiative of local commanders but with the tacit approval of their governments, attacked and destroyed the Ottoman fleet at the Battle of Navarino (Πύλος).

Hmmm...
Sounds to me like you may have upset the Muslims there...

 

[Astronuc]

and creating communities within a state

This a key point in the entire debate about the Israeli state. There was not state in existence prior to the existence of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

The Jewish immigrants settled in a 'territory' in which Jews, Arabs and Christians were living. Up until World War 1, it was part of the Ottoman empire. Then until 1948, it was an occupied territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#British_Mandate_.281920-1948.29

There was never a 'Palestinian State'.

Modern states are relatively recent, and the borders somewhat arbitrary, and many borders were decided as a result of WWI and WWII.

 

[Anttech]

Greece was around before that, it was occupied for 300 years by the Ottomans but before that "Greece" has existed we even had a few empires, really its true

Regarded as the cradle of western civilization and being the birthplace of democracy[1], Western philosophy[2], sports, western literature, political science and drama[3] including both tragedy and comedy, Greece has a particularly long and eventful history and a cultural heritage considerably influential in Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. Today, Greece is a developed nation, member of the European Union since 1981 and a member of the Eurozone since 2001.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Greece was born in the 1800? Stop clutching at straws. The Hellenic Identity, Culture, and states can be found for millennium, its far old than Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece#History

Sounds to me like you may have upset the Muslims there...

And you would be right... The Greeks were occupied by the Turks for 300 years, but we were never conquered. Anyway this is off topic, and rather irrelevant.

 

[Yonoz]

It sounds like you only read the beginning of what I quoted, here is the latter part of again:


http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html
But again my point is that, contrary to the myth of Iran, they support a two state solution for Israel and Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Israel_relations" :

Iran does not even formally recognize Israel as a country, and official government texts often simply refer to it as the "Zionist entity."

In January 2004, he spoke to an Israeli reporter who asked him on what grounds Iran would recognize Israel. This was believed to be the first time he had spoken publicly with an Israeli.

To exemplify my position; I also oppose Sovietism, but I've always supported Russia's right of existence.

Sovietism is not about the Russians' right to have a national home in Russia.

As for the land which became Israel, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/a73996728ba8b94785256d560060cd1a!OpenDocument" .

Of course. You're forgetting the Partition Plan also gave Jewish land to the Arabs. Jewish settlements were abandoned so that we may live side by side in peace. But the Arab world could not accept Israel's existence. They were very direct about it.

 

[Anttech]

This a key point in the entire debate about the Israeli state. There was not state in existence prior to the existence of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

The Jewish immigrants settled in a 'territory' in which Jews, Arabs and Christians were living. Up until World War 1, it was part of the Ottoman empire. Then until 1948, it was an occupied territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#British_Mandate_.281920-1948.29

There was never a 'Palestinian State'.

Modern states are relatively recent, and the borders somewhat arbitrary, and many borders were decided as a result of WWI and WWII.

Its only a key point when you are ignoring that fact that the majorty of people living in 'Israel' were actually Arabs. As you stated it was normal in those days so may I ask what are you driving at?

It was someone land wasnt it, and if you look at kyleb link to the UN map, you will clearly see the Demographics

 

[Yonoz]

Greece was around before that, it was occupied for 300 years by the Ottomans but before that "Greece" has existed we even had a few empires, really its true

Empires - nice. They weren't imperialist by any chance, were they?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Greece was born in the 1800? Stop clutching at straws.

Modern Greece, yes.

The Hellenic Identity, Culture, and states can be found for millennium, its far old than Judaism.

However, Greeks who converted to Islam and were not Crypto-Christians were deemed Turks in the eyes of Orthodox Greeks, even if they didn't adopt Turkish language. On the other hand, this population has played an immense role for the creation of modern Greek culture, as Turkish traditions and customs were learned during the entire occupation period. The most obvious traces of Ottoman influence on Greek culture today is reflected in Greek music and in the Greek kitchen.

Modern Greece was formed by the separation of Greece from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman occupation shaped much of the Modern Greek nation.

And you would be right... The Greeks were occupied by the Turks for 300 years, but we were never conquered. Anyway this is off topic, and rather irrelevant.

It's funny how there's a nationalist in everyone.

 

[Yonoz]

Its only a key point when you are ignoring that fact that the majorty of people living in 'Israel' were actually Arabs. As you stated it was normal in those days so may I ask what are you driving at?

You stated Jews built communities within a State, but there was no State. It was a territory under British mandate by the League of Nations.

It was someone land wasnt it, and if you look at kyleb link to the UN map, you will clearly see the Demographics

That's why the Plan involved some sort of Partition.

 

[Astronuc]

Its only a key point when you are ignoring that fact that the majorty of people living in 'Israel' were actually Arabs. As you stated it was normal in those days so may I ask what are you driving at?

I challenged the notion that Jews were "migrating and creating communities within a state". They migrated and formed their own state. Now, I have to agree that other people were living in the region which became part of the state of Israel, and that is the current source of conflict between Palestinians/Arabs who want a state and Israelis/Jews who wish to maintain the current state of Israel. Part of that confict is that there are competing claims for control over some the land, e.g. Jerusalem.

And I might ask, what is the point of digressing on ancient history? How relevant is the history of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East to the current problem?

 

[Yonoz]

One must differentiate between the situation before the formation of a state and the one afterwards. Before the formation of the state there was a British mandate over a territory that was named Palestine. The UN Partition Plan called for the formation of a Jewish and Arab state side by side. The Jewish leadership accepted this solution but the Arabs refused to recognise a Jewish State among them. The UNGC voted in favour and the night the British left, Israel declared independence. At sunrise the next morning Arab armies all around it attacked. Even Iraq sent its military with the clear expressed intention of destroying Israel - not retrieving land, not resettling anyone - everyone was settled right where they had been the night before. They chose to destroy us. When you go to an all-out-war such as this one you should know that if you lose, the enemy will take some form of reparation - it is a completely normal behaviour. If an enemy tries to destroy you, I believe you have every right to hold onto land that you control at the cessation of hostilities, until a peace agreement can be reached - and that was the plan. It was the Arab states that chose, again, not to recognise Israel, not to negotiate with it, and to attack it using the Palestinians on the lands they now illegally occupy. These Palestinian raids on civilians in remote locations and Syrian bombardments were a part of Israeli daily life in the 50's and 60's.

 

[kyleb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Israel_relations" :

Yep, Iran supports a two state solution for Israel and Palestine. Unfortunately, Israel does not support any solution which Palestine can be reasonably expected to accept. Iran, along with many other nations and people, is not willing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist until that has changed.

Sovietism is not about the Russians' right to have a national home in Russia.

Exactly, it is a movement by which Russians developed their homeland, as Zionism has been to the Jewish people. But as Russians still have a right to their homeland without Sovietism, so do the Jewish people without Zionism.

Of course. You're forgetting the Partition Plan also gave Jewish land to the Arabs.

I'm not forgetting that at all, and the figures for that can be easly derived from http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg as well.

Jewish settlements were abandoned so that we may live side by side in peace. But the Arab world could not accept Israel's existence. They were very direct about it.

The Zionist were going to have a strong Jewish majority in the land which became Israel, and that continues to be accomplished though varying levels of 'directness' over the years. One long standing example is pointing out land given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan with little regard to the how those figures stand yet questioning those peoples displeasure with being chased off their land. Would you like me to draw you a map?

 

[Anttech]

And I might ask, what is the point of digressing on ancient history? How relevant is the history of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East to the current problem?

Because Yonzo was attempting to say that Greece was born from Sin. The matter we are talking about IE Hellas, is not so relevent. However History is very relevant to the current problem. Are you contending that it isnt?

 

[Anttech]

Empires - nice. They weren't imperialist by any chance, were they?

Yeap, although I don't think they were called imerialist in Alexanders era.

Modern Greece, yes.

There was absolutely NO break in the Hellenic culture since the Byzantine era. So please do qualify your oppinions with some thought.

Modern Greece was formed by the separation of Greece from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman occupation shaped much of the Modern Greek nation.

As we shaped them, Ever been to Istanbul? Are you aware of why Mosques are shaped like they are? (off topic)

Still, as I already stated there was no break in the Hellenic culture and especially no break from its birthplace.

It's funny how there's a nationalist in everyone.

You say this because?

 

[Yonoz]

Yep, Iran supports a two state solution for Israel and Palestine. Unfortunately, Israel does not support any solution which Palestine can be reasonably expected to accept. Iran, along with many other nations and people, is not willing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist until that has changed.

Can you provide an example to something the Iranians think the Palestinians can reasonably be expected to accept?

Exactly, it is a movement by which Russians developed their homeland, as Zionism has been to the Jewish people. But as Russians still have a right to their homeland without Sovietism, so do the Jewish people without Zionism.

No, Zionism doesn't describe a social structure or government, it is simply the belief that Jews for whatever reasons have a national home in the Land of Israel. Israel without Zionism is Israel without a right to exist. If you find it difficult, simply replace every instance of "Zionism" with "the belief Israel has a right to exist".

I'm not forgetting that at all, and the figures for that can be easly derived from http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg as well.

Well great. So are you saying the Arabs were right in their reaction to the Jewish settlement? A reaction that introduced the first round of violence in this conflict?

The Zionist were going to have a strong Jewish majority in the land which became Israel, and that continues to be accomplished though varying levels of 'directness' over the years. One long standing example is pointing out land given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan with little regard to the how those figures stand yet questioning those peoples displeasure with being chased off their land. Would you like me to draw you a map?

We can discuss the Partition Plan in another thread, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, as it was recognised by the UNGC at the time. Who's questioning the Arabs displeasure? I'm sure they were very displeasured to have been unable to annihilate us.

 

[McGyver]

I challenged the notion that Jews were "migrating and creating communities within a state". They migrated and formed their own state. Now, I have to agree that other people were living in the region which became part of the state of Israel, and that is the current source of conflict between Palestinians/Arabs who want a state and Israelis/Jews who wish to maintain the current state of Israel. Part of that confict is that there are competing claims for control over some the land, e.g. Jerusalem.

And I might ask, what is the point of digressing on ancient history? How relevant is the history of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East to the current problem?

Amen Astronuc! These very passionate discussions that appear to go on and on - illustrate the need for a PEACEFUL COEXISTANCE in the Middle East. One should not be so fixed on what was 100, 500, or 2000 years ago. TIME makes allowances for change. Those with interests at stake in the region need to be open to the "favorable prospects" which TIME and ENLIGHTENMENT can bring.

 

[Yonoz]

Yeap, although I don't think they were called imerialist in Alexanders era.

EDIT: Cough, cough.

There was absolutely NO break in the Hellenic culture since the Byzantine era. So please do qualify your oppinions with some thought.
As we shaped them, Ever been to Istanbul? Are you aware of why Mosques are shaped like they are? (off topic)

I'm sure you shaped them. That's not the point. The point is, whichever way you look at it - empire or occupation - nations are born in sin. Nationalism is simply our tribal instinct. To nationalise is to prevent something from everyone who is not a part of the "nation". Nationalism is an ism of negation, of seperation, of conflict. Hence every nation is born in sin. Let's try to remain on-topic. You can start another thread if you like, I'll join in.

Still, as I already stated there was no break in the Hellenic culture and especially no break from its birthplace.

As far as I'm concerned, there was no break in any culture since the beginning of human culture. Except maybe Atlantis.

You say this because?

Because your comments seem nationalist in nature.

 

[Anttech]

As far as I'm concerned, there was no break in any culture since the beginning of human culture. Except maybe Atlantis.

Well that's terrific, great qualification, I am now convinced!

ok yes this is off topic so let's stop.

 

[Astronuc]

Because Yonoz was attempting to say that Greece was born from Sin.

Yonoz was saying ALL nations are born in sin, and to some extent that is true. In a community where there are multiple clans, tribes, ethnic groups, . . . when the dominant group asserts its control over other groups, then that more or less is sin. Nations exist because some dominant group asserted political control over some territory.

The matter we are talking about IE Hellas, is not so relevent. However History is very relevant to the current problem. Are you contending that it isnt?

Yes history is relevant to the human experience, so is perception of history and so is misperception of history. People are very fond of precedent, but then one must ask, "is the information presented as precedent accurate?"

Revision or misrepresentation of history is often a problem.

One should not be so fixed on what was 100, 500, or 2000 years ago.

We cannot change the past. We can only start today and 'chose' a path for tomorrow. We can choose peaceful coexistence, with Liberty and Justice for all, or we can choose conflict. Given such a choice, why would one choose the latter?

 

[Yonoz]

We cannot change the past. We can only start today and 'chose' a path for tomorrow. We can choose peaceful coexistence, with Liberty and Justice for all, or we can choose conflict. Given such a choice, why would one choose the latter?

That is pretty much the essence of what I say to Israelis. IMO it is lacking from Palestinian public discussion.
Sorry, I'm terribly off-topic again.

 

[kyleb]

Can you provide an example to something the Iranians think the Palestinians can reasonably be expected to accept?

That doesn't matter, what maters is that the Israeli's and the Palestinians come to an agreement that both do accept. After that, then Iran and many of the other holdouts will be willing to accept Israel.

No, Zionism doesn't describe a social structure or government, it is simply the belief that Jews for whatever reasons have a national home in the Land of Israel. Israel without Zionism is Israel without a right to exist. If you find it difficult, simply replace every instance of "Zionism" with "the belief Israel has a right to exist".

Zionism is a movement which permeates both social structure and government in Israel and abroad, please take that into consideration when you see people take issue with Zionism isn't of replacing it with the half a dictionary definition you are telling me to.

Well great. So are you saying the Arabs were right in their reaction to the Jewish settlement? A reaction that introduced the first round of violence in this conflict?

I didn't say anything about reaction, but what exactly are you citing as the first round of violence?

We can discuss the Partition Plan in another thread, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, as it was recognised by the UNGC at the time. Who's questioning the Arabs displeasure? I'm sure they were very displeasured to have been unable to annihilate us.

They are displeased at being driven off their land. Again, shall I draw you a map?

 

[Hurkyl]

Exactly, it is a movement by which Russians developed their homeland, as Zionism has been to the Jewish people. But as Russians still have a right to their homeland without Sovietism, so do the Jewish people without Zionism.

You're right -- if people have a right to their land, then they have that right whether or not they believe it.

The Zionist were going to have a strong Jewish majority in the land which became Israel, and that continues to be accomplished though varying levels of 'directness' over the years.

"Strong Jewish majority" my foot. Go play around with https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html and compare the homogeneity of Israel's populace with other nations. (I thought to try Greece, Lebanon, Germany, and Iran. France, Italy, and Denmark too, but it doesn't have statistics for them)

You sound like you're accusing Israelis of something -- why not say it instead of hint around it?

 

[Yonoz]

That doesn't matter, what maters is that the Israeli's and the Palestinians come to an agreement that both do accept. After that, then Iran and many of the other holdouts will be willing to accept Israel.

The question is whether what Iran sees as acceptable is totally unacceptable to Israel? What right does Iran have to attack Israel by proxy? Why does the Iranian puppet head of state keep yapping about how much he hates Israel? And is it a good idea to let him become nuclear-capable?

Zionism is a movement which permeates both social structure and government in Israel and abroad, please take that into consideration when you see people take issue with Zionism isn't of replacing it with the half a dictionary definition you are telling me to.

Zionism is a belief. There's a Zionist movement, the members of which, surprise-surprise - are Zionists. You're describing the Zionist movement as some sort of cult or clandestine organisation. There is nothing wrong with being a Zionist - why, I even think it's a good thing.

I didn't say anything about reaction, but what exactly are you citing as the first round of violence?

Well there was some violence as back as the first Aliyah in the last two decades of the 19th century, but the first true battle was the one in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Hai" .

They were displeased at being driven off their land, again shall I draw you a map?

I'm sure they were, but they nonetheless took some part in the attempt to destroy Israel, and as such they cannot be allowed to return. Had they not been a threat they would have stayed like the countless Israeli Arab communities. Had their leadership chosen to accept the Partition Plan, they would not even have had to make that choice. They chose all out war, and they bore the consequences of defeat.