Zionism is no different than Nazism

Post Reply New Topic

If I am following this correctly, its not that a bunch of Jewish people got together and purchased the entirety of the land that is now Israel. rather, individual Jews bought houses or other small plots of land within the land that is now part of Israel and started living there. They did in no way buy the entire area, just small pieces of it.

This is laughable, Ottomans were occupiers, oppressors of the Arabs and Armenians, hated and fought and were never seen as the legitimate owners of the lands taken from the the indigenous populations. It's like you are saying that Nazi Germans buying and selling French lands in ww2, because of course, they "owned" them.

Why Palestinians don't talk Turkish? What don't I talk Turkish? Why my grandparents doesn't talk Turkish? Fact is, that were never really been Ottomans, we were simply subjects (slaves) in the Ottomans' perspective.

Some of us consider themselves descendants of Canaanites, Syriacs, others consider themselves simply Arabs, but you won't find any Levantine Arab who considers him/herself a descendant of Ottomans, we are not much related to this non-Semitic people, except the very few handful of families who are known to be of Turkish/Ottoman bloodline.

Ottomans, Britains, French..... none of them were us, and we will never accept the "legitimacy" of any deal they did in the past on our account.


Hope this is to be well understood.

The Palestinians came from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi, all over the place. Arguably the Bedouins of South Israel are a more Palestinian than the Palestinians. Still they could have a state, if they quit with the neurosis, and stop digging themselves a bigger an bigger hole.

I'm one that thinks that the whole argument about historic origin irrelevant anyway. I would say the same for Israelis. I could say my ancestors were Canaanite, or Sumerian and we are the true custodian of the lands, before Judaism, and basically Judaism was a offshoot of Canaanite culture, which only became Monotheistic to prevent heir enemy's (Babylonian) gods from being worshiped.

I believe Israel has a right to exist becuase it thrives as a modern successful nation.

That is the only rational reasoning. Things like "divine right", or historical origin thousand of years ago have no relevance in international law, and are merely a personal belief.

Palestinians need to get over the fact that thing change, they haven't got the moral high ground either. The history of caliphates spreading out from the Levant is as bad as the worst western colonialism, so if that is their claim of origin, then their ancestors were colonists as well.

Palestinians at the start of this crisis not only had vast land in neighboring countries which they had many relations, They also had a vast about of land, in what is now part of Israel, Those who resided in then Israel were allowed to stay.

Their territory has shrunk considerably, mostly down to their own stupidity an inability to live side by side.

Where are your evidences that Palestinians have came from Jordan, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi, all over the place? So the population of that land was zero at some point, and suddenly all these arabs came to populate it in a giant exodus? What you are saying, is repeating a very known zionist propaganda crap as attempt to un-indigenousize the indigenous populations; and yes Bedouins are indigenous too.

The caliphates have only spread religion and enforced Arabic language, but it's not like they have exterminated all Semitic populations and sent Arabs to take their places, Semitic indigenous people have already existed there and spoke languages based on similar linguistic structures of Arabic, which is why their languages had been easily merged with Arabic and formed what we call today "Arabic dialects" which are pretty different from one to another way more than American English to British English (total different set of vocabularies, structuring, grammar...etc) - it's not like the Canaanites of Canaan or Berbers and ancient Egyptians of north Africa have disappeared *puff* in the air and Desert Arabs landed in their place, it was simply a cultural assimilation. Today, Arabphones are called "Arabs", it became simply a linguistic identity. In Lebanon for example, only clans in beqaa are viewed to be direct descendants of Arab tribes (but probably genetically are as mixed as others today - no genetic study on them-, but still have distinct set of rules of and customs way different than other locals).

Many middle eastern are Francophone due to french colonialism, are they french today?

And that's why Iran and Turkey and all non-Semitic Muslim countries today don't speak Arabic, yes the caliphates did impose Islam on them and they did attempt to impose Arabic language too, that's why modern Farsi and recent turkish (before going latin) are written in Arabic scripts, but their language assimilation attempts have failed since these languages belong to totally different linguistic families. If you look at the muslim world map, you notice that only the historically Semitic-speakers speak Arabic today, Canaanites, Aramaic, Syriacs, Berbers *(their language was greatly influenced and shaped by Punic)...etc


And oh, the Bible states that Jews (Hebrews) were invaders of Canaan, because it's the promised land, and were not Canaanites at all (despite the evidences), and Israel was founded and acted on this premise.

The last thing I am susceptible is Zionist propaganda.

That is not my point, they were Semitic people as well I of course. The evidence is actually tribal history, there is a group in the region including Lebanon who trance their ancestrally to places as far a field as Yemen. Some even claim direct line to Mohamed. Of course there was settlement all over the place an Semitic peoples. In fact part of the stupidity is Semitic peoples not getting on. This was a transient area, the problem lies is why take issue on this particular area an not others? Nothing to do with holy land of course and they are not the only show in town...

My other point was all this rhetoric about Western imperialists was to point out that Arab imperialism wasn't all that different. Your point was to say it was a fairish system. I would have to disagree, not to say it was worse but tell you the situation was just as mixed. Both systems did bad things, and also brought some advancements. Arab imperialism wasn't totally free from religious persecution, for its entire history, it also supported slavery (an arguably still does in the Gulf, and some places in north Africa), and people were displaced and killed as it expanded. Secondly how is Arab occupation different from any other occupation, an colonization is a form of occupation? However I have a pragmatic view of history, so I don't believe in historic reparation. For instance I disagree with apologizing to the crusades, and why apologize for the crusades, if you don't get an equal apology back?

Now back onto the core of my argument:

The population of the Palestinian territories in 1947 around 750,000 compared to Lebanon's 1 million. The land mass 6,060 sq miles compared to Lebanon 4,036 sq miles. So if a larger population in a smaller area (and a much more diverse population) can get it together why not the Palestinians?

No matter how you cut it and what your moral argument is, the Palestinian Authority has made fundamentally terrible decisions over this years. It now has a much, smaller territory which has quite a is to do with refusing to make peace with Israel. Think how different things would be if they, actual made the most of what they had (which was a lot more than they had for centuries). We would not be here, Palestine would be a country, and even Gaza and West Bank would adjoin.

The quality of life in Gaza, is much worse than it was in 1947. So this is what I mean about digging themselves a hole. f**k nationalism, if this is is what it amounts to.

I also point out that the Arab Villages in Israel, they were allowed to stay, under Israel. Only a few chose to do that. They chose to fight, or resist.

So this argument it is all to do with humanitarian need, is not really true, it actually to do with the fact, they cannot accept, that the holy land is not completely under their control, and this is an antisemitism (although not all anti-Zionism, or anti-Isreal rhetoric is)

I know your position is very popular in the middle East but try to weigh up both sides from a neurtal stance. I used have more sympathy for your position, and I still sympathize with the civilian population. However I think the neurosis very real, not a metaphor, and this a learned behavior, and the treatment is similar to if you had a friend who was neurotic. You don't reinforce the same neurotic behavior. If that sounds patronizing, I'm sorry but I genuinely believe this, and care about each and every one of them. The behavior of the PLA and to a much larger extent Hamas has been very self destructive. This is not good for the civilian population.

I have talked at length, about forcing the two side to take responsibility without relying on the international community, by forcing incentive which is lacking. Incentive is a critical part of resolution and the leaders, have staked their whole careers on their entrenched positions, which why incentive is lacking. This involves removing the mediators and envoy of every country (which is enabling not helping). Tell them in no uncertain term they both must meet regularly, or the both get sanctioned. Similarly any behavior designed to sabotage this process should be sanctioned. There will not be any official comment from any country on endgame (2 state, 3 state, 0 state, etc), as this has to be decided by the two parties. Also any rhetoric coming from official of the two side to the international, should be noted but receive no response.

I was born in Johannesburg son of a British diplomat who was assigned Black and protest politics as part of his job, and he met up will various leaders of movements. The main reason why we have the South Africa we have today, is becuase incentive was created. This was due to a combination on internal moments and international response. However when it came to the actual resolution, this was very much owned by the South Africans. Where as in this crisis, the international community, is far too involved in the process, and this causes more problems than it solves.

For instance this latest spate, it hard to imagine it would have kick off as bad and as early, if Kerry hadn't been pushing his US peace process. Both Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Netanyahu were desperately scrambling for ways to kill this process, without appearing to. Neither of them wanted to come together at this point, that much they agreed on, and the read off a well rehearsed script designed to kill the process. This made things significantly worse because they really went to town, both of them. Kerry was a naive and it was a vanity project (I'm not saying Kerry is responsible for bloodshed, just he was stupid in how he handled it).


My criticism of Israel and especially Netanyahu, is they are overestimating how much millage and tolerance the populations of their allies have to unadulterated foreign relations in support of everything Israel does. Israel need to be more atune to this, hotheadedness isn't going to solicit a good response. People also wonder why their foreign policy and national interest is so skewed in favour of a samll country which on the face of it shouldn't have this much sway, historic relations aside. This isn't really to do with whether you agree or disagree but the amount of time a resources dedicated to it. Of course people want to support Isreals right to thrive, but that is not a blank queue in support of any Isreali policy, and any material support is naturally going to come with some situation.

Netanyahu need to stop blasting off his hot head, and biting the hand that feed hims. Israel need to adapt more and and understand that each ally has separate foreign policy interest, just like Israel. This too is a neurotic behavior. Israel need to take more responsibility for it actions and be more self-sufficient. Much of foreign policy in any country has a lot to do with domestic politics, but he really needs to consider the damage his rhetoric and temperament is doing to Isreals reputation, it doesn't come across as calm and in control, or even that realistic. He is basically ordering, and making demands of countries that don't have to listen if they don't want to.

As someone who researched Apartheid and the situation in Gaza, I would say they are not the same.

Superficially I see why people might make that connection, but both Grand Apartheid and Petty Apartheid are very different form the situation in Gaza.

Gaza is neither a township in Israel or a Home State with a puppet leader controlled by Israel. The Gaza elected Hamas, or at least that appears to be the result of that election, and they administer Gaza (this was after Israel withdrew any remaining citizens from Gaza). They also have militant wing. they carried out attacks not only against Israel, but rival factions like Fatah. They are also extremely theocratic, which runs counter to the original pluralist intentions of the Palestinian movement at least on paper.

Also Jewish people were some of the most prominent supporters and activists of the Anti-Athartied moment and my dad had friends with many of them. Some of them are involved with grass root effort to improve ration between Palestinians and Israelis unfortunately greatly undermined by politician on both sides.

I can see why it would divide the opinion of Holocaust survivors, and no doubt the situation in Gaza is dire, but the better situation in West Bank offer a contrast, regarding the response to different policies.

Of course the situation in Gaza saddens me, but unlike the popular movement of Apartheid it didn't happen in one push. Israel didn't have these great wall all round it for many years, it tolerated quite a number of attacks. Attacks have got more sophisticated and stepped up. They has to do something.

The total blockade of Gaza was gradual and it is to do with Hamas mostly. Also Egypt itself suffered terrorist attack, supported by Gaza. They control that border.

Gaza is actually more porous than you think or else they would have not been able to launch rockets. Hamas has actually made political mileage of the microcosm becuase people are isolated from opposing view in the West Bank. Opposition is oppressed, they have killed political rivals, after the election they were filmed pushing their opponents of the top a a building, and they fell to their deaths. They don't even hide this policy.

The blockade works both ways, they also control the moment of people into Gaza.

It's sad to say, but in the words of the late Aba Eban: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

The following is a list from Wikipedia. You can see Palestinian suicide bomber efforts varied from year to year.

How would you feel about Palestinians if one were to walk into your local Starbucks some morning to protest?
Or maybe showed up at your kid's school to teach them some lessons in the gentleness of Islam?

Does anyone still wonder why Israelis block the tunnels and free flow of commerce? If it were the U.S. we'd
use the scorched earth policy we've demonstrated against Al Qaida. The Israelis are more merciful. But the
Palestinians are stupid; they feel because they've been able to turn a few Western minds that the Israelis
will be forced to capitulate somehow. I guess they still don't understand Israelis.

Total number of fatalities, by year.

Year

1989 16
1993 1
1994 38
1995 39
1996 59
1997 24
1998 3
1999 0
2000 6
2001 85
2002 238
2003 145
2004 98
2005 33
2006 15
2007 3
2008 1
Total 804 from 69 separate bombings. There were other bombings which only maimed which are not listed.

Unfortunately Muslims also kill Muslims, and at a greater rate than they kill Jews or anyone else. Something is wrong with this situation.

Before I'll take up a fight for Muslims they have to get their house in order, and that means a permanent end to all the religious killing promoted by religious leaders. When they've shown themselves to be civilized meaningful talks can begin.....not while the worst of Muslims keep dropping mortar shells on your country (while trying to attract sympathy for their poor performance....what fools). No one is amused or fooled.

Human civilization in a nutshell![youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY[/youtube]

Whether some people can trace their ancestry back to other places doesn't really matter. The British are mostly descended from the earlier Romano-British population, not the Anglo-Saxons or the Normans. Are they suddenly no longer British? It doesn't matter whether they speak Brythonic, Saxon, Norman French or English, it is still their native land.

I don't know what you are smoking but the British are largely Anglo Saxon, in England, and even the earlier came form central and western Europe also and spread to places like Wales. In they were Germanic/central European cultures and invaded by later Germanic cultures, and later still Normans descended from Vikings. The Normans were a massive influence. The Romans, we abandoned their culture, which is why you will find few straight roads other than the odd Roman road. Even their town pride and joy Londinium, you will see completely ran roughshod over Roman culture. Just ask a London cabbie, who has to learn the "knowledge".

In Paris they have road that starfish into out from the center to the perimeter, which is why decent is quickly put down, and how the Nazis found it easy to enter. This is a very different story in London. Try driving into the centre with tanks in one single offensive.

Jono, your definition of genocide is not the one the United Nations uses. The United Nations defines genocide as acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"
And the fact that a population is increasing does not mean that there is no attempt being made to destroy them - in part or even in whole.

Here is the full UN definition of genocide-

..any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The real motivation for Zionism was not so much to make Jews safe from "antisemitism", but to make them safe from disappearing through assimilation after European society opened up to them following the Enlightenment and the resulting decline in religious belief among European Gentiles and European Jews alike.

Your statement that Zionism is basically Jewish nationalism, and the implication that it is ethnically based, is of course pretty much correct.



Suggesting Zionism probably started as a reaction to Nazism is being too generous. Zionism started as a reaction to Europeans granting political equality to Jews in the 19th century.

Exactly, and there is no intent by Israel to destroy "in whole, or in part" the Palestinians. The fact that their population is increasing faster than the Israeli population, proves this point. Ironically, the UN's definition that you quoted above, actually proves my point, it doesn't contradict it, at all.

The fact that the Palestinian population is growing faster than the Israeli population proves no such thing. The Palestinian population would be growing even more if Israel were not waging economic war against them and dropping bombs on their women and children.

As Jacoby said on another thread, the Israeli policy is to make life so miserable for the Palestinians that they eventually leave.