The difference between anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel

[Coyote]

They don't necessarily have to represent a foreign power - look at the definition. What would you call America's westward expansion? There are similarities.

You don't know much about honesty, so let's drop that bit.

Once again, you ignore key factors and indulge in projection by trying that Nazi trick called turnspeak by calling honesty dishonest to try too fool the gullible. .

White Americans did not predate the native people on the land in question.

And there you go, falling back on the Nazi fallacy you just can't help yourself can you?

I think there are similarities between Zionism and Manifest Destiny that drove the westward expansion and the colonization of America. American settlers felt endowed by a God given right to expand and to make the land bloom and prosper. That is not so different from the Jewish sense of God given right, with the exception that for the Jews, their origins are there and the center of their faith is there.

 

[Coyote]

They don't necessarily have to represent a foreign power - look at the definition.

Um. Yeah. Colonization DOES require a foreign power. THAT's the definition. That is what a "colony" is. This is exactly what I mean when I say that anti-semites go so far as to change the definitions of words to exclude the Jewish people from whatever it is they want to exclude them from.

And frankly, this is where you lose my respect -- when you support the obvious negation of the Jewish people's rights to ancestral, historical and religious territory based on their origins in that territory, by making such fallacious and nefarious arguments as you are here. Where you support Monte, and Challenger and Tinman in negating the Jewish connections to our own history and territory and ancestry by essentially justifying that the words they are choosing to use aren't really what the words mean and therefore they are not using word games to rob the Jewish people of our heritage.

I'm not sure what you mean in that.

The only rights ANYONE has are those granted by the nations inhabiting those areas. What rights do Jews - or anyone else - have over those currently inhabiting the region? That's not negating the connections, history and ancestry - it's asking why are their rights any greater than the rights of those who came later? The right of return exists only by Israel's laws. Christianity originated in the same area...do Christians have special rights? No. That's not denying their history and ties.

If you believe that the Jewish people have rights -- indigenous rights -- First Nations rights -- ancestral, historical, spiritual rights - self-determinative rights -- you can't unscramble that egg rights -- to that particular territory and to those specific historical locations and to those specific Holy Places -- then stop supporting those who deny those rights by arguing that they really don't mean what they are clearly intending in their posts. Stop undermining my arguments with word games and look to their intent. Stop supporting their anti-zionism.

First off - I've said this before. I don't believe Jewish people world-wide have First Nations rights. I believe they have the same rights as anyone else who wishes to move there within the laws of the nation holding the territory. I acknowledge and agree that they have deep ties to the land, the holy sites and Jerusalem - even primacy.

I believe they have self-determinative rights based on the fact that Jews have always maintained a presence there from their beginning, and that right has been realized with the formation of a state. I do agree they have spiritual rights to the region.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

They don't necessarily have to represent a foreign power - look at the definition. What would you call America's westward expansion? There are similarities.

You don't know much about honesty, so let's drop that bit.

Once again, you ignore key factors and indulge in projection by trying that Nazi trick called turnspeak by calling honesty dishonest to try too fool the gullible. .

White Americans did not predate the native people on the land in question.

And there you go, falling back on the Nazi fallacy you just can't help yourself can you?

I think there are similarities between Zionism and Manifest Destiny that drove the westward expansion and the colonization of America. American settlers felt endowed by a God given right to expand and to make the land bloom and prosper. That is not so different from the Jewish sense of God given right, with the exception that for the Jews, their origins are there and the center of their faith is there.

No fallacy. You receive all your talking points and underhanded debate tactics from antisemitic hate sites is all.

There has been a continuous Jewish presence in the area for over three thousand years. Islam did not exist until 1400 years ago and "Palestinians" were not invented until the twentieth Century.

There are plenty of Arab states, and I certainly do not see you arguing against their existence. There is one tiny, little Jewish state and you are. You are an antisemite, so focus on that one tiny little state that represents Jewish self-determination instead of all that vast expanse of land under Arab control.

 

[Coyote]

They don't necessarily have to represent a foreign power - look at the definition. What would you call America's westward expansion? There are similarities.

You don't know much about honesty, so let's drop that bit.

Once again, you ignore key factors and indulge in projection by trying that Nazi trick called turnspeak by calling honesty dishonest to try too fool the gullible. .

White Americans did not predate the native people on the land in question.

And there you go, falling back on the Nazi fallacy you just can't help yourself can you?

I think there are similarities between Zionism and Manifest Destiny that drove the westward expansion and the colonization of America. American settlers felt endowed by a God given right to expand and to make the land bloom and prosper. That is not so different from the Jewish sense of God given right, with the exception that for the Jews, their origins are there and the center of their faith is there.

No fallacy. You receive all your talking points and underhanded debate tactics from antisemitic hate sites is all.

I don't frequent anti-semitic hate sites.

There has been a continuous Jewish presence in the area for over three thousand years. Islam did not exist until 1400 years ago and "Palestinians" were not invented until the twentieth Century.

Yes. We are in agreement there. I've said that several times. What you may not realize is that the Palestinians and the Jews have shared the same region, and been the same people for over three thousand years with additions and changes due to different waves of conquest. The Palestinians were not invented - the people did not magically appear, they were always there.

There are plenty of Arab states, and I certainly do not see you arguing against their existence. There is one tiny, little Jewish state and you are. You are an antisemite, so focus on that one tiny little state that represents Jewish self-determination instead of all that vast expanse of land under Arab control.

What a silly argument. Home is home. You don't just expel people because you don't like their ethnicity.

I have never argued against Israel's existence. But hey, keep up the insults. It's all you have.

 

[montelatici]

They don't necessarily have to represent a foreign power - look at the definition. What would you call America's westward expansion? There are similarities.

You don't know much about honesty, so let's drop that bit.

Once again, you ignore key factors and indulge in projection by trying that Nazi trick called turnspeak by calling honesty dishonest to try too fool the gullible. .

White Americans did not predate the native people on the land in question.

And there you go, falling back on the Nazi fallacy you just can't help yourself can you?

I think there are similarities between Zionism and Manifest Destiny that drove the westward expansion and the colonization of America. American settlers felt endowed by a God given right to expand and to make the land bloom and prosper. That is not so different from the Jewish sense of God given right, with the exception that for the Jews, their origins are there and the center of their faith is there.

No fallacy. You receive all your talking points and underhanded debate tactics from antisemitic hate sites is all.

There has been a continuous Jewish presence in the area for over three thousand years. Islam did not exist until 1400 years ago and "Palestinians" were not invented until the twentieth Century.

There are plenty of Arab states, and I certainly do not see you arguing against their existence. There is one tiny, little Jewish state and you are. You are an antisemite, so focus on that one tiny little state that represents Jewish self-determination instead of all that vast expanse of land under Arab control.

How could there have been a continuous Jewish presence? Non-Christians (Roman religionists, Jews, Samaritans, Mithra worshippers, etc.) were required to become Christians just to live in Palestine when Christianity became the state religion of Rome (Byzantine).

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

What rights are being removed? The rights of an indigenous peoples to their ancestral, historical and religious homeland.

A colony needs a "mother country". In the case of the Jewish people, Israel IS the mother country.

Maybe I should ask you the same question I asked Monte -- if you invade, colonize, dispossess, displace and/or ethnically cleanse a territory do the indigenous peoples who were so treated LOSE their rights to that territory?

Don't you realize that antisemitic revisionist history states that they were claiming the land for Poland.

They arose in Poland, never lived anywhere else but Poland, and were part of the advance guard for that notorious Polish imperialism.

These antisemites wish they had never left so the solution to their Jewish problem could have been finalized.

You are truly repulsive.

I have never claimed that the origins of Jewish people is anywhere but Palestine. What I disagree with is that origins equals First Nations in terms of rights once a people has dispersed, particularly when you are talking thousands of years.

 

[Shusha]

I find it's a stretch to call people who left an area three thousand years ago "indiginous" - they really aren't any more. The one's who stayed are. And insisting they have special rights opens up a can of worms - how far back can special rights go and do they supercede rights of those who came after?

First of all the Jewish people didn't "leave". In the nomenclature we are currently using they were dispossessed, displaced and ethnically cleansed.

And, according to your clear beliefs as posted here, in having been targets of dispossession, displacement and ethnic cleansing, they have lost all rights to their homeland and are no longer indigenous. Only the inhabitants who are in current possession of the land are "indigenous".

And there was NEVER any conversation from me about Jewish rights superceding "those who came after" (which you clearly admit were the Arab Muslim colonizers, invaders, rulers, conquerors) or in granting the Jewish people "special rights" -- but just the opposite -- that BOTH peoples deserve recognition. And, btw, I appear to be the only one who actually believes and argues that on a consistent basis.


SO, you have demonstrated your clear belief that the Jewish people have NO on-going, continuing rights to the territory, despite your occasional politically correct expression that you support the rights of both peoples. When pressed, as now, it is clear that you actually do not. Or if you do - you have not thought it through enough to have a clear and well-thought-out basis for Jewish rights (since you deny them just as clearly as Monte, Challenger and Tinman do).

Where does that leave me? You are just as anti-zionist as the rest of them. You are just nicer about it.

But if your go-to is that dispossession, displacement and ethnic cleansing erases rights, over time -- fine by me. You made that bed, so lie in it.

 

[Coyote]

They don't necessarily have to represent a foreign power - look at the definition. What would you call America's westward expansion? There are similarities.

You don't know much about honesty, so let's drop that bit.

Once again, you ignore key factors and indulge in projection by trying that Nazi trick called turnspeak by calling honesty dishonest to try too fool the gullible. .

White Americans did not predate the native people on the land in question.

And there you go, falling back on the Nazi fallacy you just can't help yourself can you?

I think there are similarities between Zionism and Manifest Destiny that drove the westward expansion and the colonization of America. American settlers felt endowed by a God given right to expand and to make the land bloom and prosper. That is not so different from the Jewish sense of God given right, with the exception that for the Jews, their origins are there and the center of their faith is there.

No fallacy. You receive all your talking points and underhanded debate tactics from antisemitic hate sites is all.

There has been a continuous Jewish presence in the area for over three thousand years. Islam did not exist until 1400 years ago and "Palestinians" were not invented until the twentieth Century.

There are plenty of Arab states, and I certainly do not see you arguing against their existence. There is one tiny, little Jewish state and you are. You are an antisemite, so focus on that one tiny little state that represents Jewish self-determination instead of all that vast expanse of land under Arab control.

How could there have been a continuous Jewish presence? Non-Christians (Roman religionists, Jews, Samaritans, Mithra worshippers, etc.) were required to become Christians just to live in Palestine when Christianity became the state religion of Rome (Byzantine).

Census records show a continuous presence.

 

[montelatici]

I find it's a stretch to call people who left an area three thousand years ago "indiginous" - they really aren't any more. The one's who stayed are. And insisting they have special rights opens up a can of worms - how far back can special rights go and do they supercede rights of those who came after?

First of all the Jewish people didn't "leave". In the nomenclature we are currently using they were dispossessed, displaced and ethnically cleansed.

And, according to your clear beliefs as posted here, in having been targets of dispossession, displacement and ethnic cleansing, they have lost all rights to their homeland and are no longer indigenous. Only the inhabitants who are in current possession of the land are "indigenous".

And there was NEVER any conversation from me about Jewish rights superceding "those who came after" (which you clearly admit were the Arab Muslim colonizers, invaders, rulers, conquerors) or in granting the Jewish people "special rights" -- but just the opposite -- that BOTH peoples deserve recognition. And, btw, I appear to be the only one who actually believes and argues that on a consistent basis.


SO, you have demonstrated your clear belief that the Jewish people have NO on-going, continuing rights to the territory, despite your occasional politically correct expression that you support the rights of both peoples. When pressed, as now, it is clear that you actually do not. Or if you do - you have not thought it through enough to have a clear and well-thought-out basis for Jewish rights (since you deny them just as clearly as Monte, Challenger and Tinman do).

Where does that leave me? You are just as anti-zionist as the rest of them. You are just nicer about it.

But if your go-to is that dispossession, displacement and ethnic cleansing erases rights, over time -- fine by me. You made that bed, so lie in it.

Europeans that adopted Judaism had no right to expel native inhabitants many of whose ancestors practiced the Judaic faith before converting to the state religion, Christianity and subsequently to Islam.

 

[Shusha]

What rights do Jews - or anyone else - have over those currently inhabiting the region? That's not negating the connections, history and ancestry - it's asking why are their rights any greater than the rights of those who came later?

Well yes, we are discussing the balancing of the rights of invader/colonizers (those who came after) and the indigenous peoples (those who were there first).

EVERYONE, including you, seems to be arguing for one or the other. I'm arguing for BOTH. But seriously, we have to START, especially in the context of this thread, by acknowledging, in basic statement of fact, who it was that was there first. It was the Jewish people. Period. End of story. No question. And the fact that this is so freaking impossible for people to admit or grasp or deal with is the whole point of this thread.

I don't believe Jewish people world-wide have First Nations rights.

Seriously, why not? By what criteria do you define "First Nations"?


And I really really want to know, if you are so vehemently in support of the Jewish people's rights and connections to the land, why you argue so frequently against it?

 

[Coyote]

I find it's a stretch to call people who left an area three thousand years ago "indiginous" - they really aren't any more. The one's who stayed are. And insisting they have special rights opens up a can of worms - how far back can special rights go and do they supercede rights of those who came after?

First of all the Jewish people didn't "leave". In the nomenclature we are currently using they were dispossessed, displaced and ethnically cleansed.

THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO. And you are applying modern terminology to ancient events that we don't even know for sure are accurate and that are based largely on biblical stories. There are problems when you do that and use that to claim special rights.

Why don't Christians have rights as "First Nations" to Bethlahem and that area - they originated there 2000 years ago.

Why don't the Rom have rights to NW India - they left 1500 years ago.

How far back to rights go when we can't even be sure of history?

Do you seem claiming any sort of "First Nation" rights for the Palestinians? No.

And, according to your clear beliefs as posted here, in having been targets of dispossession, displacement and ethnic cleansing, they have lost all rights to their homeland and are no longer indigenous. Only the inhabitants who are in current possession of the land are "indigenous".

Ok, let me ask you this - at what point are a people no longer indigenous? Once they have spread out and established their own unique cultures around the world - are they still indigenous? Granted, all Jewish cultures share some common aspects but they also have unique attributes that define them individually. How many generations is three thousand years? Can anyone claim ancestral rights if their ancestors came from somewhere thousands of years ago? The Egyptians preceded the Jews - does that give them special rights? Where and what is the defining factor Shusha?

And there was NEVER any conversation from me about Jewish rights superceding "those who came after" (which you clearly admit were the Arab Muslim colonizers, invaders, rulers, conquerors) or in granting the Jewish people "special rights" -- but just the opposite -- that BOTH peoples deserve recognition. And, btw, I appear to be the only one who actually believes and argues that on a consistent basis.

Umn, no, the ones who came after where the Christians, then the Muslims and in between were other groups.

I disagree. I happen to believe both people's deserve recognition and have EQUAL RIGHTS. I don't believe anyone of them has any SPECIAL RIGHTS with the exception of holy sites.

SO, you have demonstrated your clear belief that the Jewish people have NO on-going, continuing rights to the territory, despite your occasional politically correct expression that you support the rights of both peoples.

So, hold on a moment. Are you saying that because I don't believe that the Jewish people have any SPECIAL RIGHTS that means I don't support the rights of both peoples? Where do you get off on that? I've consistently said I believe they all have the SAME rights - you're the one who is granting special rights.

When pressed, as now, it is clear that you actually do not. Or if you do - you have not thought it through enough to have a clear and well-thought-out basis for Jewish rights (since you deny them just as clearly as Monte, Challenger and Tinman do).

Bullshit. YOU, not I, are the one who feels one group has special rights that the other does not.

Where does that leave me? You are just as anti-zionist as the rest of them. You are just nicer about it.

But if your go-to is that dispossession, displacement and ethnic cleansing erases rights, over time -- fine by me. You made that bed, so lie in it.

You are attempting to use a modern system of ethics to grant special rights based on an event that took place three thousand years ago.

 

[Coyote]

What rights do Jews - or anyone else - have over those currently inhabiting the region? That's not negating the connections, history and ancestry - it's asking why are their rights any greater than the rights of those who came later?

Well yes, we are discussing the balancing of the rights of invader/colonizers (those who came after) and the indigenous peoples (those who were there first).

EVERYONE, including you, seems to be arguing for one or the other. I'm arguing for BOTH. But seriously, we have to START, especially in the context of this thread, by acknowledging, in basic statement of fact, who it was that was there first. It was the Jewish people. Period. End of story. No question. And the fact that this is so freaking impossible for people to admit or grasp or deal with is the whole point of this thread.

I don't believe Jewish people world-wide have First Nations rights.

Seriously, why not? By what criteria do you define "First Nations"?


And I really really want to know, if you are so vehemently in support of the Jewish people's rights and connections to the land, why you argue so frequently against it?

Because I do not believe in granting special rights and that is what you are doing.

 

[Coyote]

Frankly, I don't even support an intergenerational right of return for the Palestinans.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

What special rights do you think I am asking for the Jewish people? In the context of this thread, in particular.

All I am asking for is recognition of our history, ancestry and religious origins. How is that a "special right"?

 

[montelatici]

They don't necessarily have to represent a foreign power - look at the definition. What would you call America's westward expansion? There are similarities.

You don't know much about honesty, so let's drop that bit.

Once again, you ignore key factors and indulge in projection by trying that Nazi trick called turnspeak by calling honesty dishonest to try too fool the gullible. .

White Americans did not predate the native people on the land in question.

And there you go, falling back on the Nazi fallacy you just can't help yourself can you?

I think there are similarities between Zionism and Manifest Destiny that drove the westward expansion and the colonization of America. American settlers felt endowed by a God given right to expand and to make the land bloom and prosper. That is not so different from the Jewish sense of God given right, with the exception that for the Jews, their origins are there and the center of their faith is there.

No fallacy. You receive all your talking points and underhanded debate tactics from antisemitic hate sites is all.

There has been a continuous Jewish presence in the area for over three thousand years. Islam did not exist until 1400 years ago and "Palestinians" were not invented until the twentieth Century.

There are plenty of Arab states, and I certainly do not see you arguing against their existence. There is one tiny, little Jewish state and you are. You are an antisemite, so focus on that one tiny little state that represents Jewish self-determination instead of all that vast expanse of land under Arab control.

How could there have been a continuous Jewish presence? Non-Christians (Roman religionists, Jews, Samaritans, Mithra worshippers, etc.) were required to become Christians just to live in Palestine when Christianity became the state religion of Rome (Byzantine).

Census records show a continuous presence.

That is not possible. The Romans were sticklers about the law and Hadrian forbade Jews to live in Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem) or its general surroundings, so the Roman census would only show Christians as inhabitants of Palestine except for the period 361-363 AD when Julian the Apostate became emperor. He was a fervent worshipper of the Roman Gods who sought to bring back Roman paganism at the expense of Christianity. As a foil against the Christians he allowed pagans and those of other religions (including Jews) to return to Palestine. But he only ruled for two years and afterwards, Palestine became exclusively Christian again. In those days, Palestine was the Christian Holy Land exclusively, being the birthplace of Jesus Christ.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

What special rights do you think I am asking for the Jewish people? In the context of this thread, in particular.

All I am asking for is recognition of our history, ancestry and religious origins. How is that a "special right"?

You repeatedly frame it in terms of "rights" - not recognition - rights. And those are rights not granted all around, but specific to specific people - that's special rights.

 

[Shusha]

THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO.

So time removes indigeneity?

Why don't Christians have rights as "First Nations" to Bethlahem and that area - they originated there 2000 years ago.

Christian is a religion and not an ethnic group. (The Jewish people are an ethnic group.) And the Romans (the ethnic group/nationality which you are actually speaking about) were invaders/conquerors. By definition, indigenous peoples are surviving cultures prior to invasion/colonization.

Why don't the Rom have rights to NW India - they left 1500 years ago.

I could make a strong argument that they do.

How far back to rights go when we can't even be sure of history?

They go back as far as a culture remains a distinct culture.

Do you seem claiming any sort of "First Nation" rights for the Palestinians?

Of course not. They are the culture of the invading peoples and by definition are not indigenous. Though this does not negate their rights to national self-determination.

Ok, let me ask you this - at what point are a people no longer indigenous?

The moment they no longer have a distinct and recognizable culture.

The Egyptians preceded the Jews ...

Um. No. The Egyptians were invaders/conquerors.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

What special rights do you think I am asking for the Jewish people? In the context of this thread, in particular.

All I am asking for is recognition of our history, ancestry and religious origins. How is that a "special right"?

You repeatedly frame it in terms of "rights" - not recognition - rights. And those are rights not granted all around, but specific to specific people - that's special rights.

Dodge. What specific special rights am I claiming for the Jewish people?

Remember this began as a discussion about colonialism. So how is the request for recognition of the historical, ancestral, and religious origins of the Jewish people asking for "special rights"? I'm only asking for what EVERY other people is granted automatically -- for their connection to NOT be denied by using false terms like colonialism.

And that is EXACTLY the context of this thread. You insist I am asking for special rights, when all I am asking is for the same rights as other peoples. Your anti-zionism is showing.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

Why do the Jewish people have rights to the territory in question? In your belief system.

 

[montelatici]

Coyote

What special rights do you think I am asking for the Jewish people? In the context of this thread, in particular.

All I am asking for is recognition of our history, ancestry and religious origins. How is that a "special right"?

You repeatedly frame it in terms of "rights" - not recognition - rights. And those are rights not granted all around, but specific to specific people - that's special rights.

Dodge. What specific special rights am I claiming for the Jewish people?

Remember this began as a discussion about colonialism. So how is the request for recognition of the historical, ancestral, and religious origins of the Jewish people asking for "special rights"? I'm only asking for what EVERY other people is granted automatically -- for their connection to NOT be denied by using false terms like colonialism.

And that is EXACTLY the context of this thread. You insist I am asking for special rights, when all I am asking is for the same rights as other peoples. Your anti-zionism is showing.

The Zionists themselves stated they were colonizing Palestine.