What about the precedent that the zionist ideology in Palestine sets for the rest of the world?

[rylah]

and the European immigration did not substantially impact those who already lived there

Really, the indigenous people disagree as explained above,

This is where it gets really muddy. The people in that area that are indigenous include the Jews, and as a culture they are probably the oldest continuous culture in that regin with clear ties to the ancient history of the place. So you can't exclude them any more then you can exclude the other native Palestinian groups - Muslims, Druze, Christians who have roots going back centuries. They all have rights of place. Why are Jews excluded from this right?

You also had immigration of Arabs from surrounding countries who came for the jobs. Why is one bad and the other not?

Look at the numbers and you tell me.

This is the best source I've found for this - it pretty debunks the idea that Jews displaced Palestinians and it also debunks the competing claim that the Arab Muslims were all foreign invaders: MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

The Pan Arab Nationism vs the Jewish Nationalism. I'm curious why no one has a problem with Arab nationalism resulting in states while the same goal for Jewish Nationalists is condemned.

Because the zionists came from another continent behind an army. They were not wanted after the first wave.

I'm not sure what you mean.

The people in that area that are indigenous include the Jews,

The native Jews have always been accepted as Palestinians. This was a part of the PLO charter.

The native Jews refuse. They're overwhelmingly for Jewish control.

Do You have anything on the contrary?

 

[there4eyeM]

Some would say that there are large differences in the fashion which 'Zionist' is used.
There was a European intellectual movement that took up the term, but it could be said that, throughout time anyone who favored a nation called Israel was essentially 'Zionist', or at least 'Zionistic'. Obviously, some people take the term 'Zionist' as an epithet. Use varies according to context.

 

[Shusha]

So much BS and so little time. The Arabs were there continuously for at least 1000 years. There was a smaller group of Christians during this time and a minute to nonexistent Jewish population for most of that time. Again, the Hebrew language was not even spoken there for centuries.

7) After Not Being Spoken for Two Millennia, It Was Dramatically Revived.


Hebrew had not been a spoken language for two millennia, and yet at the end of the 19th century, European Jews dreaming of a cultural renaissance in Palestine began to resurrect the language.
7 Things You Should Know About Hebrew | My Jewish Learning

Stop with zionist talking points and go study!

Coyote, here is a perfect example of an attempt to disenfranchise the Jewish people. The claim that Hebrew was not spoken for two millennia is so blatantly false it is astonishing someone would (repetitively) make that claim. The point, of course, is that since Hebrew wasn't spoken, the people ceased to be Jews and lost all rights. See what I am up against? Its ridiculous.

 

[abi]

Do You have anything on the contrary?

Please, again, stop derailing. If you have an intelligent response to the OP or post two, please let us know. This seems to be another thread that is not for you.

This is all that was said:

I'm not trying to be funny, but seriously now. If I understand the zionist position, it boils down to might is right - or might makes right. But, there is also the idea that if a people were somewhere in ancient times, that they still retain rights to that land. I am constantly reminded about a peoples' right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Am I okay so far?

Good.

Now, since we came from Asia, across the Bering Straight, would this ideology not give Americans the right to demolish homes in Asia today, demolish entire cities even? Can we go on to murder and expel those living there today? If any remain, can we imprison them behind walls? Can we use our military to enforce a new government upon them based on our laws, in our cities built where theirs just stood?

I think it is important to see what a dangerous precedent this sets for people the world over.

Oh, and if a small group of Americans came up with scrolls, claimed they were from God and that they were His chosen people, and He told them that they would be returned to their ancestral homeland, would that help or hurt the argument?

 

[abi]

The claim that Hebrew was not spoken for two millennia is so blatantly false it is astonishing someone would (repetitively) make that claim.

It is historical fact and is verified by multiple Jewish sources as the one I posted. Stop derailing.

 

[Shusha]

What false charge is that?

You don't even know what you post. You asked yesterday and I showed you, then you left.

I haven't made any claim. I'm asking you a question.

Your OP claims that neither historical indigeniety nor effective sovereignty is a viable justification for rights to self-determination.

I went to bed. It was past midnight here.

So this "false charge" is my interpretation of your OP? That's the way your OP reads to me. You appear to be claiming that ancestral, historical indigeniety is not a viable justification for rights to self-determination?

If that is not your intent, please clarify your OP.

 

[abi]

The point, of course, is that since Hebrew wasn't spoken, the people ceased to be Jews and lost all rights. See what I am up against? Its ridiculous.

What you are up against is your choice. You claim lies every single day. You get proven wrong every single day. Then you complain.

I told you along time ago that when your narrative is shown to be false by facts to change your narrative, not the facts. You are doing this to yourself and then whining to a zionist mod about your poor situation. I find that ridiculous, you are humiliating yourself.

 

[rylah]

The claim that Hebrew was not spoken for two millennia is so blatantly false it is astonishing someone would (repetitively) make that claim.

It is historical fact and is verified by multiple Jewish sources as the one I posted. Stop derailing.

Wrong, Hebrew alphabet was used among all diaspora.
Hebrew books were studied everywhere, from Yemen to Russia.

 

[abi]

ou appear to be claiming that ancestral, historical indigeniety is not a viable justification for rights to self-determination?

I'm asking, not claiming. But, now it appears to be obviously a ridiculous precedent even based solely on the zionist responses here.

 

[rylah]

Do You have anything on the contrary?

Please, again, stop derailing. If you have an intelligent response to the OP or post two, please let us know. This seems to be another thread that is not for you.

This is all that was said:

I'm not trying to be funny, but seriously now. If I understand the zionist position, it boils down to might is right - or might makes right. But, there is also the idea that if a people were somewhere in ancient times, that they still retain rights to that land. I am constantly reminded about a peoples' right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Am I okay so far?

Good.

Now, since we came from Asia, across the Bering Straight, would this ideology not give Americans the right to demolish homes in Asia today, demolish entire cities even? Can we go on to murder and expel those living there today? If any remain, can we imprison them behind walls? Can we use our military to enforce a new government upon them based on our laws, in our cities built where theirs just stood?

I think it is important to see what a dangerous precedent this sets for people the world over.

Oh, and if a small group of Americans came up with scrolls, claimed they were from God and that they were His chosen people, and He told them that they would be returned to their ancestral homeland, would that help or hurt the argument?

I disagree, the main thing here is not the distance.
The precedent is of an indigenous people reconstituting their national homeland in land that bears their name.

The precedent is good, although involves many difficulties, as in the case of Israel, Kurds and Yazidis, or Catalonia. I would expect no small amount of disturbance in case some indigenous tribe decides they want a state in their familial lands in the US...

 

[Shusha]

The claim that Hebrew was not spoken for two millennia is so blatantly false it is astonishing someone would (repetitively) make that claim.

It is historical fact and is verified by multiple Jewish sources as the one I posted. Stop derailing.

Uh huh. And prayers books were written in a language no one could read or speak from for thousands of years. I suppose they were just to have something to play with in our hands during the long services and had no real purpose other than that. And I suppose the discussions in Talmud concerning which language certain prayers should be spoke in is just a later insertion to defraud everyone. Please, you are not doing any favours for your credibility.

Hebrew has been spoken, in some contexts, continuously, for thousands of years. The reason it could BE revived as an everyday spoken language was because it was kept alive for all of those centuries. HOW it was revived as simply for one man to begin speaking it as an every day language.

You want to see what a dead language really looks like --go see if you can find someone speaking (ancient) Egyptian in every day life and see that revived by millions of modern day Egyptians within the span of a few decades. Good luck.

 

[abi]

Do You have anything on the contrary?

Please, again, stop derailing. If you have an intelligent response to the OP or post two, please let us know. This seems to be another thread that is not for you.

This is all that was said:

I'm not trying to be funny, but seriously now. If I understand the zionist position, it boils down to might is right - or might makes right. But, there is also the idea that if a people were somewhere in ancient times, that they still retain rights to that land. I am constantly reminded about a peoples' right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Am I okay so far?

Good.

Now, since we came from Asia, across the Bering Straight, would this ideology not give Americans the right to demolish homes in Asia today, demolish entire cities even? Can we go on to murder and expel those living there today? If any remain, can we imprison them behind walls? Can we use our military to enforce a new government upon them based on our laws, in our cities built where theirs just stood?

I think it is important to see what a dangerous precedent this sets for people the world over.

Oh, and if a small group of Americans came up with scrolls, claimed they were from God and that they were His chosen people, and He told them that they would be returned to their ancestral homeland, would that help or hurt the argument?

I disagree, the main thing here is not the distance.
The precedent is of an indigenous people reconstituting their national homeland in land that bears their name.

The precedent is good, although involves many difficulties, as in the case of Israel, Kurds and Yazidis, or Catalonia. I would expect no small amount of disturbance in case some indigenous tribe decides they want a state in their familial lands in the US...

Land does not bear their name, they were from a different continent and the US I am sure would just let them in, like any reasonable people.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're not getting the LEGAL picture here. The parcel come up for "sale" thru a long chain of OWNERS ending in the Ottoman Empire and then the British Empire. It was AVAILABLE.. At just the right time that the Jewish nation had taken enough abuse to consolidate BACK as a nation.. The OTTOMANS and the BRITS came from other continents as well. And THEY held the land title. NOT the Palestinians or the Jews..

Well, you are suggesting that a group of men from one continent can give another group of men from their continent, the land where others have lived for centuries on another continent.

That in itself seems like a dangerous precedent indeed.

That's the history of the world dude. Where ya been? Not so much since the "game" has wound down into more stability. But that's the way, it "developed". It's now a MATURE neighborhood. With less and less "homeland" fixer upper opportunities. Times' a'wasting for the Pali cause. They don't SEEM to be in any kind of rush. But they better realize this can't go another generation without THEM buying into statehood and stability..

I find it disgusting how zionists blame the victim and all that changed, 'dude,' after Nuremberg. At least the international community believed that it had. Continuing to promote this dangerous ideology is what must stop.

Not following that. Zionists blaming what victim? The British established 2 homelands in THEIR territory. There were no real victims. IN FACT -- prior to the 67 war, the Palis had the ENTIRE WEST BANK, financing from Jordan and representation in the Jordanian govt. You aware of how all that "bliss" ended up -- right????

The British established 2 homelands in THEIR territory.

It was not British territory. Britain was the trustee. Trustees administer but do not own.

No dear -- the British ESTABLISHED a trustee for the territority. It was rightfully in their power to dispose of it as they ANALYZED and decided to do..

 

[rylah]

Do You have anything on the contrary?

Please, again, stop derailing. If you have an intelligent response to the OP or post two, please let us know. This seems to be another thread that is not for you.

This is all that was said:

I'm not trying to be funny, but seriously now. If I understand the zionist position, it boils down to might is right - or might makes right. But, there is also the idea that if a people were somewhere in ancient times, that they still retain rights to that land. I am constantly reminded about a peoples' right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Am I okay so far?

Good.

Now, since we came from Asia, across the Bering Straight, would this ideology not give Americans the right to demolish homes in Asia today, demolish entire cities even? Can we go on to murder and expel those living there today? If any remain, can we imprison them behind walls? Can we use our military to enforce a new government upon them based on our laws, in our cities built where theirs just stood?

I think it is important to see what a dangerous precedent this sets for people the world over.

Oh, and if a small group of Americans came up with scrolls, claimed they were from God and that they were His chosen people, and He told them that they would be returned to their ancestral homeland, would that help or hurt the argument?

I disagree, the main thing here is not the distance.
The precedent is of an indigenous people reconstituting their national homeland in land that bears their name.

The precedent is good, although involves many difficulties, as in the case of Israel, Kurds and Yazidis, or Catalonia. I would expect no small amount of disturbance in case some indigenous tribe decides they want a state in their familial lands in the US...

Land does not bear their name, they were from a different continent and the US I am sure would just let them in, like any reasonable people.

Geography:
Judaean Desert - Wikipedia

 

[Shusha]

ou appear to be claiming that ancestral, historical indigeniety is not a viable justification for rights to self-determination?

I'm asking, not claiming.

Oh, well since you are asking...I'll provide my opinion for answer.

Ancestral, historical indigeneity is the foundation of the concept of rights to self-determination. It applies to ALL peoples. It is the source of modern claims of such diverse places such as Catalonia, Tibet, Kurdistan, Scotland, Cherokee Nation, Kashmir and many others. It is was the driving force between such nations as Serbia, Bosnia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Macedonia, South Sudan and dozens of others. In fact, there are probably far more nations in our world whose existence is predicated on local, ethnic, historical and ancestral indigeniety than on any other concept.

So, yes this is a viable justification. And no, it is not at all a dangerous precedent. Quite the opposite -- the mutual recognition of different ethnic groups and their separation into distinct ethnic identities as States tends to lead to the end of conflict (civil war).

 

[abi]

ou appear to be claiming that ancestral, historical indigeniety is not a viable justification for rights to self-determination?

I'm asking, not claiming.

Oh, well since you are asking...I'll provide my opinion for answer.

Ancestral, historical indigeneity is the foundation of the concept of rights to self-determination. It applies to ALL peoples. It is the source of modern claims of such diverse places such as Catalonia, Tibet, Kurdistan, Scotland, Cherokee Nation, Kashmir and many others. It is was the driving force between such nations as Serbia, Bosnia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Macedonia, South Sudan and dozens of others. In fact, there are probably far more nations in our world whose existence is predicated on local, ethnic, historical and ancestral indigeniety than on any other concept.

So, yes this is a viable justification. And no, it is not at all a dangerous precedent. Quite the opposite -- the mutual recognition of different ethnic groups and their separation into distinct ethnic identities as States tends to lead to the end of conflict (civil war).

Now, since we came from Asia, across the Bering Straight, would this ideology not give Americans the right to demolish homes in Asia today, demolish entire cities even? Can we go on to murder and expel those living there today? If any remain, can we imprison them behind walls? Can we use our military to enforce a new government upon them based on our laws, in our cities built where theirs just stood?

 

[P F Tinmore]

British and French, please search this yourself.

The British and French were already there. In fact didn't they try to limit Jewish immigration?

The British occupied Palestine in 1917. They had their army there and the Balfour declaration in their pocket. That was the beginning of the hundred year assault on the Palestinians.

The British were to facilitate Jewish immigration but limit it to the absorption capacity of the economy. The Zionists had a big disagreement with those numbers.

The British were pressured by the Arabs to limit Jewish immigration and there was a lot of illegal immigration of both Arabs and Jews. In fact, didn't the Jewish immigration bring with it an economic boom that attracted Arabs to come work there?

That is a common fallacy. The Zionist colonies lived as separate from the Palestinians as possible. One of the rules was that Jewish enterprises could only hire Jewish labor.

Link?

Palestine and the Palestinians

 

[flacaltenn]

Or are you saying the jews are analogous to a foreign group bringing their military in and stealing land and murdering everyone etc.?

No way, I have been clear that we are talking about zionism and people that came from a completely different continent. Read writings from before the zionists came, from Muslims, Christians and Jews who all lived in peace for the most part for centuries. They tell stories of dinners at each others homes and praise the others for their kindness and generosity. Their children played together.

I don't think you can cleanly excise Zionism from the mix and label it as the ideology that destroyed Eden. You had competing forces at work, and the European immigration did not substantially impact those who already lived there. You also had immigration of Arabs from surrounding countries who came for the jobs. Why is one bad and the other not? It also ignores the larger picture of what was happening in the region and around the world with the collapse of empires, the ending of foreign control, and the subsequent rise of nationist movements all over. The Pan Arab Nationism vs the Jewish Nationalism. I'm curious why no one has a problem with Arab nationalism resulting in states while the same goal for Jewish Nationalists is condemned. I think we need to move past this narrative.

For instance -- RIGHT NOW -- the Homeland market is crowded with potential buyers. You have the Kurds -- who by ALL MEASURES are entitled to a bit of separation between themselves and that monstrous Shia/Sunni roving apocalypse that they have suffered thru.

You have the Rohingah being expelled from Myanmar in a controlled ethnic cleansing. Who MIGHT assimilate into a suitable Muslim country somewhere in the region, but are DISTINCT enough to consider themselves a nation. You also have several tiny Christian sects that need sanctuary from persecution in Africa, that could join together in a "homeland deal"..

And probably 3 or 4 other DISTINCT "nations" of people who are tired of renting in hostile neighborhoods. The only way a "homeland realtor" can help ANY OF THESE is to understand how to make "land swaps" with enough neighbors to come with a large enough piece of CONNECTED land to be the lot that the homeland gets created on.

Movements like Zionism are HOW displaced nations organize and lobby for deals. There's a lot of work involved. And it takes leadership and PROCESS. The Kurds are advertising on American TV.. They HAVE leadership and organization. What are the Palestinians doing to ORGANIZE for nationhood?? Other than sucking down UN/Intl funding and pooping it away? When was the LAST Pali election or "central meeting"??

 

[abi]

What are the Palestinians doing to ORGANIZE for nationhood?? Other than sucking down UN/Intl funding and pooping it away?

Yup, the zionist has to blame the victim. It has to be done constantly.

 

[Coyote]

So much BS and so little time. The Arabs were there continuously for at least 1000 years. There was a smaller group of Christians during this time and a minute to nonexistent Jewish population for most of that time. Again, the Hebrew language was not even spoken there for centuries.

7) After Not Being Spoken for Two Millennia, It Was Dramatically Revived.


Hebrew had not been a spoken language for two millennia, and yet at the end of the 19th century, European Jews dreaming of a cultural renaissance in Palestine began to resurrect the language.
7 Things You Should Know About Hebrew | My Jewish Learning

Stop with zionist talking points and go study!

Let's zip forward 75 years. It's 2017. We can endlessly rehash a history in which many participants are now dead.

What precident that an event 75 years ago, which culminated in a state set today?

I don't think it sets any precedent. What occurred occurred because a unique and inseperable seriees of events set the stage. The fall and carving apart of the Ottoman Empire, the weakening and eventual demise of other colonial empires, rising nationalist and independence movements around the world and finally the genocide of WW2.

There have been other smaller eruptions since then - the break up of the Eastern Block and the Balkanization of...the Balkans....reviving old grudges and dreams of conquest and ending up in, surprise here again...genocide of a minority which ended up with international involvement, war crimes trials, and the seperation of greater Serbia into two countries if I'm remembering it right.

Two other situations, which could concievably lead to the creation of a state to protect a much persecuted people would be the ongoing persecution, and most likely genocide of the Rohinga in Myanmar and the fate of the Azidi people in Syria.

Does the creation of Israel, set the possibility for other states in today's world?