Are you opposed to "Zionism" and, if so, why please?

[fncceo]

How could anyone say that is fair to the indigenous population?

Jews ARE the indigenous population.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jews ARE the indigenous population.

Only brown ones.

 

[fncceo]

Only brown ones.

You're confusing race with culture ... a Jew is a Jew, regardless of race.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're confusing race with culture ... a Jew is a Jew, regardless of race.

Then you are misusing indigenous. The jewish religion and culture did not originate there. Check mesopotamia. And egypt, if you believe the myths about moses.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sadly, many western leftists apparently believe that Israel is the only nation in the world that shouldn't protect itself.

You're confusing race with culture ... a Jew is a Jew, regardless of race.

Nevertheless, i see your point.

So if i decide to become rastafarian, can i claim to be indigenous to jamaica?

 

[fncceo]

The jewish religion and culture did not originate there.

American Indians originated in Asia. If you go back far enough, the only place on Earth with an indigenous population would be the Olduvai Gorge.

However, Jews arrived in the region 2,600 years before Arab invasions and, despite the best efforts of Greeks Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, Franks, and The British, there has been a continuous Jewish presence there the entire time.

That history certainly meets the definition of indigenous a lot better than Arabs, who only arrived in the region in any significant numbers about 1600 years ago.

 

[fncceo]

Nevertheless, i see your point.

So if i decide to become rastafarian, can i claim to be indigenous to jamaica?

You can take that up with the Jamaican Immigration folks.

 

[Rigby5]

Jews ARE the indigenous population.

There is no basis I can see for that argument.
The Hebrew tribes did not invade until around 1000 BC, and were kicked out by the Assyrians by 780 BC, so they are not native and did not rule long.
The fact the Romans brought them back as puppets around 100 BC does not matter, because they rebelled around 60 AD and got kicked out again.
They were never the indigenous natives, never got along with the natives, and were constantly getting kicked out.
There seems to be a pattern there.
Why is it Jews don't seem to get along well with others that no one else has any problem with?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

American Indians originated in Asia. If you go back far enough, the only place on Earth with an indigenous population would be the Olduvai Gorge.

However, Jews arrived in the region 2,600 years before Arab invasions and, despite the best efforts of Greeks Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, Franks, and The British, there has been a continuous Jewish presence there the entire time.

That history certainly meets the definition of indigenous a lot better than Arabs, who only arrived in the region in any significant numbers about 1600 years ago.

The jews' "right" to that land does not exist, IMO. Israelis have a right to that land because Israel is a sovereign nation that currently exists there. I guess i eschew any of this chicken and the egg game or the divine right nonsense.

 

[Rigby5]

You're confusing race with culture ... a Jew is a Jew, regardless of race.

No you are mixing up race with religion.
It is only the Mideast Jews of Hebrew descent who have any connection to the Mideast.
The light skinned Jews, with lox, bagels, cream cheese, blintzes, gefilte fish, potato latkas, etc. have a culture that does not belong or fit into the Mideast.
I know because I am one of them.
It is not those of Jewish religion who are native or belong in the Mideast, it is at most only those of the Hebrew race.
That is because Hebrew ARE Arabs.
And only Arabs belong in the Mideast.

 

[Rigby5]

American Indians originated in Asia. If you go back far enough, the only place on Earth with an indigenous population would be the Olduvai Gorge.

However, Jews arrived in the region 2,600 years before Arab invasions and, despite the best efforts of Greeks Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, Franks, and The British, there has been a continuous Jewish presence there the entire time.

That history certainly meets the definition of indigenous a lot better than Arabs, who only arrived in the region in any significant numbers about 1600 years ago.

Totally untrue.
The Hebrew tribes were in Egypt from 1600 BC to 1200 BC, and did not invade the Land of Canaan until around 1000 BC.
Then the Assyrians kicked them out around 780 BC.

The Arabs as the dominant presence goes back to the Canaanites at Jericho and Jerusalem, around 8000 BC.

The Arabic language became dominant in Palestine around 640 AD, but Palestine has always been predominantly Arab.
In fact, Hebrew are Arabs as well.
Your mistake is to consider the invasion of the Arabic language to be the origins of Arab presence.
That is not accurate.
The Canaanites, Chaldeans, Akkadians, Amorites, Nabatians, Philistines, Phoenicians, etc., are all Arab cultures.
How do I know? Because all their languages are classified as Semitic, and if you have a Semitic language, you are likely Arab.
Arabs started in the Levant, NOT in Saudi Arabia, where they later also colonized.
The oldest Arab cities are in the Land of Canaan, not Saudi Arabia.

There always has been some Jewish presences, but sort of rogue, because Jews really are not supposed to have been living there after the Jewish leadership declared the Diaspora Decree. Jews are supposed to go elsewhere and atone for the sins of arrogance and pride.
And certainly were never the majority, and dominant for only about 220 years.

Indigenous does not mean first, but means ones who have the greatest claim due to being the majority that is not currently guilty of crimes.
Jews were never a majority and do not gain any rights by massacring natives like Israel did from 1946 on.
Israel would have eventually lost the sins of the father is they started treating the natives better, but since they are still murdering and stealing homes, the sins of Israel are current.

 

[Rigby5]

The jews' "right" to that land does not exist, IMO. Israelis have a right to that land because Israel is a sovereign nation that currently exists there. I guess i eschew any of this chicken and the egg game or the divine right nonsense.

There is a right for Israel's existence according to the UN, due to their 1948 partition plan, but that does not include Jerusalem or any of the West Bank as being part of Israel.

 

[fncceo]

The jews' "right" to that land does not exist, IMO.

If you wish to deconstruct the concept fully, you'll realize that no one on this planet has a "right" to anything. Rights are an agreed upon human construct that gives us the illusion we aren't living in anarchy.

But, no one has any right to anything that they themselves, or someone on their behalf, isn't willing to enforce with violence (lest someone else deny them of that right).

I don't believe in "divine" rights in that G-d, if he does enforce them, only enforces them in a very sporadic and dilatory way. Mostly, as in the "divine right of kings" or "manifest destiny" we are anthropomorphizing G-d's will to support our own desires.

But, I do believe in history and, without a doubt, Jews have the superior historical claim to the territory. That being said, American Indians has a vastly superior historical claim to North America and the Greeks have claim to most of the countries in The Mediterranean.

As I said before, historical claim is meaningless without the will to use violence to enforce that claim. The Arab Palestinians have used forced to assert their claim, the Israelis have as well. The Israelis won that argument.

 

[Coyote]

Anyone who knows anything about Judaism knows that Jews screwed up with the rebellion against Rome.
Jews were not in power when Rome took over Palestine, and it was the Parthian expansion the Romans were trying to stop.
So Rome recreated Israel, that had not really existed for over 500 years, as a puppet for Rome.
For example, King Herod of Israel was a Roman who converted to Judaism.
But Rome not only easily crushed the first Jewish rebellion of 60AD, but the later one around 135AD as well.
So Jews were left with 3 choices.
1. There is no God.
2. Jews were not the Chosen People.
3. Jews were being punish with their defeat, for the sins of arrogance and pride.
Jews picked #3 and set about atoning for their sins, by mixing with other cultures, trying to be more humble, and waiting for the coming of the Messiah, as a sign their atonement had worked.

So the meaning of Zionism is not supposed to mean creating a paradise on Earth.
Zionism is supposed to mean atonement and humble actions, so that the Messiah will come and create Zion on Earth.

Palestine is not the homeland of Jews.
We don't know where that was, but it likely was the Sinai.
There is absolutely not one shred of evidence of Hebrew existence in Palestine before the invasion around 1000 BC.
And the Temple of Solomon and Israel only lasted about 220 years before being defeated and destroyed by the Assyrians.
So Palestine was the peak of Jewish history of aggression, not any significant duration or anything to be proud of.
By 780 BC, Israel was gone and never to return.
And good riddance, since that Israel was guilty of horrendous genocide against the Canaanites.

The Zionist movement of 1895 by Theodor Herzl, started out very humble.
The idea was to return to the simply life on farms.
But by 1930 or so, Zionism had become completely corrupted by David Ben Gurion and Chaim Weizmann.
These were evil people who deliberately antagonized Hitler in order to force more Jews to emigrate to Palestine.
So many that the British had to halt immigration, which then caused these evil Zionists to murder the British and blow up the King David Hotel.
The current Israel is an abomination, mostly pushed by evil atheists like Netanyahu, who were bent on murdering natives to steal homes.
As Ashkenazi, people like Netanyahu do not even have any Mideast DNA at all.

Hoo boy. There is so much wrong in this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you wish to deconstruct the concept fully, you'll realize that no one on this planet has a "right" to anything.

Very true. Rights are abstract human constructs that have as much substance as we physically give them.

As I said before, historical claim is meaningless without the will to use violence to enforce that claim. The Arab Palestinians have used forced to assert their claim, the Israelis have as well. The Israelis won that argument

Yep, that too.

 

[fncceo]

There is a right for Israel's existence according to the UN, due to their 1948 partition plan, but that does not include Jerusalem or any of the West Bank as being part of Israel.

People are fond of dragging out-dated maps out of the rubbish bin if they believe it will support their point (failing any actual arguments).

Let's look at another scenario that happened only a few months prior to the partition of Palestine and that is the Partition of India.

In 1947, this is a picture of India

The checker-board of provinces were roughly divided between British and Hindu Rule (so-called Princely States). Some provinces had a Muslim majority, a couple a Sikh majority, mostly (approx 80%) of the entire sub-continent was Hindu.

When it became abundantly clear that Muslims and Hindus were not willing to peaceably share the land once British rule was removed, it became necessary to partition the sub-continent again to create two states ... (East and West Pakistan ... a single state with two un-connected territories and India.

The problem with that partition was, the two Pakistans contained millions of Hindus and India contained millions of Muslims.

The resultant chaos cost the lives of over 1 million people in sectarian violence in which both groups participated with enthusiasm.

The point being ... if you look at the map from 1947 ... you will see that Muslim Indians didn't hold a single centimeter of land unto themselves. They forced England and India to give them territories of their own the borders of which, till this day, are still being contested.

If you claim that Israel, as a consequence of a failed partition plan has no right to exist, you have to concede that Pakistan and Bangladesh have no right to exist as well.

 

[Rigby5]

If you wish to deconstruct the concept fully, you'll realize that no one on this planet has a "right" to anything. Rights are an agreed upon human construct that gives us the illusion we aren't living in anarchy.

But, no one has any right to anything that they themselves, or someone on their behalf, isn't willing to enforce with violence (lest someone else deny them of that right).

I don't believe in "divine" rights in that G-d, if he does enforce them, only enforces them in a very sporadic and dilatory way. Mostly, as in the "divine right of kings" or "manifest destiny" we are anthropomorphizing G-d's will to support our own desires.

But, I do believe in history and, without a doubt, Jews have the superior historical claim to the territory. That being said, American Indians has a vastly superior historical claim to North America and the Greeks have claim to most of the countries in The Mediterranean.

As I said before, historical claim is meaningless without the will to use violence to enforce that claim. The Arab Palestinians have used forced to assert their claim, the Israelis have as well. The Israelis won that argument.

I disagree.
The Palestinian claim goes back 10,000 years of peaceful coexistence.
The Jews have almost no history there.
Starting as invaders, lasting only 220 years, and then being kicked out for over 2000 years, you can't borrow a lot of US weapons, massacre innocent, unarmed civilians, and have a claim to anything but a prison cell.
The Arab Palestinians never used force to assert their claim because they never had billions worth the latest US weapons.
The Israelis never won anything.
They cheated.

 

[Rigby5]

Hoo boy. There is so much wrong in this.

Like what is wrong?
I am absolutely positive, and have done all the needed historical research.

 

[fncceo]

The Palestinian claim goes back 10,000 years of peaceful coexistence.

Only in the fantasy land that is your mind.

 

[fncceo]

The Arab Palestinians never used force to assert their claim