The difference between anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel

[Shusha]

No liberation movement has, as its goal, the dispossession and subjugation of another people ...

We agree. The Jewish liberation movement has, as its goal, the safety, security and liberation of the Jewish people in the form of national self-determination.

Self determination after ethnic cleansing and theft, lol

I can't believe it. You have almost, not quite, but almost, begun to make an actual criticism of Israel while acknowledging Israel's right to exist.

So, can you do it? Can you say that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination on historical, ancestral and religious territory?

 

[Juicin]

No liberation movement has, as its goal, the dispossession and subjugation of another people ...

We agree. The Jewish liberation movement has, as its goal, the safety, security and liberation of the Jewish people in the form of national self-determination.

Self determination after ethnic cleansing and theft, lol

I can't believe it. You have almost, not quite, but almost, begun to make an actual criticism of Israel while acknowledging Israel's right to exist.

So, can you do it? Can you say that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination on historical, ancestral and religious territory?

Ummm in Anglo law something that is stolen is always going to be returned to it's rightful owner

Even if the new owner paid for the house legally and in good faith (which no Jew in Israel who can read did)

I most certainly didn't, lol

 

[montelatici]

No liberation movement has, as its goal, the dispossession and subjugation of another people ...

We agree. The Jewish liberation movement has, as its goal, the safety, security and liberation of the Jewish people in the form of national self-determination.

The Zionist movement was not a national liberation movement. It was a colonial project involving the illegal acquisition of territory by force.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

Remember we were talking about the changes of meanings of words on the other thread? "Colonialism".

How has it changed to become anti-semitic?

It is used incorrectly, with a changed meaning, in order to reject the Jewish people's connection to its historical, ancestral and religious homeland.

I think that is more semantics isn't it? Like choosing to call them "returnees" as opposed to "immigrants"?

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

Remember we were talking about the changes of meanings of words on the other thread? "Colonialism".

How has it changed to become anti-semitic?

It is used incorrectly, with a changed meaning, in order to reject the Jewish people's connection to its historical, ancestral and religious homeland.

I think that is more semantics isn't it? Like choosing to call them "returnees" as opposed to "immigrants"?

Not in the way Monte and others use it. They use it specifically to deny Israel's right to exist and the Jewish people's right to ancestral territory.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

Remember we were talking about the changes of meanings of words on the other thread? "Colonialism".

How has it changed to become anti-semitic?

It is used incorrectly, with a changed meaning, in order to reject the Jewish people's connection to its historical, ancestral and religious homeland.

I think that is more semantics isn't it? Like choosing to call them "returnees" as opposed to "immigrants"?

Not in the way Monte and others use it. They use it specifically to deny Israel's right to exist and the Jewish people's right to ancestral territory.

So the intent behind the usage is what matters then?

 

[montelatici]

Firstly, Israel is not ancestral territory to people from Europe. It is ancestral territory to the native inhabitants which are the people that were inhabiting Palestine when the Zionists began their colonization project. The ancestors of those native inhabitants practiced Judaism as well as Roman religions and Christianity. That most converted to Islam does not change the people!

It was a boneheaded decision to facilitate a European settler colonial project when colonialism was already determined to be inappropriate and a de-colonialization process had begun.

It has nothing to do with the religion of the Zionists. The colonization of Africa by the Americo-Liberians was also bone headed, and they were only 3 or centuries removed from Africa. They had no right to subjugate the native inhabitants for 130 years, nor claim the land as their ancestral land, it was ancestral to the native inhabitants, not people from the Americas. Eventually they were unable to control the native population and as a result of a civil war most Americo-Liberians are gone, many returning to the U.S. Here is an interesting observation of a Peace Corps volunteer that was witness to the events leading up to the civil war.

"Americo-Liberians were not stupid, far from it. Many were highly educated and had attended some of the best universities in the world. They knew they were sitting on a powder keg. Change was coming and they could choose to embrace that change and help guide it, or they could resist and fight against it. They chose the latter course. Their power, their wealth, and their privilege were simply too much. They had controlled the tribal population since the inception of the country and believed they could continue to. People who challenged this assumption, even Americo-Liberians who believed that change was needed, were shut down, sometimes violently. Any change would be gradual, even glacial, and would only be allowed with acceptance of the status quo. It was a recipe for disaster."

Americo-Liberians | Wandering through Time and Place

 

[docmauser1]

No liberation movement has, as its goal, the dispossession and subjugation of another people ...

We agree. The Jewish liberation movement has, as its goal, the safety, security and liberation of the Jewish people in the form of national self-determination.

Self determination after ethnic cleansing and theft, lol

I can't believe it. You have almost, not quite, but almost, begun to make an actual criticism of Israel while acknowledging Israel's right to exist.

So, can you do it? Can you say that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination on historical, ancestral and religious territory?

Ummm in Anglo law something that is stolen is always going to be returned to it's rightful owner ...

And the rightful owner has returned, of course.

 

[Shusha]

So the intent behind the usage is what matters then?

Well, its changing the meaning of the word in order to remove rights from a specific group of people.

 

[Shusha]

Firstly, Israel is not ancestral territory to people from Europe. It is ancestral territory to the native inhabitants which are the people that were inhabiting Palestine when the Zionists began their colonization project. The ancestors of those native inhabitants practiced Judaism as well as Roman religions and Christianity. That most converted to Islam does not change the people!

Again, this is a fine argument FOR the Palestinian rights -- an argument with which I have no quibble.

Its your argument against the Jewish people's rights which is a problem. It really is this simple: does dispossession, displacement and forced ethnic cleansing remove a people's rights to their ancestral lands? Yes or no?

 

[Mindful]

All one sees here are clichéd, intellectually lazy comparisons.

 

[Juicin]

All one sees here are clichéd, intellectually lazy comparisons.

Says the dumb ***** who only posts the most shallow and short comments imaginable

 

[Coyote]

So the intent behind the usage is what matters then?

Well, its changing the meaning of the word in order to remove rights from a specific group of people.

I'm not sure about this, I would have to think about it.

The reason being - it can be viewed as a sort of colonization - immigrants came from abroad to "colonize" or "re-colonize" an area - when you are looking at history that occurred 3,000 years ago...what rights are being removed?

col·o·nize
ˈkäləˌnīz/
verb

• come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).

• "a white family that tries to colonize a Caribbean island"
• appropriate (a place or domain) for one's own use.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So the intent behind the usage is what matters then?

Well, its changing the meaning of the word in order to remove rights from a specific group of people.

I'm not sure about this, I would have to think about it.

The reason being - it can be viewed as a sort of colonization - immigrants came from abroad to "colonize" or "re-colonize" an area - when you are looking at history that occurred 3,000 years ago...what rights are being removed?

col·o·nize
ˈkäləˌnīz/
verb

• come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).

• "a white family that tries to colonize a Caribbean island"
• appropriate (a place or domain) for one's own use.

.....and what foreign power were the people with a continuous 3000 year connection to the land supposedly representing, eh?

if you cannot be even the tiniest bit honest, why reply?

 

[Shusha]

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". And it needs a foreign country to colonize. 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?

 

[Coyote]

So the intent behind the usage is what matters then?

Well, its changing the meaning of the word in order to remove rights from a specific group of people.

I'm not sure about this, I would have to think about it.

The reason being - it can be viewed as a sort of colonization - immigrants came from abroad to "colonize" or "re-colonize" an area - when you are looking at history that occurred 3,000 years ago...what rights are being removed?

col·o·nize
ˈkäləˌnīz/
verb

• come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).

• "a white family that tries to colonize a Caribbean island"
• appropriate (a place or domain) for one's own use.

.....and what foreign power were the people with a continuous 3000 year connection to the land supposedly representing, eh?

if you cannot be even the tiniest bit honest, why reply?

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.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

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

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?

The only rights they have are those that Isreal, as a nation, grants them.

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

Israel was a newly established (relatively speaking) country that has invited Jews from all over the world to come and offered as a Jewish homeland. At one point, the establishment of Israel was even considered in Africa, and several other potential locations. You don't need a mother country to colonize - you can be a group of people looking to establish a state - or, it can be Israel colonizing the Occupied Territories.

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?

I do not think it's that clean cut with a yes or no answer because it's stretching the meaning of indiginous.

Jewish people left three thousand years ago, willingly and unwillingly - and chose to develop communities all around the world. Each of those communities is distinctive and different, though they share some of the same culture and religion. Over the past three thousand years - an inconcievable length of time...who knows what the history really is - what really happened, what is myth, what is not. Comparing that to, say, the dispossession of the Australian aborigines for example, is inaccurate in my opinion.

Monte, I think, brought up the Gyspies, or Rom. Their origins were in north western India 1500 years ago, and they've since spread throughout Europe. Do they have rights to north western India? Their history is murky, and 1500 years is a long time, but only half the time since ancient Israel existed.

 

[Shusha]

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.

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.