The difference between anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel

[Mindful]

We don't need to get derailed on genetics and who is or isn't part of a group.

It shouldn't for anybody who is sane and reasonable.

Arab propaganda has infected the world's leftists to such a thorough degree, however, that some truly vile notions are now considered acceptable. Take Coyote's oft-repeated insistence that there should be nothing to prevent a genocidal mass murderer of Jews from being nominated for a peace prize. 40 years ago, people would have understood the origin of such statements, but the Arab propaganda has moved the bar in a slow, steady fashion over the years to the point it is now treated as reasonable.

It's like boiling lobsters, where incremental change is not noticed, and these sick individuals who have been dining at hate sites don't even notice the vile nature of what hey have internalized.

Menachem Begin a genocidal mass murderer of Christians (and Muslims) received the Peace prize, I am sure you are fine with that.

Whether it's the several decades of Zionist propaganda that conditioned the West's Christians to accept the Zionist's sometimes murderous treatment of not only Muslims, but also our own in Palestine or the general unavailability of neutral observations of the conflict, the level of cognitive dissonance with respect to Israel's behavior is exceptional. No other nation-state could get away with what Israel does to the Palestinians without being sanctioned severely.

No other nation-state would hold back when rockets are being lobbed in their towns either.

How quickly we forget. The Chechen's used more than big fire crackers against the Russians.

"West threatens sanctions against Russia
The siege of Grozny World powerless to stop bombing as Moscow defends ultimatum given to Chechen capital..."

West threatens sanctions against Russia

Rockets aren't "big fire crackers" - they caused considerable damage and can kill.

They caused hardly any damage.

"In all the years they have been swooping over the border like useless fireworks, the primitive rockets that Hamas fires at Israel have killed hardly anybody. They scare people, close supermarkets, disrupt business and increase insurance premiums. "

The Guardian view on a futile war in Gaza

Less casualties, because the Israelis build proper bomb shelters to shield their own citizens. Unlike certain people who fire their weapons amidst civilian populations.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But, it strikes to the core of the accusation being made, i.e. that criticizing Zionism is antisemitism.

We have reached a level of absurdity that one be accused of being antisemitic by criticizing an ideology that was established and promoted by Europeans who are not Semites whose goal was to subjugate and colonize the Semitic inhabitants of Palestine?

Depends on who is doing the criticising. And the level of their obsession.

My rule of thumb is that once a poster exceeds 10000 postings attacking anything and everything about Israel with absolutely 0 honest and thoughtful posts, I figure I'm dealing with an antisemite.

These themes of "colonialization" we are encountering here have been lifted from antisemitic hate sites, as they are the only ones making the claim. The same goes for this oft-repeated trope about the word antisemitism somehow stifling debate. I have seen this at countless hate sites, and antisemites repeat it as if a religious experience for them, but if using the term antisemitism to apply quite correctly to the bile vomited forth by these haters were somehow limiting discussion, why is antisemitism the biggest growth industry on the planet?

The fact that those who visit the explosion hate sites are repeating the claim and spreading the antisemitism should give a clue to anybody with a functioning intellect that their antisemitic expressions are not being stifled in the least. Of course, these are not intelligent, reasonable people we are dealing with, here, but rabid and obsessive people who have been convinced that their ethnic hatred is actually some sort of virtue.

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

 

[Mindful]

But, it strikes to the core of the accusation being made, i.e. that criticizing Zionism is antisemitism.

We have reached a level of absurdity that one be accused of being antisemitic by criticizing an ideology that was established and promoted by Europeans who are not Semites whose goal was to subjugate and colonize the Semitic inhabitants of Palestine?

Depends on who is doing the criticising. And the level of their obsession.

My rule of thumb is that once a poster exceeds 10000 postings attacking anything and everything about Israel with absolutely 0 honest and thoughtful posts, I figure I'm dealing with an antisemite.

These themes of "colonialization" we are encountering here have been lifted from antisemitic hate sites, as they are the only ones making the claim. The same goes for this oft-repeated trope about the word antisemitism somehow stifling debate. I have seen this at countless hate sites, and antisemites repeat it as if a religious experience for them, but if using the term antisemitism to apply quite correctly to the bile vomited forth by these haters were somehow limiting discussion, why is antisemitism the biggest growth industry on the planet?

The fact that those who visit the explosion hate sites are repeating the claim and spreading the antisemitism should give a clue to anybody with a functioning intellect that their antisemitic expressions are not being stifled in the least. Of course, these are not intelligent, reasonable people we are dealing with, here, but rabid and obsessive people who have been convinced that their ethnic hatred is actually some sort of virtue.

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But, it strikes to the core of the accusation being made, i.e. that criticizing Zionism is antisemitism.

We have reached a level of absurdity that one be accused of being antisemitic by criticizing an ideology that was established and promoted by Europeans who are not Semites whose goal was to subjugate and colonize the Semitic inhabitants of Palestine?

Depends on who is doing the criticising. And the level of their obsession.

My rule of thumb is that once a poster exceeds 10000 postings attacking anything and everything about Israel with absolutely 0 honest and thoughtful posts, I figure I'm dealing with an antisemite.

These themes of "colonialization" we are encountering here have been lifted from antisemitic hate sites, as they are the only ones making the claim. The same goes for this oft-repeated trope about the word antisemitism somehow stifling debate. I have seen this at countless hate sites, and antisemites repeat it as if a religious experience for them, but if using the term antisemitism to apply quite correctly to the bile vomited forth by these haters were somehow limiting discussion, why is antisemitism the biggest growth industry on the planet?

The fact that those who visit the explosion hate sites are repeating the claim and spreading the antisemitism should give a clue to anybody with a functioning intellect that their antisemitic expressions are not being stifled in the least. Of course, these are not intelligent, reasonable people we are dealing with, here, but rabid and obsessive people who have been convinced that their ethnic hatred is actually some sort of virtue.

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Still an interesting opinion.

 

[Hollie]

Depends on who is doing the criticising. And the level of their obsession.

My rule of thumb is that once a poster exceeds 10000 postings attacking anything and everything about Israel with absolutely 0 honest and thoughtful posts, I figure I'm dealing with an antisemite.

These themes of "colonialization" we are encountering here have been lifted from antisemitic hate sites, as they are the only ones making the claim. The same goes for this oft-repeated trope about the word antisemitism somehow stifling debate. I have seen this at countless hate sites, and antisemites repeat it as if a religious experience for them, but if using the term antisemitism to apply quite correctly to the bile vomited forth by these haters were somehow limiting discussion, why is antisemitism the biggest growth industry on the planet?

The fact that those who visit the explosion hate sites are repeating the claim and spreading the antisemitism should give a clue to anybody with a functioning intellect that their antisemitic expressions are not being stifled in the least. Of course, these are not intelligent, reasonable people we are dealing with, here, but rabid and obsessive people who have been convinced that their ethnic hatred is actually some sort of virtue.

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Still an interesting opinion.

Israel's right to exist is not just an opinion. It's a matter the Israelis take very seriously. That has been demonstrated many times as Israel has handed the muhammedan armies humiliating military defeats.

Obviously, you find it galling that in a matter of a few decades, Israel has worked to become a potent force in first world politics and economies while your retrograde Islamist backwaters have regressed and known only failure and ineptitude.

 

[P F Tinmore]

My rule of thumb is that once a poster exceeds 10000 postings attacking anything and everything about Israel with absolutely 0 honest and thoughtful posts, I figure I'm dealing with an antisemite.

These themes of "colonialization" we are encountering here have been lifted from antisemitic hate sites, as they are the only ones making the claim. The same goes for this oft-repeated trope about the word antisemitism somehow stifling debate. I have seen this at countless hate sites, and antisemites repeat it as if a religious experience for them, but if using the term antisemitism to apply quite correctly to the bile vomited forth by these haters were somehow limiting discussion, why is antisemitism the biggest growth industry on the planet?

The fact that those who visit the explosion hate sites are repeating the claim and spreading the antisemitism should give a clue to anybody with a functioning intellect that their antisemitic expressions are not being stifled in the least. Of course, these are not intelligent, reasonable people we are dealing with, here, but rabid and obsessive people who have been convinced that their ethnic hatred is actually some sort of virtue.

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Still an interesting opinion.

Israel's right to exist is not just an opinion. It's a matter the Israelis take very seriously. That has been demonstrated many times as Israel has handed the muhammedan armies humiliating military defeats.

Obviously, you find it galling that in a matter of a few decades, Israel has worked to become a potent force in first world politics and economies while your retrograde Islamist backwaters have regressed and known only failure and ineptitude.

When did the Palestinians surrender?

 

[Coyote]

But, it strikes to the core of the accusation being made, i.e. that criticizing Zionism is antisemitism.

We have reached a level of absurdity that one be accused of being antisemitic by criticizing an ideology that was established and promoted by Europeans who are not Semites whose goal was to subjugate and colonize the Semitic inhabitants of Palestine?

Depends on who is doing the criticising. And the level of their obsession.

My rule of thumb is that once a poster exceeds 10000 postings attacking anything and everything about Israel with absolutely 0 honest and thoughtful posts, I figure I'm dealing with an antisemite.

These themes of "colonialization" we are encountering here have been lifted from antisemitic hate sites, as they are the only ones making the claim. The same goes for this oft-repeated trope about the word antisemitism somehow stifling debate. I have seen this at countless hate sites, and antisemites repeat it as if a religious experience for them, but if using the term antisemitism to apply quite correctly to the bile vomited forth by these haters were somehow limiting discussion, why is antisemitism the biggest growth industry on the planet?

The fact that those who visit the explosion hate sites are repeating the claim and spreading the antisemitism should give a clue to anybody with a functioning intellect that their antisemitic expressions are not being stifled in the least. Of course, these are not intelligent, reasonable people we are dealing with, here, but rabid and obsessive people who have been convinced that their ethnic hatred is actually some sort of virtue.

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Israel's right to exists really should not be. It exists there for it is. No other country has it's "right to exist" questioned as far as I can tell.

 

[Hollie]

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Still an interesting opinion.

Israel's right to exist is not just an opinion. It's a matter the Israelis take very seriously. That has been demonstrated many times as Israel has handed the muhammedan armies humiliating military defeats.

Obviously, you find it galling that in a matter of a few decades, Israel has worked to become a potent force in first world politics and economies while your retrograde Islamist backwaters have regressed and known only failure and ineptitude.

When did the Palestinians surrender?

Every morning when they face another day of bleak existence in the retrograde Islamist mindset.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Depends on who is doing the criticising. And the level of their obsession.

My rule of thumb is that once a poster exceeds 10000 postings attacking anything and everything about Israel with absolutely 0 honest and thoughtful posts, I figure I'm dealing with an antisemite.

These themes of "colonialization" we are encountering here have been lifted from antisemitic hate sites, as they are the only ones making the claim. The same goes for this oft-repeated trope about the word antisemitism somehow stifling debate. I have seen this at countless hate sites, and antisemites repeat it as if a religious experience for them, but if using the term antisemitism to apply quite correctly to the bile vomited forth by these haters were somehow limiting discussion, why is antisemitism the biggest growth industry on the planet?

The fact that those who visit the explosion hate sites are repeating the claim and spreading the antisemitism should give a clue to anybody with a functioning intellect that their antisemitic expressions are not being stifled in the least. Of course, these are not intelligent, reasonable people we are dealing with, here, but rabid and obsessive people who have been convinced that their ethnic hatred is actually some sort of virtue.

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Israel's right to exists really should not be. It exists there for it is. No other country has it's "right to exist" questioned as far as I can tell.

Israel is the only country on Earth that constantly worries about its so called right to exist. Perhaps it is its lack of legitimacy.

 

[Coyote]

My rule of thumb is that once a poster exceeds 10000 postings attacking anything and everything about Israel with absolutely 0 honest and thoughtful posts, I figure I'm dealing with an antisemite.

These themes of "colonialization" we are encountering here have been lifted from antisemitic hate sites, as they are the only ones making the claim. The same goes for this oft-repeated trope about the word antisemitism somehow stifling debate. I have seen this at countless hate sites, and antisemites repeat it as if a religious experience for them, but if using the term antisemitism to apply quite correctly to the bile vomited forth by these haters were somehow limiting discussion, why is antisemitism the biggest growth industry on the planet?

The fact that those who visit the explosion hate sites are repeating the claim and spreading the antisemitism should give a clue to anybody with a functioning intellect that their antisemitic expressions are not being stifled in the least. Of course, these are not intelligent, reasonable people we are dealing with, here, but rabid and obsessive people who have been convinced that their ethnic hatred is actually some sort of virtue.

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Israel's right to exists really should not be. It exists there for it is. No other country has it's "right to exist" questioned as far as I can tell.

Israel is the only country on Earth that constantly worries about its so called right to exist. Perhaps it is its lack of legitimacy.

Who determines "legitimacy"?

What are the criteria for "legitimacy"?

And why is Israel uniquely singled out?

 

[montelatici]

My rule of thumb is that once a poster exceeds 10000 postings attacking anything and everything about Israel with absolutely 0 honest and thoughtful posts, I figure I'm dealing with an antisemite.

These themes of "colonialization" we are encountering here have been lifted from antisemitic hate sites, as they are the only ones making the claim. The same goes for this oft-repeated trope about the word antisemitism somehow stifling debate. I have seen this at countless hate sites, and antisemites repeat it as if a religious experience for them, but if using the term antisemitism to apply quite correctly to the bile vomited forth by these haters were somehow limiting discussion, why is antisemitism the biggest growth industry on the planet?

The fact that those who visit the explosion hate sites are repeating the claim and spreading the antisemitism should give a clue to anybody with a functioning intellect that their antisemitic expressions are not being stifled in the least. Of course, these are not intelligent, reasonable people we are dealing with, here, but rabid and obsessive people who have been convinced that their ethnic hatred is actually some sort of virtue.

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Israel's right to exists really should not be. It exists there for it is. No other country has it's "right to exist" questioned as far as I can tell.

Israel is the only country on Earth that constantly worries about its so called right to exist. Perhaps it is its lack of legitimacy.

Deep down the Zionist Jews know they expropriated land from a non-Jewish native people that inhabited the land. They are asking for the equivalent of having the owner of an automobile whose automobile was stolen signing the title away to the thief.

 

[Coyote]

I don't understand why "the right of Israel to exist" should even be a topic of conversation.

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Israel's right to exists really should not be. It exists there for it is. No other country has it's "right to exist" questioned as far as I can tell.

Israel is the only country on Earth that constantly worries about its so called right to exist. Perhaps it is its lack of legitimacy.

Deep down the Zionist Jews know they expropriated land from a non-Jewish native people that inhabited the land. They are asking for the equivalent of having the owner of an automobile whose automobile was stolen signing the title away to the thief.

It's not as simple as that.

There are, for a start, an indiginous population of Jews that are the native people.

There are Jews who legally and legitimately purchased land.

There are Jews who expropriated land.

There were two forces competing for space and primacy at the time: Pan-Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism.

Can we agree on the above?


If so - why is it only Israel and Jewish nationalism that is held to the fire? Why are Arab states' legitimacy not questioned but Israel's questioned?

 

[montelatici]

Indeed, it is one of most common of Israel's talking points.

Interesting opinion though.

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Israel's right to exists really should not be. It exists there for it is. No other country has it's "right to exist" questioned as far as I can tell.

Israel is the only country on Earth that constantly worries about its so called right to exist. Perhaps it is its lack of legitimacy.

Deep down the Zionist Jews know they expropriated land from a non-Jewish native people that inhabited the land. They are asking for the equivalent of having the owner of an automobile whose automobile was stolen signing the title away to the thief.

It's not as simple as that.

There are, for a start, an indiginous population of Jews that are the native people.

There are Jews who legally and legitimately purchased land.

There are Jews who expropriated land.

There were two forces competing for space and primacy at the time: Pan-Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism.

Can we agree on the above?


If so - why is it only Israel and Jewish nationalism that is held to the fire? Why are Arab states' legitimacy not questioned but Israel's questioned?

1. European Jews that purchased less than 5% of the land by 1946 were not indigenous.
2. 95% of the land was expropriated from the Christians and Muslims.
3. Europeans claiming nationalism as the justification for expropriating land on another continent is ludicrous.

 

[Hollie]

Whether it is a common talking point is neither here nor there.

Why should it be?

More turnspeak from you.

Israel's right to exists really should not be. It exists there for it is. No other country has it's "right to exist" questioned as far as I can tell.

Israel is the only country on Earth that constantly worries about its so called right to exist. Perhaps it is its lack of legitimacy.

Deep down the Zionist Jews know they expropriated land from a non-Jewish native people that inhabited the land. They are asking for the equivalent of having the owner of an automobile whose automobile was stolen signing the title away to the thief.

It's not as simple as that.

There are, for a start, an indiginous population of Jews that are the native people.

There are Jews who legally and legitimately purchased land.

There are Jews who expropriated land.

There were two forces competing for space and primacy at the time: Pan-Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism.

Can we agree on the above?


If so - why is it only Israel and Jewish nationalism that is held to the fire? Why are Arab states' legitimacy not questioned but Israel's questioned?

1. European Jews that purchased less than 5% of the land by 1946 were not indigenous.
2. 95% of the land was expropriated from the Christians and Muslims.
3. Europeans claiming nationalism as the justification for expropriating land on another continent is ludicrous.

95% of what land was expropriated from Moslems?

You don't have a clue as to what expropriated means.

Really sweetie, stick to cutting and pasting.

 

[montelatici]

Israel's right to exists really should not be. It exists there for it is. No other country has it's "right to exist" questioned as far as I can tell.

Israel is the only country on Earth that constantly worries about its so called right to exist. Perhaps it is its lack of legitimacy.

Deep down the Zionist Jews know they expropriated land from a non-Jewish native people that inhabited the land. They are asking for the equivalent of having the owner of an automobile whose automobile was stolen signing the title away to the thief.

It's not as simple as that.

There are, for a start, an indiginous population of Jews that are the native people.

There are Jews who legally and legitimately purchased land.

There are Jews who expropriated land.

There were two forces competing for space and primacy at the time: Pan-Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism.

Can we agree on the above?


If so - why is it only Israel and Jewish nationalism that is held to the fire? Why are Arab states' legitimacy not questioned but Israel's questioned?

1. European Jews that purchased less than 5% of the land by 1946 were not indigenous.
2. 95% of the land was expropriated from the Christians and Muslims.
3. Europeans claiming nationalism as the justification for expropriating land on another continent is ludicrous.

95% of what land was expropriated from Moslems?

You don't have a clue as to what expropriated means.

Really sweetie, stick to cutting and pasting.

Expropriated from Muslims and Christians. Christians were the biggest land owners.

 

[Challenger]

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

The problem arises because modern Jewish people are a Zionist invention for what is really a religious group, like the Mormons. Do the Mormons have "special rights" to America? Can you provide objective non-religious evidence directly linking modern Jewish people with Judean monotheists that were almost all exterminated by the Romans during the seige of Jerusalem in 70CE? I've no doubt the religion itself survived, as it's impossible to kill an idea and there were certainly Judean (although not necessarily practicioners of Judean monotheism) expatriates and Jewish missionaries around throughout the Roman empire at the time, but does becoming a convert to Judaism suddenly bestow a biological link to ancient Judea?

I don't think Jews can be defined as strictly a religious group - typically, it's termed "ethno-religious". If they were just religious, then secular Jews would not be Jews. The other thing is - DNA studies show close links among the various Jewish groups - significantly closer to each other and the Palestinians than to the general European population. I don't see how that is a "Zionist" invention when they've been an identifiable group with an identifiable culture for thousands of years. You can argue that the nationalistic element is a "Zionist invention" because that is what Zionism is - to create a Jewish homeland.

The concept of "ethno-religious group" first appeared in the 1990's as a neologism and although it can be used to define various groups, it is mostly used in association with "Jews". It is in many ways a meaningless term as religion is a part of ethnicity but does not define it, but to go into this in depth would take more time than I have to spare and might derail the discussion. Suffice it to say that until the advent of Zionism, adherants to Judaism considered themselves natives of their respective countries, just following a non mainstream religion within that country, the most famous anti-Zionist was Lord Montague who was a Jewish peer, like the Montifiores and the Rothschilds (amongst others). His response to Balfour is rarely quoted but encapsulates the argument quite well

"Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom. If a Jewish Englishman sets his eyes on the Mount of Olives and longs for the day when he will shake British soil from his shoes and go back to agricultural pursuits in Palestine, he has always seemed to me to have acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and to have admitted that he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain, or to be treated as an Englishman.

I have always understood that those who indulged in this creed were largely animated by the restrictions upon and refusal of liberty to Jews in Russia. But at the very time when these Jews have been acknowledged as Jewish Russians and given all liberties, it seems to be inconceivable that Zionism should be officially recognised by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorized to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the "national home of the Jewish people".

I do not know what this involves, but I assume that it means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test.

I lay down with emphasis four principles:

1. I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race. The Prime Minister and M. Briand are, I suppose, related through the ages, one as a Welshman and the other as a Breton, but they certainly do not belong to the same nation.
2. When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country, drawn from all quarters of the globe, speaking every language on the face of the earth, and incapable of communicating with one another except by means of an interpreter. I have always understood that this was the consequence of the building of the Tower of Babel, if ever it was built, and I certainly do not dissent from the view, commonly held, as I have always understood, by the Jews before Zionism was invented, that to bring the Jews back to form a nation in the country from which they were dispersed would require Divine leadership. I have never heard it suggested, even by their most fervent admirers, that either Mr. Balfour or Lord Rothschild would prove to be the Messiah.
3. I claim that the lives that British Jews have led, that the aims that they have had before them, that the part that they have played in our public life and our public institutions, have entitled them to be regarded, not as British Jews, but as Jewish Britons. I would willingly disfranchise every Zionist. I would be almost tempted to proscribe the Zionist organisation as illegal and against the national interest. But I would ask of a British Government sufficient tolerance to refuse a conclusion which makes aliens and foreigners by implication, if not at once by law, of all their Jewish fellow-citizens.
4. I deny that Palestine is to-day associated with the Jews or properly to be regarded as a fit place for them to live in. The Ten Commandments were delivered to the Jews on Sinai. It is quite true that Palestine plays a large part in Jewish history, but so it does in modern Mahommendan history, and, after the time of the Jews, surely it plays a larger part than any other country in Christian history. The Temple may have been in Palestine, but so was the Sermon on the Mount and the Crucifixion. I would not deny to Jews in Palestine equal rights to colonisation with those who profess other religions, but a religious test of citizenship seems to me to be the only admitted by those who take a bigoted and narrow view of one particular epoch of the history of Palestine, and claim for the Jews a position to which they are not entitled...."

Montagu Memo on British Government's Anti-Semitism | Jewish Virtual Library

A good book on the topic of the conflict between Jewish Zionists and Jewish Assimilationists (as they were called) is Jonathan Schneer's "The Balfour Declaration" The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Amazon.co.uk: Jonathan Schneer: 9781408809709: Books
and of course, Schlomo Sand's two books "The Invention of the Jewish People" and "The Invention of the Land of Israel" which, if you ignore his politics, do nevertheless provide very useful insights into scholarship not normally found outside of Israeli academe.

Lastly, Genetics. I tend to shy away from arguing on genetic grounds because genetic studies regarding "Jews" are as politicised as everything else is about the conflict. For every study that says "Jews" are the same as Palestinians, there's another study that says the opposite. I know an associate professor of Genetics at a local University and have approached her on this topic. She laughed and told me genetics is nothing to do with where you originated, although it can be used to identify certain gene groups you might want to study, you cannot determine a "point of origin" with any scientific accuracy.

 

[Challenger]

You can argue that the nationalistic element is a "Zionist invention" because that is what Zionism is - to create a Jewish homeland.

Missed this important point you made, but you omitted the important part about it; "...because that is what Zionism is - to create a Jewish homeland... at the expense of a native indigenous population, already living there for millenia".

 

[Hollie]

Israel is the only country on Earth that constantly worries about its so called right to exist. Perhaps it is its lack of legitimacy.

Deep down the Zionist Jews know they expropriated land from a non-Jewish native people that inhabited the land. They are asking for the equivalent of having the owner of an automobile whose automobile was stolen signing the title away to the thief.

It's not as simple as that.

There are, for a start, an indiginous population of Jews that are the native people.

There are Jews who legally and legitimately purchased land.

There are Jews who expropriated land.

There were two forces competing for space and primacy at the time: Pan-Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism.

Can we agree on the above?


If so - why is it only Israel and Jewish nationalism that is held to the fire? Why are Arab states' legitimacy not questioned but Israel's questioned?

1. European Jews that purchased less than 5% of the land by 1946 were not indigenous.
2. 95% of the land was expropriated from the Christians and Muslims.
3. Europeans claiming nationalism as the justification for expropriating land on another continent is ludicrous.

95% of what land was expropriated from Moslems?

You don't have a clue as to what expropriated means.

Really sweetie, stick to cutting and pasting.

Expropriated from Muslims and Christians. Christians were the biggest land owners.
View attachment 74628

It's convenient to cut and paste the same cut and paste multiple times across multiple threads but for what purpose?

You're really just confirming that the earlier Arab invaders / colonizers stole the land from others.

 

[montelatici]

Deep down the Zionist Jews know they expropriated land from a non-Jewish native people that inhabited the land. They are asking for the equivalent of having the owner of an automobile whose automobile was stolen signing the title away to the thief.

It's not as simple as that.

There are, for a start, an indiginous population of Jews that are the native people.

There are Jews who legally and legitimately purchased land.

There are Jews who expropriated land.

There were two forces competing for space and primacy at the time: Pan-Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism.

Can we agree on the above?


If so - why is it only Israel and Jewish nationalism that is held to the fire? Why are Arab states' legitimacy not questioned but Israel's questioned?

1. European Jews that purchased less than 5% of the land by 1946 were not indigenous.
2. 95% of the land was expropriated from the Christians and Muslims.
3. Europeans claiming nationalism as the justification for expropriating land on another continent is ludicrous.

95% of what land was expropriated from Moslems?

You don't have a clue as to what expropriated means.

Really sweetie, stick to cutting and pasting.

Expropriated from Muslims and Christians. Christians were the biggest land owners.
View attachment 74628

It's convenient to cut and paste the same cut and paste multiple times across multiple threads but for what purpose?

You're really just confirming that the earlier Arab invaders / colonizers stole the land from others.

Since there were no Arabian settlers, only rulers. You make no sense. And, the native people whether having converted to Islam or not, couldn't possibly have stolen land from themselves.

 

[Hollie]

It's not as simple as that.

There are, for a start, an indiginous population of Jews that are the native people.

There are Jews who legally and legitimately purchased land.

There are Jews who expropriated land.

There were two forces competing for space and primacy at the time: Pan-Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism.

Can we agree on the above?


If so - why is it only Israel and Jewish nationalism that is held to the fire? Why are Arab states' legitimacy not questioned but Israel's questioned?

1. European Jews that purchased less than 5% of the land by 1946 were not indigenous.
2. 95% of the land was expropriated from the Christians and Muslims.
3. Europeans claiming nationalism as the justification for expropriating land on another continent is ludicrous.

95% of what land was expropriated from Moslems?

You don't have a clue as to what expropriated means.

Really sweetie, stick to cutting and pasting.

Expropriated from Muslims and Christians. Christians were the biggest land owners.
View attachment 74628

It's convenient to cut and paste the same cut and paste multiple times across multiple threads but for what purpose?

You're really just confirming that the earlier Arab invaders / colonizers stole the land from others.

Since there were no Arabian settlers, only rulers. You make no sense. And, the native people whether having converted to Islam or not, couldn't possibly have stolen land from themselves.

Apparently you have convinced youself that the invading / colonizing Turks followed by the squatting / land grabbing Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese are magically called "native people" when it serves your bankrupt attempt at argument.

How silly.