Messianism is not Orthodox, and was a late addition to Judaism, serving the interests of the Maccabees.
The means is one of the sole differences between the two. The end result, no.
And you still haven't replied to any of these questions. Deflections upon deflections.
Can I assume that you now refer to these 'native Jews' as simply orthodox Jews?
The PLO is secular, not religious. That's one of the major differences they have with Hamas. The PLO was formed in the shape of the Zionists, who were also secular; it worked for them, so it could work for the Arabs. Palestinian Arabs have always been acting in response to Zionism. As Newt Gingrich pointe out just recently, there was no Palestion people before there was a Zionist notion of a Jewish people.
Was referring to the statements made by Arafat and other PLO reps, in addition to their Syrian counterparts in allowing 'native Jews' to stay in a future Palestinian state. Their religious motivations are irrelevant to this specific argument. Strangely enough, Arab migrants would automatically be allowed in in this state (devoid of Israel of course), without questioning their origins.
Gingrich, as well as a number of historians are true, albeit, the emergence is a nationalist Palestinian movement gained ground only following the aspirations of Zionists to create a state, albeit, the prior would have folded into to the then Transjordan after Israel was pummeled out of existence.
There is no similarity between nationalists and Islamists. Nationalism is secular, Islamism is a religious sect.
Pan-Arab nationalism failed in certain areas, and Islamism picked up where it left off, with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and its counterparts (which includes Hamas). Again, the end result is the same. You seem to have this odd idea in your head that nationalism/patriotism and religion is separate in the Arab/Muslim ummah like it is in the Western world. It isn't.
In practice, it was. The stipulation that the Jewish Homeland not interfere with the political rights of non-Jews is simply nonsense; it was tacked on to get it through the British Cabinet and get the go-ahead from Washington. How could a Jewish Homeland not transgress the political rights of Arabs when Jews were a minority? The Zionists knew it had to, which is why they established a majority by expulsion.
Evidence of this tacking on? Or this another one of these conspiracy theories?
The parition plan was an attempt to separate future states along demographics. Answer the question as to how a future Jewish homeland would inherently imply that the rights of Arabs are 'transgressed'. More hoopla here I think.
Zionist acceptance of partition was a sham. There wasn't even a Jewish majority in the territory assigned to Israel.
In the partition plan, yes. And this took account the Arab inter-migration to and around Jewish migration areas and settlements which occurred. If you want links to have a gander at this inter-migration, as it has been posted ad nauseum in this forum, then we can go there.
Israel accepted the partition plan in May 1948 following the announcement at the UN. So no, not a sham.
There isn't an example of such a nation-state being formed in accord with the theory that Zionism was based on - a theory which was formed principally in 19thCE Germany. That theory requires a nation to have a generally recognised territory, an ethnic identity, a common language (which in Israel had to be invented) and a common culture. This applied to Germany and Italy but it's been a disaster in the Balkans, in Africa, and in the Middle East.
So Hebrew, Judaism, and past territorial delineations are fictional? And again, more of the strawman fallacies.
ie:
April 22, 1925 Report of the first High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine, Sir Herbert Louis Samuel describing Jewish Peoplehood:
"During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs, an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns, elected councils in the towns, and an organisation for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious and social organisations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact national characteristics. "
The concept of Zionism existed centuries before Hertzl wrote Der Judenstaat. It simply has gained more momentum in the mid to late 19th century with the several major phases of 'aliyah'. You are right that state-building like that of Israel is unique in part to the fact that actual land purchasing occurred rather than abject genocide and forced relocations devoid of the effects of war. So again, point out an example in the Western world where this is not the case.
State-building is not seamless, but I am sure that if the Arab league was interested in the rights and aspirations of the Arabs within the Palestine mandate, they would have taken a different path rather than consistently try and fail to push the Jews into the sea.
If your family history in the place goes back no further than 1900 (and even that far is a minority of Israeli Jews) and you stress how like Westerners you are and how unlike all the other people in the region, you're a colonist. Colonies are formed by conquest. Germany was formed by conquest in a sense, but it didn't involve Prussians colonising Saxony and Bavaria. Italy was formed by revolt against occupying powers and the defeat of regional sovereignties, but again it didn't involve mass movement of peoples.
Colonies are normally an extension of a country/state. Please explain how Israel is an extension of itself and how this inherits the label of 'colony'. Is Israel similar to that of say Angola? To my knowledge Israel is classified as a Western state. Perhaps you can point out where this imaginary line ends in the ME.
And you are right that countries like modern Italy finally shrugged off the effects of foreign control, from the Habsburgs, from the Spanish to the Austrian, and the French in recent history. But where is this supposed foreign control by foreigners of the land in question? Ever heard of the concept of a diasapora? And how did ethnic Arab magically appear in this specific plot of land? Magic unicorns?
Britain was once a place for Anglo-Saxon and Norse colonisation, but that was a long time ago (and it's still a bit fragile as a nation-state). I'm not entirely convinced that the US has ever been a nation-state, but best we not get into that
.
Yeah, I know, it hurts this argument of nation building and that somehow Jews, including the ever minor 'native Jews', are somehow devoid of nationalist aspirations against the exclusive control of the ME by ethnic Arabs.
I'm referring to potential Chinese colonisation, not state-building. The original thirteen states of the US were certainly colonies, but they had to fight a war to become an independent federation. Colonies are not states, and states don't plant colonies as state-building enterprises. If a consortium of Chinese companies buys (for instance) Zimbabwe as a colonising enterprise they will still look to China for diplomatic and military backing. At first anyway ...
And Israel is not a colony. Finally, making progress.
What's this obsession with the Chinese work force and this imaginary nation-state aspiration of theirs?
Israel is the oddity in this. It's a colony planted with Western backing but expected to be a dependent state. I can't think of any parallels offhand.
Tried the colony bit, didn't quite work out for you. Unless you're now alleging that Israel is a colony of the US?
I can think of many countries that were formed in part due to Western backing as well, are they considered colonies as well to you?
It would have been poetic justice indeed.
