Merged Stolen Palestinian Land

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Let's start again: when is this "Zionist hegemony" going to start? It's been 60 years and they haven't gotten as much as a few miles outside the current state of Israel.

I suggest you learn what hegemony means first off.

What do you mean by the state of Israel? What is the extent of the territory that is legally theirs?

Couple of off questions there. have you no idea waht the State of Israel is?

And "legally theirs"? Was there some law passed in a world court that defined what was legally theirs? I'm not aware of it. The only world body, the UN, is something that Israel ignores. it ignored the partition plan and has ignored around a 100 UN resolutions condemning it since

 

[Pardalis]

I suggest you learn what hegemony means first off.

Why don't you explain to me what you mean by "Zionist hegemony", what it entails?

And "legally theirs"? Was there some law passed in a world court that defined what was legally theirs? I'm not aware of it.

OK, so when you say you are not arguing that Israel has no right to exist, then what right has it to exist are you arguing for?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Why don't you explain to me what you mean by "Zionist hegemony", what it entails?

Oh come on pardalis, you're not that stupid. Stop playing dumb

OK, so when you say you are not arguing that Israel has no right to exist, then what right has it to exist are you arguing for?

I'm not arguing for it to have a right to exist. I simply have a view that Israel has a right to exist. if someone says it doesn't have a right to exist then I would disagree. but it's rare I hear anyone say it doesn't so it's rather a moot point.

 

[Pardalis]

Oh come on pardalis, you're not that stupid. Stop playing dumb

You coined it, explain it now.

I'm not arguing for it to have a right to exist. I simply have a view that Israel has a right to exist.

But aren't you against Zionism (or small z, or however you want to write it), which according to you put it there in the first place?

if someone says it doesn't have a right to exist then I would disagree. but it's rare I hear anyone say it doesn't so it's rather a moot point.

Strange, because every ennemi of Israel: Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, and the hords of left wing useful idiots say it very clearly.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Someone else who doesn't know the difference between zionism and Zionism

Hi, I'm a politics student who specialises in International Relations and my dissertatio is coming up this year, and surprise surprise, it's about Israel.

Can you please explain to me why I haven't come across two definitions of the word "Zionist" or "Zionism" in any literature?

If the term(s) are not academic then could you please explain exactly what you mean?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Hi, I'm a politics student who specialises in International Relations and my dissertatio is coming up this year, and surprise surprise, it's about Israel.

Can you please explain to me why I haven't come across two definitions of the word "Zionist" or "Zionism" in any literature?

If the term(s) are not academic then could you please explain exactly what you mean?

????

Surely you're not contending that the Zionist Movement, started by Theodore Herzl in the late 1900s, doesn't exist?

 

[Pardalis]

What's the zionist movement (small z)?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

What's the zionist movement (small z)?

At least you're admitting your naivety ....

There isn't a small 'z' zionist movement. It's just a term sometimes used for those who believe Israel has a right to exist.

In fact I don't even think 'zionism' exists with a small 'z' apart from some pointless nomenclature. Seriously, why does there even need to be a term for someone who believes Israel has a right to exist? What's the term for someone who believes America has a right to exist, or Italy has a right to exist.

It's just a deflection, a diversion.

Now the Zionist movement, with a big 'Z' is a real movement, a pragmatic agenda to create the state of Israel and the goals it has for Israel.

This obviously goes further than a simple belief tat Israel has aright to exist.

It's common to try and condemn criticism of Zionism by trying to resolve it all into zionism and therefore complain that everyone criticizing Zionism is holding a belief that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. this also opens the floodgates for the tedious shouts of anti-semitism.

Now personally I have absolutely no problem in the existence of the State of Israel as an entity which allows the Jewish ethnicity/race to have a homeland. This is something I would never deny of any race of people. I also strongly believe the Kurds should enjoy the same rights.

My problem in Israel's case is not the right of israel to exist, but the way it has been created. And in a manner which urinates over the people who just happened to be standing in it's way by innocently living on that bit of land.

 

[Pardalis]

There isn't a small 'z' zionist movement. It's just a term sometimes used for those who believe Israel has a right to exist.

And what is their arguments for Israel's right to exist?

In fact I don't even think 'zionism' exists with a small 'z' apart from some pointless nomenclature.

No kidding?

It's just a deflection, a diversion.

You brought it up. You're the one who made the distinction between the two same words!

Now personally I have absolutely no problem in the existence of the State of Israel as an entity which allows the Jewish ethnicity/race to have a homeland.

Wasn't that the whole point of Zionism (big Z)? Or is it small z? Now I'm confused.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

It's down to a difference between simple belief in the right of Israel to exist and a political movement's methods in implementing the state of Israel.

I didn't make the distinction. The distinction already exists. i'm just pointing it out for those who are led to believe there isn't a distinction by those wishing to stifle criticism of the Zionist movement.

Perhaps you might get your head around it in simpleterms....

1] Israel has a right to exist

2] Israel does not have a right to tread all over other people in order to implement it's existence.

If you still can't compute the difference then there's no hope.

 

[Pardalis]

1] Israel has a right to exist

2] Israel does not have a right to tread all over other people in order to implement it's existence.

Again, you're contradicting yourself. It's the contention of Israel's enemies that the very inception of the state was illegal, that the very place where Israel sits right now is "stolen land" (not the illegal settlements, but the entire State of Israel), and therefore Israel has (in their minds) no right to exist.

In other words, Hamas and Iran and most of the Muslim world don't agree with 1) because in their minds the very existence of Israel is intrinsically defined as 2). You can't have it both ways.

For them, there is no "zionism".

 

[Skeptic]

You're not going to get a straight answer, Pardalis, you know that... for obvious reasons.

 

[Pardalis]

From "Jews", to "Zionism" and now "zionism". What's next? "The people formally called Israelis"?

 

[gdnp]

Skeptic and Yairhol are conspicuously absent. Curious. They don't miss too many middle eastern threads.

 

[marksman]

Skeptic posted to the thread seven hours before you did, gndp.

Perhaps the reason they're not defending Israel is because the government's complicity in building settlements in contravention of Israel's own laws isn't defensible.

To Israel's credit (and this is in no way a defense of the illegal construction), it conducted its own survey of the settlements with an eye to determining what illegal construction there has been. It appears that the problem was much worse than they thought.

To Israelis' (not its government's) credit there are Israelis -- like Haaretz -- working to stop this policy. I wish them luck.

 

[INRM]

I hope this situation is dealt with properly.

 

[Thunder]

I expect Israel to remove a total of ZERO illegally constructed Jewish settlements until their is a final peace deal. Show how much Israel respects the law..even their own laws.

I also expect Israel to compensate ZERO Palestinians for private property stolen by Israel in order to build Jew-only settlements.

 

[linusrichard]

This is why it is always so hard for me to know what to think about all this.

While I'm against taking land by force, America's land was taken by force, as was probably all land if you go back far enough. The only solution seems to be to pick some arbitrary date and say "The claims that were legitimate on this date are the claims that will be recognized."

I agree with this (at least in the context of Israel), and I think 1967 is a perfect date to pick. Go back any farther, and you'll never convince Israel or the US (barring a sea change in policy) to go along with it. Go any later, and I think you're sanctioning some even worse injustice, and really endangering the possibility of a two-state solution, which is the only possibility for lasting peace. Israel's claim to its stolen land might be a lot newer than that of the US, Canada, Australia, etc., but I think it's no less deserving of recognition - not because it's the most "just" thing to do, but because insisting on the most "just" outcome will only ensure that there will be no outcome at all, just a continuation of what we've been seeing.

 

[gdnp]

Skeptic posted to the thread seven hours before you did, gndp.

Tripped up again by not realizing that there was a "page 2."

Still, neither has made a statement either defending or condemning the policy.

Perhaps the reason they're not defending Israel is because the government's complicity in building settlements in contravention of Israel's own laws isn't defensible.

Which contradicts their usual position that Israel is blameless in all actions and can do no wrong.

To Israel's credit (and this is in no way a defense of the illegal construction), it conducted its own survey of the settlements with an eye to determining what illegal construction there has been. It appears that the problem was much worse than they thought.

I am afraid when you keep the results secret and do nothing to remedy them, you lose that credit. It makes them complicit. If the justice department had done a study in the 30's and found that lynchings were a bigger problem than they thought, but did nothing to stop the lynchings and suppressed the results of the survey, I would conclude that they were condoning the practice.

To Israelis' (not its government's) credit there are Israelis -- like Haaretz -- working to stop this policy. I wish them luck.

Israelis are quite prone to criticize their government internally, but tend to close ranks when there is outside criticism. I have found this to be the case with some of my Jewish friends as well.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

????

Surely you're not contending that the Zionist Movement, started by Theodore Herzl in the late 1900s, doesn't exist?

No, of course not. Are you unable to read or are you just being obtuse?

I said I haven't found TWO definitions. TWO.

There is Zionism. That's it. No Zionism and zionism.

I have not come across two distinct definitions.