Post Reply
Page 2 of 27  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 27 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why Can't US Zionists Admit that Zionism Is a Supremacist Ideology? - Ayad Gharbawi
4 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2010 - 2:10PM #11
KindredSai
Posts: 4,983



Sorry Charlie. Zionism is the ideology which calls for the liberation of Jews under their own rule in their homeland (which happens to be eretz Israel, not Uganda, or Madagascar, or any where else you might think)


Prior WWII many places were named including Australia, Uganda and Palestine which would fulfill the wishes of Zionism.


The liberation of Jews living under one rule is one thing, murdering and dominating non-Jews in the process of establishing a homeland is another.


Sorry, but my name's not Charlie.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2010 - 2:17PM #12
browbeaten
Posts: 2,792

Jan 4, 2010 -- 2:10PM, KindredSai wrote:




Sorry Charlie. Zionism is the ideology which calls for the liberation of Jews under their own rule in their homeland (which happens to be eretz Israel, not Uganda, or Madagascar, or any where else you might think)


Prior WWII many places were named including Australia, Uganda and Palestine which would fulfill the wishes of Zionism.


The liberation of Jews living under one rule is one thing, murdering and dominating non-Jews in the process of establishing a homeland is another.


Sorry, but my name's not Charlie.




What is amazing is that we keep coming around to the fairness of the partition.  Both Arabs and Jews were given land in which to create a State.  The reason for the split was so that Jews could have country of Jews and Arabs, a state for Palestinians.  The fact that Israel has non-Jewish citizens is a bonus, but contrary to the reasoned decision which gave both people their own Independence and separation.  Too bad the Arabs chose not to create a country called Palestine.  But, the Jews created Israel and that is a fact that will not go away or change.  The question should be, what will the Palestinians do now?


.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2010 - 4:13PM #13
KindredSai
Posts: 4,983

Jan 4, 2010 -- 2:17PM, browbeaten wrote:


Jan 4, 2010 -- 2:10PM, KindredSai wrote:




Sorry Charlie. Zionism is the ideology which calls for the liberation of Jews under their own rule in their homeland (which happens to be eretz Israel, not Uganda, or Madagascar, or any where else you might think)


Prior WWII many places were named including Australia, Uganda and Palestine which would fulfill the wishes of Zionism.


The liberation of Jews living under one rule is one thing, murdering and dominating non-Jews in the process of establishing a homeland is another.


Sorry, but my name's not Charlie.




What is amazing is that we keep coming around to the fairness of the partition.  Both Arabs and Jews were given land in which to create a State.  The reason for the split was so that Jews could have country of Jews and Arabs, a state for Palestinians.  The fact that Israel has non-Jewish citizens is a bonus, but contrary to the reasoned decision which gave both people their own Independence and separation.  Too bad the Arabs chose not to create a country called Palestine.  But, the Jews created Israel and that is a fact that will not go away or change.  The question should be, what will the Palestinians do now?


.




 


Zionists never wanted Arabs to have any state, they believe West Bank was part of Eretz Israel and thus would do anything to expand her borders.


As for a "given land", Jews were given 56% of the Mandate yet did not make up the majority of inhabitants of the Mandate, secondly the Jewish inhabitants which were slowly invading Palestine were illegal immigrants.


As for Israelis viewing Arabs a bonus in Israel, don't be fooled. Israel's views it's Arab population as a burden, in the eyes of Zionists Israeli-Arabs will never be true Israelis to the extent Jews are.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2010 - 4:27PM #14
browbeaten
Posts: 2,792

Jan 4, 2010 -- 4:13PM, KindredSai wrote:


Jan 4, 2010 -- 2:17PM, browbeaten wrote:


Jan 4, 2010 -- 2:10PM, KindredSai wrote:




Sorry Charlie. Zionism is the ideology which calls for the liberation of Jews under their own rule in their homeland (which happens to be eretz Israel, not Uganda, or Madagascar, or any where else you might think)


Prior WWII many places were named including Australia, Uganda and Palestine which would fulfill the wishes of Zionism.


The liberation of Jews living under one rule is one thing, murdering and dominating non-Jews in the process of establishing a homeland is another.


Sorry, but my name's not Charlie.




What is amazing is that we keep coming around to the fairness of the partition.  Both Arabs and Jews were given land in which to create a State.  The reason for the split was so that Jews could have country of Jews and Arabs, a state for Palestinians.  The fact that Israel has non-Jewish citizens is a bonus, but contrary to the reasoned decision which gave both people their own Independence and separation.  Too bad the Arabs chose not to create a country called Palestine.  But, the Jews created Israel and that is a fact that will not go away or change.  The question should be, what will the Palestinians do now?


.




 


Zionists never wanted Arabs to have any state, they believe West Bank was part of Eretz Israel and thus would do anything to expand her borders.


I can certainly see why you need to turn things around.  I mean, Israel declared a state within their assigned borders.  Who attacked who?


As for a "given land", Jews were given 56% of the Mandate yet did not make up the majority of inhabitants of the Mandate, secondly the Jewish inhabitants which were slowly invading Palestine were illegal immigrants.


Every time you lose the partition debate, you return to the idea of fairness.  Now it isn't just a matter of the Jews getting land, it's that they got proportionally more than they deserved.  Funny, how this concept never came up until 60 years later.  Where was the the argument to change the percentage.  Guess what, there never was, because it never was the issue.


As for Israelis viewing Arabs a bonus in Israel, don't be fooled. Israel's views it's Arab population as a burden, in the eyes of Zionists Israeli-Arabs will never be true Israelis to the extent Jews are.


You misinterpreted what I said.  Seeing that the mandate was divided into two areas, one for Jews and one for Arabs, the fact that the Jews allowed Arabs to remain and become citizens was a bonus for the Arab side.  This is why the contention that genocide was instituted is so far fetched and absurd.  Jews will always have a special place in Israel, that is the whole point, or can't you see that?





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 05, 2010 - 1:16PM #15
KindredSai
Posts: 4,983

I can certainly see why you need to turn things around.  I mean, Israel declared a state within their assigned borders.  Who attacked who?


They declared a State with borders contrary to the rights of those who formed a majority of the Mandate.


 


 


 


Every time you lose the partition debate, you return to the idea of fairness.  Now it isn't just a matter of the Jews getting land, it's that they got proportionally more than they deserved.  Funny, how this concept never came up until 60 years later.  Where was the the argument to change the percentage.  Guess what, there never was, because it never was the issue.


Being Jewish makes no relevance, I think the response from a local people would be same if they were Hindu, Atheist or Zoroastrian. As for fairness, your concept of fairness always implied when you talking about a partition that you believe was just.


 


Now I ask you a question if the majority of people on an Island were Jewish and non-Jewish immigrants slowly arrived onto the Island forming a substantial population. Would you be for a partition in which amounts to non-Jews recieving proprotionally more land would you be in favour?


I seriously think not, yet all fairness doesn't matter because you believe Jews have a better right regardless.


 


 


 


You misinterpreted what I said.  Seeing that the mandate was divided into two areas, one for Jews and one for Arabs, the fact that the Jews allowed Arabs to remain and become citizens was a bonus for the Arab side.  This is why the contention that genocide was instituted is so far fetched and absurd.  Jews will always have a special place in Israel, that is the whole point, or can't you see that?


Institutional genocide still took place regardless if there are Arabs who stay and survive, Serbia still has a Muslim population despite genocide, doesn't eradicate the fact that genocide was systematic.


Does Jews having a special place in Israel, mean that Arabs don't?


 


"We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return."


Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes.


"The old will die and the young will forget."


- Ben-Gurion 1948

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 05, 2010 - 2:36PM #16
browbeaten
Posts: 2,792

Jan 5, 2010 -- 1:16PM, KindredSai wrote:


I can certainly see why you need to turn things around.  I mean, Israel declared a state within their assigned borders.  Who attacked who?


They declared a State with borders contrary to the rights of those who formed a majority of the Mandate.


Ridiculous and inaccurate statement.  It was in recognition of the rights that the Mandate was divided into two territories, one for Arabs and one for Jews.


Every time you lose the partition debate, you return to the idea of fairness.  Now it isn't just a matter of the Jews getting land, it's that they got proportionally more than they deserved.  Funny, how this concept never came up until 60 years later.  Where was the the argument to change the percentage.  Guess what, there never was, because it never was the issue.


Being Jewish makes no relevance, I think the response from a local people would be same if they were Hindu, Atheist or Zoroastrian. As for fairness, your concept of fairness always implied when you talking about a partition that you believe was just.


Now I ask you a question if the majority of people on an Island were Jewish and non-Jewish immigrants slowly arrived onto the Island forming a substantial population. Would you be for a partition in which amounts to non-Jews recieving proprotionally more land would you be in favour?


You continue to bring up this red herring.  Fairness was never the issue.  In fact, I challenge you to produce any evidence from the Arab league that they considered the percentage split to be unfair and to be redrawn.  You can't argue, in hind-site, some 60 years later that the division was unfair.  Nice that you think you can second guess the decisions of the Mandate now.


I seriously think not, yet all fairness doesn't matter because you believe Jews have a better right regardless.


Red herring again.  The rights of both were considered when the division of land was made.


You misinterpreted what I said.  Seeing that the mandate was divided into two areas, one for Jews and one for Arabs, the fact that the Jews allowed Arabs to remain and become citizens was a bonus for the Arab side.  This is why the contention that genocide was instituted is so far fetched and absurd.  Jews will always have a special place in Israel, that is the whole point, or can't you see that?


Institutional genocide still took place regardless if there are Arabs who stay and survive, Serbia still has a Muslim population despite genocide, doesn't eradicate the fact that genocide was systematic.


Remember, repeating a lie doesn't make it truth.  The evidence does NOT support your position.


Does Jews having a special place in Israel, mean that Arabs don't?


Yes.  Jews have the right to their special place in Israel and to decide who they want as citizens.  No different than the immigration laws of most countries in this world.





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 05, 2010 - 3:04PM #17
KindredSai
Posts: 4,983

 


Ridiculous and inaccurate statement.  It was in recognition of the rights that the Mandate was divided into two territories, one for Arabs and one for Jews.


The rights according to whom? As I understand the substantial population within a newly created Jewish State had their rights thrown away.






You continue to bring up this red herring.  Fairness was never the issue.  In fact, I challenge you to produce any evidence from the Arab league that they considered the percentage split to be unfair and to be redrawn.  You can't argue, in hind-site, some 60 years later that the division was unfair.  Nice that you think you can second guess the decisions of the Mandate now.


It's not a red herring rather something to show that you're justifications are only due to the fact that Jews had a greater position and right, which has been proved evidently without fairness.


Secondly the Arab leadership did notice the 56% split disagreed with it along with the Arabs being trapped within a Jewish State and the vast majority of the Mandate inhabitants not being represented proportionally.


 


 


The rights of both were considered when the division of land was made.


You keep on harking on about this but you've admitted it was not fair. Rights therefore have been violated, and considerations were done by super powers who didn't want to house a massive Jewish population after WWII.


 


 


 


Remember, repeating a lie doesn't make it truth.  The evidence does NOT support your position.


You can keep telling yourself that Brow. But it is the truth.


Does Jews having a special place in Israel, mean that Arabs don't?




Yes.  Jews have the right to their special place in Israel and to decide who they want as citizens.  No different than the immigration laws of most countries in this world.


At last, you're finally admitting ethno-centrism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 05, 2010 - 4:06PM #18
browbeaten
Posts: 2,792

Jan 5, 2010 -- 3:04PM, KindredSai wrote:


 


Ridiculous and inaccurate statement.  It was in recognition of the rights that the Mandate was divided into two territories, one for Arabs and one for Jews.


The rights according to whom? As I understand the substantial population within a newly created Jewish State had their rights thrown away.


According to those who were given the power to divide up the Ottoman Empire.  Their rights were not thrown away, they could have remained and if not, were given there own land to create a state.


You continue to bring up this red herring.  Fairness was never the issue.  In fact, I challenge you to produce any evidence from the Arab league that they considered the percentage split to be unfair and to be redrawn.  You can't argue, in hind-site, some 60 years later that the division was unfair.  Nice that you think you can second guess the decisions of the Mandate now.


It's not a red herring rather something to show that you're justifications are only due to the fact that Jews had a greater position and right, which has been proved evidently without fairness.


This is 1948 and they were Jews, without power and political control in that region.  So, I don't know what you're talking about.  They were happy to take whatever was given them and they did.  Guess who didn't and now you cry, spilled milk.


Secondly the Arab leadership did notice the 56% split disagreed with it along with the Arabs being trapped within a Jewish State and the vast majority of the Mandate inhabitants not being represented proportionally.


Give me anything that supports this contention.  Did the Arab leadership demand a different split?  You can go down this road all you want, but it is just another excuse for poor decisions and bad choices by the Arabs.  Blame everyone else is still your motto.


The rights of both were considered when the division of land was made.


You keep on harking on about this but you've admitted it was not fair. Rights therefore have been violated, and considerations were done by super powers who didn't want to house a massive Jewish population after WWII.


I have never admitted that it was fair or not fair.  I am simply reiterating to you that the percentage split had absolutely nothing to do with the Arabs refusing the division.  Any amount of land given to the Jews was unacceptable and there is mounds of evidence that supports this.


 


Remember, repeating a lie doesn't make it truth.  The evidence does NOT support your position.


You can keep telling yourself that Brow. But it is the truth.


Yet, you can't prove it.  Ironic eh?


Does Jews having a special place in Israel, mean that Arabs don't?


Yes.  Jews have the right to their special place in Israel and to decide who they want as citizens.  No different than the immigration laws of most countries in this world.


At last, you're finally admitting ethno-centrism.


Call it what you want.  It is what it is.  If I only accepted handicap individuals to enter my country, would I be ethnocentric?  I guess I would believe that the handicap are superior to all other individuals.


The problem is that you, like your Arab brethren simply can't accept the bad decisions made for the last 60 years and you have to find something else with which to disparage Israel.





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 05, 2010 - 4:45PM #19
teilhard
Posts: 48,227

Jan 2, 2010 -- 12:40PM, Ayad wrote:


 


WHY CAN'T US ZIONISTS ADMIT THAT ZIONISM IS A SUPREMACIST IDEOLOGY?




Ayad Gharbawi




January 2, 2009 - Damascus


 


 


I shall continue my discussion on Zionism, precisely because Israel is built on the theological principles of that ideology.


Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people/race/tribe/community/ethnic group (call it what you want) were 'ordered' by God to occupy the occupied land of Judea and Samaria. The Jews, according to their sacred scriptures, inform us that they left Egypt, cossed the Sinai and proceeded to ethnically cleanse Judea and Samaria from all non-Jews.


This is the basic and not too difficult theological foundatioons of Zionism.


I do not know why so many good commentators find my words to be untrue: it is simply written in the Old Testament or the Torah, and indeed, in your country, the US, right-wing evangelists feverishly believe the in the text in the Old Testament, and that is: Israel must be a land only for Jews, and no one else.


Dayan, Ben Gurion, Rabin themselves wrote and stated that their intention upon the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 was to expel the non-Jewish people, so their God-given Holy Land is populated by Jews only.


Call it 'racism', call it 'nationalism', call it 'exclusivism' - frankly, all that is neither here, nor there.


The simple fact that Israel was created and based its raison d'etre on the theological principles of Judaism, and that thinking is exactly the same as every other racist/exclusivist/nationalist/ethnicist movements, like what occured in the 1990's in Yugoslavia, or when Pol Pot ordered the deportatopn of all Vietnamese, and Idi Amin kicked out Asians and so on.


I do not understand why Zionists are 'offended' when anyone accuses them of being racist/exclusivist/nationalist etc.?


Let me ask you all, Zionists: how do you define your ideology?


Let me ask you and your morals and your hearts point-blank: Does your ideology allow non-Jews to live with you and on an equal basis?!


The odd and silly thing about US Zionists and Israeli Zionists is this: Israeli Zionists proudly and publicly proclaim that Israel is a land for Jews only, and no Gentiles may live there - while American Zionists are somewhat coy about admitting that fact!


This entire topic is really not so difficult, and yet, US Zionists cannot admit what I am saying. Why? Because if one, or anyone, admits that Zionism is an unfair ideology - just as all nationalistic ideologies are unfair - then that means Israel has no right to exist.


For Israel exists on the simple and typical nationalist principle that ONLY JEWS CAN LIVE IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA.


Salam.




 


ummmmm ... I -- for one -- don't "admit" that "Zionism is a Supremicist Ideology"


because it ISN'T  TRUE ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 06, 2010 - 8:39AM #20
KindredSai
Posts: 4,983

 


This is 1948 and they were Jews, without power and political control in that region.  So, I don't know what you're talking about.  They were happy to take whatever was given them and they did.  Guess who didn't and now you cry, spilled milk.


You're wrong here, it is well known that Jews from Europe were politically powerful with the Zionist congress and JNF.




Give me anything that supports this contention.  Did the Arab leadership demand a different split?  You can go down this road all you want, but it is just another excuse for poor decisions and bad choices by the Arabs.  Blame everyone else is still your motto.


If you see the reasons why the Arab leadership in and outside Palestine, one of the reasons where that despite non-Jews outnumbering Jews, Jews were given a greater percetage of the partition. I'm not solely saying that was the crux of the disagreement.


 


 


 


I have never admitted that it was fair or not fair.  I am simply reiterating to you that the percentage split had absolutely nothing to do with the Arabs refusing the division.  Any amount of land given to the Jews was unacceptable and there is mounds of evidence that supports this.


This is quite a fallacious statement, if you're saying rights were considered then you're saying also that fairness was taken into consideration. I'm not saying the uneven split was solely the reason why Arabs refused the partition.


 


 


Yet, you can't prove it.  Ironic eh?


I think I have proved it with an Israeli official report which cites that 74% of Arabs leaving Israel was due to Israelis themselves. Whether it was purely organised or unintentional, ethnic cleansing did happen, Benny Morris who has a loose Pro-Israeli stance, says even if it is ethnic cleansing, when Jews committ it, it's justified.


 


 


 


Call it what you want.  It is what it is.  If I only accepted handicap individuals to enter my country, would I be ethnocentric?  I guess I would believe that the handicap are superior to all other individuals.


So you do believe in the superiority of Jews? Why go around all the semantic jargon and talk about special places.


You know there was an Austrian fellow who also believed in superiority too, and was responisible for killing millions of Jews. Still yet you persist in believing ethno-centrism like he did, except he believed that disabled people and Jews were inferior.



The problem is that you, like your Arab brethren simply can't accept the bad decisions made for the last 60 years and you have to find something else with which to disparage Israel.


I don't think it was due to Arab decisions that lead to 60 years of perpetual conflict and I think any people Arab or not in the modern era would stand against ethnic cleansing and colonialization. Even if Arabs had accepted the 2 State solution in 1948, I still think Zionists intended to acquire West Bank by any means possible.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 27  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 27 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook