Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
However the difference between this and the Frontier Movement is that the Arabs are recent invaders to the land (as in the last two centuries) and the Jews, unlike the White Europeans do have ties and a deep history in the land, far more than the Arabs.That's a great comparison actually, because there's another component to the American frontier movement that encouraged westward expansion at the expense of indiginous people, and that was Manifest Destiny. The frontier movement was a combination of a belief that it was right and just and divinely ordained and the need for land and a chance to start a new life, often from immigrants who came from areas that had no such opportunities.
There's not really much of a difference. The Palestinians and Jews are largely the same people: www.stml.net/text/Populations.pdf - so there are no "recent invaders".
I shouldn't have said "indiginous" but rather current inhabitants of that land who do have deep ties and a deep history there.
That's why we have to keep reminding people.
It is a common Arab tactic to hijack words and use them for their own purpose. Whether its changing the definition of Apartheid, Holocaust, ethinic-cleansing, or Zionist, its a dishonest tactic.
I will continue to point out this type of dishonesty when I encounter it.
It's not just an Arab tactic - I see the same thing occuring against Muslims by attempting to redefine terms such as Taquiya (sp?) or Sharia (utilizing extreme examples to define the entire concept).
While I disagree with the use of "Holocaust" in describing any situations not part of WW2 and I disagree with the use of the term genocide against Israel - I think ethnic cleansing as talked about by historians like Benny Morris, can be applicable and I think comparisons to apartheid can be part of the debate. I don't think that is dishonest in regards to some of the injustices and inequalities that do occur.
in ireland we have learned that when you give up the words, you give up the struggle.
zionism is what is practised by israel with cluster bombs in lebanon, willie peter rounds in gaza, IDF T shirts saying "one shot, two kills" with a pregnant women in the crosshairs.
words and meanings evolve. you mentioned "manifest destiny". it had a totally different meaning in the mid 1800s on to the antonio lopez de santa ana and the mexican peoples and mahpia luta, totanka yotanka, tashunka witko and the native tribal groups than it did for pres. james polk, general zachry taylor, and general george custer as they lied, cheated, and killed their way through north america..
"Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny. 1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America; A divine destiny under God's direction to accomplish this wonderful task." (R.J. Miller)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
"zionism" is what is going on in israel today and it includes land theft, war crimes, human rights abuses, and acts of genocide...and i ain't fooled.
you can put as much lipstick on that pig as you want but i sure as hell ain't gonna kiss it.
I hope I don't, but only because I see myself as an American (to the core) and not an Israeli.Now you've just met one. I also have several friends and family members who believe the same thing, and I wouldn't call any one of us "zionists."
One day you'll need Israel and then you'll get your mistake.
Which is why, when those in power talk about trying to selectively change the way the law treats people of a particular ethnicity or religion, I'll fight them. To the death if necessary. For me, that's a major part of what it means to be American.
That's why we have to keep reminding people.
It is a common Arab tactic to hijack words and use them for their own purpose. Whether its changing the definition of Apartheid, Holocaust, ethinic-cleansing, or Zionist, its a dishonest tactic.
I will continue to point out this type of dishonesty when I encounter it.
It's not just an Arab tactic - I see the same thing occuring against Muslims by attempting to redefine terms such as Taquiya (sp?) or Sharia (utilizing extreme examples to define the entire concept).
While I disagree with the use of "Holocaust" in describing any situations not part of WW2 and I disagree with the use of the term genocide against Israel - I think ethnic cleansing as talked about by historians like Benny Morris, can be applicable and I think comparisons to apartheid can be part of the debate. I don't think that is dishonest in regards to some of the injustices and inequalities that do occur.
in ireland we have learned that when you give up the words, you give up the struggle.
zionism is what is practised by israel with cluster bombs in lebanon, willie peter rounds in gaza, IDF T shirts saying "one shot, two kills" with a pregnant women in the crosshairs.
words and meanings evolve. you mentioned "manifest destiny". it had a totally different meaning in the mid 1800s on to the antonio lopez de santa ana and the mexican peoples and mahpia luta, totanka yotanka, tashunka witko and the native tribal groups than it did for pres. james polk, general zachry taylor, and general george custer as they lied, cheated, and killed their way through north america..
"Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny. 1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America; A divine destiny under God's direction to accomplish this wonderful task." (R.J. Miller)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
"zionism" is what is going on in israel today and it includes land theft, war crimes, human rights abuses, and acts of genocide...and i ain't fooled.
you can put as much lipstick on that pig as you want but i sure as hell ain't gonna kiss it.
in ireland we have learned that when you give up the words, you give up the struggle.
"one shot, two kills"? Digusting
However the difference between this and the Frontier Movement is that the Arabs are recent invaders to the land (as in the last two centuries) and the Jews, unlike the White Europeans do have ties and a deep history in the land, far more than the Arabs.
There's not really much of a difference. The Palestinians and Jews are largely the same people: www.stml.net/text/Populations.pdf - so there are no "recent invaders".
I shouldn't have said "indiginous" but rather current inhabitants of that land who do have deep ties and a deep history there.
there is no problem with "indigenous" as long as it is used consistantly. i mean, technically, the jews, when they were a people before they became a religion, were indigenous to southern iraq.
here is what is going on nin this thread. the meanings of words are moving around and not being applied with any consistancy. it is bigotry when the meaning of a word changes depending on the group of people to whom it is being applied.
It's not just an Arab tactic - I see the same thing occuring against Muslims by attempting to redefine terms such as Taquiya (sp?) or Sharia (utilizing extreme examples to define the entire concept).
While I disagree with the use of "Holocaust" in describing any situations not part of WW2 and I disagree with the use of the term genocide against Israel - I think ethnic cleansing as talked about by historians like Benny Morris, can be applicable and I think comparisons to apartheid can be part of the debate. I don't think that is dishonest in regards to some of the injustices and inequalities that do occur.
in ireland we have learned that when you give up the words, you give up the struggle.
zionism is what is practised by israel with cluster bombs in lebanon, willie peter rounds in gaza, IDF T shirts saying "one shot, two kills" with a pregnant women in the crosshairs.
words and meanings evolve. you mentioned "manifest destiny". it had a totally different meaning in the mid 1800s on to the antonio lopez de santa ana and the mexican peoples and mahpia luta, totanka yotanka, tashunka witko and the native tribal groups than it did for pres. james polk, general zachry taylor, and general george custer as they lied, cheated, and killed their way through north america..
"Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny. 1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America; A divine destiny under God's direction to accomplish this wonderful task." (R.J. Miller)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
"zionism" is what is going on in israel today and it includes land theft, war crimes, human rights abuses, and acts of genocide...and i ain't fooled.
you can put as much lipstick on that pig as you want but i sure as hell ain't gonna kiss it.
I think I'll go with the definition expressed by Herzl, Ben-Gurion and Meir over that of "random internet message board poster," If that's okay with you, Pinniped.
the "random internet poster" comment really wasn't necessary, was it? would you rather i didn't post? you might consider putting random internet posters on ignore if you find them so inane and ignorant.
are you saying that the definitions of words and the emotions behind them do not change. that certainly demonstrates a remarkable rigidity of thought.
There's not really much of a difference. The Palestinians and Jews are largely the same people: www.stml.net/text/Populations.pdf - so there are no "recent invaders".
I shouldn't have said "indiginous" but rather current inhabitants of that land who do have deep ties and a deep history there.
there is no problem with "indigenous" as long as it is used consistantly. i mean, technically, the jews, when they were a people before they became a religion, were indigenous to southern iraq.
here is what is going on nin this thread. the meanings of words are moving around and not being applied with any consistancy. it is bigotry when the meaning of a word changes depending on the group of people to whom it is being applied.
Agree, there is a certain arbritraryness to meanings which is why I wanted to know what different people thought Zionism is.
If you look at Wikipedia - it can be applied in different ways - from simple nationalism and desire for a homeland where never again would they be subject to a holocaust to manifest destiny.
there is no problem with "indigenous" as long as it is used consistantly. i mean, technically, the jews, when they were a people before they became a religion, were indigenous to southern iraq.
here is what is going on nin this thread. the meanings of words are moving around and not being applied with any consistancy. it is bigotry when the meaning of a word changes depending on the group of people to whom it is being applied.
Agree, there is a certain arbritraryness to meanings which is why I wanted to know what different people thought Zionism is.
If you look at Wikipedia - it can be applied in different ways - from simple nationalism and desire for a homeland where never again would they be subject to a holocaust to manifest destiny.
practice also determines the meanings of words. look at "communism".
the "random internet poster" comment really wasn't necessary, was it? would you rather i didn't post? you might consider putting random internet posters on ignore if you find them so inane and ignorant.
Its not up to me whether you post or not, but my description is accurate. To me, you are a "random internet poster," just as I am to you.
are you saying that the definitions of words and the emotions behind them do not change. that certainly demonstrates a remarkable rigidity of thought.
The definitions of words do not change.
The usage of words can.
However, when that usage is a strategic tactic to hide defamation, delegitimization, disparagement and bigotry, then it is appropriate to combat that mis-use of words so that casual observers are not mislead.
Agree, there is a certain arbritraryness to meanings which is why I wanted to know what different people thought Zionism is.
If you look at Wikipedia - it can be applied in different ways - from simple nationalism and desire for a homeland where never again would they be subject to a holocaust to manifest destiny.
practice also determines the meanings of words. look at "communism".
No, "communism" too can be defined.
Of course, there were great wrongs imposed upon those who were wrongly accused of being "communists" in this country. This shows that, once again, when people are permitted to redefine words for their own nefarious purposes, nothing good comes of it.
so, you agree with me that the "random internet poster" comment was superfluous. it is nice to agree.
it was also rude.
practice also determines the meanings of words. look at "communism".
No, "communism" too can be defined.
Of course, there were great wrongs imposed upon those who were wrongly accused of being "communists" in this country. This shows that, once again, when people are permitted to redefine words for their own nefarious purposes, nothing good comes of it.
definitions evolve and change.
we could discuss etymology forever to no end.
why are you even discussing the meaning of "zionism". just post the standard dictionary definition.
That's why we have to keep reminding people.
It is a common Arab tactic to hijack words and use them for their own purpose. Whether its changing the definition of Apartheid, Holocaust, ethinic-cleansing, or Zionist, its a dishonest tactic.
I will continue to point out this type of dishonesty when I encounter it.
It's not just an Arab tactic - I see the same thing occuring against Muslims by attempting to redefine terms such as Taquiya (sp?) or Sharia (utilizing extreme examples to define the entire concept).
While I disagree with the use of "Holocaust" in describing any situations not part of WW2 and I disagree with the use of the term genocide against Israel - I think ethnic cleansing as talked about by historians like Benny Morris, can be applicable and I think comparisons to apartheid can be part of the debate. I don't think that is dishonest in regards to some of the injustices and inequalities that do occur.
That's why we have to keep reminding people.
It is a common Arab tactic to hijack words and use them for their own purpose. Whether its changing the definition of Apartheid, Holocaust, ethinic-cleansing, or Zionist, its a dishonest tactic.
I will continue to point out this type of dishonesty when I encounter it.
It's not just an Arab tactic - I see the same thing occuring against Muslims by attempting to redefine terms such as Taquiya (sp?) or Sharia (utilizing extreme examples to define the entire concept).
While I disagree with the use of "Holocaust" in describing any situations not part of WW2 and I disagree with the use of the term genocide against Israel - I think ethnic cleansing as talked about by historians like Benny Morris, can be applicable and I think comparisons to apartheid can be part of the debate. I don't think that is dishonest in regards to some of the injustices and inequalities that do occur.
jewish people exclude the millions of non-jewish victims in their definition of the holocaust, which is bigotry.
as for genocide, there is a legal definition and the word "intent" is used in that definition, as are the words "national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
the jewish people claim that no one did anything when the holocaust was happening to prevent it. i do not want my grandchildren to ask me someday why no one did anything to prevent the genocide of the palestinians.
jewish people exclude the millions of non-jewish victims in their definition of the holocaust, which is bigotry.
the jewish people claim that no one did anything when the holocaust was happening to prevent it. i do not want my grandchildren to ask me someday why no one did anything to prevent the genocide of the palestinians.
That's why we have to keep reminding people.
It is a common Arab tactic to hijack words and use them for their own purpose. Whether its changing the definition of Apartheid, Holocaust, ethinic-cleansing, or Zionist, its a dishonest tactic.
I will continue to point out this type of dishonesty when I encounter it.
It's not just an Arab tactic - I see the same thing occuring against Muslims by attempting to redefine terms such as Taquiya (sp?) or Sharia (utilizing extreme examples to define the entire concept).
While I disagree with the use of "Holocaust" in describing any situations not part of WW2 and I disagree with the use of the term genocide against Israel - I think ethnic cleansing as talked about by historians like Benny Morris, can be applicable and I think comparisons to apartheid can be part of the debate. I don't think that is dishonest in regards to some of the injustices and inequalities that do occur.
jewish people exclude the millions of non-jewish victims in their definition of the holocaust, which is bigotry.
as for genocide, there is a legal definition and the word "intent" is used in that definition, as are the words "national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
the jewish people claim that no one did anything when the holocaust was happening to prevent it. i do not want my grandchildren to ask me someday why no one did anything to prevent the genocide of the palestinians.
No, "communism" too can be defined.
Of course, there were great wrongs imposed upon those who were wrongly accused of being "communists" in this country. This shows that, once again, when people are permitted to redefine words for their own nefarious purposes, nothing good comes of it.
definitions evolve and change.
we could discuss etymology forever to no end.
why are you even discussing the meaning of "zionism". just post the standard dictionary definition.
Okay...
According to Webster's, Zionism is "an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel."
Any questions?
