The Dark Inevitability of Zionism

[fanger]

Among the growing assaults on freedom of speech is an Israeli-driven campaign to criminalize a campaign to boycott Israel over its racist persecution of Palestinians, writes Lawrence Davidson.


By Lawrence Davidson

We know where Zionism has taken Israel. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 led the way. In that imperial and colonial document, the British promised the World Zionist Organization a “Jewish National Home” in Palestine. They did so, as Edward Said put it, in “flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority residents in that territory.”


A section of the barrier — erected by Israeli officials to prevent the passage of Palestinians — with graffiti using President John F. Kennedy’s famous quote when facing the Berlin Wall, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” (Photo credit: Marc Venezia)

Right from the start the Zionists understood “national home” to mean an eventual Jewish state. Actualizing that assumption has had enormous implications not only for the Palestinians but also for the Jews. And, as it turns out, for the rest of us as well.

You cannot introduce one people, in this case a large number of Europeans who happen to be Jewish, into a territory populated by hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans, without negative consequences. And, if the incoming Europeans have the goal of creating a state exclusively for their group alone, those consequences are going to be dire indeed. Surrounded by “the other,” the only way you can achieve your exclusive state is through discriminatory practices and laws ultimately producing an apartheid nation. And that is what happened.

While this has meant, and continues to mean, segregation, ethnic cleansing and Bantustans for the Palestinians, for the Jews it means that their religion is tied to a racist political ideology. There is no instance of Israeli prejudice exercised against the Palestinians, no act of violence committed against them, that does not simultaneously dishonor and debase the Jewish religion and people.
The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
The zionists have been advised, told, warned, it has even gone so far as sanctions, but they still won't listen?

 

[fanger]

Worldwide Consequences

How about the rest of world? The consequences of Zionism are threatening both security and equality everywhere. Here is how this is happening:


In 1948, some Palestinians, uprooted by Israel’s claims to their lands, relocated to the Jaramana Refugee Camp in Damascus, Syria

—As the Balfour Declaration indicates, Israel and its society are products of a colonial era. That is an era when the people of both Europe and the U.S. openly practiced racist policies and behavior toward non-Europeans. They regularly trampled of the rights of alleged inferiors. Israel continues to operate in this fashion into the present.

—Following World War II, it became understood that these behaviors and attitudes are morally indefensible and their consequences should be remedied. And so, the United Nations was established, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued, and a number of treaties embodying international laws designating crimes against humanity were signed. With this process the world entered a potentially more civilized, post-colonial age.

—When this happened the Zionist project instantly became an anachronism. In fact, Israel became a state that defied the modern norm the moment it was proclaimed.

—However, Israel does not want to be outside the norm. It wants to be accepted as a “normal” nation, particularly within the Western state system. There are only two ways this can happen: either (1) Israel must either give up the racist ideology of Zionism and embrace a form of democracy accessible to all its people regardless of religion or ethnicity, or (2) the world must revert back to an acceptance of at least some of the colonial practices of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries.

You would think that choosing the anti-racist option, and therefore seriously pressuring Israel – as the world had done with white-ruled South Africa – to fundamentally change, would be the obvious choice for today’s statesmen. But it seems not. Why is that?

There is now an ongoing effort, we might call it the updated Zionist project, to move the world backward so as to accept racist past practices as “normal.” It consists of (a) an attack on international law protecting human rights (despite the fact that much of this law was created as a reaction to the anti-Semitic crimes of World War II), (b) an attempt to undermine the International Criminal Court, and (c) an attack on the United Nations and its efforts to protect the human and political rights of Palestinians.

Same link as the OP

 

[theHawk]

So what if Israelis took the land from Palestinians? Why should we be outraged out the way Israel was formed versus just about every other country on the planet that formed when one people conquered another?

If you love Palestinians so much, fly over, and join the Muslims incapable of defeating the Israelis. Otherwise, no one gives a shit.

 

[fanger]

So what if Israelis took the land from Palestinians? Why should we be outraged out the way Israel was formed versus just about every other country on the planet that formed when one people conquered another?

If you love Palestinians so much, fly over, and join the Muslims incapable of defeating the Israelis. Otherwise, no one gives a shit.

Enter BDS

It is clear that very few of the world’s governments are willing to confront Israel, even though it is an apartheid state existing in an era that claims to detest such racist regimes. This has a lot to do with the financial and special interest strength of Zionist supporters both Jewish and Christian, and the strategic use of such power to corrupt policymaking. This can be seen most plainly in the United States.


Palestinian boys prepare to welcome Women’s Boat to Gaza, which was intercepted by the Israeli naval blockade on Oct. 5, 2016.

There are also Israel’s extensive high-tech and weapons-trading networks in Europe, Africa and South America that lead important political and economic institutions and individuals to support, or at least turn a blind eye to, the Zionist state. And then, of course, there are a growing number of states that themselves have plans to marginalize their own minorities.

Does this mean that there is no defense against the insidious effects of this reactionary regime – one which, according to its own past Prime Minister Ehud Barak, is “infected with fascism”? No, there are options to oppose Israel. However, at present they are to be found outside of the realm of government action and, at least for the moment, outside occupied Palestine as well.

The latter is so because inside Palestine, 70 years of Israeli colonial savagery has worn down much of the indigenous population. This does not mean that resistance from within the Occupied Territories does not continue. It does, but at relatively low levels and at a high cost.

Since the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004, too many of the Palestinian leaders have been co-opted into playing the role of modern-dayQuislings. The Palestinians within Israeli-controlled territory are now fragmented into Bantustan-style enclaves, and their own “security forces” often work hand-in-hand with the Israeli oppressors.

As a consequence of these circumstances, right now the greatest pressure can be put on apartheid Israel through the activities of organized civil society. This pressure by itself may or may not be able to force fundamental change on Israel, but it can certainly raise the cost of its racist behavior and impact public opinion.

Here we are talking about the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement that urges both individuals and organizations (be they economic, cultural or intellectual) to avoid interacting with Israel and its state-sponsored institutions and projects. To date this has proved to be an effective weapon against Israeli racism and colonialism. For instance, if you go to the website of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, you can find a list of 200 recent victories falling within the Boycott and Divestment categories. State-based sanctions are still in the future.

Link as in OP

 

[Boston1]

IE lets keep lies and hate speech legal, pretending its some kinda right.

Good plan

Carry on

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Among the growing assaults on freedom of speech is an Israeli-driven campaign to criminalize a campaign to boycott Israel over its racist persecution of Palestinians, writes Lawrence Davidson.


By Lawrence Davidson

We know where Zionism has taken Israel. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 led the way. In that imperial and colonial document, the British promised the World Zionist Organization a “Jewish National Home” in Palestine. They did so, as Edward Said put it, in “flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority residents in that territory.”


A section of the barrier — erected by Israeli officials to prevent the passage of Palestinians — with graffiti using President John F. Kennedy’s famous quote when facing the Berlin Wall, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” (Photo credit: Marc Venezia)

Right from the start the Zionists understood “national home” to mean an eventual Jewish state. Actualizing that assumption has had enormous implications not only for the Palestinians but also for the Jews. And, as it turns out, for the rest of us as well.

You cannot introduce one people, in this case a large number of Europeans who happen to be Jewish, into a territory populated by hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans, without negative consequences. And, if the incoming Europeans have the goal of creating a state exclusively for their group alone, those consequences are going to be dire indeed. Surrounded by “the other,” the only way you can achieve your exclusive state is through discriminatory practices and laws ultimately producing an apartheid nation. And that is what happened.

While this has meant, and continues to mean, segregation, ethnic cleansing and Bantustans for the Palestinians, for the Jews it means that their religion is tied to a racist political ideology. There is no instance of Israeli prejudice exercised against the Palestinians, no act of violence committed against them, that does not simultaneously dishonor and debase the Jewish religion and people.
The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
The zionists have been advised, told, warned, it has even gone so far as sanctions, but they still won't listen?

What a stupid comparison. The Communists erected their wall to stop their own citizens from escaping to the freedom of the West. Israel built their wall to protect themselves from cowardly Muslim terror attacks.

 

[fanger]

Among the growing assaults on freedom of speech is an Israeli-driven campaign to criminalize a campaign to boycott Israel over its racist persecution of Palestinians, writes Lawrence Davidson.


By Lawrence Davidson

We know where Zionism has taken Israel. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 led the way. In that imperial and colonial document, the British promised the World Zionist Organization a “Jewish National Home” in Palestine. They did so, as Edward Said put it, in “flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority residents in that territory.”


A section of the barrier — erected by Israeli officials to prevent the passage of Palestinians — with graffiti using President John F. Kennedy’s famous quote when facing the Berlin Wall, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” (Photo credit: Marc Venezia)

Right from the start the Zionists understood “national home” to mean an eventual Jewish state. Actualizing that assumption has had enormous implications not only for the Palestinians but also for the Jews. And, as it turns out, for the rest of us as well.

You cannot introduce one people, in this case a large number of Europeans who happen to be Jewish, into a territory populated by hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans, without negative consequences. And, if the incoming Europeans have the goal of creating a state exclusively for their group alone, those consequences are going to be dire indeed. Surrounded by “the other,” the only way you can achieve your exclusive state is through discriminatory practices and laws ultimately producing an apartheid nation. And that is what happened.

While this has meant, and continues to mean, segregation, ethnic cleansing and Bantustans for the Palestinians, for the Jews it means that their religion is tied to a racist political ideology. There is no instance of Israeli prejudice exercised against the Palestinians, no act of violence committed against them, that does not simultaneously dishonor and debase the Jewish religion and people.
The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
The zionists have been advised, told, warned, it has even gone so far as sanctions, but they still won't listen?

What a stupid comparison. The Communists erected their wall to stop their own citizens from escaping to the freedom of the West. Israel built their wall to protect themselves from cowardly Muslim terror attacks.

Israeli Pressure

Success in this regard has, of course, generated a fierce reaction from the Zionists. According to a Huffington Post article, “The Israeli government has reportedly committed tens of millions of dollars, one government ministry and its military and security intelligence assets to the fight.


Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s seventy-first session.
22 September 2016 (UN Photo)

Israeli Minister of Transport, Intelligence and Atomic Energy, Yisrael Katz, recently called for “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leaders. Actually, such a reaction reflects not only the fact that the cost of Israeli racism is on the rise, but also that the Zionists have lost the public (if not the governmental) debate when it comes to their behavior toward the Palestinians.

Put broadly, BDS is an effort to help save the positive potential inherent in modern post-colonial society: the civilizing potential to be found in international law, in human and civil rights, in a benevolent and egalitarian rule of law for all of us.

So successful has BDS been to date, and so much potential does it have to help force Israel down the same road as white-ruled South Africa, that Israel and its surrogates in the U.S. and Europe are willing to undermine the very laws and rights that help uphold what freedoms there are within the public realm. For instance, in the U.S., the very right to engage in such a boycott is under Zionist attack, and by extension, so is the constitutional protection to free speech. American Zionists seem willing to subvert their own constitutional protections in order to support a racist foreign state.

Zionism can be seen as a strange twist on the Spanish philosopher George Santayana’s warning that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The Zionists certainly remember the persecutions suffered by European Jews. But they forget that this mistreatment was most often organized by racist states that sought to ethnically cleanse the Jews.

Having forgotten about this state-based aspect of their own past, the Zionist state now commits this same offense against the Palestinians. It also needs the rest of us to forget the sins of past racism if it is to carry on its effort to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. Our response should be to embrace the motto, “Never Again!” It is time to direct this demand to the shameful behavior of Israel and the Zionists.

Link in OP

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Among the growing assaults on freedom of speech is an Israeli-driven campaign to criminalize a campaign to boycott Israel over its racist persecution of Palestinians, writes Lawrence Davidson.


By Lawrence Davidson

We know where Zionism has taken Israel. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 led the way. In that imperial and colonial document, the British promised the World Zionist Organization a “Jewish National Home” in Palestine. They did so, as Edward Said put it, in “flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority residents in that territory.”


A section of the barrier — erected by Israeli officials to prevent the passage of Palestinians — with graffiti using President John F. Kennedy’s famous quote when facing the Berlin Wall, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” (Photo credit: Marc Venezia)

Right from the start the Zionists understood “national home” to mean an eventual Jewish state. Actualizing that assumption has had enormous implications not only for the Palestinians but also for the Jews. And, as it turns out, for the rest of us as well.

You cannot introduce one people, in this case a large number of Europeans who happen to be Jewish, into a territory populated by hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans, without negative consequences. And, if the incoming Europeans have the goal of creating a state exclusively for their group alone, those consequences are going to be dire indeed. Surrounded by “the other,” the only way you can achieve your exclusive state is through discriminatory practices and laws ultimately producing an apartheid nation. And that is what happened.

While this has meant, and continues to mean, segregation, ethnic cleansing and Bantustans for the Palestinians, for the Jews it means that their religion is tied to a racist political ideology. There is no instance of Israeli prejudice exercised against the Palestinians, no act of violence committed against them, that does not simultaneously dishonor and debase the Jewish religion and people.
The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
The zionists have been advised, told, warned, it has even gone so far as sanctions, but they still won't listen?

What a stupid comparison. The Communists erected their wall to stop their own citizens from escaping to the freedom of the West. Israel built their wall to protect themselves from cowardly Muslim terror attacks.

Israeli Pressure

Success in this regard has, of course, generated a fierce reaction from the Zionists. According to a Huffington Post article, “The Israeli government has reportedly committed tens of millions of dollars, one government ministry and its military and security intelligence assets to the fight.


Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s seventy-first session.
22 September 2016 (UN Photo)

Israeli Minister of Transport, Intelligence and Atomic Energy, Yisrael Katz, recently called for “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leaders. Actually, such a reaction reflects not only the fact that the cost of Israeli racism is on the rise, but also that the Zionists have lost the public (if not the governmental) debate when it comes to their behavior toward the Palestinians.

Put broadly, BDS is an effort to help save the positive potential inherent in modern post-colonial society: the civilizing potential to be found in international law, in human and civil rights, in a benevolent and egalitarian rule of law for all of us.

So successful has BDS been to date, and so much potential does it have to help force Israel down the same road as white-ruled South Africa, that Israel and its surrogates in the U.S. and Europe are willing to undermine the very laws and rights that help uphold what freedoms there are within the public realm. For instance, in the U.S., the very right to engage in such a boycott is under Zionist attack, and by extension, so is the constitutional protection to free speech. American Zionists seem willing to subvert their own constitutional protections in order to support a racist foreign state.

Zionism can be seen as a strange twist on the Spanish philosopher George Santayana’s warning that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The Zionists certainly remember the persecutions suffered by European Jews. But they forget that this mistreatment was most often organized by racist states that sought to ethnically cleanse the Jews.

Having forgotten about this state-based aspect of their own past, the Zionist state now commits this same offense against the Palestinians. It also needs the rest of us to forget the sins of past racism if it is to carry on its effort to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. Our response should be to embrace the motto, “Never Again!” It is time to direct this demand to the shameful behavior of Israel and the Zionists.

Link in OP

Failed Arabs....failing again.

 

[Hollie]

Among the growing assaults on freedom of speech is an Israeli-driven campaign to criminalize a campaign to boycott Israel over its racist persecution of Palestinians, writes Lawrence Davidson.


By Lawrence Davidson

We know where Zionism has taken Israel. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 led the way. In that imperial and colonial document, the British promised the World Zionist Organization a “Jewish National Home” in Palestine. They did so, as Edward Said put it, in “flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority residents in that territory.”


A section of the barrier — erected by Israeli officials to prevent the passage of Palestinians — with graffiti using President John F. Kennedy’s famous quote when facing the Berlin Wall, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” (Photo credit: Marc Venezia)

Right from the start the Zionists understood “national home” to mean an eventual Jewish state. Actualizing that assumption has had enormous implications not only for the Palestinians but also for the Jews. And, as it turns out, for the rest of us as well.

You cannot introduce one people, in this case a large number of Europeans who happen to be Jewish, into a territory populated by hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans, without negative consequences. And, if the incoming Europeans have the goal of creating a state exclusively for their group alone, those consequences are going to be dire indeed. Surrounded by “the other,” the only way you can achieve your exclusive state is through discriminatory practices and laws ultimately producing an apartheid nation. And that is what happened.

While this has meant, and continues to mean, segregation, ethnic cleansing and Bantustans for the Palestinians, for the Jews it means that their religion is tied to a racist political ideology. There is no instance of Israeli prejudice exercised against the Palestinians, no act of violence committed against them, that does not simultaneously dishonor and debase the Jewish religion and people.
The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
The zionists have been advised, told, warned, it has even gone so far as sanctions, but they still won't listen?

What a stupid comparison. The Communists erected their wall to stop their own citizens from escaping to the freedom of the West. Israel built their wall to protect themselves from cowardly Muslim terror attacks.

Israeli Pressure

Success in this regard has, of course, generated a fierce reaction from the Zionists. According to a Huffington Post article, “The Israeli government has reportedly committed tens of millions of dollars, one government ministry and its military and security intelligence assets to the fight.


Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s seventy-first session.
22 September 2016 (UN Photo)

Israeli Minister of Transport, Intelligence and Atomic Energy, Yisrael Katz, recently called for “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leaders. Actually, such a reaction reflects not only the fact that the cost of Israeli racism is on the rise, but also that the Zionists have lost the public (if not the governmental) debate when it comes to their behavior toward the Palestinians.

Put broadly, BDS is an effort to help save the positive potential inherent in modern post-colonial society: the civilizing potential to be found in international law, in human and civil rights, in a benevolent and egalitarian rule of law for all of us.

So successful has BDS been to date, and so much potential does it have to help force Israel down the same road as white-ruled South Africa, that Israel and its surrogates in the U.S. and Europe are willing to undermine the very laws and rights that help uphold what freedoms there are within the public realm. For instance, in the U.S., the very right to engage in such a boycott is under Zionist attack, and by extension, so is the constitutional protection to free speech. American Zionists seem willing to subvert their own constitutional protections in order to support a racist foreign state.

Zionism can be seen as a strange twist on the Spanish philosopher George Santayana’s warning that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The Zionists certainly remember the persecutions suffered by European Jews. But they forget that this mistreatment was most often organized by racist states that sought to ethnically cleanse the Jews.

Having forgotten about this state-based aspect of their own past, the Zionist state now commits this same offense against the Palestinians. It also needs the rest of us to forget the sins of past racism if it is to carry on its effort to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. Our response should be to embrace the motto, “Never Again!” It is time to direct this demand to the shameful behavior of Israel and the Zionists.

Link in OP

"Put broadly, BDS is an effort to help save the positive potential inherent in modern post-colonial society: the civilizing potential to be found in international law, in human and civil rights, in a benevolent and egalitarian rule of law for all of us."

Now that was pretty darn funny. The positive potential of islamic terrorist franchises.

What a hoot.

 

[Boston1]

Finger, how I've missed you

Where have you been LMAO

Oh hey, just read the OP
Looks obvious where you've been LOL

So the complete failure of the BS&S effort has now moved to desperately attempting to slander some of our worlds most humanitarian acting companies providing millions with much needed medical and technical support.

Good plan

Lets just sit back and see how that goes for you

If history is our teacher, this latest BS effort will fail just as badly as the previous.

Cheers

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
※→ fanger, et al,


This is propaganda design to misrepresent the truth and incite violence and hatred.

A section of the barrier — erected by Israeli officials to prevent the passage of Palestinians — with graffiti using President John F. Kennedy’s famous quote when facing the Berlin Wall, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” (Photo credit: Marc Venezia)

(COMMENT)

Point #1

There is no "racist persecution of Palestinians;" at least on the part of the Israelis. Security measures applied to the Israeli Border ARE NOT designed and implemented to prevent the Israelis from escaping out of Israel into the West Bank. On the contrary, it is a non-lethal means to protect the sovereignty and citizens of Israel and to form a barrier between Hostile Arab Palestinians from the West Bank (non-Israeli Citizens) that would violate Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit acts aimed at spreading terror among the Israeli civilian population. [( Article 33 & Article 4 )(AP I, Article 51Article 13 (2) and AP II, (2))]

They prohibit acts of violence during armed conflict that do not provide a definite military advantage. That is, violence or the threat of violence against ordinary civilians, against their life, their property, their well-being. Terrorist acts do not distinguish between an intended target and bystanders, or between different groups of bystanders. Terrorists strike indiscriminately.
SOURCE: Page 553, Acts of Terror, “Terrorism” and IHL"

Point #2

Zionism: A political and cultural movement that emerged in late 19th century Europe and developed further in Palestine, that held that:

1. Jews constituted a national group (not only a religion)
2. Jews should be recognized and given political rights, national autonomy, or sovereignty on the basis of this national status.
3. The location in which Jews should get this autonomy and/or sovereignty should be Palestine (which Jews called the Land of Israel: Zion is a biblical term for Jerusalem).*​

From the viewpoint of Theodor Herzl, Zionism was a Solution to antisemitism. But in the early 20th Century, there was widespread opposition to "Zionism:"

1. Orthodox Jews viewed Zionism as a form of "heresy."
2. Liberal Jews considered Zionism as an obstacle to local and/or regional integration.
3. Socialist Jews saw Zionism as a form of nationalism and materialism associated with the middle class.
4. Autonomists Jews viewed Zionism as a vehicle for national rights, in whatever local and/or regional venue they where.​

While it might be obvious to some people as to what you mean by "Zionism," there are many who don't readily recognize what you mean by Zionists. Of course, for those that are spreading propaganda, that bit of strategy.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
※→ fanger, et al,


This is propaganda design to misrepresent the truth and incite violence and hatred.

A section of the barrier — erected by Israeli officials to prevent the passage of Palestinians — with graffiti using President John F. Kennedy’s famous quote when facing the Berlin Wall, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” (Photo credit: Marc Venezia)

(COMMENT)

Point #1

There is no "racist persecution of Palestinians;" at least on the part of the Israelis. Security measures applied to the Israeli Border ARE NOT designed and implemented to prevent the Israelis from escaping out of Israel into the West Bank. On the contrary, it is a non-lethal means to protect the sovereignty and citizens of Israel and to form a barrier between Hostile Arab Palestinians from the West Bank (non-Israeli Citizens) that would violate Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit acts aimed at spreading terror among the Israeli civilian population. [( Article 33 & Article 4 )(AP I, Article 51Article 13 (2) and AP II, (2))]

They prohibit acts of violence during armed conflict that do not provide a definite military advantage. That is, violence or the threat of violence against ordinary civilians, against their life, their property, their well-being. Terrorist acts do not distinguish between an intended target and bystanders, or between different groups of bystanders. Terrorists strike indiscriminately.
SOURCE: Page 553, Acts of Terror, “Terrorism” and IHL"

Point #2

Zionism: A political and cultural movement that emerged in late 19th century Europe and developed further in Palestine, that held that:

1. Jews constituted a national group (not only a religion)
2. Jews should be recognized and given political rights, national autonomy, or sovereignty on the basis of this national status.
3. The location in which Jews should get this autonomy and/or sovereignty should be Palestine (which Jews called the Land of Israel: Zion is a biblical term for Jerusalem).*​

From the viewpoint of Theodor Herzl, Zionism was a Solution to antisemitism. But in the early 20th Century, there was widespread opposition to "Zionism:"

1. Orthodox Jews viewed Zionism as a form of "heresy."
2. Liberal Jews considered Zionism as an obstacle to local and/or regional integration.
3. Socialist Jews saw Zionism as a form of nationalism and materialism associated with the middle class.
4. Autonomists Jews viewed Zionism as a vehicle for national rights, in whatever local and/or regional venue they where.​

While it might be obvious to some people as to what you mean by "Zionism," there are many who don't readily recognize what you mean by Zionists. Of course, for those that are spreading propaganda, that bit of strategy.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, Israel must secure its settler colonial project.

 

[fanger]

Finger, how I've missed you

Where have you been LMAO

Oh hey, just read the OP
Looks obvious where you've been LOL

So the complete failure of the BS&S effort has now moved to desperately attempting to slander some of our worlds most humanitarian acting companies providing millions with much needed medical and technical support.

Good plan

Lets just sit back and see how that goes for you

If history is our teacher, this latest BS effort will fail just as badly as the previous.

Cheers

Lets just sit back and see how that goes for you

If history is our teacher, this latest BS effort will fail just as badly as the previous.
109 Locations whence Jews have been Expelled since AD250 we tried to warn you

 

[admonit]

109 Locations whence Jews have been Expelled since AD250 we tried to warn you

Who "we"? Extermination of 6 million Jews also was "your" warning?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is a misrepresentation of the facts.

The territorial dispute wherein "the inadmissibility of seizure of land belonging to others by means of force or military invasion," is the mantra claimed, is simply outside the reality of the facts. The Political Communiqué outlined in Annex II of UN Reference Material A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988, demanded the Israel's withdrawal from all the Palestinian and Arab territories which it has occupied since 1967, including Arab Jerusalem;

• What is meant by the "Palestinian and Arab territories which it has "occupied since 1967?"
• What is meant by "Arab Jerusalem?"​

Indeed, Israel must secure its settler colonial project.

(RHETORICAL QUESTIONS)

∆ What is the source of law stating that Israel, acting in self-defense (Article 51 of UN Charter), may NOT seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself?
∆ What is the source of law stating that Israel, that contains any provisions --- prohibiting or restricting the establishment or expansion of Jewish communities in the West Bank?

• ※→ The settlements in the West Bank, are not a violation of the Oslo Accords and still subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiation terms in the Accords; for which there is a dispute resolution process.

• ※→ Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not prohibit independent movement to establish neighborhoods and housing projects in the West Bank. These housing developments and farms were not a form of forced deportation or transfer.

• ※→ The establishment or expansion of voluntary Jewish communities in the West Bank was NOT the compelled or forced deportation or transfer under duress of of any segment of the Jewish population into the occupied territory. It is not an Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement under Article 8(2b)(vii) - War Crimes; nor subject to Article 2b (viii); International Criminal Code (Rome Statutes).​

∆ What nation had sovereign control over the West Bank in 1967?

• ※→ The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan​

∆ When did sovereign control end?

• ※→ On 31 July 1988 The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.​

∆ What nation had effective control over the West Bank when sovereign control ended?

• ※→ The State of Israel.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fanger]

109 Locations whence Jews have been Expelled since AD250 we tried to warn you

Who "we"? Extermination of 6 million Jews also was "your" warning?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is a misrepresentation of the facts.

The territorial dispute wherein "the inadmissibility of seizure of land belonging to others by means of force or military invasion," is the mantra claimed, is simply outside the reality of the facts. The Political Communiqué outlined in Annex II of UN Reference Material A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988, demanded the Israel's withdrawal from all the Palestinian and Arab territories which it has occupied since 1967, including Arab Jerusalem;

• What is meant by the "Palestinian and Arab territories which it has "occupied since 1967?"
• What is meant by "Arab Jerusalem?"​

Indeed, Israel must secure its settler colonial project.

(RHETORICAL QUESTIONS)

∆ What is the source of law stating that Israel, acting in self-defense (Article 51 of UN Charter), may NOT seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself?
∆ What is the source of law stating that Israel, that contains any provisions --- prohibiting or restricting the establishment or expansion of Jewish communities in the West Bank?

• ※→ The settlements in the West Bank, are not a violation of the Oslo Accords and still subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiation terms in the Accords; for which there is a dispute resolution process.

• ※→ Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not prohibit independent movement to establish neighborhoods and housing projects in the West Bank. These housing developments and farms were not a form of forced deportation or transfer.

• ※→ The establishment or expansion of voluntary Jewish communities in the West Bank was NOT the compelled or forced deportation or transfer under duress of of any segment of the Jewish population into the occupied territory. It is not an Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement under Article 8(2b)(vii) - War Crimes; nor subject to Article 2b (viii); International Criminal Code (Rome Statutes).​

∆ What nation had sovereign control over the West Bank in 1967?

• ※→ The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan​

∆ When did sovereign control end?

• ※→ On 31 July 1988 The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.​

∆ What nation had effective control over the West Bank when sovereign control ended?

• ※→ The State of Israel.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The territorial dispute wherein "the inadmissibility of seizure of land belonging to others by means of force or military invasion," is the mantra claimed,

Indeed, and when asked to prove otherwise you start dancing.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is your perspective. The discussion on the dispute has moved much farther along.

The fact that, while many criticize Israel for its position on the Administration of the territory (West Bank), the West Bank was not under any sovereignty until after the termination of the Mandate (May 1948) and the simultaneous independence of Israel. The Arab Palestinians DID NOT attempt to Independence until September 1948 (4 months later); and it was immediately in conflict by including the State of Israel as part of the Arab Sovereignty.

In 1949, the Armistice went into effect. The West Bank was Occupied by Jordanian Forces.
In April 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank.

The territorial dispute wherein "the inadmissibility of seizure of land belonging to others by means of force or military invasion," is the mantra claimed,

Indeed, and when asked to prove otherwise you start dancing.

(COMMENT)

In 1967, after Jordanian Artillery fired first on Israeli Positions, Israel Forces pursued Jordanian Forces out of the West Bank. Israel now Occupied Jordanian Sovereign Territory (The West Bank).

∑ª: The Israelis never entered Sovereign Palestinian Territory.

There is no dancing. Your question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians has established some sort of sovereign control and the Israelis took that sovereignty and control away... That is 100% wrong.

※→ The question should be: WHAT Territory do you claim that the Arab Palestinian exercised sovereignty over, that Israel now occupies?

•∆• Answer: NONE​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is your perspective. The discussion on the dispute has moved much farther along.

The fact that, while many criticize Israel for its position on the Administration of the territory (West Bank), the West Bank was not under any sovereignty until after the termination of the Mandate (May 1948) and the simultaneous independence of Israel. The Arab Palestinians DID NOT attempt to Independence until September 1948 (4 months later); and it was immediately in conflict by including the State of Israel as part of the Arab Sovereignty.

In 1949, the Armistice went into effect. The West Bank was Occupied by Jordanian Forces.
In April 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank.

The territorial dispute wherein "the inadmissibility of seizure of land belonging to others by means of force or military invasion," is the mantra claimed,

Indeed, and when asked to prove otherwise you start dancing.

(COMMENT)

In 1967, after Jordanian Artillery fired first on Israeli Positions, Israel Forces pursued Jordanian Forces out of the West Bank. Israel now Occupied Jordanian Sovereign Territory (The West Bank).

∑ª: The Israelis never entered Sovereign Palestinian Territory.

There is no dancing. Your question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians has established some sort of sovereign control and the Israelis took that sovereignty and control away... That is 100% wrong.

※→ The question should be: WHAT Territory do you claim that the Arab Palestinian exercised sovereignty over, that Israel now occupies?

•∆• Answer: NONE​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians DID NOT attempt to Independence until September 1948 (4 months later); and it was immediately in conflict by including the State of Israel as part of the Arab Sovereignty.

That is the point. The Palestinians declared independence on land inside its international borders. BTW, according to the 1949 armistice agreements, that Israel signed, those borders were still intact. So, what does Israel have to do with that?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: The Dark Inevitability of Zionism
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is your perspective. The discussion on the dispute has moved much farther along.

The fact that, while many criticize Israel for its position on the Administration of the territory (West Bank), the West Bank was not under any sovereignty until after the termination of the Mandate (May 1948) and the simultaneous independence of Israel. The Arab Palestinians DID NOT attempt to Independence until September 1948 (4 months later); and it was immediately in conflict by including the State of Israel as part of the Arab Sovereignty.

In 1949, the Armistice went into effect. The West Bank was Occupied by Jordanian Forces.
In April 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank.

The territorial dispute wherein "the inadmissibility of seizure of land belonging to others by means of force or military invasion," is the mantra claimed,

Indeed, and when asked to prove otherwise you start dancing.

(COMMENT)

In 1967, after Jordanian Artillery fired first on Israeli Positions, Israel Forces pursued Jordanian Forces out of the West Bank. Israel now Occupied Jordanian Sovereign Territory (The West Bank).

∑ª: The Israelis never entered Sovereign Palestinian Territory.

There is no dancing. Your question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians has established some sort of sovereign control and the Israelis took that sovereignty and control away... That is 100% wrong.

※→ The question should be: WHAT Territory do you claim that the Arab Palestinian exercised sovereignty over, that Israel now occupies?

•∆• Answer: NONE​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians DID NOT attempt to Independence until September 1948 (4 months later); and it was immediately in conflict by including the State of Israel as part of the Arab Sovereignty.

That is the point. The Palestinians declared independence on land inside its international borders. BTW, according to the 1949 armistice agreements, that Israel signed, those borders were still intact. So, what does Israel have to do with that?

Actually, the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988 is the one more generally recognized by the international community (though not by me).