Zionism. Why? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
User avatar
By Ter
#14804711
So, OK, only videos?
Fine, I see your propaganda and up you one:

[youtube]xU9CauJP4Pg[/youtube]

viewed almost 19 million times
By skinster
#14804713
I got close to 4 minutes of that, for anyone who can't be bothered to watch it (I don't recommend it) it talks about the different directions Muslims and Jews worship and not much else that's even close to interesting or related to zionism or how Israel is an apartheid state.

Here's Norman Finkelstein again, talking about why American Jews are giving less of a fuck about Israel as time goes on, particularly because they see it for what it is.
User avatar
By Tailz
#14805441
Ben Hoffman wrote:The Jews had their land taken from them almost 2,000 years ago.

...and if we are to believe biblical history... a land which the Jews themselves stole from people who lived there before them too. If the Canaanites showed on on the beaches of Tel Aviv, would the Israeli's give them back their empires long lost lands?

Or would they tell the descendants of the Canaanites to bugger off?

Ben Hoffman wrote:That land included what is now Israel, Palestine, Jordan, parts of Lebanon, and Syria.

And? You want to dispossess more people in an attempt to reclaim a kingdoms lands from 2000-3000 years ago?

Should we give Egypt back all the lands once owned by the pharaohs? What about the lands of the Romans, should we repatriate all of that to Italy?

Ben Hoffman wrote:Palestinians never had an independent state.

So what if they never had a state? There are natives who live in the amazon who do not have the framework of a nation state, does that void their connection to the lands upon which they live?

Ben Hoffman wrote:If they weren't occupied by Israel right now, they'd be occupied by some Arab country.

Is that supposed to justify the Occupation? You can treat them like crap because someone else would do it if we did not.

I wonder if Criminals could use that excuse... I committed that crime, but if I didn't do it, someone else would have. So it is better to have me beating you up and taking your lunch money, because someone else would not be as nice about it.
By skinster
#14805516
Don't feed the hasbara-troll. :D

Drawing on the work of Israeli historian Shlomo Sand and others, Ilan Pappe notes there is no credible historical evidence that the Jews of Roman Palestine were forcibly exiled in 70 CE. The far greater likelihood, he maintains, is that they remained on the land with many converting first to Christianity and then to Islam.

Pappe shows that the notion of a Jewish nation in diaspora originated with Christian Zionists and often aligned itself with anti-Semites seeking the expulsion of European Jews through their “return” to Palestine. Zionism was only later transmuted into a modern-day “national liberation movement.”

Pro-Zionist organizations often attempt to disguise their narrow ethnocentric aims with the argument that Jews are simply reclaiming what is rightfully theirs as an indigenous people.
From: Dismantling the distortion about Israel
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#14805531
Tailz wrote:...and if we are to believe biblical history... a land which the Jews themselves stole from people who lived there before them too. If the Canaanites showed on on the beaches of Tel Aviv, would the Israeli's give them back their empires long lost lands?

Or would they tell the descendants of the Canaanites to bugger off?
it.


1. Archeological evidence in Israel shows no genocide or ethnic cleansing, it does show a Jewish kingdom that lasted well into the Roman era.

In reality the Cananites a semitic people intermarried with the more dominant Hebrew semitic people and created the Israeli/Judean State. So there would be no such scenario.
User avatar
By Ter
#14805545
skinster wrote:Don't feed the hasbara-troll.


It is interesting that female posters like this troll defend the Arabs who keep their women at home or in burkas. That alone is difficult to understand because she enjoys the freedom of the US but sympathises with the motives of the 9/11 perpetrators.
By skinster
#14805568
Drawing on the work of Israeli historian Shlomo Sand and others, Ilan Pappe notes there is no credible historical evidence that the Jews of Roman Palestine were forcibly exiled in 70 CE. The far greater likelihood, he maintains, is that they remained on the land with many converting first to Christianity and then to Islam.

Pappe shows that the notion of a Jewish nation in diaspora originated with Christian Zionists and often aligned itself with anti-Semites seeking the expulsion of European Jews through their “return” to Palestine. Zionism was only later transmuted into a modern-day “national liberation movement.”

Pro-Zionist organizations often attempt to disguise their narrow ethnocentric aims with the argument that Jews are simply reclaiming what is rightfully theirs as an indigenous people.
From: Dismantling the distortion about Israel


Another Israeli historian destroys zionist mythology:
User avatar
By Tailz
#14805647
Oxymoron wrote:Tailz wrote: ...and if we are to believe biblical history... a land which the Jews themselves stole from people who lived there before them too. If the Canaanites showed on on the beaches of Tel Aviv, would the Israeli's give them back their empires long lost lands?

Or would they tell the descendants of the Canaanites to bugger off?


1. Archeological evidence in Israel shows no genocide or ethnic cleansing, it does show a Jewish kingdom that lasted well into the Roman era.

Notice how I prefixed my statement... I did this as most Zionist zealots who start rabbiting on about reclaiming their ancient Jewish kingdom use biblical history, not history backed up by archaeological research as the grounds for their justification. I was merely showing that the same concept could be employed to justify the Canaanites with the same ideology, juxtaposed into the modern day with Israel in the position of the Palestinians, they would have reacted the same way.

Oxymoron wrote:In reality the Cananites a semitic people intermarried with the more dominant Hebrew semitic people and created the Israeli/Judean State. So there would be no such scenario.

I don't think your analysis is quite correct. From what papers I have read on the concept of the Jewish invasion and destruction of the Canaanites, is that a new slow wave of immigrants moved into the area already inhabited by the Canaanites and intermingled with that population. The new arrivals (originating from Egypt?) didn't arrive en-mass, neither did they live apart, nor did they battle the locals. These immigrants didn't destroy the Canaanites as there are not destruction layers and the Canaanite pottery designs and votive offerings do not suddenly cease (as would be the case if the culture was suddenly destroyed). There was certainly intermarriage, but to my understanding there is no evidence to support the idea that one married the other because the other was perceived to be more powerful. If anything, immigration is usually spurred on by the idea that life is better over there than where the immigrants presently are. The old "Grass is greener on the other side" concept. So the living conditions must have been better with the Canaanites, than where the immigrants had come from. While the power structure was more tribal or chieftan like than a kingdom or political state. Instead the house designs, pottery designs, and votive offering intermingled - rather than ceased to be replaced by designs originating from a different geographic source.

At least that is what I remember from a set of historical archaeology papers I read a while ago.
User avatar
By Ben Hoffman
#14806228
Tailz wrote:...and if we are to believe biblical history... a land which the Jews themselves stole from people who lived there before them too. If the Canaanites showed on on the beaches of Tel Aviv, would the Israeli's give them back their empires long lost lands?


Throughout history, the victors in wars get to keep the land. That's the way it is. If there was such a thing as Canaanites today and they fought Israel for the land, the winner would own that land.

There are no records of wars between the Canaanites and the Jews. In all likelihood, they lived together peacefully. Some historians believe that the Jews may have actually emerged out of the people of Canaan.
By skinster
#14811427
Eli Aminov wrote:The Mutual Dependency of Zionism and Anti-Semitism

When Netanyahu enlisted Adolf Hitler in October last year to claim that the responsibility for the Holocaust and the extermination of European Jewry lies with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin, and with the Palestinian people, he also stated that the Fuhrer wanted at the beginning of his rule to only expel the Jews and it was the Mufti who persuaded him to exterminate them. This rehabilitation of Hitler, as was carried out by Netanyahu, may not have made Hitler into a Zionist but had indeed given him the status of pro-Zionist, like many other anti-Semites besides him.

While Netanyahu was unsuccessful at linking the Palestinian struggle with the Holocaust, this recurring wave of accusations had prompted a surge of attacks which were aimed at purging the critics of Zionism within the British Labour Party. This was all carried out under the pretext of anti-Semitism.

“Anti-Semitism” is a derogatory term which the Zionist movement had associated with anyone who opposes it or its crimes against the Palestinian people. But history shows that Zionism and anti-Semitism are in fact like Siamese twins. Anti-Semitism today is mainly expressed through the hatred of Muslims—the vast majority of whom are Arabs —in Europe, and in that respect Israel is by far the world's most anti-Semitic country. Along with the expressed opposition to Israel's policies against the Palestinians, the more traditional anti-Semitism which focuses on the hatred of Jews, is also rearing its head. It is fed by both the Israeli propaganda which claims to represent world Jewry and by the fact that more and more people around the world understand that Israel is an apartheid state, which was built on the basis of a continuous act of ethnic cleansing and the denial of human and civil rights from its non-Jewish subjects.

Building the common interest of anti-Semites and Zionists had already begun by the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl. His network of relations and lobbying efforts included not only the murderous and dictatorial Ottoman Sultan or the conquest driven German Kaiser, but also the anti-Semitic Czarist regime - the Great Prince Vladimir, Count Witte as well as Plehve, head of the Czarist police and organizer of the Kishinev pogrom. In 1903, Herzl had obtained a letter from Plehve which reads: “If Zionism means the establishment of an independent state in Palestine and promoting the emigration of Jewish subjects from Russia, then it can take into account the moral and material support of the Russian government” (Avineri 197). On his part, Herzl pledged that world Jewry will not attack Russia in response to the pogrom which was carried out by Plehve’s men. Indeed, Zionist diplomacy at its best.

Zionism’s inability to exist without anti-Semitism had already been anticipated by Ahad Ha’am in 1897. In his criticism of Herzl, The Congress and Its Creator, he writes: “From [Herzl’s] notebook we learn that the soul of the whole [Zionist] movement, also to this day, is anti-Semitism alone. It is still dependent on being “influenced” by that which gave it birth, as a baby who constantly needs its mother. And if it had passed away from this world, also [Zionism] will not be able to survive for even a single moment.” Simply put - there is no Zionism without anti-Semitism.

Zionist diplomacy was also reflected in its relationship with Nazi Germany. In his book Nazi Germany and the Jews, Saul Friedlander tells of the memo sent by the leaders of the Zionist Organization in Germany to Hitler in June 1933, to which a researcher of the Third Reich had commented on: “It seems that the memorandum reveals a degree of sympathy with the Folkist principles of Hitler’s regime and claims that Zionism is compatible with these principles.” Friedlander then elaborates on page 83 of his book: “The first reaction of some Zionist leaders on the new situation in Germany was not negative. There was a hope that the Nazi policy of promoting Jewish emigration from Germany will open up great opportunities for the Yishuv [Zionist settlers in Palestine].” On the other hand, the Zionists also feared of having too many immigrants, as was declared by Arthur Ruppin during the Zionist Congress in Prague in 1933: “In order that the immigration will not flood the Yishuv like hot lava”. As is well known, the Zionists had openly violated the international Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany by signing the Transfer Agreement with the Nazis, and had been purchasing German goods with German Jews’ money.

The highlight of its shocking solidarity with the Nazi view of racial purity can be found in the 1934 book by Rabbi Joachim Prinz, who was among the Zionist leaders in Germany. In his book Wir Juden (We the Jews), Prinz had expressed his satisfaction with the “German revolution” that had destroyed liberalism: “The only form of political life which had helped Jewish assimilation, had sunk and disappeared”, celebrated Dr. Prinz, who saw the Nazi racial laws as “fulfilling our aspirations”. He then continues: “We wish that assimilation today will be replaced with a new law: a declaration of belonging to the Jewish people and the Jewish race. A country which is built on the basis of national and racial purity can only be respected by a Jew who declares his affiliation with his own species.” This gross flattery of Hitler did not prevent this Judeo-Nazi from later becoming an American citizen and the deputy chair of the World Jewish Congress, as well as being a close friend of Golda Meir when she was Prime Minister of Israel.

Saul Friedlander also mentions in his book the crisis that arose at a conference of Jewish bankers in London in November 1935, between Zionists and non-Zionists concerning the rescue of Jews from Germany. Chaim Weizmann was strongly opposed to Max Warburg’s plan of using the funds of German Jews to finance Jewish emigration into countries other than Eretz Israel (ibid p. 199). Until the outbreak of WWII the uncompromising conflict continued between the Zionist leadership, who vehemently opposed the US Joint position, wanting to save Jews by sending them wherever possible. The Zionist position was: to Palestine or to hell.

The claim of 'anti-Semitism' is what fuels the Zionist movement today as well as being a foundational element in its strategy of fear. This core element is regularly being used in both domestic and foreign policy, while constantly being maintained by a huge propaganda machine. The propaganda is based on the outrageous Zionist claim that the State of Israel represents the whole of world Jewry, both politically and morally, even if they do not wish to be represented in this manner. This propaganda is designed for two main purposes: transforming world Jewry into the human shields of Zionist policy, a shield whose role is to conceal Israeli crimes from the rest of the world; and secondly, to undermine the confidence of Jews in themselves while driving them to emigrate to Israel.

Zionism had purported to solve “the Jewish question” by establishing a “safe haven” for Jews in historic Palestine. But the formula had been reversed: the “safe haven” which had become the most dangerous ghetto for Jews today, needs new Jewish immigrants in order to maintain its demographic superiority as well as to serve as cannon fodder for the Israeli army. Jews around the world who do not wish to be exploited by Zionism and who do not require it, are turned into Israel’s hostages against their will and even into potential victims of its actions.

Allegedly, Israel and the Zionist movement try to fight anti-Semitism and cry out for a global effort against it. But in reality, such a struggle would contradict the real interests Zionism, mainly for practical reasons: a successful struggle against racism and anti-Semitism would allow Jews to continue as equal citizens in other countries and then what will happen with Zionism? From its inception, the Zionist movement had adopted the position of the anti-Semites, that Jews constitute one people which is alien among European nations. Therefore, they should be separated from the others - the Gentiles - and be concentrated in a single territory (where again they should be separated, from the native Gentiles). Lucien Wolf, a leading figure among British Jewry, wrote to Rothschild in 1916 concerning this idea: “I understand... that the Zionists do not merely propose to form and establish a Jewish nationality in Palestine, but that they claim all the Jews as forming at the present moment a separate and dispossessed nationality, for which it is necessary to find an organic political centre, because they are and must always be aliens in the lands in which they now dwell… I have spent most of my life in combating these very doctrines, when presented to me in the form of anti-Semitism, and I can only regard them as the more dangerous when they come to me in the guise of Zionism.”

Those who were not poisoned by the Zionist ideology may differently understand the statements by Ken Livingstone, a former British Labour Party member and mayor of London, regarding Hitler’s Zionism, or rather the irritating question of the Venezuelan Ambassador to the UN with regard to the “final solution” prepared by Israel against the Palestinians. They do not constitute anti-Semitic expressions but a staunch criticism of Zionism, which is a colonialist, racist, violent and hypocritical movement. Zionism today endangers not only the Palestinians, not only every Israeli citizen, but also the whole of world Jewry which Israel had taken as hostages in order to protect its criminal policy. The Labour Party leadership in Britain, which was quick to denounce Livingstone, had played into the hands of the Zionist movement. Instead, it had better understand and explain to the public that there should be no confusion between the struggle against anti-Semitism and support of its evil twin - Zionism.

http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-projec ... 11.twitter
User avatar
By Tailz
#14834432
Ben Hoffman wrote:Throughout history, the victors in wars get to keep the land. That's the way it is.

This may have been the way of it in the past, but does not mean it has to be this way in the present. If we look at the Second World War or recent wars, nations have helped to liberate other nations by military invasion.

If we did things the way you say, France would be an American state, parts of Europe would belong to the British, etc. Yet at the end of the Second World War, conquered nations were returned to the local people and the conquerors eventually packed up and wandered back home. Happy that free people had been restored.

So obviously, just because it was so in the past, does not mean that is how it must always be done.

Ben Hoffman wrote:If there was such a thing as Canaanites today ...

Looks like the Canaanites are still around: Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA

Ben Hoffman wrote:... and they fought Israel for the land, the winner would own that land.

So now the goal posts get moved. Usually Zionists blame the Palestinians for not wanting to share the territory with the immigrant Jews. That not sharing is unfair and justifies the Zionist paramilitary takeover of the land. Now when the shoe is juxtaposed to the other foot, and the Zionists are faced with sharing the same way the Palestinians were - and they react with the same refusal - rights of conquest are thrown around. How Hypocritical.

Surely the honorable Zionists would share the land with the Canaanites descendants, just like how those nasty Palestinians should have shared the land in the first place.

Whats that? No? oh you rotten bastard! :lol:
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#14834627
Tailz wrote:This may have been the way of it in the past, but does not mean it has to be this way in the present. If we look at the Second World War or recent wars, nations have helped to liberate other nations by military invasion.




US simply changed its control mechanism from military to financial, and when countries try to leave US sphere of influence they end up regime changed. As far as land grabs, what about Tibet, what about Crimea, Falklands(if Argentinians won it would belong to Argentina today), Russians still control Sakalin. US still has troops in all the lands it liberated in WW2. Please lets not be naive, land grabs still happen and are still respected.
User avatar
By Tailz
#14835367
Oxymoron wrote:US simply changed its control mechanism from military to financial, and when countries try to leave US sphere of influence they end up regime changed. As far as land grabs, what about Tibet, what about Crimea, Falklands(if Argentinians won it would belong to Argentina today), Russians still control Sakalin. US still has troops in all the lands it liberated in WW2. Please lets not be naive, land grabs still happen and are still respected.

I didn't write that the practice stopped, I wrote that it does not need to be that way.

While I think your over simplifying American military positioning around the globe. Just having American bases does not constitute American control over the nations those bases are stationed in. Those bases are often there because of mutual defence agreements. You act as if those nations did something the Americans didn't like those bases would "act" against those states they are in.

I'm quite certain that if a nation with American bases decided that those bases are no longer welcome and asked the Americans to leave (since if I remember correctly most American bases are leased from the host nation), the Americans would leave.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#14835369
Tailz wrote:I didn't write that the practice stopped, I wrote that it does not need to be that way.

While I think your over simplifying American military positioning around the globe. Just having American bases does not constitute American control over the nations those bases are stationed in. Those bases are often there because of mutual defence agreements. You act as if those nations did something the Americans didn't like those bases would "act" against those states they are in.

I'm quite certain that if a nation with American bases decided that those bases are no longer welcome and asked the Americans to leave (since if I remember correctly most American bases are leased from the host nation), the Americans would leave.


It does not have to be that way, if we eliminate human nature. As far as American bases, that is not what I wrote. I specifically said that the control is financial, but having boots on the ground even by agreement makes those agreements a little bit more concrete. It will not be easy to just tell the US to leave, otherwise many would have had done so. Its like paying protection money, yes there is an agreement but no one has taken the chance to not "pay" Uncle Sammy.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14835662
quetzalcoatl wrote:Zionism mean different things to different people. It was originally a nineteenth/early twentieth century political movement whose aim was to reverse the diaspora and provide a homeland to the Jews of the world.

For modern Arabs, Zionist is simply a synonym for Jew - any Jew, anywhere. For instance, Leon Klinghoffer's status as a 'zionist' justified his killing.

For some elements of the left, Zionism refers to an international cabal of financial interests, usually focusing on Goldman-Sachs. Ditto for the right, with the addition of a Rothschilds/Soros obsession.

For casual liberals, zionism provides an opportunity for do-goodism in the form of divestment. Israel is the new South Africa, an apartheid regime. (It is, of course, but no worse than others who are ignored.)

For American Evangelicals, Zionism is a useful tool to bring about the Rapture. Conservative Israelis tolerate them as useful idiots. This strange alliance is useful to the internationalist wing of the GOP establishment.

So everybody can get a piece of the Zionist pie.

The word "Zion" is mentioned over 150 times in the KJV of the Old Testament. Zion is said to be a "stronghold" of the city of David. It is also defined as a mount or holy hill. Scholars believe it is the high area of Jerusalem, on which the Romans built a fort to house their soldiers that watched over Jerusalem under Roman occupation. Now only a wall, which the Jews go to pray, is left of that fort after the Muslims conquered it. The Muslims built the Dome of the Rock on that area and claim it is their third holiest site.

As I understand it, Zionism is the political movement that is meant to establish a Jewish homeland, that they have named Israel, which includes Jerusalem with their holy Mount Zion.

Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem> (Psalm 122:6)

HalleluYah
Praise the Lord.
User avatar
By Tailz
#14835858
Oxymoron wrote:It does not have to be that way, if we eliminate human nature. As far as American bases, that is not what I wrote. I specifically said that the control is financial, but having boots on the ground even by agreement makes those agreements a little bit more concrete. It will not be easy to just tell the US to leave, otherwise many would have had done so. Its like paying protection money, yes there is an agreement but no one has taken the chance to not "pay" Uncle Sammy.

The problem is we are in a political geo climate where many nations - as a leftover from the cold war - are still members of defence agreements with the Americans, such as NATO members. Thus the situation has not really arisen where a host nation has asked the Americans to pack up and leave completely. There have been instances of changes to those agreements which saw the relocation, decrease or increase in size, etc, of American bases abroad. At least as to what I can remember... Mind you... Google Search might prove me wrong.

So I think the accusation that the presence of American "boots on the ground" with the presence of American bases to act as a threat of military action against the host nation, is folly. If such was the case, I suspect American bases world wide would suddenly find themselves unwelcome in a range of host nations who would request them to leave - or if such a threat was acted on - bases that would be quickly overwhelmed by their host nations.

As for control via financial means, I think this is incorrect. Part of American help to the British Empire during the Second World War was to break down the Commonwealth trading franchise the British monopolised inside the Commonwealth of nations. The Americans did this not to supplant the British position and assume that mantle, but to open up markets to American trade which was a two way street (America gained access to a forign trading nation, and they in turn gained access to American markets). Thus America has employed the incentive of trade with nations, of opening up the American market to other nations as a means of influence... American bases have no impact on this whatsoever as trade is the driver of those financial dealing - which go on with or without American bases in the backyard.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14836878
What Is Zionism?



What is the difference between Zionism and Judaism?



What do you think about Zionism and anti-Zionists?

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]