"The Zionist movement, which emerged in Eurpose in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, aimed at the national revival of the Jewish people in its ancestral home after nearly two thousand years of exile. The term "zionism" was coined in 1885 by the Viennese Jewish writer Nathan Birnbaum, Zion being one of the biblical names for Jerusalem. Zionism was in essence an answer to the Jewish problem that derived from two basic facts: the Jews were dispersed in various countries around the world, and in each country they consistuted a minority. The Zionist solution was to end the anomalous existence and dependence on others, to return to Zion, and to attain majority status there  and, ultimately, political independence and statehood.

Ever since the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C. and the exile to Babylon, the Jews yearned to return to Zion. This yearning was reflected in Jewish prayers, and it manifested itself in a number of messianic movements. Modern Zionism, by contrast, was a secular movement, with a political orientation towards Palestine. Modern Zionism was a phenomenon of the late nineteenth-century Europe. It had its roots in the failure of Jewish efforts to become assimilated in Western society, in the intensification of anti-semitism in Europe, and in the parallel and not unrelated upsurge of nationalism. If nationalism posed a problem to the Jews by identifying them as an alien and unwanted minority, it also suggested a solution: self-determination for the Jews in a state of their own in which they would constitute a majority...

Theodore Herzl...concluded that assimilation and emancipation could not work, because the Jews were a nation...[his] book provided a detailed blue print for a Jewish state but left open the question whether the site for the proposed state should be Palestine, on account of its historic associations, or some vacant land in Argentina...[a] fact finding mission resulted in a cable from Palestine in which two rabbis wrote "The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man."

This cable encapsulated the problem with which the Zionist movement had to grapple from the beginning: an Arab population alread lived on the land on which the Jews had set their heart. The received view is that the Zionist movement, with the exception of a few marginal groups, tended to ignore the Arabs who lived in Palestine and constituted what came to be called the Arab question. Some critics add that it was this ignorance of the Arab population by the Zionists that prevented the possibility of an understanding between the two national movements that were to claim Palestine as their homeland...[Herzl] viewed the natives as primitive and backward...he did not consider them a society with collective political rights over the land in which they formed the over-whelming majority.

...

Herzl's basic aim remained unchanged: obtaining the support of the great powers for turning Palestine into a political centre for the Jewish people.
...

In its formative phase, under the direction of Herzl, the Zionist movement thus displayed two features that were to be of fundamental and eduring importance in its subsequent history: the nonrecognition of a Palestinian national entity, and the quest for an alliance with a great power external to the Middle East."

The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim

If these Jews put so much faith in God, why do they have to forcefully seize land? Why do they have to be dependant on military handouts? I don't get it.

Without Israel we (the whole planet) would be much better off.

It would be interesting if the Middle East did something similar to the European Union. We would get some interesting New Years fireworks for sure with that one.

It's a pretty interesting situation. We have the Russians selling weapons to Iran and Venezuela, and the Russian Navy is going to be conducting joint exercises with the navy of Venezuela. Not to mention the Russian president visiting Cuba, Brazil and Venezuela recently.

Yeah Calanen, whilst that may be true, wasn't Australia a British colony also, and New Zealand, India, plenty of places. Not to mention French, Dutch, Spanish colonies and so on and so forth.

If they weren't given a chance for independence/federation, does not mean there were never strong nationalistic tendencies within the 'country', maybe they just never had the firepower/political power to do anything.

I doubt Palestinian nationalism is a recent thing. That part of the world has been highly desired by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike for a very long time.

You know what I mean though.

Eg, there are Israeli Arabs, Lebanese Arabs, Iraqi Arabs etc etc etc. It's unfair displacement of people, no matter how you look at it, personal feelings towards the group(s) aside. Palestine doesn't have to be a colony, I was drawing comparisons between other places which have been ruled/governed by far removed places of power.

That part of the world has long been desired by the 3 big religions. It just so happens that the Muslims were the ones who stuck it out there the most.

I have no sympathy for Zionist Jews. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I'd lend support to the PLO's cause.

The Israeli Jews got kicked out a long time ago. They can't just come back and say it's theirs again. By their very justification, the Muslims can do the same claim and kick the Jews out.

What would you do if the Aborigines got support from, say China and Russia and said, RIGHT EVERYONE OUT THIS IS OUR COUNTRY WE RECLAIM IT.

You wouldn't be too happy. And that is only after 200 odd years, so much more recent than what went on over there.

Besides, I'm sure the British PM at the time of the creation of Israel wanted to create an Ulster (Northern Ireland type situation) in the middle east, which is basically what he said.

Quote:


If any Muslims come here and start trying to set up an Islamic state, then yes it is acceptable to kill them. Just like if any Jews come here and start trying to set up a Jewish state, acceptable to kill them. Migration is not the same as setting up a new social/legal system.

Quote:


I noticed you failed to mention the part where Israel violates UN rulings.

Quote:


It's entirely comparable. The British and the UN, not really connected to the Jews, set up this whole Israel fiasco. Just like how China and Russia are not connected to the Australian Aborigines.

Quote:


Yes, after how many hundreds of years of non-Jewish authority in the middle east?

Quote:


Who cares what he wanted to do? How about the people who have to now live with traditional enemies? They might. Ulster was known as a place of tension and conflict, and uneasiness. Didn't the Irish leave their lights on during night time air raid blackouts in WW2 so as to help guide the Germans towards Britain? So, by looking at it in context, I would assume that he wanted to create a place of mayhem in the middle east.

It's not because they are Jews. I don't care about the fact they are Jews. The point is, they set up a country where they shouldn't have. It is not an immigration issue. It's a political/revolutionary issue.

tallowood wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 7:58pm:




just so.


Quote:

We would explain to them what a goddam stupid notion they had gotten into their heads.
Honestly, where do you get orf?? What a stupid, stupid analogy!

When was the last time china or Russia were on the side of the angels by choice?

Quote:


Oh yeah, Tony Abbott is fair game too, for bringing Catholicism in to politics. Same guy had pre-marital sex and goes off on the whole Catholic tangent.