3 ms·

European nations didn't invade america or later part of Africa, to create new nations. That's why it's called colonianism : they wanted to extend their own terr

by bsaul 12y ago

European nations didn't invade america or later part of Africa, to create new nations. That's why it's called colonianism : they wanted to extend their own territories. Zionism is a process for a people to find a land where it would be autonomous ( under the principle that every people should have the right to be master of its own destiny). In that regard, the desire for palestinians to create a palestinian state, or for the kurds to create a kurdish state is the exact same principle. I guess you wouldn't call that colonialism.

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
Zionism was a process for European Jews to find a land that had problematic claims for being their "homeland."
formulaT 12y ago
Whether you are extending an existing nation or creating a new one is an irrelevant distinction. The point is that people bring in a group that did not live there previously, and establish a new society in that land. You seem to treat it as a detail that the land where Zionists would be autonomous, was already occupied by non-Jews. The desire for Palestinians or Kurds to create a state is a different matter since they already lived there. Your argument reminds me of the "terra nullius" argument used to justify the invasion of Australia. Being pedantic about the definition of a nation does't fly when discussing the terra nullius doctrine, and it's no more reasonable when discussing Zionism.
- bsaul 12y ago
  I suggest you look for the term "old yishuv". Jerusalem for example has always had jews living there, and this also is also the only land where a jewish people had ever had a kingdom or any kind of autonomy ( althoug that was a really long time ago indeed). Also, the land they arrived in "belonged" to the ottoman empire, and then the british colonial empire, which both ceased to exist. Only then did the state of israel began to exist. But you're right, the ideology came from europe, and the vast majority of israelis came from other part of the world. Also, there aren't any part of the world where jews would have had lived long enough to claim the right for an autonomous regime (thanks in good part to antisemitism). All that makes it indeed a very specific story, which is really hard to compare to anything else really.
  - formulaT 12y ago
    You are still trying to restrict the concept of a nation to a narrow definition that suits your needs. Palestinians have been continuously living in the area for as long as Jews. But their claim to the land is stronger since they were still living there at the turn of the century, while the European and other Jews who emigrated after the establishment of Israel did not. I suggest you look into the history of Palestinians, their genetics and history. For example, Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians are genetically very similar. Some hypothesize that Palestinians are descendants of Jews who converted to Islam. Regarding the solution to the problem of Jewish people lacking a homeland, I don't have an easy solution for that. But at the very least a solution would involve acknowledging the similarities between Zionism and European Nationalism. You say the Jewish story is incomparable to other situations, but I think the parallels I've drawn are sufficient for most people to see that there is some discrepancy between how American liberals approach Israel, vs other kinds of ethnic nationalism.
    - bsaul 12y ago
      I'm sorry but the only similarity i see is that some people moved to another place for some reason. The people are different, the reasons are different, the people's histories are different, the places are different and the place's histories are different... I have seen more relevant analogies. As for the legitimity of arabs to live in that place as well, i don't know who you're trying to convince, because to my knowledge nobody denied that right, as the OP proves. The difference between the various zionists parties lies in regard to the importance of maintaining good relations between arabs and jews to prevent wars, and its ability to prevent them (or not).
      - formulaT 12y ago
        My point regarding Palestinians is that only the Palestinians had a right to sovereignty in that area (just like only Aboriginal Australians had a right to sovereignty over Australia). Unlike the old yishuv, the Palestinians were the vast majority, making them the only legitimate rulers of that area of land, and also making the establishment of Israel and mass immigration by Jews illegitimate. I can't help you see an analogy that you are unwilling to see. At some point people have to use judgment and intuition, beyond mere facts. In any case, here are the key points 1. A group of people wish to establish a new society in an area of land. 2. There are already people living in that land. 3. Some attempts are made to justify this by claiming that the people living there do not comprise a nation. 4. Arguing for peaceful coexistence in such circumstances is hollow.

by bsaul 12y ago

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago

Zionism was a process for European Jews to find a land that had problematic claims for being their "homeland."

formulaT 12y ago

Whether you are extending an existing nation or creating a new one is an irrelevant distinction. The point is that people bring in a group that did not live there previously, and establish a new society in that land. You seem to treat it as a detail that the land where Zionists would be autonomous, was already occupied by non-Jews. The desire for Palestinians or Kurds to create a state is a different matter since they already lived there. Your argument reminds me of the "terra nullius" argument used to justify the invasion of Australia. Being pedantic about the definition of a nation does't fly when discussing the terra nullius doctrine, and it's no more reasonable when discussing Zionism.

bsaul 12y ago
I suggest you look for the term "old yishuv". Jerusalem for example has always had jews living there, and this also is also the only land where a jewish people had ever had a kingdom or any kind of autonomy ( althoug that was a really long time ago indeed). Also, the land they arrived in "belonged" to the ottoman empire, and then the british colonial empire, which both ceased to exist. Only then did the state of israel began to exist. But you're right, the ideology came from europe, and the vast majority of israelis came from other part of the world. Also, there aren't any part of the world where jews would have had lived long enough to claim the right for an autonomous regime (thanks in good part to antisemitism). All that makes it indeed a very specific story, which is really hard to compare to anything else really.
- formulaT 12y ago
  You are still trying to restrict the concept of a nation to a narrow definition that suits your needs. Palestinians have been continuously living in the area for as long as Jews. But their claim to the land is stronger since they were still living there at the turn of the century, while the European and other Jews who emigrated after the establishment of Israel did not. I suggest you look into the history of Palestinians, their genetics and history. For example, Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians are genetically very similar. Some hypothesize that Palestinians are descendants of Jews who converted to Islam. Regarding the solution to the problem of Jewish people lacking a homeland, I don't have an easy solution for that. But at the very least a solution would involve acknowledging the similarities between Zionism and European Nationalism. You say the Jewish story is incomparable to other situations, but I think the parallels I've drawn are sufficient for most people to see that there is some discrepancy between how American liberals approach Israel, vs other kinds of ethnic nationalism.
  - bsaul 12y ago
    I'm sorry but the only similarity i see is that some people moved to another place for some reason. The people are different, the reasons are different, the people's histories are different, the places are different and the place's histories are different... I have seen more relevant analogies. As for the legitimity of arabs to live in that place as well, i don't know who you're trying to convince, because to my knowledge nobody denied that right, as the OP proves. The difference between the various zionists parties lies in regard to the importance of maintaining good relations between arabs and jews to prevent wars, and its ability to prevent them (or not).
    - formulaT 12y ago
      My point regarding Palestinians is that only the Palestinians had a right to sovereignty in that area (just like only Aboriginal Australians had a right to sovereignty over Australia). Unlike the old yishuv, the Palestinians were the vast majority, making them the only legitimate rulers of that area of land, and also making the establishment of Israel and mass immigration by Jews illegitimate. I can't help you see an analogy that you are unwilling to see. At some point people have to use judgment and intuition, beyond mere facts. In any case, here are the key points 1. A group of people wish to establish a new society in an area of land. 2. There are already people living in that land. 3. Some attempts are made to justify this by claiming that the people living there do not comprise a nation. 4. Arguing for peaceful coexistence in such circumstances is hollow.