4 ms·

I agree that the existence of Jews in Israel for thousands of years presents a difference but I think this difference is small for the following reasons. 1. Th

I agree that the existence of Jews in Israel for thousands of years presents a difference but I think this difference is small for the following reasons. 1. The Jewish connection to Israel has been exaggerated by Zionists. The Jewish people were one of many living in present day Israel/Palestine (see [0]) 2. The existence of a Palestinian nation or kingdom is irrelevant, because a group of people can have a unique identity regardless of who is ruling them. Furthermore, there is no reason why the granularity of Jewish identity is the only relevant kind of identity. If Palestinians really only did possess a pan-Arab identity, it doesn't logically follow that they can be pushed out of where they live into any other Arab country. 3. Palestinians have been a recognizable nation since 700AD 3. Having left Israel and lived in Europe and other places for so long, Jewish people lost their right to return. [0] http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fihfgjcguctxt 11y ago
Let's work through your points. Starting with your point number 1: Yes, perhaps Zionists stress the Jewish connection to Israel. But that's what makes them Zionists in the first place. Zionism is the belief that the Jews should return to the land of Zion--Israel (in Latin, Palistine). And it is also true that there has existed a strong desire to return to Israel in the Jewish people from the begining. Leaving Egypt, one could argue, was about returning to the land of Israel. A little more concretely, I suggest you read the book of Lamentations. Lamentations is a poem about returning to Israel after the Babylonian exile. After reading passages such as "If I forget Jerusalem, I will forget my right hand," it is evident that a passionate desire to return to Israel is not a fabrication by modern Zionists, but rather an integral part of the identity of the Jew. You then proceed with a non sequitor. Why does the existance of other people living in the land of Israel lessen the Jewish tie to the land of Israel? Finally, the website that you link to is officially recognized to be anti-semetic, so don't count on impartial information from it. I don't quite understand what you're getting at in your second point. Are you saying that the Palestinians have their own identity? I'm sure they do. It just isn't clear to me how that backs up your argument. I'm genuinely curious. As for your first point number three, I don't see its validity. There was no such thing as a nation until the rise of nationalism--far after 700 C.E. Next, in response to your second point number three, going into the Diaspora was not a choice for the Jews. They were forced out. Do they lose the right to return after being forcefully evicted? Finally, we can argue about political theory all we want. The bottom line is that Israel exists. Even if you do not agree with its policies, you should not advocate for its destruction. Israel is a sovereign and democratic nation (not to mention a center of growth and innovation) and by virtue of existing, it deserves to exist as much as any other nation does. Thank you for reading
- formulaT 11y ago
  What an odd and formulaic response.
- Udik 11y ago
  Whether Palestine was ever a nation or a kingdom is completely irrelevant to the issue, it seems we agree on this. So the argument made by bsaul that "No palestinian kingdom or nation has ever existed, and this land was under the ruling of turks since the 13th century, and it has belonged to many different people througout history. Saying that only the arabs are legitimate there is a strange view of history." has no relevance whatsoever. The only thing that matters is who was occupying the land, and by what means they have been displaced. IfAmericansKnew.com is not recognized to be an anti semitic website save from those who have a political interest in declaring so (namely, zionist organizations like the Anti Defamation League). Sure, having being evicted loses you the right of return, at least after a couple thousands years. Living people matters, remote history is an abstract concept. Finally, I think nobody here has advocated the destruction of Israel. To me, the same principles apply to Israel than those that I've been applying to Palestine: you can't displace people against their will. Settlers are few and recent, they can be removed from the land they're illegally occupying. The rest of Israel will stay where it is, it just has to stop the aggression and the land grabbing.
  - bsaul 11y ago
    "has no relevance whatsoever." It would have certainly helped that any entity (kingdom, province, nation, whatever you want) was ever called "Palestinian" whenever you want to claim that "palestinians arabs" are the only legitimate people for this land. Don't forget that even the term "palestinian" to designate arabs is very recent (1960s). Before that, the conflict was called a conflict between arabs and jews, and didn't even involve the concept of a palestinian right to have its own nation. And it's fine with me, i don't mind palestinian arabs defining themselves as a people, and wanting an independant state. Just don't claim that it's something that's been there forever and is therefor the only legitimate political construct for the area.
    - 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

fihfgjcguctxt 11y ago

Let's work through your points. Starting with your point number 1: Yes, perhaps Zionists stress the Jewish connection to Israel. But that's what makes them Zionists in the first place. Zionism is the belief that the Jews should return to the land of Zion--Israel (in Latin, Palistine). And it is also true that there has existed a strong desire to return to Israel in the Jewish people from the begining. Leaving Egypt, one could argue, was about returning to the land of Israel. A little more concretely, I suggest you read the book of Lamentations. Lamentations is a poem about returning to Israel after the Babylonian exile. After reading passages such as "If I forget Jerusalem, I will forget my right hand," it is evident that a passionate desire to return to Israel is not a fabrication by modern Zionists, but rather an integral part of the identity of the Jew. You then proceed with a non sequitor. Why does the existance of other people living in the land of Israel lessen the Jewish tie to the land of Israel? Finally, the website that you link to is officially recognized to be anti-semetic, so don't count on impartial information from it. I don't quite understand what you're getting at in your second point. Are you saying that the Palestinians have their own identity? I'm sure they do. It just isn't clear to me how that backs up your argument. I'm genuinely curious. As for your first point number three, I don't see its validity. There was no such thing as a nation until the rise of nationalism--far after 700 C.E. Next, in response to your second point number three, going into the Diaspora was not a choice for the Jews. They were forced out. Do they lose the right to return after being forcefully evicted? Finally, we can argue about political theory all we want. The bottom line is that Israel exists. Even if you do not agree with its policies, you should not advocate for its destruction. Israel is a sovereign and democratic nation (not to mention a center of growth and innovation) and by virtue of existing, it deserves to exist as much as any other nation does. Thank you for reading

formulaT 11y ago
What an odd and formulaic response.
Udik 11y ago
Whether Palestine was ever a nation or a kingdom is completely irrelevant to the issue, it seems we agree on this. So the argument made by bsaul that "No palestinian kingdom or nation has ever existed, and this land was under the ruling of turks since the 13th century, and it has belonged to many different people througout history. Saying that only the arabs are legitimate there is a strange view of history." has no relevance whatsoever. The only thing that matters is who was occupying the land, and by what means they have been displaced. IfAmericansKnew.com is not recognized to be an anti semitic website save from those who have a political interest in declaring so (namely, zionist organizations like the Anti Defamation League). Sure, having being evicted loses you the right of return, at least after a couple thousands years. Living people matters, remote history is an abstract concept. Finally, I think nobody here has advocated the destruction of Israel. To me, the same principles apply to Israel than those that I've been applying to Palestine: you can't displace people against their will. Settlers are few and recent, they can be removed from the land they're illegally occupying. The rest of Israel will stay where it is, it just has to stop the aggression and the land grabbing.
- bsaul 11y ago
  "has no relevance whatsoever." It would have certainly helped that any entity (kingdom, province, nation, whatever you want) was ever called "Palestinian" whenever you want to claim that "palestinians arabs" are the only legitimate people for this land. Don't forget that even the term "palestinian" to designate arabs is very recent (1960s). Before that, the conflict was called a conflict between arabs and jews, and didn't even involve the concept of a palestinian right to have its own nation. And it's fine with me, i don't mind palestinian arabs defining themselves as a people, and wanting an independant state. Just don't claim that it's something that's been there forever and is therefor the only legitimate political construct for the area.
  - 11y ago