Defining Zionism.

When anyone starts dictating how another country should act and/or behave, then (perhaps) we are stepping into the bounds of a "one-world" type of government.

Not something any of us want.

Or, perhaps, I'm wrong again.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: elementalgrove

Thanks for the reply.

The fact remains, Israel is a country. We can't just globally say, "Get back to walkin'!

What do we do NOW?

No, but we can say, "get out of occupied territory."

The Palestinians and the Jews, both deserve equal say. Both deserve statehood.

What can we do? We can encourage the state of Israel to remove themselves from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. We can encourage them to cease their role as the occupiers of Palestine. They will refuse, of course, but it doesn't mean that one state (or the other) must be destroyed as a result.

This is where i think the UN should play a larger and more effective role. Get rid of the 5-state veto powers, as they do no good. Just let international support dictate the role the UN could take in regards to security matters. Give the UN a proper standing army. Allow the UN to go into the occupied territories and expel Israel if need be.

I may sound harsh, but there is only so long that a state should be able to ignore UN resolutions, while their best buddy (USA) vetos or declines international pressure.

Who won the crusades far and square?

What super power decided to f things up after winning WWII and create the country of Israel?

Who's been real pissed off ever since?

Why do Jews need their own country?

Why can't Jews live in Europe and America or anywhere else they want to?

I think it's weird that tptb assumed they could just create a country and start dumping money into it.
It smells like oil deals and alterior motives.

a reply to: beezzer

they cannot have their "own" country. There is a country, in that vicinity, that belongs, rightfully, to three groups of people...(not one)

call it Disneyland I don't care, but all three of those peoples need to live side by side and in equality. Period.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: beezzer

they cannot have their "own" country. There is a country, in that vicinity, that belongs, rightfully, to three groups of people...(not one)

call it Disneyland I don't care, but all three of those peoples need to live side by side and in equality. Period.

We can simply tell another country, a sovereign state, that they cannot exist, that they must change?

What ever happened to imperialism and allowing countries to dictate their own laws?

a reply to: beezzer

dictate their own laws? They are dictating the laws of the people who have lived there some for thousands of years - we are allowing genocide for what?

for a sovereign nation? lol... thats a flipping joke and you know it!

Since a buttload of europeans decided they wanted to live where others actually did, by any means possible, there has been nothing but death and hell for an entire people.... some sovereign nation

a reply to: OpinionatedB

There has been death and war since man began.

War is NOT a new invention. Neither is hatred, bias or bigotry.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: beezzer

they cannot have their "own" country. There is a country, in that vicinity, that belongs, rightfully, to three groups of people...(not one)

call it Disneyland I don't care, but all three of those peoples need to live side by side and in equality. Period.

We can simply tell another country, a sovereign state, that they cannot exist, that they must change?

What ever happened to imperialism and allowing countries to dictate their own laws?

Didn't the UN tell the Palestinians in 1948 that they cannot occupy that land and so they took it and gave it to the Jews? Didn't they, in effect, tell the Palestinians that they cannot have their own sovereign state on the very land they called home?

a reply to: beezzer

Who do you feel like it is your duty to be supportive of and helpful to? The oppressed? Or the Oppressor?

The Oppressed has been stomped all over .... they are called Palestinians. The Oppressor came from wealthy areas of Europe and America, and began taking and killing and oppressing to their hearts content.

I refuse to support the oppressor.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Since a wrong was committed (?) @ 70 years ago, we now have the right to tell a country to surrender and dissolve its statehood?

If we can do that with a 70 year threshold, why not a 100 year, 300 year threshold?

What right does the US of A have then.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: beezzer

Who do you feel like it is your duty to be supportive of and helpful to? The oppressed? Or the Oppressor?

The Oppressed has been stomped all over .... they are called Palestinians. The Oppressor came from wealthy areas of Europe and America, and began taking and killing and oppressing to their hearts content.

I refuse to support the oppressor.

Then you're against America? Since they were the oppressor and came from wealthy areas of Europe.

Down with America?

a reply to: beezzer

yes, they do not have to leave, no punishment should be laid on the children of those who first came and began all this... but there needs to be an equal and joint statehood with equality being at its center.

originally posted by: beezzer
"I'm not supporting anti-Semitism. I'm all for anti-Zionism."

I hear this much lately.

Merriam-Webster defines it as. .

"Zi·on·ism
noun ˈzī-ə-ˌni-zəm

: political support for the creation and development of a Jewish homeland in Israel"

I got thrown other definitions recently. Political Zionism and religious Zionism.

Webster's does not have definition of those. So I offer this forum to further define what is meant, if not the elimination of the country of Israel.

Now I am all for peace. I think I made that fairly clear. War is stupid and war sucks and war is wrong and war is bad.

But peace at what cost?

Is the only road to peace the destruction, the elimination of Israel?

Is that what people want when they say they are anti-Zionist?

Is there any other alternative?

I open this thread to simply define Zionism. Many people are debating this, and I want a clear understanding to what people want.

What will be the final bill for peace?

Thank you for your time,

Regards,

beez

I haven't read the entire thread, but as a Jewish person I am going to jump in with my own opinion.

I fully support the rights of Palestinians to have a homeland. I also support the rights of Jewish people to have a homeland. I do not support the 2 state solution as I think it both unworkable, as well as divisive. A few months ago I put together a thread as to why I think a shared state, a one state solution if you will is worth considering.

Perhaps I am a fantasist, but I believe there will never be peace until the people of Israel/Palestine are willing to sit down and define a nation. Not a nation governed by one race or religion, but a state consisting of multiple races and religions willing to work together. I personally think religion has no place in how a state should be governed, and I think it ridiculous that in this day and age people believe that God 'promised' a nation to one particular religious group.

Yes, the Jews suffered immensely and have every right to have a place they can feel safe. Should the Palestinians have any less? Until people stop demonising those of differing beliefs as 'other' there will never be peace. Perhaps I am a fantasist, but it's pretty obvious that the current system isn't working very well, except for perhaps a privileged few.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Since a wrong was committed (?) @ 70 years ago, we now have the right to tell a country to surrender and dissolve its statehood?

If we can do that with a 70 year threshold, why not a 100 year, 300 year threshold?

What right does the US of A have then.

You question whether or not a wrong was committed? Is what they did wrong or not?

No, we have no right to ask Israel to dissolve it's statehood...just as the UN had no right to create it in the first place. ALL of us must recognize that before we work together to find a solution that suits all parties involved.

a reply to: beezzer

what would be wrong with giving equality and rights to the native Americans and let them have a say in the government in their own land?

a reply to: beezzer

Beez, I think you have hit on something here.

I think the implication either way is very ugly and I think it's on purpose to marginalize those who are against violence and oppressive policies but NOT against Israel. Both sides have a vested interest in defining the word in as ugly a way as possible.

a reply to: cuckooold

I remember your thread, I believe I also agreed and replied in it. It is what many of us are calling for... it is the only workable solution possible.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

No-one has the right to dissolve another nation.

Unless we wage war against Israel and beat them, we have no say in the future of their country.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: beezzer

what would be wrong with giving equality and rights to the native Americans and let them have a say in the government in their own land?

When I see it, I'll believe it.