It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:26 PM
Why are Zionists any different from the Europeans that came to America and slaughtered Native Americans?

Does anybody else see this connection or is it just me? It seems like lately members have been throwing the Zionist word around the same way that "terrorist" and "communist" have been thrown around.

Therefore, what is a Zionist? Are they right or wrong? Say it here, if you have an opinion.

I also challenge you to, along with your response, throw in a response that somebody who believes the opposite of you might include- without condemning it.

Let's try and see both sides, do this methodically, and explain why we do or do not support the "Zionists"

And also why people are so quick to label Jews as "Zionists" or pro-Israelis as "Zionists."

I'd like to see a lot of definitions on here, the ones provided by encyclopedias and dictionaries, as well as their connotations.

Please keep the connotations separate from the definite definitions, and remember to try and post one argument of the side that you do -not- support.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:41 PM
If you've used the word "Zionist" recently I'd really appreciate it if you posted. Perhaps we all have different definitions of the word.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:48 PM
I look at it this way.

At this point, there is virtually nothing we can do to stop the wrongs perpetuated aganst Native Americans.

We can, however, learn from our mistakes there and choose not to repeat the situation in Palestine.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:53 PM
Zionism is a dead political movement. I addressed this issue in another thread.
My logic was Germans are not called Nazis and Jews should not be called Zionists.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:03 PM
As defined by, Zionism is "a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel." In it's defined form, there is nothing wrong with Zionism. However, the actions of the Zionist regime, otherwise known as the Israeli government, are what need to be questioned.

Pro-Israel arguers often attempt to use the definitions of Zionism and Semitism in favor of their argument for support of Israel's actions, but what is often overlooked are the facts of what Israel does to achieve it's own ends.

There are people who would love nothing more than for everyone to support Israel, no questions asked. We need not look at what Israel does. We need only trust that no matter what they do, it is benign and in the best interest of world peace, or what ever other over-used, positive sounding propagandized cause they claim Israel is supporting.

Zionism has indeed been thrown around like the word "terrorist". If we look at the facts, however, both words may as well be synonymous.

Israel apologists are often very hypocritical: Israel deserves a right to exist even though Palestine's right to exist was violated in order to give Israel that right. Suicide bombers murder civilians, but Israeli missiles result in collateral damage. The best one though is any country in the Middle East attempting to obtain nuclear weapons is evil, but Israel possessing nuclear weapons is for defensive purposes.

In it's defined form, there is nothing wrong with Zionism. The establishment and development of the state of Israel is perfectly acceptable. But at what cost? Should taking another people's land be acceptable to establish it? Should people's houses be bulldozed to develop it? Should innocent civilians be bombed and barricaded to maintain it?

Israel apologists try to twist the argument; they avoid the facts and merely focus on calling you out as an anti-Semite for ever questioning the policies and actions of the Israeli government.

It is that very reason - NOT questioning the Israeli government - that these wars are occurring in the Middle East. It is that very reason - NOT questioning the Israeli government - that so many countries in the Middle East despise Israel.

It is not because they are Jewish. It is not because they are "Zionists". It is not even completely because the Palestinians had their land stolen.

It is because they are a tyrannical regime who genocides the people who live within their borders. It is because they are supported by the West unconditionally and given the weapons that are used in these genocides. It is because they sponsor the same terrorism that they claim to be against. It is because they are able to have nuclear weapons for "defensive purposes" while no other country in the Middle East is able to have them for that very same reason. It is because Israel faces NO punishment whatsoever from any international organization thanks to it's superpower slave on the Western side of the Atlantic.

Ignoring those facts only detracts from the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is Israel is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Ignoring that reality only pushes forward the status quo. The status quo is terrorism, and that will never change so long as the one's "against" it are the one's creating and maintaining terrorism's endless circle of violence.

The Israeli government - and the Zionist movement - have lost their way. Perhaps in it's infant stages the movement was benevolent in intent. But due to greed and the power they have been granted, that benevolence has turned to malevolence not only towards the rest of the Middle East, but towards the very people they claimed to want to establish and develop a safe, secure, peaceful, and free nation for.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:16 PM
Good posts, so far! I'll add another question- why are people so quick to use the word "Zionist" in conversation or present it as the answer to something "Because they're Zionists."

Are people using the word without knowing it's definition? Why does it seem to be an end-all answer? If the Zionist movement is dead, then why do people still refer to it?

I have seen the word used more by Anti-Israel arguers than Pro-Israel arguers. Why would that be?

Is the Zionist regime the same as the Israeli government?

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Is the Zionist regime the same as the Israeli government?

Zionism led to the establishment of an Israeli government. When I referred to the "Zionist regime" in my post, I was simply making the connection between it and the Israeli government.

In reality, however, a "Zionist regime" only exists in a derogatory sense. If someone were to say something like your example - "because they're Zionists" - then it's being used as a derogatory term.

The term is indeed used more by anti-Israel individuals than pro-Israel. These people are only attempting to detract from the debate and boil the whole thing down to nothing more than a shouting match of childish remarks. Both sides, however, have these people no matter how much either side wants to deny that.

I don't believe it is so much a fact that people don't know the definition as it is people are looking for an easy out. Most people have the same over-used half-truths fed to them by their respective choices of news sources, and it would take a motivation-required activity like "research" to have actual facts. In desperation, an insult is hurled.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:39 PM
It seems to be an insult in disguise.
What is the background behind it's derogatory nature? It is a good argument for an Anti-Israel debater to make?

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

I'm not exactly sure of it's history, but I do know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is probably the most frequent user of the term, at least in recent times. Another term used for Israel is "occupied Palestine". Ahmadinejad, along with Hamas and Hezbollah, and many more I'm sure, often avoid referring to Israel as "Israel". Instead they use these terms.

I don't believe it is a good argument for an anti-Israel debater. I often make "anti-Israel" type posts, but I personally feel it is better to focus on the actions of Israel than resort to terms like "Zionist regime" or any other terms with derogatory intent. Using terms like that only get you labeled anti-Israel. Being anti-Israel accomplishes nothing. Being anti-Israeli policy and action, however, is a healthy debate topic and should be encouraged.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:48 PM
I understood Zionism to be an ideal associated with expansionism.
Not unlike the American ideal of " Manifest Destiny ".

Many Orthodox religious Jews ,even in Israel, believe that the creation by man of a Jewish State is an implicit usurpation of God`s role .

Not all Jews are Zionists.

Disliking an ideal should not be confused with disliking a peoples, though many do regrettably.

Surely you know this , considering your relationship to the subject.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Simply put Zionism is another way to say those kikes. Israel is a country and anybody who supports their country is simply in support of their country. You have to understand intentions and context. Zionism as it is used in today's context clearly refers to anti-Semitic propaganda. Zionism is a dead definition but the connotation is still well and alive (the connotation of Zionism is clearly some great Jewish world domination conspiracy)

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:00 PM
I'm really surprised that not everybody agrees with the definition of Zionism and it's applications today. I'd like to see more answers and opinions. Why do people have a different interpretation of the subject? Why not say "Pro-Israel" or something else?

I'm still interested in whether the Zionist movement is over. If so, why the use of the term?

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:15 PM
Why should any religion have a "homeland"?
Why should there be a country specifically to house one religion?
Isn't that a form of racism?
Isn't that a form of apartheid?
Why should Jews have a country specifically for them?
In this day and age, should not people of all races and all religions have a place to call home wherever they are on this globe?
Before the "creation" or designation of a homeland for Jews, by the western powers, Jews and Palestinians both lived in that area without terrorism.
Zionism, the concept of a state specifically for Jews, is as bad as Adolph Hitler's concept of a state specifically without Jews.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by wayno

Well, both Arabs and Jews can be traced through DNA to that land, so technically it is both their homelands.

People other than Jews can and do live in Israel....
Just like Canada is mostly Christian but you don't need to be Christian to live there.

Before the creation of the state of Israel, few Jews lived in that area in modern history.

Hitler's concept was a world without Jews. Israel is a state with a majority of Jews, which wouldn't be possible in a bigger country. People other than Jews can live there.

I think I'm right, but if you have a source that states otherwise, feel free...

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
I'm still interested in whether the Zionist movement is over. If so, why the use of the term?

For the definition of "Zionism", I am simply going by what the dictionary and encyclopedias say. I don't know where others are getting their definitions.

If we go by the definition of Zionism, as defined by the dictionary and encyclopedias, then the movement itself may be technically over. I don't believe there are organizations still dedicated to the Zionist cause. However, the idea of Zionism to develop the state of Israel remains alive, in my opinion.

I guess it is all up to interpretation. Personally, I believe Zionism exists today as an idea and in the minds of people. So long as that remains true, Zionism as an ideology (not as a movement) is not dead.

Just my opinion, though.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:47 PM
I think that I am beginning to agree with you.

It seems like even though the movement is over, people have taken the word "Zionism" and given it a new definition that I don't seem to understand completely, having to do with what seems like the support of Israel as a Jews-only country... which I don't think was ever the idea of creating Israel, since non-Jews are allowed to live there?

I'm going to keep trying to figure it out, though. Why bring back that word? Did the definition get changed in the same way as a word changes when little kids play telephone?

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:57 PM
They will be punished, understand this.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:15 PM

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Why are Zionists any different from the Europeans that came to America and slaughtered Native Americans?

The very first American Colony, and the first vessel that brought slaves to America were financed by The bank of London et al. which have strong ties with the Rothschilds, who also became strong supporters of the Zionist Federation and pushed for the creation of Israel.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:19 PM
Shining Light- Could you explain who you are talking about, from your one-liner?

I was also making a connection, half-heartedly. I meant more about the philosophy behind the slaughter of the Native-Americans and moving to new land (America/Israel) because of unhappiness where they left.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:26 PM

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Why are Zionists any different from the Europeans that came to America and slaughtered Native Americans?

You can begin here, then maybe go there , then perhaps fly around this. But wait... Weren't you there ?? Well. Guess you really need a more narrow thing. Let's see.

ZIONISM is a Nineteen Century secular tradition somewhat bearing an otherly religious wish to return in The Promised Land, where fifteen century of Jewish History just happened to happen.

Since 1948, Zionism as fulfilled his purpose, and for so does not exist any longer, neither formally nor ideologically.

First Tsionists organized early Eretz Yitsrael in a very politically interesting manner, sort of mix between SOCIALISM, ANARCHISM and... some kind of FLOWA POWA'.... Flowers that were blooming above a millenia-old desert.

When peace will shine in Middle-East, and all neighbouring nations dynamically work with Israel around economic and humanitarian purposes, no people would have to suffer within the whole region.

[edit on 10/1/2009 by Netzar]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in