Zionism

[DroppinScience]

Ok, there's always talk of Zionism coming up here and there, and it's usually used in a derogatory tone.

In this thread I'm asking: Is Zionism really a bad thing or is it just the way that it's presently being practiced the bad thing?

Though I'm not an expert, the way I see Zionism defined is that you're a believer in the creation of a Jewish state. All righty then, fair enough.

Now there are Jews who are Zionists and there are Jews who are not Zionists. I respect either opinion that Jews hold when it comes to that issue.

Now as far as the policies of Sharon or Netanyahu, I am absolutely opposed to them and you won't get any arguments from me that their visions are woefully warped and certainly help encourage the squalor of the Palestinians' lives and Israeli civilians killed in terrorist attacks.

But when you attach the agendas of Sharon to Zionism and equate the two as bad, aren't you doing Zionism a disservice? The Labor party in Israel would be Zionist I'd assume, but they certainly seem to be level-headed and only want to bring about positive change.

Any clarifications you guys have would be very much appreciated. Thanks for reading!

[DroppinScience]

African-American people never got their 40 acres and a mule, why should the Jews get their own country?

Compensation for the holocaust?

Technically you're wrong. What about countries like Liberia? That country is made up of descendents of African-American slaves.

Now will someone concisely answer my question?

[mcaismyhero]

African-American people never got their 40 acres and a mule, why should the Jews get their own country?

Compensation for the holocaust?

Actually yes. We didn't kill milions of African-Americans for no reason. We had them in slavery for no reason, but I don't wanna get into that right now. I'm not condoning slavery or anything, not at all, I'm just saying that you really can't compare the two. It isn't just the Holocaust. The Isrealis have been in that general area for over 4000 years and have been fucked over time and time again. Just give them at least part of their fucking country I'd say. Muslims have their holy places that nobody fucks with (like the Kaaba), and so do Catholics and Bhuddists and Hindus and Shieks. So why can't we just give the Jews back thier ancestral homeland and the places that they believe to be holy? At least some of it anyway.

[Ace42]

Though I'm not an expert, the way I see Zionism defined is that you're a believer in the creation of a Jewish state. All righty then, fair enough.

Zi·on·ism Audio pronunciation of "zionism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (z-nzm)
n.

A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

I think it is that definition which is where the problem lies. Palestine belonged to the Palestinians, and no-one likes people moving into their homes, least of all when they bring their families, and their family's families, and their neighbours, aunts, dogs, cats, etc etc.

While it would not be a problem if the people could coexist (and oddly enough, I remember reading somewhere that as conflict goes, Jerusalem is the centre of the trouble, but also an eye in the storm, of sorts.

zion

\Zi"on\, n. [Heb. ts[=i]y?n, originally, a hill.] 1. (Jewish Antiq.) A hill in Jerusalem, which, after the capture of that city by the Israelites, became the royal residence of David and his successors.)

... they can't and Zionism is seen as not merely a desire to have a homeland and independance, but also as a hard-line fundamentalist / extremist way of maintaining it.

In the same way as there is nothing inherantly facistic about Republicanism, and yet neo-cons have become the new totalitarians, Zionism is an agenda with more to it than simply living in a certain place.

We didn't kill milions of African-Americans for no reason.

Urm, but you did though. For every slave in the US, there were dozens that didn't make it that far because they died in transit. This is not to mention the ones worked to death, killed because they were too ill to work, etc etc. And why on Earth is it that the Palestinians have to pay the compensation for atrocities commited by the Nazis?!?

The Palestinians had been living there for generations and generations - that is their ancestral homeland as much as the Israeli's

Also, the Palestinians were not originally against Zionism. It was only when Jewish immigration exceded the quotas given by the Anglo-French-US governments by over 10 times, that problems started.

[Vladimir]

Sorry to continuously and self-servingly pimp my own shit, but check this out, it's a research paper I wrote on religious prejudice & the founding of Israel. It took about 4 months to compile all the info that it contains, so I may be worth checking out just for self-education purposes. Hopefully it doesn't read like I have an agenda. :D

www.tracesofseven.com/Final_Draft.doc

PS: It's a good 8-10 pages, so pull up a chair and get some popcorn. :D

[Ace42]

What is "CE" ? I assume it is just some PC alteration of Anno Domini ?

[Vladimir]

Yeah the CE thing is horseshit, but nowadays apparently you gotta be PC. It's ridiculous that you would plot your calendar around the Birth of Jesus, and then pretend that the date had some other meaning. Hey, sometimes you gotta play ball.

[Ace42]

"To Zionists, the Bible was a powerful weapon"

Shurely 'The Torah' ?

I'd be interested to know what the accepted Jewish usage is, as I understand the Torah to be only the first 5 books IIRC.

[Vladimir]

Both are used. Bible is less formal. I was born Jewish although I'm not into religion, but I did survive Religious School, and both titles are used. Sometimes "Hebrew Bible."

[Ace42]

Outstanding paper. The conclusion tailed off, and very little touchedon contemporary issues, but as an insight into the causes, it was first-rate.

[bigkidpants]

zionism is a dodgey subject, ds, and i respect your approach. if there are shiny, happy zionists to hold up the other side, i hope they speak up.

in the meantime, to answer your question about the labor party, modern zionism first took physical shape in the twentieth century as the labor zionist party with the imperative that a viable jewish state had to first have a viable economy (and still today it seems the agrarian settlers are the most adamant about expanding israel's borders, not the urbanites). while any number of individual labor or likud party members may be legitimately ignorant or independent of a sinister plot, their actions are channeled towards inching the zionist agenda forward. any good conspiracy exists in layers, with most having only a limited, need-to-know vision of the master plan, so you'd always probably find it in many different flavors.

ace is correct in saying that 'zionism' is much more than just the creation of a jewish state. zionism is an intentional invocation of king david, the successful general who made jews the dominant force in the area through military might, and controlled a country, much larger than the geographical israel of today (1 samuel). if you've seen or read 'lord of the rings', the missing numenorean kings of gondor (aragorn's ancestors) parallel the monarchy in jerusalem.

with the help of samuel and others, david united the disorganized tribes of judaism into a single nation, really the only time in history that the jews have been united. zionism is the push for a strong centralized jewish authority wielding actual political power in huge chunks of the world. remember that, if you're christian fundamentalist, king david was the great-great-great-great-great grandfather of god. it's not a coincidence that speculation about jesus' bloodline surviving in europe has become vogue in the past few years.

zionism in the longview is really about creating a politico-religious juggernaut that will act essentially like the papacy during the middle ages. for whatever reasons, america and britain have already signed on to the idea of a world religion based in jerusalem (think about what this word means). islam, though, will have to be held by force.

in the simplest terms possible, zionism envisions jerusalem as the head of the global voltron, with america it's sword-wielding arm.

this is a complex topic and really beyond the scope of the bbs. still, there is excellent work here by all the would-be scholars. the 'common era' designation isn't as much a surrender to political correctness as it is the institutionalized revolt, by people who know better, against a calendar based on a fictional birth -- a.d. was started by the latin church, c.e. by people liberated from its dogmatic world view. so don't be hating on the terminology.

[bigkidpants]

excellent excellent post.

for centuries oppressed black people and, especially slaves, have found comfort in the struggles of the jews and the story of their exodus from egypt. they called harriet tubman 'moses'.

marley's garvey-ist, rastafari, african orthodoxy was not an endorsement of jewish zionism. if anything it was a recognition of the success of the jews in securing there own state an assertion that the real and first jews were black.

a union of blacks or jews, or anyone else, is not evil unless it practices evil. for depicting a positive, good-spirited representation of the struggle for racial unity, i say excellent excellent post.

[mcaismyhero]

the 'common era' designation isn't as much a surrender to political correctness as it is the institutionalized revolt, by people who know better, against a calendar based on a fictional birth -- a.d. was started by the latin church, c.e. by people liberated from its dogmatic world view. so don't be hating on the terminology.

It is PC bullshit. Our entire calender is based (approximatly) on the birth of Jesus. If we are going to change the terminology to "common era" it defeats the purpose of what the modern calender was originaly made to do. We might as well just go ahead and create a new caleander, based around something else. We can't have it both ways. And by the way, there are Roman records of the birth of Jesus and a guy named Jesus who lived around that time. So it isn't a "fictional" birth. Believe in his divinity or not, there was a real person named Jesus.

[Ace42]

Actually, the Julian calendar which our current gregorian calendar is based has nothing to do with AD, as it came into being in the BC, which they obviously didn't call BC, as they didn't know He was coming, nor when.

But I do think CE is PC bullshit. It's like renaming french fries "freedom fries" - pointless.

[ChrisLove]

And by the way, there are Roman records of the birth of Jesus and a guy named Jesus who lived around that time. So it isn't a "fictional" birth. Believe in his divinity or not, there was a real person named Jesus.

I have posted on this a few times before, I am afraid that the existance of Roman records relating to the birth of someone called Jesus around that time are myth presumably spread by various christain churches.

There is no single piece of evidence that Jesus existed that dates from his lifetime. The only pieces of evidence are 1) The New Testament of the bible, of which the earliest elements date to around 30-40 years after Jesus' death, 2) some writing by a Jew named Josephus (or something I dont have it in front of me) who wrote along time after the death of Jesus and whose writings have been forged over the centuries. 3) I few Roman references dating from around 150 AD onwards largely winging about these christains that keep showing up.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

In fact it terns out that the the town of Nazereth (Jesus's home town) may well be fictional too, there is a town called Nazereth now, but it dates to 400 AD and is named after the one in the Bible. Biblical Nazereth does not seem to appear in any comteporary writing (apart from the Bible) and there is no evidecne of it in the place where it was supposed to be.

Of course none of this proves Jesus didnt exist, its just that there is no evidence that he DID exist, if you see what I mean

[100% ILL]

I have posted on this a few times before, I am afraid that the existance of Roman records relating to the birth of someone called Jesus around that time are myth presumably spread by various christain churches.

There is no single piece of evidence that Jesus existed that dates from his lifetime. The only pieces of evidence are 1) The New Testament of the bible, of which the earliest elements date to around 30-40 years after Jesus' death, 2) some writing by a Jew named Josephus (or something I dont have it in front of me) who wrote along time after the death of Jesus and whose writings have been forged over the centuries. 3) I few Roman references dating from around 150 AD onwards largely winging about these christains that keep showing up.



http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

In fact it terns out that the the town of Nazereth (Jesus's home town) may well be fictional too, there is a town called Nazereth now, but it dates to 400 AD and is named after the one in the Bible. Biblical Nazereth does not seem to appear in any comteporary writing (apart from the Bible) and there is no evidecne of it in the place where it was supposed to be.

Of course none of this proves Jesus didnt exist, its just that there is no evidence that he DID exist, if you see what I mean

I do not understand why you do not feel that the Bible is a credible source. Matthew chapter one shows the entire lineage of Jesus from Abraham on down.
Not to mention that it was he who created the world.

[ChrisLove]

I do not understand why you do not feel that the Bible is a credible source. Matthew chapter one shows the entire lineage of Jesus from Abraham on down.
Not to mention that it was he who created the world.

Because it is not contempory, it may be accurate but it was written a significant time after the event and is therefore unlikely to be a first hand source. More over there is little evidence to say who wrote the various biblical chapters and why and how etc...

[100% ILL]

It's pretty obvious who wrote them. As to why, they were inspired by God to write. As to how, most likely with a quill pen. Except of course the Ten Commandments which God wrote himself on Mount Sinai

[ChrisLove]

It's pretty obvious who wrote them. As to why, they were inspired by God to write. As to how, most likely with a quill pen. Except of course the Ten Commandments which God wrote himself on Mount Sinai

Its not obvious to me who wrote them or why but you are probably right about the quill pen :D

I guess this is an issue where it is very hard to find common ground because you have faith and I dont, I obviously have no idea if there is a God or not I was just pointing out that the existence of contempory evidence of Jesus is a myth.

[100% ILL]

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Romans 1:20

[Vladimir]

Outstanding paper. The conclusion tailed off, and very little touchedon contemporary issues, but as an insight into the causes, it was first-rate.
Thanks a lot man. Both your comments can basically be explained by the fact that it is a very large issue to try to tackle in such a short paper. As I recall, the assignment was 5-10 pages, and I came very close to the 10 and didn't want to blow over it, so the ending may have felt a bit abrupt. Also, the English teacher specifically wanted me to limit the topic (I limited it to the founding) so that I would be able to effectively cover it in the allotted lenth. Again, thanks for the praise.


Oh yeah, and as I said, the CE thing is basically horseshit. All the research documents, encyclopedia articles, etc. that I used to write the paper used the CE/BCE system, so I figured I would play it safe for once.

[what_the_doofus]

The problem with it is this:

When Israel was created, Britain and France were the leading that were deciding where to put it. They promised Palestine to not take their land, and promised the displaced Jewish that they'd give them Jerusalem. They couldn't keep their promises, so they fucked the palestinians over.


Ever since the 40's, Israel's army has grown more powerful to be the third most powerful in the world. Their government oppresses their neighboring countries and steals their land, always expanding.

A great example is what just happened. Palestinian suicide bombers from the terrorist group HAMAS blew up two buses, killing 16 and injuring many (sorry, I cannot remember the exact number off the top of my head). Today, Israel fired tank missiles at apartment buildings, shot a 14-year old to death, and air raided other places in Gaza. After all of this, they say that Syria is harboring HAMAS leaders so they are going to attack them in retaliation. That makes as much sense as if we said that al-Qaeda had leaders in Mexico, so we're going to drop some MOABS.

Israel's government is just corrupt, and when they finally got someone in power that is looking to do what's right, he was killed off.

[Ace42]

France, UK *and* the US.

And since then:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

[what_the_doofus]

France, UK *and* the US.

And since then:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

Yes. I forgot to add the part that shows that france and the UK were the main backers: the Suez Crisis. look it up. (http://www.standto.com/qorsuez.html)

and yeah, US is also one of the few countries that refuses to recognize Jordan (palestine). in the words of david cross,

"bush always says that terrorists hate our freedom. They're freedom haters. we're freedom lovers. Seriously. If the terrorists hated freedom, then the Netherlands would be fuckin' dust. I don't think that Osama bin Laden sent those planes in to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel and our ties with the Saudi military and military bases in Saudi Arabia.

You know why I think that? Because THAT'S WHAT HE FUCKING SAID!"

Not to bring presidential shit into this, but Kerry's promise to do "all he can for Israel" is what scares me. Because of this, i think that anyone who says that Kerry is a great choice is dead wrong. anyone who thinks supporting israel further is going to benefit the nation in anyway is retarded.

[EN[i]GMA]

Why don't I get cool assignments like that?

Good paper by the way.

[Ace42]

Yes. I forgot to add the part that shows that france and the UK were the main backers: the Suez Crisis. look it up. (http://www.standto.com/qorsuez.html)

The Balfour declaration was signed in 1917 - several wars previous to the Suez Crisis. Suggesting that Israel was partitioned because 40 years later they would want Israel to help 'liberate' the Suez canal is as inane as suggesting that itimplies the US did not have a hand in the creation and total support of Israel.

Although the Suez Crisis does illustrate the gross hypocrisy of the American government.

"We live in a post 9/11 world. This is a world where terrorists aren't ok, when they were perfectly fine against other countries 50 years ago!"

[Whois]

What is "CE" ? I assume it is just some PC alteration of Anno Domini ?

I'm having problems with the computer so someone may have already answered this question:

CE = Common Era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

[Vladimir]

GMA']Why don't I get cool assignments like that?

Good paper by the way.

Well, that wasn't exactly the asignment. We had to write a 5-10 page research paper on some form of prejudice. My english teacher was convinced that I wouldn't be able to effectively cover Israel in 5-10 pages, so he encouraged me to narrow the topic to the founding. In the end he was impressed. Thanks for the compliment.

100% -
Here's why the Bible can't be trusted: there are no other documents that tell the same story from a different perspective, and the authors obviously were not objective. As I learned when writing the aforementioned paper, one event in history can be documented by two different groups (on different sides of the issue) in totally disparate ways - One group said that the Dayr Yasin battle in Israel was an attack against Palestinian Militants, and the other group said it was a massacre of civilians.

Since there is only one source, that automatically makes it difficult to trust it to the utmost. Secondly, those who wrote the New Testament were followers of Jesus, and had a predisposed opinion about him (that he was God's son). They wrote the New Testament to document his life in such a way that would convince others to become followers of Jesus. Therefore, they had a vested interest in making Jesus look like as nice a guy as possible, etc. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: have you seen the Dave Chapelle sketch called "The Life Story of Dave Chapelle - Written and Directed by Dave Chapelle?" Anyway, if you haven't, it is basically his life with a few minor tweaks - namely, he is a national hero, has an 18" penis, his girlfriend is Halle Berry, and he meets with the President. The point is that the Bible was not written by objective Historians; it was written by followers of Jesus who were not objective in their evaluation of the events that occurred. You notice that there is no specific record of Jesus in the Roman histories - in their minds he was just some upstart that they crucified.

The Bible is more of a piece propaganda then a historical document. Any event could have been manipulated or down-right changed, to fit the authors' political and religious agenda. That's not to say that the authors were actually that sinister, or that they did any of those things, but the fact remains that they easily could've, and that's why it is not a valid historical document.

[DroppinScience]

I think you guys have raised some very good points.

Ok, some of you guys have pointed out the policies of the Israeli governments (such as land grabs with Syria, etc.).

I will now pose this question in response: is the problem the policies of the Sharons/Netanyahus? Them misusing Zionism to perpetuate injustices? Are you guys wrongfully painting with too broad a brush? People like Natalie Portman I guess would be called Zionists but I do think she genuinely tries to be even-handed when it comes to Israeli/Palestinian matters.

Just as Republicans and Democrats are sworn to defend the Constitution, it doesn't mean the Constitution is bad or evil because the Vietnam and Iraq war happened.

If I'm way off base, then put me in my place.

[Ace42]

Secondly, those who wrote the New Testament were followers of Jesus, and had a predisposed opinion about him (that he was God's son).

Not so, Paul (whom I dislike immensely) hated Christians and persecuted them until he converted. So he was not "predisposed" until (allegedly) God came down and talked to him.

[Vladimir]

Right, but nevertheless, they were not evaluating the events objectively. By the way, Paul was a jackoff, I agree.

[100% ILL]

Right, but nevertheless, they were not evaluating the events objectively. By the way, Paul was a jackoff, I agree.

Just curious, why the dislike for the Apostle Paul?

[Vladimir]

Because, in my opinion, he twisted Jesus' message into something it wasn't. Most of the New Testament has nothing to do with what Jesus tought, it has to do with what Paul said he tought. He put words in Jesus' mouth. The whole "sexuality is evil" thing was all Paul. Jesus said nothing about that. If Jesus hadn't died, thus allowing others to use him as a figurehead to broadcast their own beliefs, Christianity probably would've become nothing more than a new sect of Judaism. Jesus never wanted to start a new religion - he just emphasized certain things more strongly than the rest of the Jewish religion. He told people to love each other, and he told them that the relationship with God was important, not the ritual. It's ironic, because one could argue that Catholicism discourages love and encourages ritual. Whatever, as far as I'm concerned, to each his own. I don't judge other people for their religious beliefs, and I hope they don't judge me for my lack thereof.

[100% ILL]

Because, in my opinion, he twisted Jesus' message into something it wasn't. Most of the New Testament has nothing to do with what Jesus tought, it has to do with what Paul said he tought. He put words in Jesus' mouth. The whole "sexuality is evil" thing was all Paul. Jesus said nothing about that. If Jesus hadn't died, thus allowing others to use him as a figurehead to broadcast their own beliefs, Christianity probably would've become nothing more than a new sect of Judaism. Jesus never wanted to start a new religion - he just emphasized certain things more strongly than the rest of the Jewish religion. He told people to love each other, and he told them that the relationship with God was important, not the ritual. It's ironic, because one could argue that Catholicism discourages love and encourages ritual. Whatever, as far as I'm concerned, to each his own. I don't judge other people for their religious beliefs, and I hope they don't judge me for my lack thereof.


Paul was called to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. It was previously only preached to the Jews. Catholicism has many rituals that are not Biblical and therefore I do not agree with them on a great number of things. Jesus will be the final Judge of man, he said so in John 5:26-27
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

[Ace42]

Wasn't it Peter who had the dream of the feast on a blanket?

And Vlad, *homosexuality is evil* according to Paul, mainly from a few brief sections in Romans IIRC. A lot of it is of course very clouded. The repression of sexuality in general is more a Catholic only thing, attributed to St Augustine of Hippo, who had issues with his mother, and interpreted the Genesis Adam & Eve story in a sexual way.

IE the "fruit of the tree of knowledge" represents sex. And by having sex and thus allowing the possibility of procreation, immortality was not an option for humanity (people being born, people not dying) and thus God expels mankind from Eden and makes them mortal so they don't over-populate the planet. So, Augustine said that not having sex is the more "perfect" Eden like state, and thus sex should only be to procreate, and thus the current dogma of not putting a rubber on your willy.

[Vladimir]

You got me. :D

I'm not actually too knowledgable on the bible. I kinda decided on principle that I was done with religion at a certain point in my life, and haven't turned back.

[EN[i]GMA]

Agreed.

Faith in absolute Truth is at the root of the world's misery and violence. Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond a doubt that they are right. We need the humility of science, the humble tools of reason all of us possess; tools that demonstrate the enormous, wondrous complexity of the natural world. Rational people admit they know little about nature and hardly anything about themselves. So the search is urgent and compelling. In modernity we have penetrated so many secrets that the unknowable has become a myth, yet the unknown is precisely the certain answer we seek. It is the fruit of our drive to ask why things are as they are and not otherwise. Our task as Universists is to make the sweetness of that fruit apparent.

An amalgamation of famous statements, with some rewording and additions by Ford Vox. Max Born, Laurens van der Post, Henry David Thoureau, Albert Einstein, Edward O. Wilson, H.L. Mencken, Pliny the Elder and Johannes Kepler. For the original quotations, click here.

http://universist.org/eightfamousquotes.htm

And for all you need to know on the Bible: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Also has the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon!