Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    To any who don't see Zionism as essentially a settler-colonising mission
    - Ze'ev Jabotinsky
    You seem to be confused. Jabotinsky was not the creator of Zionism. In fact, mainstream Zionists of Ben Gurion etc fought armed battles against Irgun. Irgun was declared a terrorist organisation by the 1946 Zionist Congress

    You are absolutely clueless when it comes to the history of Israel and Zionism
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    'palestinian' cleric talks about conquering Rome, Washington and London.




    This is what is taught to the so-called 'palestinians'. Makes you want to give them a state :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Historyfrenchfan)
    Some zionist jews like to call people anti semetic when people criticize them and support muslims but the true meaning of being anti semetic is discrimination against ARABS as well. Look up the word semite.
    No it doesn't. The term anti-Semitism refers specifically to Jews, however hard racists wished that it didn't. The term "semitic" itself is an outdated racial and linguistic term.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:


    http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    You seem to be confused. Jabotinsky was not the creator of Zionism.
    Fine, here's Theodor Herzl on the early Zionist colonies:
    "Important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration.”

    Different views of the Palestinians, and so different methods proposed, but ultimately the same characterisation of the situation.

    In fact, mainstream Zionists of Ben Gurion etc fought armed battles against Irgun.
    At times, yes. At other times they fought alongside them. And eventually Irgun was incorporated into the IDF. Jabotinsky's followers under Begin of course later became Herut and eventually Likud.

    Most importantly, I really don't see how Jabotinsky and the Revisionists' differences from the Labor Zionists like Ben Gurion detract from the Jabotinsky's assessment of the situation as a colonialist one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Fine, here's Theodor Herzl
    Do you think Jewish refugees from Baghdad and Cairo are European colonists?

    Labor Zionists like Ben Gurion
    If the Arabs had accepted the UNSCOP petition, what would be the injustice?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It seems that Israel is planning a bomb attack on Palestinian Muslims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jzt0A6wDDg
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    Do you think Jewish refugees from Baghdad and Cairo are European colonists?
    Interesting question. The closest analogy I can think of is that of free black Americans in the US in the 19th Century (though it's by no means a perfect one, and I'm not saying they're the same). In both cases, people who had largely become part of a colonial settler society against their will, who had been subject to some process of Europeanisation to make them culturally more like the dominant European settler population, but they could never be 'Europeans' as such (just as an aside, you brought up the 'European' aspect of colonisation here, not me). Largely they were/are not really protagonists in the colonial mission, largely inhabiting areas already successfully colonised by the European settlers, though occasionally they also willingly partake in the further colonisation of more contentious areas (the American West and the West Bank respectively).

    With respect to Israel, though, this is largely an irrelevant question prior to 1948.

    If the Arabs had accepted the UNSCOP petition, what would be the injustice?
    That the independence and self-determination of the Palestinian Arabs was compromised, and in the case of ~500,000 of them (those left outside the Arab state under the partition proposal), and Palestine partitioned in a rather patchwork way, for the sake of a settler population, a large part of whom had just arrived.

    That, in hindsight, partition may have been a lesser evil than the Nakba does not make it right.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Interesting question.
    Which you failed to answer, and in doing so offered a pretty specious analogy which didn't actually follow (or resemble anything factual).

    What should the Mizrahi Jews (from whom a majority of Israelis are descended) do? These people were not only born in Israel, but they are of Middle Eastern origin. Are you going to force them to go back to Baghdad?

    That the independence and self-determination of the Palestinian Arabs was compromised, and in the case of ~500,000 of them
    But there would be a Palestinian state.

    But please, very specifically, outline what is the injustice to those 500,000 who are in the Israeli areas, with full voting rights, in the property their forefathers have always lived in etc.

    What is the injustice to them?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TabulaSmaragdina)
    It seems that Israel is planning a bomb attack on Palestinian Muslims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jzt0A6wDDg
    :lol: Wtf was that conspiracy crap?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    Which you failed to answer, and in doing so offered a pretty specious analogy which didn't actually follow (or resemble anything factual).
    The answer is complex and can't be answered with a simple yes or no. They're not European, no, but in a considerable sense they are culturally Europeanised by the more dominant European settler population. They form part of the colonial-settler society, but mostly (though some have) have not participated in the actual process of colonisation.

    What should the Mizrahi Jews (from whom a majority of Israelis are descended) do? These people were not only born in Israel, but they are of Middle Eastern origin. Are you going to force them to go back to Baghdad?
    No, just as I wouldn't tell Afrikaners to 'go back' to the Netherlands, Anglo-Australians to 'go back' to Britain, etc.

    Also, as I've said before, the proportion of Mizrahi Jews depends how you measure it. Yes, it's true that a majority of Israeli Jews are of at least partial Middle Eastern or North African descent, but a majority of Israeli Jews are also of at least partial European descent - as some have mixed ancestry.

    But there would be a Palestinian state.
    There'd be a Palestinian state if it consisted of say, Nablus and nothing else. Would that be just?

    But please, very specifically, outline what is the injustice to those 500,000 who are in the Israeli areas, with full voting rights, in the property their forefathers have always lived in etc.

    What is the injustice to them?
    Denial of their right to self-determination, as I said. Or to turn the question around, what would have been the injustice to the Jews if they had been a minority with full voting rights in an independent state of Palestine (federal or unitary)?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The answer is complex and can't be answered with a simple yes or no. They're not European, no, but in a considerable sense they are culturally Europeanised
    You speak with personal knowledge of Mizrahi culture and custom, do you? Why don't you give us some examples of how Mizrahi are culturally Europeanised?

    a majority of Israeli Jews are also of at least partial European descent - as some have mixed ancestry.
    Citation please.

    There'd be a Palestinian state if it consisted of say, Nablus and nothing else. Would that be just?
    You seem to be confused. The UNSCOP proposal assigned 45% of the country to the Palestinian state, and in fact considering about 1/3rd of the Israeli area was the Negev desert, the Arabs got more like 55% of the country.

    How is that "just Nablus"?

    Denial of their right to self-determination, as I said.
    Self-determination isn't an individual right, it's a collective right, and one which the Palestinians would have exercised under the 1947 partition.

    So I ask again, what injustice has been done to a Palestinian living in the Israeli area with full voting rights? This is a question you people can never answer without veering into race supremacist areas

    Or to turn the question around
    Because you're incapable of answering it?

    what would have been the injustice to the Jews if they had been a minority with full voting rights in an independent state of Palestine (federal or unitary)?
    Because unlike in the partition scenario, where both groups get to have a self-determining state, in the unitary state only the Palestinians have their self-determining state where they are a majority.

    The whole point of Israel is to have one place on earth where Jews are a majority, so that if there is another Holocaust there is a place where they can flee. Your position is that, while the Arab Muslims have majorities in every other state in the Middle East, it's completely unreasonable that Middle Eastern Jews (and native Palestinian Jews) should have their own self-determining state on 1% of the land of the Middle East.

    And again, you can never explain what actual injustice has been done to an individual Palestinian living in an Israel assigned area? There would also be a Palestinian state so you cannot claim his people have not exercised their right to a self-determining state. What oppression is he experiencing?

    The answer is none. The answer is that you have right-wing reactionary views that say that it is an injustice for a Muslim to have to live under a Jewish government. That is the fundamental objection against the Jewish state ab initio, and it is bigoted and anti-semitic.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    You speak with personal knowledge of Mizrahi culture and custom, do you? Why don't you give us some examples of how Mizrahi are culturally Europeanised?
    It's hardly news that the Mizrahi were mistreated on their arrival and early years in Israel. As part of that, they were often "de-Arabised" and discouraged from continuing their own customs and traditions, which they were made to feel were inferior to those of the dominant European Jewish population. Ehud Barak made a formal apology for this in 1997.

    Citation please.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...ligious_groups

    The statistical abstract is linked in the footnote.

    Puts the origin of Israelis by patrilineal descent as 47.5% European, 50.2% Asian and North African, and 2.2% Ethiopian.

    Unless the rate of intermarriage in Israel is so incredibly small that less than 1 in 20 of those 50.2% have some matrilineal European Jewish ancestry, then a majority of Israeli Jews have at least some European ancestry.

    You seem to be confused. The UNSCOP proposal assigned 45% of the country to the Palestinian state, and in fact considering about 1/3rd of the Israeli area was the Negev desert, the Arabs got more like 55% of the country.

    How is that "just Nablus"?
    I didn't say the UNSCOP proposal, I was talking about a hypothetical partition. It was quite clear and I suspect you know that full well; you've tried this disingenuous and dishonest tactic several times before when we've discussed the partition; when I bring up another hypothetical partition, you don't actually address the point I'm using it to raise, but pretend I'm saying that's what the UNSCOP proposal actually was.

    I'll explain it again just in case. According to what you have so far argued, partition only needed to produce one Jewish state and one Arab state - there were no other considerations which it needed to take into account (or if you think there were, you haven't mentioned them). If that is the case, those goals would have been achieved if the Palestinians were given just Nablus and the Jews everything else. It would also have been achieved if the Jews were given just Tel-Aviv and the Palestinians were given everything else.

    Given these are obviously ridiculous, I would suggest that partition, if it was going to happen, ought justly to be primarily based on where the two ethno-national groups in question actually inhabit (for the moment we'll ignore the question of settlers and migrants), and try to get as many as possible in 'their' state, i.e. as many Arabs as possible within the Arab state and as many Jews as possible within the Jewish state, and as few Arabs as possible within the Jewish state and as few Jews as possible within the Arab state.

    Self-determination isn't an individual right, it's a collective right
    Yes, and those ~500,000 Palestinians previously mentioned formed part of that collective. More than 40% of it, in fact.

    Self-determination is indeed a collective right, but as with all collective rights, it derives essentially from individual rights. In theory, a group having the right to self-determination means self-determination for all members of that group. Of course, in practice heterogenous demographic distribution (among other considerations) means this has to be limited.

    So I ask again, what injustice has been done to a Palestinian living in the Israeli area with full voting rights?
    And I ask again, what injustice would be done to a Jew living in a Palestinian state with full voting rights?

    I'm not actually arguing that either is preferable, but I would argue that, at the time we're talking about, a single Palestinian state would have been the right answer for other reasons, such as it being a more default answer, as well as the migrant/settler nature of much of the Jewish population.

    Because unlike in the partition scenario, where both groups get to have a self-determining state, in the unitary state only the Palestinians have their self-determining state where they are a majority.
    Not necessarily, a concept of a shared state could be formed, as exists in places like Belgium, Canada, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, and others. Indeed, the latter two situations have both largely come about as result of acknowledging that any group (as in Bosnia there are of course three separate groups rather than two) practicing 'self-determination' fully in the sense of a separate majority state would be fraught with difficulties, most obviously due to lack of ethnic contiguity, as is evidenced by their bloody conflicts.

    The whole point of Israel is to have one place on earth where Jews are a majority
    It might well be, but there is no automatic right, for any group, to be a majority or have a majority area, as that would put a requirement on others to guarantee they not become a majority, or even to reduce their population to the level of a minority.

    Also, combatting racism by creating an explicitly ethnically-defined state? Go figure.

    Your position is that, while the Arab Muslims have majorities in every other state in the Middle East
    Other states are irrelevant. We're talking about Mandatory Palestine. Iraq and Yemen are no more relevant to the fate of Palestine because they all have Arab and Muslim majorities than Ireland, Uruguay and Italy are to the fate of Catalonia because all have White and Catholic majorities.

    it's completely unreasonable that Middle Eastern Jews (and native Palestinian Jews) should have their own self-determining state on 1% of the land of the Middle East.
    You keep trying to push the narrative of Zionism initially or primarily being about Middle Eastern Jews. It's no more convincing than it was the first time. Anyone who knows about the history of Zionism knows it was initially and primarily a European Jewish movement in which Middle Eastern Jews were largely not involved until after the creation of Israel. That within Israel the latter now slightly outnumber the former does not change this.

    And again, you can never explain what actual injustice has been done to an individual Palestinian living in an Israel assigned area?
    And again, nor can you for an individual Jew living in a Palestinian state?

    There would also be a Palestinian state so you cannot claim his people have not exercised their right to a self-determining state.
    Yes, I can, just as I can claim that Kosovan Albanians would be denied their right to self-determination by being forced to remain part of Serbia, even though Albania exists. If the Turkish part of Kurdistan became an independent state, that would not diminish the right of the Kurds in Syria, Iraq or Iran to self-determination. The examples could go on.

    The answer is none. The answer is that you have right-wing reactionary views
    Lol. That ranks pretty high on the amusingly absurd list.

    that say that it is an injustice for a Muslim to have to live under a Jewish government.
    I never mentioned Muslims, I spoke of Arabs and Palestinians. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being disingenuous for the sake of the argument rather than just racist.

    Why is it a wrong for Jews to live as a minority in a Palestinian state, even if some sort of modus vivendi has been reached by which the state is in some sense shared, but not wrong for a Palestinian Arab to live as a minority in a state that explicitly "the state of the Jewish people"?

    Enjoy the ban btw.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.rt.com/news/311128-settle...ael-palestine/
    "Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued final approval for the “immediate construction of 300 housing units” on site in Beit El, a Jewish settlement in the central West Bank, according to a statement issued by his office.Moreover, planning approval was released for the construction of another 413 homes in East Jerusalem.The decision immediately sparked international condemnation, including criticism from Israel’s close ally, the US."

    http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/14...ement-building
    "“the UK is deeply concerned by reports that planning for 1,065 settlement units is being advanced, including possible retrospective approval of buildings without permits or on private Palestinian land. The UK’s position on Israeli settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law and undermine the prospects for a two-state solution."

    Stealing land, business as usual for Israel.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Posted this in the other thread, but I'll stick it here too for reference.

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I must say, the Palestinians do have some banging choons


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLd_JXR1zdE

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Except what actually happened is closer to the opposite. Zionism originally was, and remained right up to 1948, a movement of Ashkenazi European Jews. Apart from a few, it had rarely tried to win over Middle East and North African Jews - they arrived later.
    I have noticed those who would do the Jewish people ill seem to love attempting to sow this internal hatred within the Jewish nation by claiming that Zionism is something the evil Ashkenazim, created, and duped their Jewish brothers into following.

    If you actually look at Israeli elections, Israeli political support, the Ashkenazim seem to be much more likely to vote against the Zionist parties than Mizrahics, of course this is none of your goddamn business.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Free Radical)
    I have noticed those who would do the Jewish people ill seem to love attempting to sow this internal hatred within the Jewish nation by claiming that Zionism is something the evil Ashkenazim, created, and duped their Jewish brothers into following.
    I don't think they duped them at all, I think they largely ignored for most of pre-1948 Zionist history.

    There's nothing historically controversial about saying that Zionism as an idea and movement was developed overwhelmingly by European Jews, and that prior to 1948 non-European Jews (apart from the native Arabophone Jews in Palestine) largely did not participate in it.

    If you actually look at Israeli elections, Israeli political support, the Ashkenazim seem to be much more likely to vote against the Zionist parties than Mizrahics, of course this is none of your goddamn business.
    The only non-Zionist party in Israel that has a noticeable Jewish voter base (and a small one at that) is Hadash. All the others apart from the Arab parties, even those like Meretz, are explicitly Zionist.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I wondered where this thread went.

    Anyone keeping a count of the reported deaths caused by the two sides? Among many other graphics, I was quite heart broken to see this




    (Original post by seohyun)
    http://www.rt.com/news/311128-settle...ael-palestine/"Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued final approval for the “immediate construction of 300 housing units” on site in Beit El, a Jewish settlement in the central West Bank, according to a statement issued by his office.Moreover, planning approval was released for the construction of another 413 homes in East Jerusalem.The decision immediately sparked international condemnation, including criticism from Israel’s close ally, the US."http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/14...ement-building"“the UK is deeply concerned by reports that planning for 1,065 settlement units is being advanced, including possible retrospective approval of buildings without permits or on private Palestinian land. The UK’s position on Israeli settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law and undermine the prospects for a two-state solution."Stealing land, business as usual for Israel.
    Interesting to note is; had this been Russia; US and EU would be quick to impose economic sanctions to destabilize their economy. Whereas Israel (who have committed far worse atrocities) is quite comfortable under the international watch.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This video shows 13-year-old Ahmed Manasra lying bleeding on the ground, terrified and crying, as a male adult voice can be heard saying, "Die, you son of a *****" over and over again. Ahmed was deliberately run over in East Jerusalem yesterday, and his 15-year-old cousin, Hassan, was shot dead by Israeli soldiers.

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    17-year-old Marah al-Bakri was surrounded by 10 armed Israeli police officers outside her school in East Jerusalem yesterday.
    Minutes later, they started shooting.
    Marah is now in hospital with serious injuries.

    This video shows the moments before the Israeli police opened fire on the schoolgirl:
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...553277427&_rdr

    In this video, another schoolgirl who witnessed the shooting describes what she saw: https://www.facebook.com/ShehabAgenc...__mref=message
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.