Yes, it has been.
Yes, the belief that the Jews are a nation and that Israel is their homeland has been around for at least 2000 years.
You’ve asked about this and it’s been answered before, on multiple occasions.
Did you forget or is there another reason why you keep asking the same question over and over?
Why else do you think Jews have every year been saying “next year in Jerusalem”?
I’m certainly more objective than either of you. I have no stake in the conflict other than as a neutral third party observer.
Pointless irrelevant dren. Informed or not, unless you can point out where my opinion is wrong or based on false assumptions, you’re simply arguing from authority. The fact taht you know more trivia than me or the fact that Alessan lives there doesn’t make your opinion or his opinion any more valid than mine.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17606908&postcount=119
I don’t know why you keep saying things that seem obviously wrong.
I said zionism, not “he belief that the Jews are a nation and that Israel is their homeland”
You can try to redefine Zionism if you lie but, wikipedia and the fucking dictionary disagrees with you. If you want to redefine Zionism as the Jewish yearning for a land in Israel then you can do it but you would be wrong unless you can point out where I am wrong.
I mean for fucks sake, I give you cites and you give me your assurances that you know more about this stuff than i do.:smack:
Thats the problem with proclaiming yourself to be such an expert on everything middle eastern and insisting that this gives you some sort of extra credibility. When you are wrong about anything, even small inconsequential things, you feel the need to dig in because it undermines the notion that your superior knowledge counts for as much as you seem to think it does.
So the original statement was “It was not 2000 years of struggle. Zionism hasn’t really been a movement until the early 1900s. And it wasn’t to expel colonialists, it was (in the end) to become colonialists.”
It wasn’t an important statement other than to point out that Jews haven’t really been struggling for their land in Israel for 2000 the way that Palestinians have been struggling for the last 60+years.
I don’t know why you keep saying things that are obviously wrong.
Zionism was an idea for 2000 years. Zionism was in Jews’ hearts for 2000 years. Zionism became an organized movement in 19th century. WAY before there were any “Palestinians”.
You mean world war II?? In that case, absolutely Germany occupied the Jewish ghettos in Warsaw and similar places…they occupied the entire country in fact (assuming you meant to say WWII and you mean Poland…hard to say, to be honest, what you actually meant here since it’s either off the wall or a no brainer).
As for my definition, I’d go with take possession of or control…which Israel doesn’t do in Gaza. They COULD do that…and perhaps if enough rockets fly they WILL do it in the future. When they have boots on the ground and control the whole region and place it under martial law, THEN they will be occupying it.
So, despite physical evidence you are willing to say you believe Israel occupies Gaza based on some articles you’ve read? 
Well, not much I can say about that.
In 2001 Israel actually DID still occupy Gaza (they didn’t move out until either 2004 or 2005 IIRC), so yeah…it wasn’t bad. If you mean was the plight of the Palestinians in 2001 in general good, the answer to that is no…but then, you’d have to actually look at the history to see that rocket attacks weren’t in vogue before that…instead it was suicide bombings and bombings of malls, coffee shops and the like which the Palestinians preferred before they decided that tossing rockets was fun (not that they have given up on the old stuff entirely). The point still stands…the Palestinians as a whole would be better off if they (or the militant faction) didn’t periodically attack Israel with the intent of provoking a response. It’s hard for me to see how anyone can justify their behavior, so watching threads like this is instructional.
No idea what you are getting at here. I don’t see continual periodic (and pointless from a military perspective) rocket attacks as being any sort of ‘self selection’, nor do I think that doing so and having Israel retaliate by bombing the crap out of the areas where the rockets were fired from or where they think Hamas is hiding does much to improve the over all welfare and well being of Palestinians in Gaza.
I don’t know about any fucking dictionary, but Wikipedia says -
I believe English is not your native language. It is mine, so let me inform you that “The belief that the Jews are a nation” makes it a nationalist movement, and “Israel is their homeland” is the same thing as “a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the State of Israel”.
Regards,
Shodan
So I offer cites and dictionary definitions and you assure me that you know better :smack::rolleyes::smack:
So can you explain why the dictionary and wiki definition of Zionism (specifically the Zionist movement) is so different from yours)? Is it possible that this “zionism of the heart” is not actually what people call zionism?
No, I said you can exercise control without a physical presence. The argument is that if I physically occupy and control an area then withdraw to impose a blockade and have the military ability to retake control at any time (and do in fact take control whenever I feel like), then the initial occupation never ended.
Glad to be of help.
I was saying that there might be a difference between the people that would and the people that wouldn’t.
Are you having trouble opening the links to the dictionary definitions? Or do you just not like what they say?
If you would only read a couple of sentences more, the third sentence in the wiki article reads:
Also from the wiki article:
We’re still talking about how long Zionism has been around right?
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
No, I said you can exercise control without a physical presence. The argument is that if I physically occupy and control an area then withdraw to impose a blockade and have the military ability to retake control at any time (and do in fact take control whenever I feel like), then the initial occupation never ended.
[/QUOTE]
Well, except for the fact that it’s that very lack of control in the region that allows for things like rocket attacks and bombings/raid and necessitates the imposition of a blockade in the first place. So, I guess that negates whatever loopy point you were trying to make here. Glad we cleared that up then.
Always good to see where folks stand on things, and you’ve been very explicit lately in several of these threads.
Well, yeah…the difference between people who poke at Israel to get a reaction (and to get some of their people deliberately killed so as to make a point or get a reaction…or score points with other anti-Israeli groups in other countries), and those who merely support such folks…and those who don’t.
Do I care what non-Jews call Zionism?
Mostly because when you go around making up definitions for words that already have definitions, your entire position starts to look like a special pleading.
I don’t think you understand. Occupation does not mean the absence of resistance. You can have control and still have guys taking pot shots at you.
But like I said earlier, I don’t think Gaza is occupied. I was pointing out that this position is neither universal or non-controversial.
Yep, critics of Israel are anti-semites. :rolleyes:
And you don’t see anything to be gained by separating the two?
There are few things more amusing than watching a gentile so ignorant about Judaism he had no idea what the phrase “next year in Jerusalem” meant try and tell Jews he knows better than them what constitutes Zionism.