The Definition of Zionism

Go down

The Definition of Zionism Empty The Definition of Zionism

Post by Guest on Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:55 am

Have you ever wondered why so many people have been saying so many hateful things about Zionism?
This hatred has to come from somewhere, it has to take root in someone’s mind somehow. People aren’t born hating someone. There’s probably a lot of people out there who hate Jews because they have been raised to hate Zionism, what 99% of Jews regard as the ideology that brought them national self determination. The MP Naz Shah is a rare example of someone who wanted to understand what the offence she caused was and get to grips with the antisemitism of sharing hateful memes, slogans and rhetoric about Zionists and therefore about almost all Jews. There are more than a few clues out there as to what’s going on.
Take the words of an organiser of 2016’s al Quds Day parade through London:
“Murdering and killing children…just like last time, that’s their hobby, that’s what they’re about. Zionism stands for killing and brutality: that is the definition of Zionism. That is why. Ladies and gentlemen, we have been joined by the true Jews, the true Jews, you can see, are the rabbis in the front of the procession. They are the true representatives of Judaism. They are the true humanitarians. Zionists are basically a plague. They are a fascist ideology who have nothing to do with the peaceful religion of Judaism. The Zionists – you can see them – some of them have been following us and tracking us along the procession, trying to provoke. That is what they enjoy doing, that is part of their DNA: to kill, to murder, to create chaos and havoc. But this is our message: we are black, white, Indian, Jewish, Christian, Sikh and we’ve got one message, and our message is: In our thousands in our millions we are all Palestinians”
You can watch the video (on link) if you like:

If you have anything to do with the Islamic Human Right Commission (IHRC) who organise the annual al Quds Day the chances are you’re going to be taught their description of Zionism.
It’s not simply the IHRC however. The more mainstream Palestine Solidarity Campaign insists on the right not just to be anti Zionist but also to define what Zionism actually is. In their submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry they have said the following:
Many pro-Israel advocates follow the formulation used by Chief Rabbi Mirvis, where Zionism is defined as merely the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. PSC believes that this definition must be challenged…
PSC views anti-Zionism as a means to oppose racist state policies and to stand against the privileging of the rights of one group of people over the rights of another.
Well this is rather silly. There are plenty of Zionists, as in 99% of them, who would absolutely oppose racist state policies and would never privilege the rights of Jews over anyone else. They go on…
More than 50 Israeli laws discriminate on the basis of religion, a process continued by the current Israeli government
Unusually for the PSC they actually provide a source for this assertion, Adalah, an NGO that describes itself thus:
Adalah (“Justice” in Arabic) is an independent human rights organization and legal center. Established in November 1996, it works to promote and defend the rights of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, 1.2 million people, or 20% of the population, as well as Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).

The link to Adalah’s website goes to a list of Israeli laws they argue are discriminatory, this assertion doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory examination. Examples of supposedly discriminatory laws are such laws as the Law to Strip Payments from a Current or Former Member of Knesset due to a Crime, Israel’s equivalent of the GI bill which allows for discharged soldiers to gain free university courses, even a law that deals with vaccinations for children. Their list of “discriminatory” laws falls flat at the slightest investigation. If you check the source, but no one does.

As long as people are being educated that Zionism is not what Zionism actually is, as long as there are people dictating to Jews what they believe, what their ideology is and what they support or don’t support instead of asking them, antisemitic attacks are going to go up and down depending on whatever is going on in the Middle East. You would hope that people who consider themselves to be serious campaigners would know better.
The Chief Rabbi spoke for all Jews and all Zionists when he said:
But to those people who have nevertheless sought to redefine Zionism, who vilify and delegitimize it, I say: Be under no illusions – you are deeply insulting not only the Jewish community but countless others who instinctively reject the politics of distortion and demonisation. To those who so eagerly reach for a vicious Holocaust reference in order to exact the maximum amount of pain and offence upon “Zionists”, I say: You are spreading that ancient and insidious virus of anti-Semitism.
According to the PSC of course it doesn’t matter, he’s only the chief rabbi of the UK, he doesn’t know what Zionism really is, only the PSC know…

What Naz Shah has shown is that people who are being antisemitic through their anti-Zionism probably have a clouded understanding of what the word Zionism means. There’s hope there that those who are willing to ask Jews rather than tell them what their ideology is can enter into a far healthier, more positive discourse.

How many times on here has we seen the same falsified claims of Zionism made?
Why is it doen so?
To justify hating and discriminating against a people, namely Jews.
As seen it simply means the self determination of the Jewish people with a Jewish home.


Back to top Go down

The Definition of Zionism Empty Re: The Definition of Zionism

Post by Ben Reilly on Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:08 am

At the same time, you can't expect people to just give up a land they'd considered their own. You can preach history at them till the cows come home, but all they know is, their great-great-great grandparents considered that land their homeland, but now it's been taken away.

It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

- Ryan Adams
Ben Reilly
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27290
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Definition of Zionism Empty Re: The Definition of Zionism

Post by Guest on Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:14 am

Ben Reilly wrote:At the same time, you can't expect people to just give up a land they'd considered their own. You can preach history at them till the cows come home, but all they know is, their great-great-great grandparents considered that land their homeland, but now it's been taken away.

So based on the fact they conqurered the land as Arab conquerers, then you place ownership on conquering the land then, yes?
 I will repeat again

Hezbollah's Al Manar quotes Sheikh Ali Damoh who stressed in his Friday sermon that there is no justification to communicate or normalize relations or have peace with the "Zionist enemy."

Damoh said thar every Muslim Scholar, both Sunnis and Shiite, in the past and the present, have all stated the inadmissibility of peace with the Jews as long as Jews control an inch of Muslim countries. He quoted Muslim scholars from Palestine, Iraq , Al-Azhar in Egypt, Iran, Pakistan and Indian Muslim scholars.

He gave examples of historic fatwas against any agreement with Jews, starting with thr first conference of Palestine Muslim scholars in 1935 down to an advisory opinion of the chairman of the Central Association of Muslim Scholars in India, an Iraqi fatwa in 1937, an Egyptian fatwa prohibiting reconciliation with the Jews and the necessity of jihad in 1956, a fatwa of the Islamic International Conference of scholars in Pakistan in 1968, and an advisory opinion of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar in 1979, forbidding conceding any part of Palestine, signed by more than sixty Muslim scholars.

Apparently, no one told these Muslim scholars that the "occupation" from 1967 and the settlements" are sthe only problems, and if only Israel withdraw to its 1949 armistice lines, there would be peace. Perhaps we need to send Peace Now and J-Street and the EU and the UN to explain the issues to these guys. They clearly don't understand the real issue.

It must be that they are misinterpreting Islam.

Muslims countries?
So it has nothing to do with whether the people there are Palestinian Saudi's or Pakistanis. They base a claim to a land that was conquered by Arab Muslim centuries ago, retaken later by the Crusaders and then back to Muslim conquerers again. To then the British and now recently Israel from defensive conflicts.

So if the bases for the claim to own land can only come from the belief a land is owned through being conquered, as these clerics are claiming. As a claim it is endorsed by a fictional deity is not legl as it has no evidence or bases. Then Israel by the methodology of the Muslim clerics themselves are justfiying the right of Israel to be there through land aquisitions through conflicts.

That is all besides the point, yet again it shows it has nothing to do with settlements, it shows they are unwill to allow Jews to have self determination and they are doing this because of religious beliefs.

This is why Obama's foreign policy has been even worse than Bush
In a few years when Iran has nukes, people will look back on Obama and because of his naive stupidity will end up being labelled one of the worst in history. After all the good he did within the US, will count for nothing.

Last edited by Didge on Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:17 am; edited 1 time in total


Back to top Go down

The Definition of Zionism Empty Re: The Definition of Zionism

Post by Guest on Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:16 am

What is even worse about your reply is you fail to see people are engineering a defintion of Zionism, simply in order to justify and discriminate against Jews, even where some Jewish families have been there longer than any of the Arab palestinians, but ignore that facit as well Ben. The worst part is you simply have not got a clue about the history or of the conflict itself

Welcome to the regressive world of Ben, ignore this tacit fact and go off again making out the Palestinians are the Victims

The Palestinian authorities and Arab nations have always been the agresssor and attacked Israel, refusing to accept its self determination.
Based on the same flawed methodology by the regressive left, it is like defending Hitler and Russia invading Poland, to then claiming Germany as a victim for then being defeated  in WW2. Where 16 million Germans were made into refugees. Where there is no call from the same regressives for a right of return for these Refugees and their decsendents. Why are they not even classed as refugees today? The most appalling and disgusting thing to date is how the Arab nations have deliberately failed to make citizens of the Palestinian refugees, most of who fled on the calls of Arabs during the first conflict. They are instead used as pawns simply to be in opposition to the very state of Israel itself. Germany lost land also from its aggression and starting a war against the Self determination of the Poles. We even went to war based on this and yet we see the worst double standards by the regressives on this today. Yet also where the some Jews have returned to Israel making them decolonizors, the regressives called them colonialists, which is really is jumped up hate speech to deny the legitimacy of these Jews. All you have to see is the motivation behind the regressives cause, and its the ugliest hate going.
That is the reality of this situation


Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum