News When Iran will produce enough U235 to make a nuclear bomb?

[quadraphonics]

Furthermore, such dispossession of land from the indigenous population has been the goal of the Zionist movement since it set eyes on the region.

You're making too many assumptions about what people wanted 200 years ago, and how they planned to get it. Not to mention abusing the term "indigenous." Palestinians are not like Aboriginies; a great number of them moved into the region during the Mandate period, drawn (as people always are) by the inflow of investment, infrastructure and trade.

Considering those facts, how can that ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land be considered anything but a defining characteristic of Zionism?

Simple: there are numerous self-professed Zionists that do not support the "ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land." Redefining the term "Zionism" into a political slur is not a good idea.

 

[mheslep]

...Palestinian land be considered ...

Chiming in: by Palestinian, you mean Palestinian Arab. What is the basis for calling this Palestinian Arab land? If one goes back to Roman times as above, its historically Jewish. Edit: Quadrophonics made the point better than I have in the prior post.

 

[WarPhalange]

Chiming in: by Palestinian, you mean Palestinian Arab. What is the basis for calling this Palestinian Arab land? If one goes back to Roman times as above, its historically Jewish. Edit: Quadrophonics made the point better than I have in the prior post.

I don't think the US can play that game.

 

[OmCheeto]

Erasing the lines on our maps would do nothing to change the fact the region has been commonly known as Palestine since the Romans ruled the region nearly two millennia ago. Regardless, if you look at an accurate map of the Middle East from 1917, it will show that the region of Palestine was part of the dissolving Ottoman empire.

According to the map on my wall, Turkey was part of Arabia at that point. The Ottoman empire looked like little more than Austria-Hungary, as we know them today.

Given the fluidity of borders, due to the incessant wars during that period, I wouldn't be surprised if the nationality of mapmaker didn't influence heavily on where the lines were drawn.

http://www.atlas-historique.net/1815-1914/cartes_popups/EmpireOttoman1914GF.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/uk-promis-arabs-1915.gif
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/redline.htm

I would be greatly interested in seeing an Iranian produced map from the same era.

 

[OmCheeto]

Here's the middle east section of that map on my wall that I was talking about:

http://home.europa.com/~garry/1917meperamerica.jpg

No Iraq. No Israel. No Jordan. No Syria.

You can't even find the Ottoman empire in this section.

Somehow I'm not surprised that the Persians have sat back and watched, since Cyrus, the things that have transpired around their nation.

Sho Macha Tori! = que pasa in Farsi. If I haven't already mentioned that :)

 

[vociferous]

I don't see how I'm doing any cramming here. The colonization of the West Bank is supported enough to keep it consistently expanding since Israel took control of the territory, regardless of how few you choose to count as its supporters. Furthermore, such dispossession of land from the indigenous population has been the goal of the Zionist movement since it set eyes on the region. Considering those facts, how can that ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land be considered anything but a defining characteristic of Zionism?

Zionists were those Jews who supported the creation of a Jewish state who stood in direct opposition to those Jews who did not believe in Zionism (If you read the book The Chosen it has an interesting debate about Zionism in it). Currently, Zionists are those who support the continued existence of Israel, regardless of where they believe the borders should be drawn.

Furthermore, the use of the term "indigenous population" is extremely inappropriate, in my opinion, especially to refer to Palestinian Arabs. The Middle East was the birthplace of civilization. Constant conflicts have caused a lot of movement of different groups in, out, and around the area and playing the game of, "which groups claim to the land is oldest" simply is not useful. This is not Native Americans, whose direct ancestors have been living isolated on the same continent for thousands of years. The groups that occupy Palestine, Christian, Muslim, and Jews are not "indigenous" to Palestine in the same sense.

And since your definition of "Zionist" is opposed to the dictionary and many people who identify themselves as Zionist, I reject it as invalid.

 

[WarPhalange]

Zionists were those Jews who supported the creation of a Jewish state who stood in direct opposition to those Jews who did not believe in Zionism (If you read the book The Chosen it has an interesting debate about Zionism in it). Currently, Zionists are those who support the continued existence of Israel, regardless of where they believe the borders should be drawn.

Wasn't that whole argument that the anti-Zionists believe that the Messiah should be the one to create a new Israel instead of people?

 

[kyleb]

You're making too many assumptions about what people wanted 200 years ago, and how they planned to get it.

My statements weren't based on any assumptions. If you believe what people wanted and how they planned to get in any way contradicts what I've stated, please present your reasoning.

Not to mention abusing the term "indigenous." Palestinians are not like Aboriginies; a great number of them moved into the region during the Mandate period, drawn (as people always are) by the inflow of investment, infrastructure and trade.

I am using the term to refer to the population which lived in the region prior to the arrival of the Zionist movement. I also refer to myself as being indigenous to the United States, having been born here and of people who have lived here for generations. What term would you suggest is better suited to describe such a situation?

Simple: there are numerous self-professed Zionists that do not support the "ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land." Redefining the term "Zionism" into a political slur is not a good idea.

Yet people claiming one thing while doing another is hardly rare. What defines movement better than it's actions? Furthermore, how can acknowledging a long standing pattern of action constitute a slur?

Here's the middle east section of that map on my wall that I was talking about:

http://home.europa.com/~garry/1917meperamerica.jpg

No Iraq. No Israel. No Jordan. No Syria.

You can't even find the Ottoman empire in this section.

Than you for the picture, I had intended to request one after reading your previous post. I'm curious as this is the first I've seen the name "Arabia" applied across the Levant and Asia Minor. What are the origins of your map anyway? Regardless, it wasn't until near the end of 1918 that the Ottomans ceeded their claim to the territory in question.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thank you for the picture, I had intended to request one after reading your previous post. I'm curious as this is the first I've seen the name "Arabia" applied across the Levant and Asia Minor. What are the origins of your map anyway? Regardless, it wasn't until near the end of 1918 that the Ottomans ceded their claim to the territory in question.

(UNRIVALED SERIES)
EASTERN HEMISPHERE​

POPULAR AMERICAN EDITION. COPYRIGHT --- BY W. & A. K. JOHNSTON, Ltd. 1917 EDITION

41" x 52" classroom map.

And I would say that any map made in 1917 could have any borders you wanted. I never realized it was such a dynamic year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917

Here's an interesting little article relating to Iran during the period:

http://www.iran-bulletin.org/ibMEF-2-completed/TheGilan%20Republic.htm

Until the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, Iran had for over a century been involved in Anglo-Russian “power politics” in Asia. Subjected to Czarist territorial expansion and British economic domination, she had been progressively transformed from a viable, independent and cohesive sovereign entity into a chaotic and dependent Asian “semi-colony” ...

 

[vociferous]

Wasn't that whole argument that the anti-Zionists believe that the Messiah should be the one to create a new Israel instead of people?

Basically, yes. A lot of Jews, especially conservative Jews did not support Zionism because they believed that rebuilding Israel before the coming of the Messiah was blasphemous.

Also, a lot of American Jews were pretty content in the lives they led in the United States, and some of them did not see the need for Israel, given how well they were treated in the US (compared to Europe).

 

[OmCheeto]

The Ottoman empire looked like little more than Austria-Hungary...

Ooops. That was Austria-Hungary.

Upon closer examination of the map, the Ottoman Empire is nowhere to be found.

Silly Scotsmen...

 

[mheslep]

...I am using the term to refer to the population which lived in the region prior to the arrival of the Zionist movement...

How much prior? The population there changed substantially over time in the centuries before the Zionist movement.

 

[kyleb]

Predominantly since they ran the Crusaders out in the 13th century is my understanding. What changes in population are you referring to?

 

[vociferous]

Predominantly since they ran the Crusaders out in the 13th century is my understanding. What changes in population are you referring to?

How about huge population shifts? Most of the "Zionists" were descendants of the Jews that had lived in the Palestine area before the diaspora. Many of them feel that it is their right to return to the area because that is where their ancestors are from, ditto to the decedents of Arabs who used to live in what is now Israeli territory.

Add to that the many very religious Jews and Muslims who believe that they have some kind of God-given divine right to the area, plus thousands of years of history.

What you get is a situation where the question of who is "indigenous" and who has right to the land can only be answered by completely arbitrary criteria, and it is hard for people's ethnicity and religious views to not color how they want to draw those arbitrary criteria.

All I can say is that, at this point, there is absolutely no use in dealing with what one may consider a historical injustice. The different points of view simply do not recognize the same historical narrative and they never will. To move forward in the Middle East will be impossible so long as people cling to the past.

 

[Evo]

This seems like as good a place as any to end this thread with a "neutral post". All sides have had a chance to say their piece and the thread is not progressing.