For the moment, the request is to Define Zionism. This means no history, and no sob stories. Just a definition. Other statements/conclusions will follow.
Home | For the moment, the request is to Define Zionism. This means no history, and no sob stories. Just a definition. Other statements/conclusions will follow.
a-palestinian:
go to http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/zion.html to read up on zionism.
it is estimated that 71% of all would-be future palestinian suicide/sacrificial bombers who go to this site and read it though, convert to judaism, and become rabbis!
here is the deifinition it gives of zionism:
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1893 by Nathan Birnbaum.
Victot,
Your responce is appreciated.
The first 2 lines contain the actual meaning of Zionism, and the rest are sideline facts. As such, I will disect those first two lines:
First line: Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland
This sentence adovocates the settlement of a homeland. The homeland in this case, is referring to modern day Israel, and the territories. Uganda was also a possibility early on. Where the new country was to be founded though, is irrelevant for the moment. Let us call this new land to be allocated for the new Zionist Nation, "Area X".
Thus, Upshot 1 is: The pre-requisite of Zionism, would be land allocated for it.
Second line: and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel
This phrase means that once the Zionist state has been founded, its populus is to remain mostly Jewish.
Thus, Upshot 2 is: A concious effort is to be made, to discriminate in favour of maintaining the Jewish populus as the majority, at all times, in this new Zionist state.
The Conclusion is: Zionism is an ideology, that seeks out an area of land, for, and only for the Jews. In short, Zionism is Jewish Nationalism.
--m--e--a--n--s--> E-N-D-S.
Any End - any goal - in order to be attained, must go through the means by which said End can be attained. Thus we can now safely say, that Zionism's Ends, are the Conclusion above. Notice however, that nothing is mentioned about the means of going about achieving those ends.
ZIONISM
--m--e--a--n--s--> E-N-D-S: Land for Jews,
etc. (See conclusion)
Before I go on, there has to be Zero disagreements on what I have stated above. Thus, I will pause for now, and offer any rebuttals/additions to come in. It is crucial that any doubts be removed now, rather than later.
well, im no expert like some of these guys...
though it seems pretty much right to me.
ps.
it's hard to have zero rebuttals before knowing the point you're making...
I am not so sure about whether there is an "official" definition of Zionism, per se. In fact, as the article I am linking to below states, the definition of Zionism has been hotly debated for a very long time.
Here is the discussion in the British Guardian newspaper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/unracism/s...546868,00.html
In any event I think that all definitions of Zionism agree that the Jews have a right to reestablish themselves and live independently in the land of Zion (Jerusalem), which has been interpreted as modern-day Israel, including the Palestinian-controlled territories. This is based on the fact that Jews originate in that land and have lived there continouosly for thousands of years.
The weird twist about "Uganda" amounted to some intellectual exercise that was rejected by the Zionist congress in 1905. I am not familiar with anyone who would support settling in a land other than the Jewish homeland of Israel.
You mention "discrimination" and "allocating" land, but actually there is no mention of discriminating against other groups, nor "allocating" land in the definition itself.
Actually, the initial Zionist method to acquire land in Israel to purchase the land for cash from the lands' ownder, i.e., the Ottoman Empire, as well as some from Syrian and other foreign owners of the land.
The discrimination was put into place by the Arabs, who intimidated their own people and forbade them to sell land to Jews (purely on the basis of religious discrimination). At the same time, Arab massacres of Jews started in communities like Hebron in 1929. All this led to the UN partition of British Palestine and it is on this basis that Israel exists, not on the basis of Zionist philosophy, which in any event has no one single definition.
I believe ample time has passed for any additions towards my previous post. I will first address Newsguy's post, and then move further.
Newsguy,
"In any event I think that all definitions of Zionism agree that the Jews have a right to reestablish themselves and live independently in the land of Zion (Jerusalem), which has been interpreted as modern-day Israel, including the Palestinian-controlled territories. "
This is Zionism. Unlike what you said however, it DOES have a definition for it, per se. The only differences encountered in the different forms of Zionism, are the reasons why Jews must go back to ancient Israel. However, their raw and basicend is the same - and that end is stated as the conclusion of my previous post.
End of address to Newsguy.
I will now continue:
It was established earlier, that for a Zionist state to exist, land must exist for it to exist over, and that also, for a Zionist state to exist, the majority of the populus in the state, must remain Jewish. Those are the Ends.
The means by which to go about achieving those ends, have not been addressed. I will now address them.
I do this by making a list of statements, which are dependant on each other. That is, if statement 1 is false, then statement 2 following it, must also be false. This will allow for an easier discussion, and any disagreements are to be linked to individual statements.
Statement 1: From 1800, and especially since then, there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers), that is, in any part of the world excluding and the Antarctic.
Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land. "Accounting" for the natives, means that when a new nation is formed, they are either part of it, in which case they can stay, or they are not part of it, in which case they cant stay.
Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.
Statement 4: By the second line of Post number two, a Zionist state's majority populus must remain Jewish. Since a Zionist state is to be formed in an area of land previously occupied by "Y" people, the only hope for a Zionist, is for the "Y" people residing in ancient Israel to go away. Since the "Y" people in ancient Israel will not go away, then a Zionist (if adamant enough), can use force to evict the "Y" people.
Statement 5: (Allow an interjection of a little C++ here): Let "X" = Jewish, and let "Y" = "Palestinian". Re-read above statements with new substitutions.
In ANY case, a Zionist state will have to resort to force, in order to create a new nation on temperate Earth. (Since creating a Zionist Nation on a land already occupied by Jews defeats the purpose). Meaning, a Zionist state must forcefully evict any non-Jews from an area on which the new nation is to be formed.
Conclusion: Zionism, to take effect on Earth, is immoral.
I will pause here, and allow any rebuttals/additions to be made, so that I can address them, and then move on.
Interesting how all this college lecture-style pseudo-intellectual recitation boils down to the same old Arab rhetoric: "Zionism is immoral."Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Conclusion: Zionism, to take effect on Earth, is immoral.
Well, to me, the Palestinian mass murder of innocent Israeli children sitting in pizza stores and in shopping malls is what's immoral. The fact that more than 2/3 of the Palestinian population supports suicide bombings in a crowd of innocent Israelis is what's immoral.
On the other hand, the right of the Jewish people to resettle their homeland is not only moral, but an obvious historical turn of events. As for the Palestinians, there is a saying that goes something like "if you build you home right near the ocean, don't be surprised when it gets flooded."
Same goes for the Palestinians -- since they are squatters in the Jewish homeland, they should not be surprised and have no excuse to complain when the Jews who are the owners of the land, kick the Palestinian out.
But in this case, much of Israeli land was actually bought for cash from the Ottoman Empire and not even taken forcefully, as would be the Israeli right in any event. This shows the breakdown of "a Palestinian"'s theory that Zionism somehow requires force and discrimination. Maybe all it takes in a few bucks handed to the greedy Arabs.
But wait... Upon seeing that the Palestinians were gladly selling more land to Jews, even in the past few years, the Palestinian "Ra'is," i.e., Arafat, in a spectacular display of Palestinian human rights and enlightenment, ordered that any Palestinian caught selling land to Jews would be have their throat slashed and his/her body dumped publicly in the middle of the marketplace. This was intended to show what will happen to any Palestinian who refused to discriminate against Jews.
Now, class, I will "allow" the chance for rebuttle before getting to the rest of this thread.
A-Palestinian:
I see some flaws in your "logic" line of thinking:
“any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populousâ€
its the question of the chicken and the egg: The Arab tribes that populated the land of Israel around 1800s have themselves been forceful evictors of previous "native" populous - the Egyptian Mamluk despotism, who, in their turn, evicted the previous “ownerâ€, the Christian Crusade country. who, in their turn, evicted the Arab and Persians. who, in their turn evicted the Byzantines (i.e. Romans). who, in their turn…
How far do you want to go? Human history did not start at 1800. Who is to say who is the original ihabitants and rightfull owner of Israel? The Zionist movement based its claim on the bible.
BTW, At the point of time you chose to start – 1800s - there was no Arab independent rule of the land of Israel (the last such rule ended in 1099 with the first crusade). The ruler of the country at that time was the Ottoman empire (i.e. the Turks.) As was mentioned here before, the Zionist leaders negotiated with the land owner regarding the purchase of land in Israel. The Arab and Bedouin tribes were not part of the equation simply because they did not own the land.
“there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers),â€
to say varying is to put is mildly. At the time of the rise of Zionism and the re-settlement of the land of Israel (second half of the 19th century), the country was very sparsely populated. Except for the urban cities (Jerusalem, Jaffa, Akko, etc.) which accounted for less than 5% of the land mass, the country was all but empty. There were virtually no small villages, almost no agricultural areas. The barren land was “populated†by drifting Bedouin tribes, who made their living raiding the outskirts of the cities and robbing the trade routes. They don’t come much emptier than that. Its almost as if you put up a big “VACANT†sign on the land.
“If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" peopleâ€
Try this: Let "X" = Palestinian. Interesting, huh? Isn’t it the Palestinian people who are now attempting to create a new nation? Based on your conclusion, the PLO organization is immoral because it is based on a nationalisitc ideology. The Palestinians didn’t even “resort†to force, they started with force.
In conclusion, I will state my private belief:
IMHO, Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are equally moral (or immoral) ideologies - they both express the desires of their people for a secure home land.
The difference, I believe, is in the "--m--e--a--n--s-->" part - but that is a different issue.
I will pause for now, and offer any rebuttals....
Last edited by sharonbn; 03-05-2002 at 10:39 AM.
A-Palestinian:
i see what you're saying...
but one cannot deny that the jewish people have a strong connection and at least some claim to this land...
let's pretend person B is married to person A, with a love that echos through the ages. then for a reason beyond their control, person B is thrown out of town... must leave, go away, cannot stay...
but person B vows to return one day, never settles down with anyone, makes it a large part of who they are to declair that one day, when the time is right, when they are able, they will return to person A.
then after a long time person C comes along, and person A and C get togather...
but... after another very long time period, person B comes back... and is able to obtain person A back from person C...
poor person C... they didn't do anything wrong... but history and fate has proven that person that person A and person B belong with eachother.
heh, that's my story. try to figure out who or what person A, B, C are...
peace out.
I will begin by addressing Newsguy:
"Interesting how all this college lecture-style pseudo-intellectual recitation boils down to the same old Arab rhetoric: "Zionism is immoral." "
Newsguy, your statement contains a logical fallacy. The fallacy is in the form: If person A is evil, and person A states that 1+1=2, then 1+1 is not 2, because person A is evil
The name of this fallacy is:
"Falsification by association".
Falsification by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it.
Thus, your statement is flat out wrong, and is thus dismissed.
"On the other hand, the right of the Jewish people to resettle their homeland is not only moral, but an obvious historical turn of events. "
This statement also contains a logical fallacy. It is in the form: "A dime is round because it has no angles. Rebuttal: No, a dime is a triangle."
The name of this fallacy is:
"Circulus in Probando"
Or, "begging the question". In short, your only rebuttal to the conclusion that Zionism is immoral, is a re -statement of the original stance, that it is moral, but no rational reason given why. In short, your statement is an arbitrary assertion, and holds no water, and as such, is dismissed as invalid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I will now address SharonBn:
In attacking statement 2 , you state:
"its the question of the chicken and the egg: The Arab tribes that populated the land of Israel around 1800s have themselves been forceful evictors of previous "native" populous - the Egyptian Mamluk despotism, who, in their turn, evicted the previous “ownerâ€, the Christian Crusade country. who, in their turn, evicted the Arab and Persians. who, in their turn evicted the Byzantines (i.e. Romans). who, in their turn…
"
Under this line of thinking, you are stating, that the eviction of "Y" from a certain area in order to make room for "X" is ok, since other people have always been doing it. But since people have always been doing it, then if "Y" attempts to do it now, that must also be ok. Thus, when a Palestinian blows up a Pizzierra, it is ok, under your flawed logic.
However, since a Palestinian blowing up a Pizzierra is not moral, then your paragraph is also logically inconsistent, and thus wrong. As such, it is dismissed.
In attacking statment 1 , you state:
"At the time of the rise of Zionism and the re-settlement of the land of Israel (second half of the 19th century), the country was very sparsely populated. Except for the urban cities (Jerusalem, Jaffa, Akko, etc.) which accounted for less than 5% of the land mass, the country was all but empty. "
(This is a dispute of fact. As such, it cannot contain any logical fallacies.) First off, there was no "country" to speak of, before the creation of Israel. During Israel's creation, 600,000 Palestinians were misplaced. 150,000 stayed. But let us lower this figure, to be extremely skeptical. 300,000 were misplaced, and 75,000 stayed. This gives us a sum of 375,000 people, who were previously living on this land. Thus under even the most skeptical estimates, a significant portion of people lived there.
(This has no bearing whatsoever on the original argument though).
In attacking statement 3 , you state:
"Try this: Let "X" = Palestinian. Interesting, huh? Isn’t it the Palestinian people who are now attempting to create a new nation? Based on your conclusion, the PLO organization is immoral because it is based on a nationalisitc ideology. "
This is a correct conclusion. The PLO is an immoral organization. (This is why a variable "X" can be used, since there is nothing that can be input, to make the statement moral).
I will pause here again, and I await.
A-Palestinian:
First of all, I must say I find your rhetoric too aggressive for my taste. You are far too quick to declare other statements wrong and dismiss them. Furthermore, I want to say I didn’t attack your statements. I questioned them and tried to point out flaws in the logic.
OK, on with the questioning:
â€you are stating, that the eviction of "Y" from a certain area in order to make room for "X" is ok, since other people have always been doing it.â€
I did not make any such statement. I showed that the history of the land of Israel is characterized by frequent exchange of rulers and inhabitants.
Your statement goes like this: “Area x was occupied by Palestinian people, out of the blue came the Jews with their Zionist ideology and evicted the inhabitants in 1948.â€
I say this is a skewed view of the history of the area. Let me rephrase that: This is a subjective point of view held by the Palestinians.
The Jewish people say (with equal subjectivity): “The Jews are the primal inhabitants of the land of Israel, according to the bible. The Jews were evicted by force (by the Babylonians). Along the course of history, The Arabs invaded the country (they originated in modern day Saudi-Arabia), took it from whoever was sitting there at the time (the Byzantines) and settled in the land. The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. The motif of the Zionist movement is the RETURN of the Jewish people to their home land – the land of Israel.
To make matters clear, I am not saying what’s OK and what’s immoral. I say you have to look at the question of land ownership and eviction in historical context.
“when a Palestinian blows up a Pizzierra, it is ok, under your flawed logic.â€
I feel I have to be blunt on this one (since this statement offended me), Either you made an awful mistake, or you’re trying your best at manipulative propaganda. You so articulately made the distinction between the means and the ends. Where do you think blowing up a pizzeria belongs to?
“First off, there was no "country" to speak of, before the creation of Israel.â€
So the state of Israel was created out of the void. So it didn’t replace anything, did it?
Seriously, to say that is also misleading. Before the creation of Israel, the country was part of the British empire. That does not make it any less country then, say, present Australia (which is to date ruled by the British monarchy).
“During Israel's creation, 600,000 Palestinians were misplaced….â€
Yet again, one historical fact taken out of context.
Two things regarding this fact:
First, you’re right, This has no bearing whatsoever on the original argument. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, they did not evict anyone. By the end of the British mandate, the Jewish population had grown to 600,000, mostly through immigration. The Arab population had grown into 1,300,000, mostly through natural growth. At the point of the declaration of the state of Israel (May 14, 1948) there was room enough for both nations.
Second, the eviction of the Palestinians in 1948 has little to do with the Zionist ideology. The Jewish state did not come to existence out of a violent conflict (like the American state), but rather by world recognition as part of the UN resolution to partition the country into a Jewish and Arab states. This resolution was accepted by the Jewish leadership and rejected by all Arab governments and leaders. The so called "war of independence of Israel" was initiated by the Arab nations of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, together with the Palestinian militia. The Jews were forced to go out and defend their newly born state. The eviction of the Palestinians is a result of this war and NOT the result of an inherited concept in Zionist ideology.
One more point:
Imagine, if you will, that the Arabs had accepted the UN resolution. Separate Jewish and Arab states are formed and live peacefully alongside each other. No forceful eviction had taken place, yet the Zionist ideology has materialized. This scenario, however seems imaginary today, could take place back in 1948. It shows that the materialization of the Zionist ideology does not have to come at the expense of any other people.
To summarize my point of view:
1. The claim who originally populated the country and who evicted who is an issue to subjective interpretation.
2. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, the country was (almost) empty.
3. By the time of the formation of the state of Israel, the two nations had room enough to settle, Eviction was not necessary. It was a result of violent dispute that erupted for reasons not directly related to Zionism.
†The PLO is an immoral organization. (This is why a variable "X" can be used, since there is nothing that can be input, to make the statement moral).â€
We almost agree. I claim that Zionism and the PLO are both moral organizations, since they express a rightful desire for a secure home land for their people. They do not claim that for them to materialize someone has to move out.
Sharonbn,
Before I go on, I will first state, that my laments are not directed towards you personally. They are however, directed towards your stances, in full force. Do not equate your personal self, with your stances.
I will now address the matters at hand.
You have made 5 rebuttals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal 1:
First you say: "The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. "
but then you say: "To make matters clear, I am not saying what’s OK and what’s immoral. "
This is inconsistent. If you are not making a positive claim (a claim that something is alright, or ok), then you cannot state the first sentence. If you are stating the first sentence, then you cannot also state the second. This show inconsistency on your part. Make up your mind, as to which sentence you stick by. Moreover, in rebuttal one, you are obviously trying to mix a justification with history. You cannot do both at once.
Finally, your rebuttal 1 appears to be digressing into tangential irrelevancy. Thus, I will restate what you are trying to refute: You are trying to refute, Statement 2, which states:
Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land. "Accounting" for the natives, means that when a new nation is formed, they are either part of it, in which case they can stay, or they are not part of it, in which case they cant stay.
Since this is a rebuttal of this statement, then point out where this statement goes wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal 2:
"I feel I have to be blunt on this one (since this statement offended me), Either you made an awful mistake, or you’re trying your best at manipulative propaganda. You so articulately made the distinction between the means and the ends. Where do you think blowing up a pizzeria belongs to? "
What I did, was extrapolate your statements, ad absurdum. This means, you take a statement, and show what its logical outcomes would be if follows consistently, to absurdity. The absurdity here, obviously came out with the conclusion that a Palestinian suicide bomber is "ok", since from "his baised perspective", he "owns" the land. IF such is the case, (like you state), then you cannot complain when he blows up a pizziera.
However, since blowing up a pizziera in this context is immoral, then your original premises, of there being "only subjective interpretation" is outright flawed.
Therefore yes, if you accept that there is only "subjective interpretation", then you MUST also accept a Suicide bomber as being "ok". (Since under HIS interpretation, nothing is done wrong). You may not hold this conclusion explicitly, but you do hold it implicitly. (If you accept the fallacy of "subjective interpretation").
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal 3:
"“First off, there was no "country" to speak of, before the creation of Israel.â€
So the state of Israel was created out of the void. So it didn’t replace anything, did it?
Seriously, to say that is also misleading. Before the creation of Israel, the country was part of the British empire. That does not make it any less country then, say, present Australia (which is to date ruled by the British monarchy).
You are making a logical fallacy here. The logical fallacy you commit here is called:
"Affirming the Consequent"
The fallacy is in this form:
If A then B.
Not B,
Therefore not A.
Or,
If there is a Land, then possibly a country.
but there is no country,
Therefore there is no land.
A very clear fallacy. Just because there was no country pre 48, does not mean there was a "void' as you put it. It simply means, that there was no country. Peroid. The land was under rule by a British Mandate, previously, and prior to that, it was under Ottoman rule, as a province. It was not a self-governing country pre-48, in recent times.
Anyways, weather or not it was a country or not pre 48 has NO bearing whatsoever on the discussion, and is thus irrelevant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal 4:
I have divided Rebuttal 4 into three parts:
"“During Israel's creation, 600,000 Palestinians were misplaced….â€
Yet again, one historical fact taken out of context.
Two things regarding this fact:
First, you’re right, This has no bearing whatsoever on the original argument. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, they did not evict anyone. By the end of the British mandate, the Jewish population had grown to 600,000, mostly through immigration. The Arab population had grown into 1,300,000, mostly through natural growth. At the point of the declaration of the state of Israel (May 14, 1948) there was room enough for both nations. "
This contains a logical fallacy. The name is this fallacy is:
Non-Sequitor .
or, The Irrelevant. Your end points of "there was enough room for both of them", and "how populations grew" are irrelevant. As such, this paragraph is dismissed.
"Second, the eviction of the Palestinians in 1948 has little to do with the Zionist ideology. The Jewish state did not come to existence out of a violent conflict (like the American state), but rather by world recognition as part of the UN resolution to partition the country into a Jewish and Arab states. This resolution was accepted by the Jewish leadership and rejected by all Arab governments and leaders. The so called "war of independence of Israel" was initiated by the Arab nations of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, together with the Palestinian militia. The Jews were forced to go out and defend their newly born state. The eviction of the Palestinians is a result of this war and NOT the result of an inherited concept in Zionist ideology . "
For the moment, (and only for the moment), I am not talking about what hapened. I am talking about Zionism, and what its pre-requisites are. Originally, this is intended to attack Statement 3 , of post number two. I will restate this statement.
Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.
Please re-read it Carefully, and fully. It goes into the two (and only two) possible conditions. Re-read, and then re-address.
As such, I await your responce to this part of Rebuttal 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal 5:
"I claim that Zionism and the PLO are both moral organizations, since they express a rightful desire for a secure home land for their people. "
This statement is very wrong. But the error is very subtle, and thus it is easy for it to slip by. The logical fallacy is that you mix up Intentions, with the means such intentions are sought. Thus, under your flawed logic, I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person.
Similarly, if the PLO wishes for "Palestinian Statehood" (intention), and go about achieving this through suicide bombers, (means), then they cannot be moral. The same goes for the Zionists.
Thus, your statement is flawed, and once again, I restate the original conclusion, that Zionism is immoral. (Dont jump in here and say "But I showed you that there was space enough for all of them in 48!". That might be true. But like I said before, that is a Non-Sequitor, because of Statement 3. Address the theory first, before the reality).
Conclusions follow:
Your conclusions state:
1) The claim who originally populated the country and who evicted who is an issue to subjective interpretation.
Extrapolation, ad absurdum, would tell me this: The land of Israel actually belongs to my race of Pink Elephants. Since there are no absolute truths, you cannot say I am wrong. And since you cannot say I am wrong, then I will stampede your citizens repeatedly. Again, you cannot say I am wrong, because that will be only "your interpretation". Thus, I am right to stampede innocent civilians.
Clearly, such a snenario, justifies suicide attacks, which are immoral. In short, this conclusion, is a bloody one. It will justify the attackers attacks, on the grounds that you have ZERO absolute thruths judge him by. This is clearly wrong - a suicide bomber is immoral. Therefore, your statement is false.
2. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, the country was (almost) empty.
Non-Sequitor.
3. By the time of the formation of the state of Israel, the two nations had room enough to settle, Eviction was not necessary. It was a result of violent dispute that erupted for reasons not directly related to Zionism.
Until you have directly addressed Statement 3, you cannot say this. Thus, Non-Sequitor.
You have alot of homework.
A-Palestinian,
You are right in your last sentance. It will take me some time to answer your long post. Since I am a working person, I do this stuff at nights - bit-by-bit.
I will post a reply within 2-3 days.
A-Palestinian,
---------------------------
Rebuttal 1:
First you say: "The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. "
but then you say: "To make matters clear, I am not saying what’s OK and what’s immoral. "
This is inconsistent.
This is really a side issue. I will address this with a short answer: Not true.
I did not present my personal opinion on the matter in the above paragraph. The sentence “The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs.†Refers to the Zionism point of view, not my own.
If you are not making a positive claim...
I am not making ANY personal claim none whatsoever.
I want to make myself crystal clear: I do not say The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. I say that the Jews say that.
and PLEASE don’t say something like:
The Jews say that
You are a Jew
Therefore you say that.
You are trying to refute, Statement 2...
My comments regarding the populous status at the end of the 19th cent. actually are
refuting Statement 1:
Statement 1 : From 1800, and especially since then, there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers), that is, in any part of the world excluding and the Antarctic
According to your point of view the world is like a bitmap – lots of ‘0’s and ‘1’s (well, you actually claim it’s lots of ‘1’s). Something similar to Parmenides’ view of the world: Once a given land is occupied in any varying number – no one can squeeze in without stepping on someone else’s tow.
Well, like the famous singer said: “I don’t subscribe to this point of viewâ€.
I say: The land of the earth is analogous to a jag of water – it has a “constant†maximum capacity and varying degree of fullness.
For Example: The city of Tel Aviv was founded in 1899 by 66 families. The area of the settlement was a vast desolated sand dune located some 8km north of the city of Jaffa. The capacity of this area was around 1 million from the beginning. However, the jag was all but totally empty. Tel Aviv has reached its max capacity somewhere during the 1990’s. (the city’s population has been stagnant for the last 5 years.)
Even today there are parts of the world (other than Antarctica) that are vacant, although their number is declining over time (this is natural, as human population is in constant growth.) The Sahara desert, the Amazon jungle, the Himalayan mountains – there is plenty of space there to settle. You might say that these places are uninhabitable due to the harsh environment. This was exactly how most of the land of Israel was regarded 120 years ago.
Now, your later statements all rely on the first. Since I debunked this statement, all other fall as well:
Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land...
Statement 2 is true only if said piece of land is, say, more than half full.
The land of Israel was, IMO, ~20% full at the end of the 19th cent.
Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars).
Already addressed this issue – there was and still is vacant land on Earth.
If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed.
It is indisputable that on the day of the declaration of the state of Israel in May 1948, 600,000 Jews, who mostly came from outside Israel, found a place to live without needing to remove anybody.
Statements 4,5 rely on previous ones.
---------------------------
Rebuttal 2:
What I did, was extrapolate your statements, ad absurdum. This means, you take a statement, and show what its logical outcomes would be if follows consistently...
WRONG. Your outcome, although reflecting reality is not a logical follow of my
statements (who said reality was logical? ;-)
Palestinian suicide bomber is "ok", since from "his baised perspective", he "owns" the land. IF such is the case, (like you state), then you cannot complain when he blows up a pizziera.
I don’t understand your logic – if a person claims to own a piece of land, then this claim alone (regardless if valid or not, if subjective or objective) entitles the person to blow up a pizziera?!? This is logical?
Let us practice ad absurdum a little: I go abroad on a long trip. I come back to find some drifter has moved in to my apartment. I claim ownership of the place is my claim valid? is it moral? according to you - it depends on what I do next
I can speak with him and try to persuade him to move out - in this case I am a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is moral.
OR
I can take my gun and shoot both his legs. In this case I am not a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is immoral.
Therefore yes, if you accept that there is only "subjective interpretation", then you MUST also accept a Suicide bomber as being "ok". (Since under HIS interpretation, nothing is done wrong). You may not hold this conclusion explicitly, but you do hold it implicitly. (If you accept the fallacy of "subjective interpretation").
This is a textbook case of “the means justify the ends†(I will elaborate on rebuttal 5.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal 3:
The whole of Rebuttal 3 is an answer to my statement
So the state of Israel was created out of the void. So it didn’t replace anything, did it?
However, the next word: “Seriously†shows I wrote this as a side joke.
We can debate on and on about whether or not Israel was a country, a land, a territory, a province... but this is really not relevant so lets drop the issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal 4:
Non-Sequitor .
or, The Irrelevant. Your end points of "there was enough room for both of them", and "how populations grew" are irrelevant.
Why is this irrelevant? You don’t explain.
I think I showed the relevancy earlier on.
Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.
Please re-read it Carefully, and fully. It goes into the two (and only two) possible conditions. Re-read, and then re-address.
Again, your statement lacks a third possible condition – Y can stay while X forms its new nation. I showed how this condition is not only possible, but that is what actually happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal 5:
I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person.
You take “The means justify the ends†and give it a twist: “the means valid the endsâ€. Basically your saying – regardless if the end is moral or not, if the means chosen to pursue this end are immoral – so is the end itself.
What if two or more separate means are used to achieve one goal?
Avigdor Liberman is a Zionist (by his own admission). He is on the extreme right side of the Israeli political map.
Yossi Bailin is also a Zionist (by his own admission). He is on the extreme left side of the Israeli political map.
(I wish I could draw a similar example from The Palestinian politics, but it seems far less diverse than the Israeli one.)
They both want to achieve the same goal (separation of Jews and Palestinians and peace).
Avigdor Liberman believes that Arafat is not a viable partner anymore. In order to achieve the goal the Palestinians have to be first forcefully subdued. Arafat has to be replaced by someone else, and then negotiations can start towards permanent agreement.
Yossi Bailin thinks Arafat is still the only partner available. He believes Israel has to first stop all violent actions against the PA, freeze all Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, and then start negotiations with Arafat towards permanent agreement.
They disagree on the borders but are aiming at the same ultimate goal.
IMO, Yossi Bailin is a moral person while Avigdor Liberman is not (this is truly my private opinion.) So what does this say about Zionism?
When you say:
Similarly, if the PLO wishes for "Palestinian Statehood" (intention), and go about achieving this through suicide bombers, (means), then they cannot be moral. The same goes for the Zionists.
You mean ALL the members of the PLO support suicide bombers? (I hope not…) I can tell you for a fact, half of the Israeli Zionists don’t support violence as a means to achieve Zionism.
As to the rest of the post, I believe I addressed al of the points.
You have a lot of homework...
9795 characters long... wow, I wonder if this is the longest post in the forum.
I will pause for now.
Last edited by sharonbn; 03-07-2002 at 03:27 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks