This Wikipedia article gives a short outline of the historical events around the Zionist movement and the creation of the state of Israel.
en.wikipedia.org
It is somewhat unfortunate that the article is categorized as part of the coverage of Judaism in that it might encourage the viewpoint that Zionism = Judaism or that Judaism implies a pro-Zionist stance. For example there are ultra orthodox Jews who reject the creation of the state of Israel for their own reasons. I do not speak for them, please do your homework if their thoughts interest you, I provide the following link only as an example of one such viewpoint.
nkusa.org
There a discussion in the following link as to whether anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic. I see separation of the two as critical to a clear understanding of what took place with Palestine/Israel. Once again, do your homework and don't let my hasty edits herewith be your only guide.
en.wikipedia.org
Years ago I saw an interview with Dean Rusk ( en.wikipedia.org ) who said he was present at the U.N. during some portion of the events leading up to the recommendation to partition Palestine. He made the point that although the U.S., Britain, and the pro-Zionist movement was well represented by international lawyers and their ilk, there was no one who represented the locals ( Palestinians ) whose land was being partitioned. It was as if they didn't exist.
Viewed in this light, the creation of the state of Israel looks like the takeover/handover of a British colony by/to European settlers, comparable to Rhodesia or South Africa. We know how these two worked out over time as the locals sought to control their land of birth. Whatever one may think of the current governments of these countries, it is very notable that neither one still has minority rule by the descendants of European settlers.
My personal viewpoint is that Zionism can be understood to be a European imperialist land grab without the introduction of a supernatural/superstitious context that necessarily will fail the test of intersubjective verifiability. As they say, follow the money. I do not see the state of Israel grinding the natives under its heel as a condition that will result in peace and stability long term, nor do I see it as something that serves long term American interests.
I thought the post questioning Slider was very much to this point and was about to pose my question on his forum when I found myself banned. Hence, here I am. The inflammatory language ( "Zionist traitor" ) was intentionally so, as it takes an extreme position on the question of what is in American interests. Traitor is a strong word that requires actions and due process to fulfill it, a clear example might be this fellow.
en.wikipedia.org
Of course, the whole business is greatly complicated by the fact that the living are the heirs of the sins of the fathers in this matter. No one of European ancestry born in the state of Israel took anyone's land away, they were just born. The only comment that comes to my mind on this is that there are those who say that two wrongs don't make a right, but three or more do. If so, our work ahead is cut out for us, there is much wrongdoing that remains to be done ;-)
It's a sticky situation that I believe is widely misunderstood due in part to its linkage to some popular supernatural/superstitious beliefs of our time. Once again, follow the money to find the truth. |
