Zionism

[Nakosis]

That claim is actually an official logical fallacy called (I believe) an amplification of uncertainty fallacy. It is the attempt to amplify any uncertainty to a level of dismissal. IF that were logical no court case in history could be decided because absolute certainty does not exist. I am claiming the supernatural is by far the best explanation for prophecy. It may be a necessity but I will not go that far.

If I were to claim "A man in a green shirt killed Mary" and no one could produce evidence that this man in a green shirt every existed, you are probably right. We wouldn't see a conviction based on my testimony. I don't think the uncertainty needs to be amplified were no certainty exists.

Ok if you don't like a scifi explanation like time traveling scientists, we can stick with the supernatural. A "demon" provided man with these prophecies/predictions. This would actually work with Gnostic belief where in the demiurge, a lessor imperfect God, the God of the Bible, provided man with these predictions.

I have a math degree but hate doing it. These types of claims are not mathematical anyway, but let me see here.

X = the total explanations for prophecy.
Y = all reasonable natural explanations for prophecy.

X - all other reasonable explanations reasonable known x 100% = the probability God explains miracles.

(X - 0) x 100% = the probability God explains miracles.

the probability God explains miracles = 100%

I am not sure that is meaningful but the claim that the best explanations for miracles by far is the supernatural is extremely justifiable even if uncertainty exist.

Logic is not really math. While I am certainly no expert I find keeping it to the simpler logical terms helpful to clarifying an truth statement.

This is a tautology and not a premise. It would only be a result. I do not make a claim like this.

Tautologies are a little advanced for me and I think unnecessary in this case.

My claim, there is no reason anyone should be compelled to accept the Bible as having any authority over man.

Your response was that because of the accuracy of the prophecies of the Bible, the only explanation for this accuracy is God, because of this you are implying that everyone should accept it's authority. So Bible + God = Authority or Truth.

I'm saying there could numerous explanations for this accuracy. Many which would not require man to accept the Bible's authority as coming from God.

Your certainty of accuracy (which I realize many would question this claim) does not equal certainty of God.

The certainty that Mary is dead does not equal the certainty that a man in a green shirt killed her. Your testimony of God is a testimony with nothing to collaborate the claim. Yes maybe a court will hear your testimony, but no court would render a decision without independent evidence of God's existence.

This is also not the burden of faith or even a justifiable position if evidence exists. In this context evidence is information that if true makes a proposition more likely by it's inclusion. The burden of evidenced faith is only the absence of a defeater.

If I claim a man in a green shirt killed Mary, provide no independent evidence of the existence of this man but you still choose to believe my claim, isn't that a matter of faith? Or since you have Mary's dead body in front of you, so that necessitate your acceptance of my claim?

I do not acknowledge that conclusion as a premise. It is a tautology. Did you mean it as a proposition equality? If X then Y. I do not get it.

No I did not. If you want o be formal. I said God is the most accepted source or supernatural entity. The probability that the supernatural is the explanation of prophecy would be 100% minus the probability of all natural explanations combined. I made a mistake above. The probability of natural explanations is not zero it is equivalent to zero. In physics the rule of thumb is 1 in 10^50th is considered zero. So 100% minus zero% equals the probability of a supernatural explanation is 100%. However none of this matters. Faith is not based on mathematic certainties. Unless you include justification is probabilities greater than 50% and that is arbitrary. Faith has best fit and most comprehensive burdens in the absence of a defeater.

If you hear a claim often enough and long enough especially people's who authority you accepted from birth made that claim most will accept it without question. Just because a claim is broadly accepted doesn't make it the truth.

You have a Bible and testimony "that is broadly accepted".
If I can produce a dead body and get enough people to accept my claim of a man in a green shirt, we are basically in the same boat.

Or actually in the case of the Bible, I have a story of a man in a green shirt in a book that has been handed down for several generations, for lack of a better fictitious name we will call the author Moses, You never met Moses, I never met Moses we've no personal experience with the character of Moses however Moses in this claims a man in a green shirt killed Mary. The book even says it was predicted Mary would be killed in 3000 BC and later says Mary was killed in 3000BC. You even go and dig up a body and have it dated to 3000BC and say look here, this person was killed in 3000BC. It must be Mary. You'd expect people on this basis to accept the existence of the man in a green shirt?

I'd have to say sorry, it could still be a fictitious story having no more merit then that of a creative mind. I would question the judgement, the analytical thinking of anyone who did.

I would question the authority of any court who convicted the man in a green shirt of the murder of Mary based on this story. I think any reasonable thinking person would question the authority of that decision based on what has been provided.

Yes it is a matter of faith is a story which a person chooses without good reason to accept the existence of the man in a green shirt.

How much more unreasonable to expect acceptance of this story is I now also claim the man is a green shirt was creator of the universe?

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Well, Wiki says: "a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann....."

Zionism as an organized movement is generally considered to have been fathered by Theodor Herzl in 1897; however the history of Zionism began earlier and related to Judaism and Jewish history. The Hovevei Zion, or the Lovers of Zion, were responsible for the creation of 20 new Jewish settlements in Palestine between 1870 and 1897.[1] Before the Holocaust the movement's central aims were the creation of a Jewish National Home and cultural centre in Palestine by facilitating Jewish migration. After the Holocaust, the movement focussed on creation of a "Jewish state" (usually defined as a secular state with a Jewish majority), attaining its goal in 1948 with the creation of Israel.---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism
(Actually it's more like a secular State with a secular majority)


Zionism was inspired by religion...
Inspiration for Zionism
Before Zionism there was a Kingdom of Jewish people where Israel now stands. In it's center stood Mount Zion, Jerusalem, The Temple. In 586 BCE the Babylonians invaded and the Jews were sent into exile for the first time. It is here that Zionism, the longing to return to Zion begins.---Zionism and Israel on the Web - Zionism in Brief

The Origins of the State of Israel?....

Zionism goes hand in hand with the origins of the State of Israel.


A History of Zionism and the Creation of Israel - the Holocaust, the Conflict and the claims of anti-Zionists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Zionism.aspx
It was Modern Zionism formulated by Jewish Europeans (and secular Jews) who were persecuted and discriminated against before and during the holocaust, and the threat of a weakened British rule which led to the re-establishment of the state of Israel.

Though the Jewish aspiration to return to Zion has been a part of Jewish religious thought for several millennia, the modern movement for the creation of a homeland for the Jewish people was largely perceived as a solution to the widespread persecution of Jews due to antisemitism in Europe.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Home

The British Empire was severely weakened by the war. In the Middle East, the war had made Britain conscious of its dependence on Arab oil and it attached more importance to cordial relations with the Arabs than to helping the Jewish people establish a homeland. Shortly after VE Day, the Labour Party won the general election in Britain. Although Labour Party conferences had for years called for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the Labour government now decided to maintain the 1939 White Paper restrictions....
In an effort to win independence, Zionists now waged a bitter guerrilla war against the British. The main underground Jewish militia, the Haganah, formed an alliance called the Jewish Resistance Movement with the Etzel and Stern Gang to fight the British. In June 1946, following instances of Jewish sabotage, the British launched Operation Agatha, arresting 2700 Jews, including the leadership of the Jewish Agency, whose headquarters were raided. Those arrested were held without trial.
The unified Jewish resistance movement broke up in July 1946, after Etzel bombed the British Military Headquarters in the King David Hotel killing 92 people. In the days following the bombing, Tel Aviv was placed under curfew and over 120,000 Jews, nearly 20% of the Jewish population of Palestine, were questioned by the police. In the U.S., Congress criticized British handling of the situation and delayed loans that were vital to British post-war recovery. By 1947 the Labour Government was ready to refer the Palestine problem to the newly created United Nations.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Civil_War

 

[Moishe3rd]

Zionism as an organized movement is generally considered to have been fathered by Theodor Herzl in 1897; however the history of Zionism began earlier and related to Judaism and Jewish history. The Hovevei Zion, or the Lovers of Zion, were responsible for the creation of 20 new Jewish settlements in Palestine between 1870 and 1897.[1] Before the Holocaust the movement's central aims were the creation of a Jewish National Home and cultural centre in Palestine by facilitating Jewish migration. After the Holocaust, the movement focussed on creation of a "Jewish state" (usually defined as a secular state with a Jewish majority), attaining its goal in 1948 with the creation of Israel.---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism
(Actually it's more like a secular State with a secular majority)


Zionism was inspired by religion...
Inspiration for Zionism
Before Zionism there was a Kingdom of Jewish people where Israel now stands. In it's center stood Mount Zion, Jerusalem, The Temple. In 586 BCE the Babylonians invaded and the Jews were sent into exile for the first time. It is here that Zionism, the longing to return to Zion begins.---Zionism and Israel on the Web - Zionism in Brief


Zionism goes hand in hand with the origins of the State of Israel.


A History of Zionism and the Creation of Israel - the Holocaust, the Conflict and the claims of anti-Zionists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Zionism.aspx
It was Modern Zionism formulated by Jewish Europeans (and secular Jews) who were persecuted and discriminated against before and during the holocaust, and the threat of a weakened British rule which led to the re-establishment of the state of Israel.

Though the Jewish aspiration to return to Zion has been a part of Jewish religious thought for several millennia, the modern movement for the creation of a homeland for the Jewish people was largely perceived as a solution to the widespread persecution of Jews due to antisemitism in Europe.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Home

The British Empire was severely weakened by the war. In the Middle East, the war had made Britain conscious of its dependence on Arab oil and it attached more importance to cordial relations with the Arabs than to helping the Jewish people establish a homeland. Shortly after VE Day, the Labour Party won the general election in Britain. Although Labour Party conferences had for years called for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the Labour government now decided to maintain the 1939 White Paper restrictions....
In an effort to win independence, Zionists now waged a bitter guerrilla war against the British. The main underground Jewish militia, the Haganah, formed an alliance called the Jewish Resistance Movement with the Etzel and Stern Gang to fight the British. In June 1946, following instances of Jewish sabotage, the British launched Operation Agatha, arresting 2700 Jews, including the leadership of the Jewish Agency, whose headquarters were raided. Those arrested were held without trial.
The unified Jewish resistance movement broke up in July 1946, after Etzel bombed the British Military Headquarters in the King David Hotel killing 92 people. In the days following the bombing, Tel Aviv was placed under curfew and over 120,000 Jews, nearly 20% of the Jewish population of Palestine, were questioned by the police. In the U.S., Congress criticized British handling of the situation and delayed loans that were vital to British post-war recovery. By 1947 the Labour Government was ready to refer the Palestine problem to the newly created United Nations.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Civil_War

Peachy keen.
And now that you have posted various definitions of Zionism and the origins of Israel even, surprise, surprise, referring "back to B.C. time" on your part, is there some correlation between your particular references and your vicious propaganda hate video?

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Peachy keen.
And now that you have posted various definitions of Zionism and the origins of Israel even, surprise, surprise, referring "back to B.C. time" on your part, is there some correlation between your particular references and your vicious propaganda hate video?

The Jewish culture and nationality was born out of religion. Zionism was inspired by religion. Zionists used (and at times still use) religion and the abrahamic lineage to justify their claim to Palestine. Even the Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu reiterates the claim to Palestine and the Abrahamic lineage in a recent U.N. speech. However, after the "Jewish enlightenment," the westernized cultural assimilation, and the holocaust, many in the diaspora were cut off from their Semitic roots.
The Zionist agenda (was and) is malicious and ruthless. It has nothing to do with religion or with trying to preserve a nationality. It's all about power, prestige, and money. The persecution of Jews led Zionists to want to produce a proud and powerful nation with no regard to the Palestinian Arabs. And still, each time Israel demolishes a Palestinian home to build a new settlement, it can care less about what happens to the Arabs who lived there.

The video (assuming you actually watched it) may look like propaganda to you but to others (like me) the video gives an insight and a visual perspective mass mainstream media doesn't give because mainstream media is the platform established for American and western propaganda. (Ever heard of Edward Bernays)

I am against and don't support or condone Zionism. I'm an anti-Zionist. I guess that makes me an antisemitic too huh ...nowadays, it seems as though they're one in the same.

 

[Levite]

The Zionist agenda (was and) is malicious and ruthless. It has nothing to do with religion or with trying to preserve a nationality. It's all about power, prestige, and money.

I guess that makes me an antisemitic too huh....

Yup. Pretty much.

 

[Flankerl]

The term antisemite gets thrown around far too often. Most of the time people are just morons.

 

[Moishe3rd]

The Jewish culture and nationality was born out of religion. Zionism was inspired by religion. Zionists used (and at times still use) religion and the abrahamic lineage to justify their claim to Palestine. Even the Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu reiterates the claim to Palestine and the Abrahamic lineage in a recent U.N. speech. However, after the "Jewish enlightenment," the westernized cultural assimilation, and the holocaust, many in the diaspora were cut off from their Semitic roots.
The Zionist agenda (was and) is malicious and ruthless. It has nothing to do with religion or with trying to preserve a nationality. It's all about power, prestige, and money. The persecution of Jews led Zionists to want to produce a proud and powerful nation with no regard to the Palestinian Arabs. And still, each time Israel demolishes a Palestinian home to build a new settlement, it can care less about what happens to the Arabs who lived there.

The video (assuming you actually watched it) may look like propaganda to you but to others (like me) the video gives an insight and a visual perspective mass mainstream media doesn't give because mainstream media is the platform established for American and western propaganda. (Ever heard of Edward Bernays)

I am against and don't support or condone Zionism. I'm an anti-Zionist. I guess that makes me an antisemitic too huh ...nowadays, it seems as though they're one in the same.

Sure. In your case they are and you are.
I write that not to denigrate you but to enlighten you.
You are a bit confused.

You rather pointedly asked me to define Zionism without referring "back to B.C. time."
I did so. However, in your zeal for your own self definition, you must add religion, specifically Judaism and Jews, to your definition of Zionism.
That's fine. People define themselves in all sorts of interesting ways.

However, you apparently are totally nescient as to both the contradiction of your desires and the bind in which your beliefs place you.

You want to believe that Zionists are some enigmatic secret entity that has little or nothing to do with Jews; Judaism; or even Israel yet, your explanations state plainly that you believe that Zionism has everything to do with Jews; Judaism; and Israel.
Which is also fine.

Yet, you take umbrage at the idea that you might be considered anti-Jewish; anti-Semitic as it were, while at the same time claiming proud endorsement of a video that is anti-Semitic; anti-Israel; anti-Zionist; and anti-human to the extreme.

You are a conflicted person.
I am not sure that there is any way I can help you with that.

 

[1robin]

You are entirely mistaken, and I'd appreciate it if you refrain from calling me dishonest.

I didn't.

I'll say it again: I often find your prose so ungrammatical as to be senseless to me. In other words, I can't understand whatever you are trying to communicate. I do not know exactly what you said or even have a vague idea of what you said. I need actual grammaticality -- as do all humans -- in order to confidently follow language meaning.

No person in over 40 years of living has ever made a similar general complaint concerning me. I often ruin spelling and capitalization but every one seems to know exactly what I said.

You don't even seem to understand your own prose. You have admitted that to me. When I've complained in the past, you've said that upon re-reading your own messages, you can't make out what you were trying to say.

The problem is not prose, it is a point of view problem. I will show this below.

Here's one of your latest:

Since the very assurance of your pronouncements is enough to create reality,....

Trust me: That's not clear communication.

That is very clear if you remember that I have constantly complained that you have asserted things into reality (or attempted to). By this time it has become so rampant that I have begun making jokes based on it.

That statement suggests that since you seem to think you have the ability to form reality by speaking it into existence then ............ Pretty easy and straightforward, unless you have forgotten the dozens of objections I have made to your simply stating that things are a certain way without even the attempt to justify them. I really do not see how much clearer it could have been.

Why not take a little extra time and try to organize your thoughts?

You run a military F-15 electronics lab and see how much time you have to post. I make due with what I have. I also spend far more time on posts responding to challenging arguments rather than ones made for personal entertainment purposes. I do not take your posts seriously and I do not even think you take most of them as such. I think your killing time by provocation and declaration. I cannot justify getting technical in that case.

 

[1robin]

Dizzying, ain't it? I know a guy who is permanently disabled. But only until further notice.

I knew very well the dichotomy those two terms represent. I thought about it a few seconds and left them as is for two reasons. It is a very common use of language, the issue is what matters to anyone who debates seriously. I decided that surely no one would bother with what is in common use (whether the semantic police would object or not). As usual your side let me down.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I knew very well the dichotomy those two terms represent. I thought about it a few seconds and left them as is for two reasons. It is a very common use of language, the issue is what matters to anyone who debates seriously. I decided that surely no one would bother with what is in common use (whether the semantic police would object or not). As usual your side let me down.

"My side" again. Goodness. The whole world is against you, isn't it.

By the way, it is by no means a common use of language to claim that you will do something permanently until further notice. If it were common, we wouldn't have noticed or commented.

 

[1robin]

If I were to claim "A man in a green shirt killed Mary" and no one could produce evidence that this man in a green shirt every existed, you are probably right. We wouldn't see a conviction based on my testimony. I don't think the uncertainty needs to be amplified were no certainty exists.

This has little to do with what your drawing an analogy of. Jesus was seen by thousands. We have at least 5 (actually more biblical sources, plus many others outside the Bible) that record his doing all types of supernatural things. There exist hundreds of millions of people who would testify to the same (some would only be of a supernatural force, not Christ is person, but there are still many of the latter. Plus accounting for the early explosion of Christianity is impossible without a foundation in a literal Jesus that did extraordinary things witnessed by thousands. This probably why (against what I would expect) scholarship is trending towards more certainty concerning Christ and his acts, including some miraculous ones. I am not missing witnesses, testimony, or evidence. What I am missing is absolute proof. The thing I am missing is missing from countless claims but only amplified beyond reason concerning God. There is more textual evidence for Christ than any figure in ancient history and of far better quality.

Ok if you don't like a scifi explanation like time traveling scientists, we can stick with the supernatural. A "demon" provided man with these prophecies/predictions. This would actually work with Gnostic belief where in the demiurge, a lessor imperfect God, the God of the Bible, provided man with these predictions.

1. That would leave us in no position to deny the supernatural if true. Demons are not natural.
2. The overwhelming source on demons is the Bible. It as I have gives Demons the ability to predict but never to be 100% accurate.
3. Demons are unlikely to have revealed truth to prophets of God who actually recorded the prophecies. They are not likely to give God their credit. They are not likely to further God's cause by helping his prophetic efforts.
4. The prophets who wrote them are the world's greatest experts on their sources. They all give credit to God.

So you must amplify uncertainty to get rid of God and minimize it to introduce demons giving Godly prophecy and truth. That is unjustifiable in the extreme.

Logic is not really math. While I am certainly no expert I find keeping it to the simpler logical terms helpful to clarifying an truth statement.

I was not supply logical law. I was supplying math that can and is used constantly to evaluate history. There is even an entire section of math called historical probabilistic calculus. I however never volunteer it because math is not proof of history. I only added a little math in response to incorrect math supplied to me.

Tautologies are a little advanced for me and I think unnecessary in this case.

Tautologies are similar to circular reasoning. Your example was a perfectly unjustifiable example.

My claim, there is no reason anyone should be compelled to accept the Bible as having any authority over man.

Professional philosophers use every rule they have to say exactly the opposite. Lawyers eminent standing say the same thing. There exists no proof but there is an embarrassment of evidence that justifies faith. That is why so many of histories greatest scholars on evidence, science, testimony, etc..... have been men of faith.

Your response was that because of the accuracy of the prophecies of the Bible, the only explanation for this accuracy is God, because of this you are implying that everyone should accept it's authority. So Bible + God = Authority or Truth.

No, I am supplying that one example among thousands that added together are far more than enough justification for faith. Prophecy alone is not that convincing. It was not even a discussion about faith. It was a discussion about someone claiming God has not ever spoken to man.

I'm saying there could numerous explanations for this accuracy. Many which would not require man to accept the Bible's authority as coming from God.

There are not any that are even in the same ballpark as far as comprehensiveness, scope, or consistency. All of them require more faith to believe that to believe God provided them. This goes for many things. Some natural explanations have 1 chance in trillions of billions as calculated by secular scientists. I do not have that much faith.

Your certainty of accuracy (which I realize many would question this claim) does not equal certainty of God.

Certainty of accuracy of what? Faith is a cumulative position. If I have thousands of things for which God is the best and at times the only explanation known or even conceivable, non-faith becomes preference not reason.

The certainty that Mary is dead does not equal the certainty that a man in a green shirt killed her. Your testimony of God is a testimony with nothing to collaborate the claim. Yes maybe a court will hear your testimony, but no court would render a decision without independent evidence of God's existence.

I made no such claim, argument, or analogy. I have more things to collaborate my claims about God than you would ever be able to evaluate. I have am embarrassment of evidence but a lack of proof. Pretty much the same as most things people believe (including science). IN fact to be technical, the only thing proven (as Descartes said) is that we think. Everything else incorporates faith.

If I claim a man in a green shirt killed Mary, provide no independent evidence of the existence of this man but you still choose to believe my claim, isn't that a matter of faith? Or since you have Mary's dead body in front of you, so that necessitate your acceptance of my claim?

I am going to have to ignore this analogy as it does not represent anything I claimed.

If you hear a claim often enough and long enough especially people's who authority you accepted from birth made that claim most will accept it without question. Just because a claim is broadly accepted doesn't make it the truth.

I did not say numbers prove anything.

You have a Bible and testimony "that is broadly accepted".
If I can produce a dead body and get enough people to accept my claim of a man in a green shirt, we are basically in the same boat.

I have no idea why you said this?

Or actually in the case of the Bible, I have a story of a man in a green shirt in a book that has been handed down for several generations, for lack of a better fictitious name we will call the author Moses, You never met Moses, I never met Moses we've no personal experience with the character of Moses however Moses in this claims a man in a green shirt killed Mary. The book even says it was predicted Mary would be killed in 3000 BC and later says Mary was killed in 3000BC. You even go and dig up a body and have it dated to 3000BC and say look here, this person was killed in 3000BC. It must be Mary. You'd expect people on this basis to accept the existence of the man in a green shirt?

You never met Newton either, is he dismissible?

The textual evidence for Christ exceeds Caesar, Aristotle, and Plato combined. Do you dismiss everything attributed to them? BTW no Christian's faith is dependent on Moses. The entire OT is simply context and background. Our faith comes from the much later and far better attested Gospels.

I'd have to say sorry, it could still be a fictitious story having no more merit then that of a creative mind. I would question the judgement, the analytical thinking of anyone who did.

So the only thing you would accept are things that can't possibly be wrong. By that standard just what is it you actually know? Faith is actually justified completely with the lack of a defeater. I give myself a higher bar but do not have the burden. I claim faith is the best explanation of the evidence. Nothing is ever beyond possibly being wrong. I have consistent standards across the board. You have one for everything else, and one for faith.

I would question the authority of any court who convicted the man in a green shirt of the murder of Mary based on this story. I think any reasonable thinking person would question the authority of that decision based on what has been provided.

Again this is not relevant.

Yes it is a matter of faith is a story which a person chooses without good reason to accept the existence of the man in a green shirt.

Christian faith is founded on the greatest reasons that could reasonably be expected.

How much more unreasonable to expect acceptance of this story is I now also claim the man is a green shirt was creator of the universe?

This green shirt stuff was of no help. Equating vastly unequal things serves no purpose.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Sure. In your case they are and you are.
I write that not to denigrate you but to enlighten you.
You are a bit confused.

You rather pointedly asked me to define Zionism without referring "back to B.C. time."
I did so. However, in your zeal for your own self definition, you must add religion, specifically Judaism and Jews, to your definition of Zionism.
That's fine. People define themselves in all sorts of interesting ways.

However, you apparently are totally nescient as to both the contradiction of your desires and the bind in which your beliefs place you.

I'm starting to believe you aren't paying much attention and that maybe personal emotions are blurring your judgment so I'm gonna attempt to clear some things up...
1)THIS is what I said....

how the state of Israel came to be (and please don't refer back to B.C. time)

When I asked not to refer to B.C. time, It was in reference to your answer of how the State of Israel came to be. I said this because many times, Zionists try to justify their claim to Israel, by referring back to Biblical times and prophetic beliefs which there's nothing wrong with if their justifications were genuine but the Zionist movement we have today are not bound by religious beliefs. The Zionist we have today are secular and are bound by a totally different agenda

(Secular- 1. Worldly rather than spiritual. 2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Zionism.aspx
The idea that the Jewish position in the Gentile world presented a problem to be rationally solved, one of the basic Zionist principles, first became current in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. A Jewish movement to achieve this solution, beginning in western Europe in the late eighteenth century, produced campaigns for enlightenment and general humane culture among Jews; for their civic emancipation; and eventually for religious reform, discarding many traditional practices and beliefs...
In spite of ideological opposition, the Hovevei-Zion were compelled to cooperate with Western Jews. Since the 1840s the emancipated and enlightened Western Jewish community—including many who no longer believed in redemption in Zion —had introduced rational objectives and methods into the traditional support extended by the Diaspora to pious Jews in Palestine. At first, outstanding individuals like the British Sir Moses Montefiore, 1784-1885, and, since 1860, a major French-led organization, the Alliance Israèlite Universelle, had sought to obtain political and legal security for the Jewish settlement, to provide vocational training and secular culture, and to place Jews on farm-holdings, instead of maintaining a community in Palestine almost exclusively devoted to prayer, study, and penance (Sokolow 1919, vol. 1, pp. 115-120, 176-183).Dr. Pinsker, like Theodor Herzl after him, found it natural to appeal to such Jewish benefactors for support in their projected work in Palestine, even though it was conceived in a different spirit. The Hovevei-Zion, based on a poor membership and not permitted to work freely under Russian law, were rebuffed in their attempt to obtain political concessions from the Sublime Porte for colonization and checked in their spontaneous immigration to Palestine by legal and administrative obstacles swiftly set up against European Jews by the Turks. They were driven back on slow, more or less surreptitious methods of colonization and had to rely for political and financial support on Western philanthropists, notably Baron Edmond de Rothschild, 1845-1934. The consequence was the emergence of a faction in the movement, led by the writer Ahad Ha’am, 1856-1927, which severely criticized Rothschild paternalism and, above all, the settlers’ dependency in all those spheres—economic, cultural, communal— where the Zionist ideal had hoped to build a nucleus of national independence in Palestine.

You want to believe that Zionists are some enigmatic secret entity that has little or nothing to do with Jews; Judaism; or even Israel yet, your explanations state plainly that you believe that Zionism has everything to do with Jews; Judaism; and Israel.Which is also fine.

I believe sometime VERY early on- At its inception, Zionism WAS inspired by religion. But then the inspiration changed into a whole other thing.
Why do you think even many Jews, are opposed to Zionism. There are plenty of videos on youtube or liveleak if you care to see for yourself.

Yet, you take umbrage at the idea that you might be considered anti-Jewish; anti-Semitic as it were, while at the same time claiming proud endorsement of a video that is anti-Semitic; anti-Israel; anti-Zionist; and anti-human to the extreme.

You are a conflicted person.
I am not sure that there is any way I can help you with that.

One again Anti-Zionist does not = Anti-Semite or Anti-Israel. If you don't like the video, that's fine but don't say you don't like the video without actually watching it. It's like judging a book by its cover. I've watched plenty of shows and videos that speak negatively of Christianity or portray Christianity in a negative light; do I label them Anti-Christian or do I not watch them...? no, because while I may not like some things, I learn from and agree with other things. And once again, No Thank You; I don't need your help...my mind and my eyes are very clear and VERY open. With that said... 2 U....I'm done.

 

[1robin]

I'm starting to believe you aren't paying much attention and that maybe personal emotions are blurring your judgment so I'm gonna attempt to clear some things up...
1)THIS is what I said....
When I asked not to refer to B.C. time, It was in reference to your answer of how the State of Israel came to be. I said this because many times, Zionists try to justify their claim to Israel, by referring back to Biblical times and prophetic beliefs which there's nothing wrong with if their justifications were genuine but the Zionist movement we have today are not bound by religious beliefs. The Zionist we have today are secular and are bound by a totally different agenda

(Secular- 1. Worldly rather than spiritual. 2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Zionism.aspx
The idea that the Jewish position in the Gentile world presented a problem to be rationally solved, one of the basic Zionist principles, first became current in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. A Jewish movement to achieve this solution, beginning in western Europe in the late eighteenth century, produced campaigns for enlightenment and general humane culture among Jews; for their civic emancipation; and eventually for religious reform, discarding many traditional practices and beliefs...
In spite of ideological opposition, the Hovevei-Zion were compelled to cooperate with Western Jews. Since the 1840s the emancipated and enlightened Western Jewish community—including many who no longer believed in redemption in Zion —had introduced rational objectives and methods into the traditional support extended by the Diaspora to pious Jews in Palestine. At first, outstanding individuals like the British Sir Moses Montefiore, 1784-1885, and, since 1860, a major French-led organization, the Alliance Israèlite Universelle, had sought to obtain political and legal security for the Jewish settlement, to provide vocational training and secular culture, and to place Jews on farm-holdings, instead of maintaining a community in Palestine almost exclusively devoted to prayer, study, and penance (Sokolow 1919, vol. 1, pp. 115-120, 176-183).Dr. Pinsker, like Theodor Herzl after him, found it natural to appeal to such Jewish benefactors for support in their projected work in Palestine, even though it was conceived in a different spirit. The Hovevei-Zion, based on a poor membership and not permitted to work freely under Russian law, were rebuffed in their attempt to obtain political concessions from the Sublime Porte for colonization and checked in their spontaneous immigration to Palestine by legal and administrative obstacles swiftly set up against European Jews by the Turks. They were driven back on slow, more or less surreptitious methods of colonization and had to rely for political and financial support on Western philanthropists, notably Baron Edmond de Rothschild, 1845-1934. The consequence was the emergence of a faction in the movement, led by the writer Ahad Ha’am, 1856-1927, which severely criticized Rothschild paternalism and, above all, the settlers’ dependency in all those spheres—economic, cultural, communal— where the Zionist ideal had hoped to build a nucleus of national independence in Palestine.

I believe sometime VERY early on- At its inception, Zionism WAS inspired by religion. But then the inspiration changed into a whole other thing.
Why do you think even many Jews, are opposed to Zionism. There are plenty of videos on youtube or liveleak if you care to see for yourself.

One again Anti-Zionist does not = Anti-Semite or Anti-Israel. If you don't like the video, that's fine but don't say you don't like the video without actually watching it. It's like judging a book by its cover. I've watched plenty of shows and videos that speak negatively of Christianity or portray Christianity in a negative light; do I label them Anti-Christian or do I not watch them...? no, because while I may not like some things, I learn from and agree with other things. And once again, No Thank You; I don't need your help...my mind and my eyes are very clear and VERY open. With that said... 2 U....I'm done.

One comment. Among one of the many claims Israel has to their ancestral land is continual occupation. This is not the strongest claim but is among how claims to land are evaluated and these claims do go back to BC time frames.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

One comment. Among one of the many claims Israel has to their ancestral land is continual occupation. This is not the strongest claim but is among how claims to land are evaluated and these claims do go back to BC time frames.

The current state of Israel (its land) has been continually occupied by all kinds of people back to BC times. Why do you think 'Israel' (whoever that is) has a special claim to it?

 

[1robin]

The current state of Israel (its land) has been continually occupied by all kinds of people back to BC times. Why do you think 'Israel' (whoever that is) has a special claim to it?

I think they have by far the greatest claim to it in every category by which claims to land are resolved, in history. I have spent much time listing them one by one and examining them in detail in this thread. I am not doing so again. No other culture can claim a 3000 plus continual existence in significant numbers going back to a sovereign nation they ever owned in that land. No equal claim exists in any category to Israel's.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think they have by far the greatest claim to it in every category by which claims to land are resolved, in history. I have spent much time listing them one by one and examining them in detail in this thread. I am not doing so again. No other culture can claim a 3000 plus continual existence in significant numbers going back to a sovereign nation they ever owned in that land. No equal claim exists in any category to Israel's.

Since you can't seem to define what you mean by 'they' or 'Israel', I really can't make sense of your claims here.

Nor can I understand 'a sovereign nation they ever owned in that land.'

 

[Moishe3rd]

The current state of Israel (its land) has been continually occupied by all kinds of people back to BC times. Why do you think 'Israel' (whoever that is) has a special claim to it?

That would be the religious side of this issue.

To be clear - the modern secular Jewish State of Israel has the same claim over their land as does every other country on planet Earth. Every country claims their particular land mass by right of conquest and governance. Israel is no different from any other country in this regard.

However, as far as the Children of Israel; the Jews, having a special claim to the Land of Israel - they are indeed unique.
There is no other people, culture, or religion that is centered on the Land of Israel and specifically Jerusalem.
There is no other people, culture or religion that, beginning around 3,000 years ago, continually occupied; lived; and built in the Land of Israel as an essential part of their culture and religion.
And, there is no other people, culture, or religion, that has been centered on the Land of Israel and Jerusalem for approximately the last 2,000 years.
Jews, all over the entire world, have been praying for a return to the land of Israel and Jerusalem and the rebuilding of G-d's Holy Temple in Jerusalem, at least three times a day; every day; 24/7, for about the last 2,000 years.

Israel has a special claim to the Land of Israel because it has been so stated for 3,000 years.
We have stated our special claim to the Land of Israel every single day for over 3,000 years.
No one else on Earth can make any similar claim about anything.
It is definitely a "special claim."

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Israel has a special claim to the Land of Israel because it has been so stated for 3,000 years.
We have stated our special claim to the Land of Israel every single day for over 3,000 years.
No one else on Earth can make any similar claim about anything.
It is definitely a "special claim."

I dunno. I'm guessing that the Navajos have stated their special claim to their land for maybe 5,000 years. Maybe 10,000 years, if you are willing to call them 'Navajos' so far back. Lots of people have made longer claims to their land than 3,000 years, haven't they?

 

[Levite]

I dunno. I'm guessing that the Navajos have stated their special claim to their land for maybe 5,000 years. Maybe 10,000 years, if you are willing to call them 'Navajos' so far back. Lots of people have made longer claims to their land than 3,000 years, haven't they?

And, if I recall correctly, many if not most people now feel that the infringement of white Americans into the homeland of the Navajos was unjust, in no small part because of that claim.

But it's funny how what can be clearly called unjust when it happens to Navajos or other peoples somehow becomes unproblematic and reasonable when it happens to Jews, who then take power to rectify the situation.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I dunno. I'm guessing that the Navajos have stated their special claim to their land for maybe 5,000 years. Maybe 10,000 years, if you are willing to call them 'Navajos' so far back. Lots of people have made longer claims to their land than 3,000 years, haven't they?

Nope. Nobody.

Any "special claim" to the Navajo Nation was established approximately 130 years ago.
The Navajo name was established by the Spanish in the 1600's. Before that, they were also called the Diné.
And, it is estimated that their ancestors, called the Athabaskan, migrated to that general area of the Southwest from what is now Western Canada and Eastern Alaska about 1,400 years ago.