Zionism

holyland red

"Holier-than-thou fundamentalist"
Joined
Oct 19, 2001
Messages
19,098
Location
Haifa, Israel
The term Zionism is used by so many anti-Israeli and antisemite enthusiasts as the root of all that is evil. Some of the latter will even claim in their defense that they are only anti-zionist. The UN general assembly even came out with the miserable Zionism=racism resolution in 1975 (which was later scrapped, but still scars UN-Israeli relations).
Zionism, as the right of the Jewish people to have their homeland in (part of) their historic homeland, is not more than a very basic right of any people. I thought that both Arab/Muslim , and pro-Arab/Palestinian posters could perhaps get a deeper insight into what could have been if it wasn't for the rise of Arab Nationalism in the 1920's. It appears that Zionism was not seen as what people have been trying to portray it to be over the last half century. I have posted the following agreement between Arab and Zionist leaders before, and only the return of 2Bullish (who obviously had a rough day yesterday, as he is usually a fine person) reminded me of this documant again, and its potential in enlightening the few ignorants in our otherwise respectable Caf.
 
Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann

3 January, 1919

Introduction

Following the First World War, Emir Feisal, son of Sherif Hussein (Husayn) of Mecca, and the leader of the Arab movement, met in Aqaba with Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the head of the Zionist Commission to Palestine. Later, at the Paris Peace Conference, the two negotiated and signed the following agreement, which spoke of full cooperation in the development of the independent Arab state in present-day Syria and Iraq (as promised by the British to Feisal) and the Jewish home in Palestine (from the Balfour Declaration), and encouraging "the immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale".

The agreement was not carried out, mostly due to the change in Allied policy regarding the Arab State which Feisal had planned to establish.

Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann
3 January, 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following:


Articles:

Article I
The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

Article II
Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

Article III
In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine, all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.

Article IV
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

Article V
No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Article VI
The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

Article VII
The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

Article VIII
The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

Article IX
Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties hall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen
Chaim Weizmann Feisal Ibn-Hussein


Reservation by the Emir Feisal
If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of 4 January, addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement.
 
Before getting into details, I suggest a closer look at the parties involved (Introduction, Articles I and II)- The Arab State and Palestine...hmmm...perhaps there wasn't anything like a "Palestinian people" at the time? Palestine is clearly refered to as the Jewish party in the agreement.

Article II- That's a reference to Balfour's declaration, promising the Jews a homeland in Palestine. Faisal took that a step forward and called for a Jewish state, with this article dealing with border and exchange of ambassadors).

Article IV- All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale...There goes the myth regarding invading the land, would you believe it? Moreover, the last part of the article highlights the ability of the Arabs to recognise the huge potential of Zionist immigration, which they could benefit from themselves.

Article VII- Strengthens the fact that the Arabs understood the enourmous potential of Zionist immigration to the region.

------

I recall 2Bullish responding to this document by saying that the Brits didn't keep their word to the Arabs. Well, that's fair enough considering the reservation at the bottom of the document but:
1. It hardly justifies the murderous anti-Jewish campaign of the 1920's.
2. After being recognised as beneficial to all the inhabitants of the region, Zionism can hardly become evil just because the Brits were a bunch of lying bastards.
3. Despite 2, the Arabs have today much more than they have ever been promised. So even if 2 explained why they retreated from the agreement, why can't it provide the foundations for a future settlement between the ZIONISTS (i.e. Israel) and the Arabs?
 
spinoza said:
All well and good, but some people take Zionism to mean that the homeland excludes the possibility of it being someone else's homeland as well...

Does it?
Click to expand...

read carefully, Spin...
 
holyland red said:
The term Zionism is used by so many anti-Israeli and antisemite enthusiasts as the root of all that is evil. Some of the latter will even claim in their defense that they are only anti-zionist. The UN general assembly even came out with the miserable Zionism=racism resolution in 1975 (which was later scrapped, but still scars UN-Israeli relations).
Zionism, as the right of the Jewish people to have their homeland in (part of) their historic homeland, is not more than a very basic right of any people. I thought that both Arab/Muslim , and pro-Arab/Palestinian posters could perhaps get a deeper insight into what could have been if it wasn't for the rise of Arab Nationalism in the 1920's. It appears that Zionism was not seen as what people have been trying to portray it to be over the last half century. I have posted the following agreement between Arab and Zionist leaders before, and only the return of 2Bullish (who obviously had a rough day yesterday, as he is usually a fine person) reminded me of this documant again, and its potential in enlightening the few ignorants in our otherwise respectable Caf.
Click to expand...

An interesting idea(l), but couldn't the same argument be applied to the Palestinian's right to a homeland in their historic homeland?
Nationalism has always been a problematic concept, since it always seems to involve those who are not defined as part of the national group being persecuted, and forced to move out. (the Balkans are a prime example).
And could not the "historic homeland" idea be applied to the various tribes of north and south American Indians, and indeed to the Celtic peoples across most of western Europe?
Finally, I'm a bit disturbed by a nation being defined as a religious concept. Or is it a Jewish culture we are talking about? And if so, what is the difference?
 
I'm saying that at one stage the Arab's recognised the right of the Jewish people to have a state in Palestine. It said nothing about the right of the Palestinians to a land of their own, because there was no people, other than the Jews, that were refered to as Palestinians at the time.

The boundaries to be were those between Palestine (the land of the Jews) AND the Arab state.

This thread is not about claiming mandatory Palestine to the Jews or even the land west of the river. I have no interest in discussing the future recognised borders of the state of Israel, because for some (2Bullish included) Zionism should cease to exist so obviously the questions of borders is irrelevant.
The way the term Zionism is treated by some hate-mongers here is ignorant at best. I have no intention to convert Dumpstar, redsultan or 2Bullish into enthusiastic Zionists but simply provide some information to those less involved, and naturally less familiar with the history of the conflict.
 
andy27457 said:
An interesting idea(l), but couldn't the same argument be applied to the Palestinian's right to a homeland in their historic homeland?
Nationalism has always been a problematic concept, since it always seems to involve those who are not defined as part of the national group being persecuted, and forced to move out. (the Balkans are a prime example).
And could not the "historic homeland" idea be applied to the various tribes of north and south American Indians, and indeed to the Celtic peoples across most of western Europe?
Finally, I'm a bit disturbed by a nation being defined as a religious concept. Or is it a Jewish culture we are talking about? And if so, what is the difference?
Click to expand...

I brought up this 1919 agreement in response to constant anti-Zionist abuse on this board. It says nothing about my idea of a future Israeli-Palestinian solution. The demographic situation necessitates a two-state solution, despite all the above (and within the Palestine that was supposed to be a Jewish homeland).

About you last comment, don't get me started...That is something that will never be sorted, and make us unique in a way (I guess). I am the most secular Jewish person you are likely to meet, and still believe we have a right for a Jewish state. I see the Jews as a nation and not just a religion, a notion the Arabs obviously dismiss. In a way this was decided for us, because centuries of persecution preserved our common history as a people despite most Jews abandonig religious practice throughout the years. Ironically, the Zionists were secular socialists who thught that they should take their people's fate in their own hands rather than wait for devine intervention.
 
Rather than me post articles on the opposition to Zionism from the Muslim perspective, which might seem biased to our caf readers I will start by posting what people of Isreal/Jews has to say regards Zionism / history of Zionism/ creation of Isreal......etc....I wonder what you think Holyland.
 
redsultan said:
Rather than me post articles on the opposition to Zionism from the Muslim perspective, which might seem biased to our caf readers I will start by posting what people of Isreal/Jews has to say regards Zionism / history of Zionism/ creation of Isreal......etc....I wonder what you think Holyland.
Click to expand...

why do you resort to attacks, be them by extremist Jews, when I provide you evidence for recognition by Arab leaders themselves for the Jews' right for their homeland in mandatory Palestine? Why are the Palestinians not even mentioned in the document? Why do you insist to ignre the document- what is so "Zionist" in it that you fail to discuss it?
 
Hannah Arendt explained, "The Zionist Organization had developed a genius for not answering, or answering ambiguously, all questions of political consequence. Everyone was free to interpret Zionism as he pleased . . . ."
 
holyland red said:
why do you resort to attacks, be them by extremist Jews, when I provide you evidence for recognition by Arab leaders themselves for the Jews' right for their homeland in mandatory Palestine? Why are the Palestinians not even mentioned in the document? Why do you insist to ignre the document- what is so "Zionist" in it that you fail to discuss it?
Click to expand...

Is that pre-emtive thinking on your part Holyland, I have not even started yet, where are the attacks ?
 
redsultan said:
Is that pre-emtive thinking on your part Holyland, I have not even started yet, where are the attacks ?
Click to expand...

citing jewsagainstzionism is like doing the same with arabsforisrael.com. It provides views of people who for one reason or another do not represent the majority in their respective ethnic group. Rather than cut-and-paste wars, I'd want you, among other "anti-Zionists", to contemplate the thought that perhaps Zionism is not what you have been brought up to believe it was (as acknowledged by Arab leaders in the past!).
Rather than spend time googling, you can perhaps try to come to terms with what could have been an historic agreement if the Arabs had not walked out on it. As a muslim, thinking how many lives could have been saved on either side must make you realise that the good far otweights the bad.
 
Israel Zangwill, one of Herzl's earliest and strongest supporters, eventually turned against the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. Ironically it was Zangwill who coined the phrase "a land without a people for a people without a land." It was this phrase that became the potent rallying call for Zionist settlement in Palestine.14

It was not until 1904 that Zangwill realized that there was a fundamental problem with the Zionist program. In a speech given in New York in that year he explained:


There is. . . a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan.. . . This is an infinitely graver difficulty than the stock anti-Zionist taunt that nobody would go to Palestine if we got it. .

This answers your question regards Palestine being a barren land being void of inhabitants.

Please note all my posts will be from non muslim or Palestinian sources.
 
holyland red said:
I'm not going to argue about that, but believe me I'm doing my best
;)
Click to expand...
No need to be apologetic about being religious - it's good for the soul!;)

From a not very religious Christian.:annoyed: ( or to the more fastidious Christians, a Roman Catholic, to be precise.:nervous: )
 
holyland red said:
Rather than spend time googling, you can perhaps try to come to terms with what could have been an historic agreement if the Arabs had not walked out on it.
Click to expand...

I will quote your hero as regards Arabs walking out.......

David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister):" If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-.

Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."

I for one is not against you guys having a state to live in peace and harmony.
 
DBG shows in this quote a great ability to understand the other side in the conflict, while the Arabs have failed to do that for the best part of a century. Goldman was also entitled to his own views, only that this quote of his failed to acknowledge the Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the mid-19th century.

Still, what I wanted this thread to concentrate on was the foul treatment of the term Zionism by so many anti-Israelis. Israel is not faultless, but using the term Zionist as some kind of abusive language is mostly ignorant.

as highlighted by the Weitzmann-Faisal agreement.
 
kkcbl said:
No need to be apologetic about being religious - it's good for the soul!;)

From a not very religious Christian.:annoyed: ( or to the more fastidious Christians, a Roman Catholic, to be precise.:nervous: )
Click to expand...

kinell, I had to fly to Cyprus in order to avoid a religious wedding ceremony...that's almost persecution in my own Jewish state.
;)
 
holyland red said:
kinell, I had to fly to Cyprus in order to avoid a religious wedding ceremony...that's almost persecution in my own Jewish state.
;)
Click to expand...

well, my wife came with me and we got married there...I wasn't trying to avoid marrying her...
:lol:
 
Plechazunga said:
Since the state of Israel does in fact exist, only extremist nutters or people who don't understand what Zionism actually means can really be anti-Zionist.
Click to expand...

We see Isreal exists everyday, I hope it continues to exist in a manner that it respects the rights of its neighbours.

So having a different opinion is to be a extremist , the second quote that I am not an expert on Zionism may be true.
 
redsultan said:
So having a different opinion is to be a extremist , the second quote that I am not an expert on Zionism may be true.
Click to expand...

I'd take the risk and say that most people hurling abuse at all that is Zionism-related have no clue what it is about.
 
holyland Zionism by so many anti-Israelis. Israel is not faultless said:
Zionism is not only seen abusive by anti Isrealis but Isrealis alike, may be it has something to do with its practices and record over the past century, or perhaps like many other isms and relegions you are not getting the right message across.
Click to expand...
 
redsultan said:
We see Isreal exists everyday, I hope it continues to exist in a manner that it respects the rights of its neighbours.
Click to expand...

I hope so too.

Incidentally, and not wanting to labour the point ;), we also see that Russia, India, China, Turkey and several other repressive regimes exist every day; I assume your hope that they continue to exist is also conditional on their regional relations?

So having a different opinion is to be a extremist
Click to expand...

No, RS. we all have different opinions. Having an extreme opinion is to be an extremist. And being an anti-Zionist means having an extreme opinion - namely, that a nation of several million people be wiped off the map.

It's not extreme to be anti-Zionist in a historical sense - ie to believe that the establishment of the state of Israel was a mistake. But to want to undo it now is not realistic or, basically, sane.
 
Plechazunga said:
I hope so too.

Incidentally, and not wanting to labour the point ;), we also see that Russia, India, China, Turkey and several other repressive regimes exist every day; I assume your hope that they continue to exist is also conditional on their regional relations?



No, RS. we all have different opinions. Having an extreme opinion is to be an extremist. And being an anti-Zionist means having an extreme opinion - namely, that a nation of several million people be wiped off the map.

I would not wish one Isreali be wiped of the the map, does being anti republican mean wiping out the whole of USA ?

It's not extreme to be anti-Zionist in a historical sense - ie to believe that the establishment of the state of Israel was a mistake. But to want to undo it now is not realistic or, basically, sane.
Click to expand...

Of course Isreal is there to stay, I am a realist although my freinds call me more idealist.
 
Plechazunga said:
I hope so too.

Incidentally, and not wanting to labour the point ;), we also see that Russia, India, China, Turkey and several other repressive regimes exist every day; I assume your hope that they continue to exist is also conditional on their regional relations?.
Click to expand...

Of course
 
I would not wish one Isreali be wiped of the the map, does being anti republican mean wiping out the whole of USA ?
Click to expand...

But I didn't say you wanted to wipe out several million Israelis, I said anti-Zionists want to wipe out a nation, comprising several million people.

Which is both unrealistic, and totally extremist.
 
redsultan said:
holyland Zionism by so many anti-Israelis. Israel is not faultless said:
Zionism is not only seen abusive by anti Isrealis but Isrealis alike, may be it has something to do with its practices and record over the past century, or perhaps like many other isms and relegions you are not getting the right message across.
Click to expand...

Tere are more than a million Israeli Arabs, and I do not expect them to be Zionist. There are also 100000 unthankful ultra orthodox religious that enjoy the benefits of living in a Jewish state, yet consider themselves no-Zionist (waiting for the messiah to announce to new kingdom of Israel). There are also post-Zionist anarchists, who are a bit of a joke really.
All in all, Zionism has created the only democratic and plural society in the middle of a backward, intolerant sea of police-states. That is why you are able to hear Israeli anti-Zionists. The plural nature of our society, and the prosperity it bears for our citizens, is also a major reason for the ongoing anti-Zionist campaign coordinated by our surrounding tyrants who promise their citizens nothing but hate and misery.
Click to expand...
 
OK, so we decide to agree Ziomism is not all to blame for the ME problems, where would you think the negotiations could start to equally keep both sides moderately happy.

Please see it from both sides.
 
So Jews believe that they have a right to their historic homeland. Why is that any different to what the Palestinians seek today?
 
So anti-Zionism is being against Jews having a homeland?

What is it called when you are against Palestinians having a homeland?
 
Grinner the Gooner said:
So anti-Zionism is being against Jews having a homeland?

What is it called when you are against Palestinians having a homeland?
Click to expand...

I'd rephrase your question to : "what is it called when you are against Palestinians having a second homeland when they already have one?"
 
I think a more accurate document for you to post would be the findings of the King-Crane Commission, since Faysal ultimately repudiated his tentative agreement with Weizmann.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.