Isn't Zionism just an updated Jewish version of the view of the misguided concept "Manifest Destiny?"?

Show all answers

chinacat sunflower

Smarty,
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and emphatically YES!
I've been saying this for years. Both are the product of religious zealotry (Zionism, in that "god" supposedly gave that land "to the Jews") and Manifest Destiny (in that "god" supposedly wanted North America to be white and Christian, from the Atlantic to the Pacific).
As an American pagan, I don't allow religious mumbo-jumbo to cloud my ability to reason in such matters. No one's "god" is in the real-estate business.
And as an American of Native ancestry, I and most NAs closely identify with issues of betrayal, land theft, subjugation and occupation.
Your statement is right on.

John E

Both of these concepts my friend have their origin in the human instinct for domination.
There wasn't not even one case where the more powerful accepted the reason of the weaker.
Maybe this "Globalization" theory is the cure for this disease, but I seriously doubt it.
As far as your interesting example although these two cases seem irrelevant to one another at first glance, the main motive remains the same.
So I might agree with you to a certain extent, only if the Jews would remove that "God's will" false statement, of course.
Greetings

Galahad

There are similarities but I wouldn't call it updated,more like atavistic. It is an attempt to relive the biblical events celebrated in "scriptures' carbon-dated to about 800 B.C. It has no place in the modern world.

Troy B

Yes, but I don't think they'll stretch from coast to coast w/o a fight.

Duane

Yes. Only equipped with a huge nuclear arsenal they have repeatedly threatened to use to destroy our planet if they can't have their way.

Haifa

No, they violently took over the land because their false scriptures says its their "Promised Land".

My people got along fine with the white man until they decided to move us to Oklahoma and so many died on the Trail of Tears.
None of that would have happened to the Civilized Tribes had not the radical warrior societies like the Cherokee and Seminole done so much killing and raping.
There are Muslims and other Arabs that could get along fine with Israel if not for the heathen.
I don't see a resemblance between the two other than that.
Israel did not come equipped to conquer and didn't drive anyone out.

Average_secular_guy

Listen carefully, this endless war of your both countries is just ARRONGANCE from BOTH SIDES!!

One side claims that the other side has false scriptures, and the other side claims THEY have false scriptures.

so they are causing a HUGE WAR, they might just be the cause of a WWIII for RELIGION.

dandyl

not at all, you have it all wrong, 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 â€œZionismâ€ was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

custardetapioca

Hamas lays claim to the whole State of Israel and is opposed to a two-state solution. It is hoped that theirs is only a bargaining position, since I don't see how a political party advocating such a view could exist after a Palestinian state has come into existence! Hamas advocates a "Greater Palestine" to displace Israel. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida are the same organization under different names, and it wants to takeover the whole world because it feels that it is its Manifest Destiny to make free countries into non-democratic dictatorships like their own by terrorism! These organizations claim that the word of Allah is that all people convert to Islam. Native Americans have more freedom than they would have being subservient Muslims!

slipstreamer

No. But it makes a convenient scapegoat, doesn't it?

zionism does not say a word about how big israel should be, it's simply patriotism for israel.
some arabs were displaced, and just as many jews were displaced from arab countries. time to stop whining about that and move on.

Kevin7

no Jews are from Israel

Zoom Zoom

NO.

Kevin S

Are you sure they took over the land by force? Did you know that the arab army was stronger in terms of reserves and weaponry but failed to beat up "the zionist entity".

In addition why do you claim to call them semitic? In the Quran arabs are half hamitic (egyptian) half semitic. Therefore they are not semitic. Zionism never cared about Greater Israel. Show me one document expressing that idea. I know for sure that you are not well read in this subject. Zionism agreed to the 37 partition plan where Jews were a majority but this was denied by the arab league and King Faisal later.

kismet

No; Zionism has no relation to "manifest destiny."

In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area's inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect-and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan-caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.

Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League's successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab.

The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination -- an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state's midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today -- namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).

As is well known, the implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not."

This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, "it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan's] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed." A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that "the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt."

The British proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank -- which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of "land for peace" as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state. To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers -- Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem" -- a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war.

At this time -- we are speaking of the late 1960's -- Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. "Moderate" Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed, having their own purposes in mind for the region.

THE TRUTH IS HOLY

No. I do not know what you mean by "updated." Zionism is 3,400 years old.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: