Zionism - What exactly is it?
- Thread starter Red Devil
- Start date
because the 'state' of israe; now existed.
The Jewish people in the USA who pressured for a homeland, I wonder how many of them actually left the States to go live in Israel? It could not have been all that many, as the Jewish Lobby in the USA is much bigger than ever, and politicians kiss their collective ass.
rcscwc:
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I'm merely pointing out that the polytheistic Judeans were occupied by the Romans much like most of the Fertile Crescent at the time. Any insurgents being deported to Babylon does not constitute a Jewish exile, especially when most of the Judeans remained in their homes.
So they were just passing time in India for 2000 years?
And yes, why didn't the American Jews who pressured for a Jewish homeland "return" home?
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I'm merely pointing out that the polytheistic Judeans were occupied by the Romans much like most of the Fertile Crescent at the time. Any insurgents being deported to Babylon does not constitute a Jewish exile, especially when most of the Judeans remained in their homes.
Red Devil said:
So they were just passing time in India for 2000 years?
And yes, why didn't the American Jews who pressured for a Jewish homeland "return" home?
I cannot answer to either of your points, I simply do not know. No, the jews were not just 'passing time' in India. But if you were a member of a semi nomadic race and were suddenly given a homeland on a plate, wouldn't you 'go home'? My screams of injustice centre on the fact that arabs were displaced to make this lebensraum.
Not when you bann then from Jerusalem the centre of their Nation.
What do you think would happen today in England if it was invaded by an EEC army that banned all English from London?
London is an essential part of England. it is it's cultural, economic and administrative centre. One you evict the english population from it you would create and economic collapse and a state of anarchy in England. No need to send your troops out to the country side to drive the people out of england, they would be leaving as refugees in droves, million of english would be moving to places like american canada australia and other places.
No need for vast armies dragging people from their homes and forcing them onto boats. The people would be moving in multitudes by themselves.
The Jews of the time had a track record as rebellious trouble makers for the roman empire and seeing to it that their nation was effectively destroyed was their way of removing a problem by taking away any hope of a liberated Judean state and to make the Jews an example to all the other potentially rebellious peoples within the Roman empire.
Look at Iraq today, How many jihadists where needed to cause the majority of the Iraqi Christians population to flee Iraq? A few bombs here a few Christian leaders kidnapped and beheaded there, A few kidnappings, rapes, murders. No need for a vast army. Just a few devout followers of muhammad carrying out his call to bring terror to the unbelievers, that all.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
It already is failing. Latest count shows that 20% of Londons population were not born on these shores. And the exodus has exceeded the influx already. If I could afford to go, I would.
This is correct. There was a certain person initials JC who belonged to a sect called the Sons of God, many were militant and killed roman soldiers regularly. Other were more political. Sounds just like the IRA and PIRA of northern Ireland does it not? This sect was finally wiped out by specially sent legions in that hilltop fort that I can never remember the name of.
There is also the slight historical tangle that while it was the kingdom of Judah [or Judea as the Romans called it] which fought the Romans, the Bar Khoba revolt was conducted 70 laters by the Kingdom of Israel [of which there is no historical record] and which did not contain Jerusalem as a capital. Jerusalem had already been destroyed 70 years ago, when the Judean revolt was crushed.
So how did the Romans exile the Jews [who were not Jews but polytheistic Judeans or as it turns out not even them but residents of the kingdom of Israel of which there is no historical evidence] from a Jerusalem which did not exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea
So how did the Romans exile the Jews [who were not Jews but polytheistic Judeans or as it turns out not even them but residents of the kingdom of Israel of which there is no historical evidence] from a Jerusalem which did not exist?
Well thank Myuu they've returned to help return the land and its people to Judaism, and revert the terrible cultural genocide of the past millennia.
Ah but have they? If the polytheistic Judeans are Jews does this mean that all of them are now Muslims? Does the change in religion go back retrospectively?
You mean the old religion does not exist. Clearly if the Judeans who worshipped El, his wife Ashereth and his son Yhwh and later on, the Israelites who worshipped Yhwh and his wife Ashereth [a little Oedipal tangle here?] are Jews, then Judaism is also absorbed likewise into Christianity and later on, both Judaism and Christianity, as Islam?
They wanted to leave, they did. Period. Many went off in search of greener pastures. Period.rcscwc:
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I'm merely pointing out that the polytheistic Judeans were occupied by the Romans much like most of the Fertile Crescent at the time. Any insurgents being deported to Babylon does not constitute a Jewish exile, especially when most of the Judeans remained in their homes.
Last edited:
No, no, you've got it backwards: the old religion is the correct one, the new religion the usurper. Islam raus, Judaism in.
For whom? The Judeans who worshipped El? The Israelites who worshipped Yhwh and his wife/mother?
Don't forget, Judah was a province of Rome who won it from the Parthians and lost it to the Byzantinians who lost it to the Caliphate who lost it to the Mamluks who lost it to the Ottomans [no mythical kingdoms included]. All through this the only "constant" was that the natives adopted the beliefs they came into contact with. From the pagan Romans to the development of monotheism from Judaism to Christianity to Islam. Don't forget that Judeans adopted monotheistm post Babylon probably due to the influence of Zoroastrianism after Cyrus took over Babylon. Probably why they were called the Pharisees too, since that is what Zoroastrians are called [Farsis]
So yeah, the "natives" as you call them adopted monotheism from the Zoroastrian and later Christianity and Islam from Byzantine and Arab influences. And there they still are, the natives, the Palestinians of the Levant
rcscwc said:
So after 2000 years in India from Asoka to the Mughals, to the British Empire, on the independence of India, they decided to move to Palestine and spend the next 60 years in a war dispossessing the natives there because they wanted "greener pastures"?
Last edited:
But they're not natives, as we've discussed many times. A good proportion of them are descended from Arabians. :shrug:And your vaunted difficulties with monotheism seem to end at about 642 AD. Odd.
They wanted to leave to live in the holy lands, they left but not as refugees. Period. Shows Abrahmic ones have loyalities outside India.
What they do there is not my concern or responsiblity unless they let of bombs here, like muslims do.
But one thing is established. These Jews who came to India WERE refugees fleeing from xian and later muslim atrocities. But they WERE NOT fleeing from atrocities by Hindus.
Last edited: