I guess it’s about who has a valid claim. However, the boss has issued a policy that any debate has to be somewhat one sided and thus not a debate at all.
1 Like
Actually, I am correct. I said it had existed for millennia. I wasn’t suggesting it still did. Not that it matters, but one’s pride dictates that I make the point of order. 
I think we are all safe to say that numerous tribes and peoples have co-existed none too peacefully in the area for centuries. I’m not sure whether one group has more claim to lands than another because of “divine providence”. It all depends on what you believe and faith can achieve a great deal of course.
Your point is duly noted in the orderbook of not mattering.
2 Likes
Well currently there is a nation state that has the valid claim under international law to lands decreed to be the nation state, the borders of which are defined slightly differently by said nation state. I think it’s called colouring outside the lines which indicates creative thinking, but is not acceptable in a rule-based orderly society.
2 Likes
Don’t suppose anyone on here has studied much anthropology? I’m just wondering if there’s ever been a region or set of regions that has been discovered to have never had major wars and other infractions to impose themselves and their cultures on others.
Is it an innate human tendency?
Because if it is, then the chief’s desire for a world of peace and goodwill on all humankind might well be a theoretical pipe dream, albeit well intentioned.
1 Like
Dunno, just glad there is a pensioner shield.
1 Like
My view is that if you have a good thing humans have an almost uncontrollable desire to meddle with it.
2 Likes
Quite!
deleted
The Israeli / American-Israeli claim that because Jews historically lived in Judea (later part of the Islamic Caliphate, later European crusader rule, later part of the Ottoman empire, later British Palestine) is not that straightforward. There have been significant Jewish communities across Europe and even after multiple decade of persecution these continued to exist until the Nazis arrived. And there really wasn’t much of a Jewish community in what is now Israel when it was put forward as the future homeland. So there is as much a historic claim to many countries as being the ‘home’ of Jews as there is for where Israel now exists.
Further, the state of Israel refuses to confirm its borders. It does this to enable its expansion goals. The west bank is a good example of this. It is defined as military occupied territory, which means military governing and no permanent Israel structures. Neither have been adhered to.
So the country exists and (within the internationally defined borders) has the right to exist. What it does not have a right to do is claim any historic justification or claim different borders. Oh, and no right to go around killing people.
All that aside, it still strikes me as a self-harming decision by the Greens. While strong condemnation of the actions of Israel in the last couple of years can be justified, and full criticism of the worst words and decisions of some Israeli government ministers is very justified, this decision about Zionism serves little constructive purpose. Lets face it, of all the bad things stalwart Zionists have done, being racist is not the worst. So declaiming Zionism as racist moves the party a bit close to being seen as antisematic.
1 Like
Perhaps the chief doesn’t desire world peace Dex, could that just be a human frailty.
Greed is a human trait, and people always end up wanting what someone else has got (the other man’s grass etc) How many countries are there that are still controlled by the indigenous people? American Indians, Aborigines, Incas etc and soon the UK… That’s progress for you.
Yes you are correct and this is why a little learning is dangerous, especially in the ill informed heads :yes
Is this not wrongly worded? As stated it implies that a kingdom of Israel existed in the past, and continued to exist from the past to the present, and exists now as well. That is obvioulsy not correct. There were many centuries without such a kingdom. Therefore a correct way of stating the existance of this kingdom would simply be to say that millenia ago a kingdom of Israel existed in this place. No more than that.
And if this is the better description of its existance, why would a kingdom from millenia ago provide justification for a new kingdom (or country in the same name) now?
I did correct my meaning shortly afterwards…
1 Like
What about the the seven nations of Canaan who were deemed by divine intervention to be driven out of the promised land? Apparently they were pushed into what is now modern day Lebanon. Do they not have a more valid claim for the lands if we want to go back to ancient history?
NB I regard the ancient lands view to be irrelevant and unhelpful to the situation we are in today. But if that underpins the arguments then it’s a little inconvenient that these seven nations existed and were living in the area deemed Palestine first.
1 Like
Why wouldn’t it?
For a start the USA would be expected to kick out anyone but native Americans. Unless of course some nations count and others don’t…
2 Likes
Sorry Annie. I don’t quite understand your argument.