Thank you for this little hasbarist screed. You manage to tick all the propaganda boxes in one piece. Good for you. Problem is, no one is buying the Israeli narrative anymore. We know the truth. We see the truth. And we know what Zionism is. We know why Israel has no official borders. We know that Arab Israelis are second class citizens. We know the evil racist truth of Israel, the least democratic "democracy" on earth (tied with Ukraine).
I would like to offer my own article as a rebuttal:
Hilarious. You @EuroYakee are such a moron that you don't realize that nonsense ahistorical deliberately mendacious rants like yours (disguised as an article) are one of the greatest arguments FOR a strong and proud Israel.
We jews have always been blessed by the stupidity and low IQ of our enemies and you are no exception. Am Yisrael Chai asshole Am Yisrael Chai.
"There is a contradiction that lies at the heart of Zionism: the inherent conflict between Judaism the religion, and the Jewish ethno-nationalism, or “peoplehood” that is the very foundation of Zionism."
There is no such conflict. Jews have always been an ethnoreligion. Every Jew is either born a Jew or a convert.
"So it became a foundational narrative of the Zionist project that:
(1) the Jews are all one people and
(2) the entire area of Palestine — plus more of the surrounding nations — has been granted to that unified Jewish people by God, and
(3) God’s law supersedes the laws of Man, so Jews have a right to take all that land by force and expel all the non-Jews living on it."
Points 2 and 3 are not part of the "foundational narrative" of Zionism. Most Zionist Jews aren't religious and most also don't believe in Greater Israel. Most had never even heard of the concept before anti-Zionists dug it out of the rhetoric book of dead people.
The geneticist Elhaik you cite is clearly in the minority on the Khazar thing. Mass conversion of that type isn't even possible in Judaism.
Hebrew was never extinct. It was dead, in that no one spoke it as a first language, but plenty of people spoke it as a second language.
Integrating last names with the language of the region is not unique to Israel. Go back enough in the ancestral chain, and my name won't be Nicholson, because it became that at Ellis Island. Go figure.
The amount of lies in your post is too absurd. I also don't see how it's at at all a rebuttal to the core point - the phrase "no peace on stolen land" means that there literally can't be any peace anywhere, which blatantly contradicts observed reality.
Arabic is not native to the Levant. Aramaic, Hebrew, and Samaritan Hebrew are the native languages of the Levant. Arabic is an imperial language in the Levant.
You're laughing at historical fact here. But then, it's not approved by the Ministry of Truth, so you don't believe it. Theodor Herzl, Ahad Ha'am, Moses Hess, David Ben-Gurion, all not Religious Zionists and all didn't work towards the territorial boundary known as "Greater Israel."
Ben Gurion was indeed an atheist. Nonetheless, that did not stop him from asserting that God had promised the Land to the Jews. That is the nature of Zionism: it is all based on LIES.
This article, well-meaning and well-written, and like so many others, miss THE key point regarding stolen land.
While God indeed gave us the land (it's even in the Koran), this form of ownership passed down to the progeny is disputed by our enemies. It doesn't matter if they are wrong, it is still disputed.
That we have been in and on the land for 3,500 is correct, but it is also disputed by our enemies since they lived on the same land for about 1,300 years.
What cannot be disputed is the International Law that was created. In 1920, in San Remo, Italy. The principal allied powers, (England, France, Italy, Japan) had the right of disposition and gave the land to the Jews. Two years later, the League of Nations incorporated this into international Law, stating the Jews had the right to reconstitute their ancient home. That law, as part of the Mandate for Palestine, is still the law today because the Arabs have never accepted any of the peace treaties offered them, which likely would have led to different laws.
Read the late Howard Grief's "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law." Or Dr. Jacques Gauthier's "Sovereignty Over the Old City of Jerusalem."
Israel's legal rights to be on the land do not stem from 1947 or 1948, which were ultimately approved by the UN General Assembly, a less powerful body of the UN. Rather, a sacred trust was given in 1920 and we, as a people, would be well advised to incorporate this narrative as past of the backbone of our legal argument.
By the way, in 2010, I stood in the very room where the San Remo resolution was signed at the Villa Devachonk, in San Remo. What a feeling. It's an indelible part of our history. Chaim Weizmann remarked, roughly speaking, that it was the most important day in the history of the Jewish people since the exile (2,000 years).
So obvious, shame Joshua you had to spend time writing. On a day that Hama completely lies re the conduct of the IDF in Gaza & of course the BBC ran the story. Makes me ashamed to be a Brit
Brillant article as always!......what I don't understand is why persons who attend the best universities could believe all the lies and distortion of history......Also they don't care about all the murders. Torture, rape, evil brurality perpetrated to infants, women men, children elderly.....
Because most of these aren't the "best" universities. There's a bit of a flaw in human psychology that thinks most expensive = best, but that's often not the case.
When has the modern West been the protector of the Jewish people? NEVER. Not even after the Holocaust, not to mention the Crusades of the Dark Ages, not even after the birth of the Christian religion, where Christianity spread, there spread the sword and oppression. The Church has its original anti-Semitic manifesto "Acts of the Apostles" with which they justified the right to treat the Jews as they did, it has been firmly grafted into Western states even those that are still doing so-called rescue work to save the Jews. The purpose is to destroy the Jews who are faithful to the Torah.
I find that using the word extremism is only valid from one perspective, not the other. Using the concept of striving for the glory of Superiority and avoiding the humiliation of Inferiority much more useful and clarifying. Your descriptions of their goals are right on.
They read history books. Unfortunately, they are alternative histories, and they refuse to even consider the other side. They leave out really key elements in order to “prove” their narratives.
Thank you for this little hasbarist screed. You manage to tick all the propaganda boxes in one piece. Good for you. Problem is, no one is buying the Israeli narrative anymore. We know the truth. We see the truth. And we know what Zionism is. We know why Israel has no official borders. We know that Arab Israelis are second class citizens. We know the evil racist truth of Israel, the least democratic "democracy" on earth (tied with Ukraine).
I would like to offer my own article as a rebuttal:
"Israel was Built on Myth, and Now it’s Busted"
https://euroyankee.substack.com/p/israel-was-built-on-myth-and-now
Hilarious. You @EuroYakee are such a moron that you don't realize that nonsense ahistorical deliberately mendacious rants like yours (disguised as an article) are one of the greatest arguments FOR a strong and proud Israel.
We jews have always been blessed by the stupidity and low IQ of our enemies and you are no exception. Am Yisrael Chai asshole Am Yisrael Chai.
Thanks for proving my point.
https://euroyankee.substack.com/p/how-to-argue-with-a-zionist?r=17gos
Hilarious. And thank you for proving mine. We jews are lucky to have you ... on the other side. LOL.
Taking the time to read your post.
"There is a contradiction that lies at the heart of Zionism: the inherent conflict between Judaism the religion, and the Jewish ethno-nationalism, or “peoplehood” that is the very foundation of Zionism."
There is no such conflict. Jews have always been an ethnoreligion. Every Jew is either born a Jew or a convert.
"So it became a foundational narrative of the Zionist project that:
(1) the Jews are all one people and
(2) the entire area of Palestine — plus more of the surrounding nations — has been granted to that unified Jewish people by God, and
(3) God’s law supersedes the laws of Man, so Jews have a right to take all that land by force and expel all the non-Jews living on it."
Points 2 and 3 are not part of the "foundational narrative" of Zionism. Most Zionist Jews aren't religious and most also don't believe in Greater Israel. Most had never even heard of the concept before anti-Zionists dug it out of the rhetoric book of dead people.
The geneticist Elhaik you cite is clearly in the minority on the Khazar thing. Mass conversion of that type isn't even possible in Judaism.
Hebrew was never extinct. It was dead, in that no one spoke it as a first language, but plenty of people spoke it as a second language.
Integrating last names with the language of the region is not unique to Israel. Go back enough in the ancestral chain, and my name won't be Nicholson, because it became that at Ellis Island. Go figure.
The amount of lies in your post is too absurd. I also don't see how it's at at all a rebuttal to the core point - the phrase "no peace on stolen land" means that there literally can't be any peace anywhere, which blatantly contradicts observed reality.
BTW, the "the language of the region" is Arabic.
Arabic is not native to the Levant. Aramaic, Hebrew, and Samaritan Hebrew are the native languages of the Levant. Arabic is an imperial language in the Levant.
"Most Zionist Jews aren't religious and most also don't believe in Greater Israel."
Way too funny, dude.
You're laughing at historical fact here. But then, it's not approved by the Ministry of Truth, so you don't believe it. Theodor Herzl, Ahad Ha'am, Moses Hess, David Ben-Gurion, all not Religious Zionists and all didn't work towards the territorial boundary known as "Greater Israel."
Ben Gurion was indeed an atheist. Nonetheless, that did not stop him from asserting that God had promised the Land to the Jews. That is the nature of Zionism: it is all based on LIES.
I buy the “Israeli narrative,” so I guess you are wrong.
This article, well-meaning and well-written, and like so many others, miss THE key point regarding stolen land.
While God indeed gave us the land (it's even in the Koran), this form of ownership passed down to the progeny is disputed by our enemies. It doesn't matter if they are wrong, it is still disputed.
That we have been in and on the land for 3,500 is correct, but it is also disputed by our enemies since they lived on the same land for about 1,300 years.
What cannot be disputed is the International Law that was created. In 1920, in San Remo, Italy. The principal allied powers, (England, France, Italy, Japan) had the right of disposition and gave the land to the Jews. Two years later, the League of Nations incorporated this into international Law, stating the Jews had the right to reconstitute their ancient home. That law, as part of the Mandate for Palestine, is still the law today because the Arabs have never accepted any of the peace treaties offered them, which likely would have led to different laws.
Read the late Howard Grief's "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law." Or Dr. Jacques Gauthier's "Sovereignty Over the Old City of Jerusalem."
Israel's legal rights to be on the land do not stem from 1947 or 1948, which were ultimately approved by the UN General Assembly, a less powerful body of the UN. Rather, a sacred trust was given in 1920 and we, as a people, would be well advised to incorporate this narrative as past of the backbone of our legal argument.
By the way, in 2010, I stood in the very room where the San Remo resolution was signed at the Villa Devachonk, in San Remo. What a feeling. It's an indelible part of our history. Chaim Weizmann remarked, roughly speaking, that it was the most important day in the history of the Jewish people since the exile (2,000 years).
I'm pushing 80 so I actually remember the post ww2 news and the actual “history” I worry what will happen when we all die and the truth is obfuscated
So obvious, shame Joshua you had to spend time writing. On a day that Hama completely lies re the conduct of the IDF in Gaza & of course the BBC ran the story. Makes me ashamed to be a Brit
excellent.
Brillant article as always!......what I don't understand is why persons who attend the best universities could believe all the lies and distortion of history......Also they don't care about all the murders. Torture, rape, evil brurality perpetrated to infants, women men, children elderly.....
Because most of these aren't the "best" universities. There's a bit of a flaw in human psychology that thinks most expensive = best, but that's often not the case.
When has the modern West been the protector of the Jewish people? NEVER. Not even after the Holocaust, not to mention the Crusades of the Dark Ages, not even after the birth of the Christian religion, where Christianity spread, there spread the sword and oppression. The Church has its original anti-Semitic manifesto "Acts of the Apostles" with which they justified the right to treat the Jews as they did, it has been firmly grafted into Western states even those that are still doing so-called rescue work to save the Jews. The purpose is to destroy the Jews who are faithful to the Torah.
I find that using the word extremism is only valid from one perspective, not the other. Using the concept of striving for the glory of Superiority and avoiding the humiliation of Inferiority much more useful and clarifying. Your descriptions of their goals are right on.
FREE PALESTINE (from Hamas and Moslem terrorism)
NO PEACE ON STOLEN (from Jews, by Palestinians) LAND
FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA, ISRAEL SHALL BE FREE (of Islamic terrorists)
Did I mjss anything important?
Yes! My father of blessed memory used to always explain this ! He would have loved you !
Excellent article. If only they would listen, read a history book...
They read history books. Unfortunately, they are alternative histories, and they refuse to even consider the other side. They leave out really key elements in order to “prove” their narratives.