The Land of Palestine was taken as a mandate when the British stole it from Turkish (Otterman) domination, who were previously in charge of it before WW1. They gave most of it to the Bedouin Arabs, and at this time created Jordan. So unfortunately John, your fictional claim is not true history. It must be a hard time being an anti-Semite, and I sympathise with you for possessing this perverted approach to how supporters of unjust causes think they should behave!
Your claim, I quote: that "the Zionists stole land from the Arabs", is clearly anti-Sematic. This sentence is woefully untrue and accuses the Jews of a crime they did not commit.
That land was purchased (for an unreasonable price, since it was largely desert), from absentee landowners who were Muslim and mostly lived in luxury in Beirut, Lebanon. Most of this money was collected from a fund that was established in 1901 known as The Jewish National Fund. My parents and myself along with a great many others, used to collect it, and my parents even performed in concerts to help raise in their contributions.
The mandatory power, Britain, clearly stated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that: "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Since Britain subsequently held a (temporary) mandate for Palestine, which was the result or warfare against the previous incompetent Turkish government, it would be more accurate to state that Palestine previously was once theirs, but which was lost with the agreements and conditions as the result of the First World War, where Turkey sided with Germany.
(Incidentally, the term Semite originally applied to the Arabs too, since both Hebrew and Muslim families descended from the middle son of Noah, whose name Shem was slightly modified and was the original source.)
The fact that most people are greedy and have wants and desires that greatly (and childishly) exceed their capacity to make economical and proper use of these so called needs (were these items available and freely taken), makes the whole concept of a sharing society too impractical to re-introduce. The religious and subsequently socialist idealists thought that with love and good communications between neighbours this could be achieved, but even on kibbutz, which was probably the most serious attempt to develop this kind of communalism, it did not work for more than about 50 years and they even got a big starting hand-out of rent free land.
The early moneyless societies during feudal time,s probably shared the best, but even here barter at publicly organized markets soon replaced how the town's people found they could manage, and money was found more convenient and practical instead of directly exchanging goods. John, are you suggesting that we could go back to those times without any benefit but to the aristocracy?
The kibbutz wee part of an anti-working class ethnic cleansing project, on land violently stolen from the Palestinian owners, in a nation controlled by a violent oppressive ruling elite that had contempt for all working class people including Jewish working class people as I prove at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/why-really-zionist-leaders-have-always?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web; and yet you claim that the kibbutz show how working class values of solidarity cannot work! Logic is not your forte apparently.
The Land of Palestine was taken as a mandate when the British stole it from Turkish (Otterman) domination, who were previously in charge of it before WW1. They gave most of it to the Bedouin Arabs, and at this time created Jordan. So unfortunately John, your fictional claim is not true history. It must be a hard time being an anti-Semite, and I sympathise with you for possessing this perverted approach to how supporters of unjust causes think they should behave!
What "fictional claim" are you talking about? Quote it exactly.
Quote a single sentence of mine that is, as you accuse me of being, "antisemitic."
Your claim, I quote: that "the Zionists stole land from the Arabs", is clearly anti-Sematic. This sentence is woefully untrue and accuses the Jews of a crime they did not commit.
That land was purchased (for an unreasonable price, since it was largely desert), from absentee landowners who were Muslim and mostly lived in luxury in Beirut, Lebanon. Most of this money was collected from a fund that was established in 1901 known as The Jewish National Fund. My parents and myself along with a great many others, used to collect it, and my parents even performed in concerts to help raise in their contributions.
The mandatory power, Britain, clearly stated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that: "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Since Britain subsequently held a (temporary) mandate for Palestine, which was the result or warfare against the previous incompetent Turkish government, it would be more accurate to state that Palestine previously was once theirs, but which was lost with the agreements and conditions as the result of the First World War, where Turkey sided with Germany.
(Incidentally, the term Semite originally applied to the Arabs too, since both Hebrew and Muslim families descended from the middle son of Noah, whose name Shem was slightly modified and was the original source.)
Ever hear of the Nakba? Ever read books about this by the Israeli Zionist historian Benny Morris? Do so. https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/11/14/benny-morriss-untenable-denial-of-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine/
The fact that most people are greedy and have wants and desires that greatly (and childishly) exceed their capacity to make economical and proper use of these so called needs (were these items available and freely taken), makes the whole concept of a sharing society too impractical to re-introduce. The religious and subsequently socialist idealists thought that with love and good communications between neighbours this could be achieved, but even on kibbutz, which was probably the most serious attempt to develop this kind of communalism, it did not work for more than about 50 years and they even got a big starting hand-out of rent free land.
The early moneyless societies during feudal time,s probably shared the best, but even here barter at publicly organized markets soon replaced how the town's people found they could manage, and money was found more convenient and practical instead of directly exchanging goods. John, are you suggesting that we could go back to those times without any benefit but to the aristocracy?
The kibbutz wee part of an anti-working class ethnic cleansing project, on land violently stolen from the Palestinian owners, in a nation controlled by a violent oppressive ruling elite that had contempt for all working class people including Jewish working class people as I prove at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/why-really-zionist-leaders-have-always?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web; and yet you claim that the kibbutz show how working class values of solidarity cannot work! Logic is not your forte apparently.