On Mar 28, 5:10*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 28, 12:27 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...] There are dozens of ways to explain any historical phenomena. If you had
ever read any history, you would know that.

[...]

Dearest Ed:
Well, I guess that I will have to go slowly since this seems to be a

difficult topic that people don't know much about.

The idea of grouping emerges from the obvious, which is that there

aren't any identical things, mathematically or physically. Not even
one thing can be identical to itself. So, grouping or categorizing is
basically putting together those things that are similar but have
differences between each other. All groups have *difference and
various subgroups that can continue to be divided almost endlessly.
Human groups in particular have tremendous differences, so assertions
of uniformity are simply lack of information.

We are already off to a bad start. All the social sciences are based on
identifying commonalities. Furthermore, it is common observance that
everyone identifies according to group criteria, not individual differences
which hardly count at all in the grand scheme of things.

Judaism as group is rich and varied, and arguing that all Jews are

Zionists is not acknowledging that people have different histories
within the large Jewish group. Any historical examination of Judaism
reveals all these differences.

What do all Jews have in common? That is the only question I am interested
in.
Aside from the fact that they denominate themselves as Jews, some of
them have nothing in common with each other. Two people can give
themselves a denomination and be so radically different from each
other that they won't even be able to talk. In fact, the word Jew, or
American or Xtian, or European or whatever else can be interpreted so
overwhelmingly different that the only commonality is haveing two
feet, arms, torso and head.


Major subgroups of Judaism are Ashkenazi (Eastern European); Sephardi

(Semitic, Arabic); Persian; African. There are the Crypto Jews and
probably several other smaller groups.

Zionism emerges in Europe in the late 1800s with Theodor Hertzl, as a

European (Ashkenazi movement). The principle behind it was that
European Jews should find a place in the world where they could live
in peace, since Europe had not been too friendly to them.

The movement gains support from wealthy Jews particularly in Britain

and they consider places where Britain has power over as possible
locations for a Jewish country. Two of the places considered are
Argentina and Kenya. While Palestine is casually considered at this
point, it was under the Turkish protectorate and it had little chance
of succeeding. Moreover Ashkenazim visitors to Palestine find Arab
Jews not to their liking and consider them inferior since they were
mostly farmers.

The vast majority of Eastern European Jews had no idea of the Zionist

movement nor they had any desire to move to the middle east. Most
immigration was to the US, Argentina and Mexico. Only when Palestine
falls under the British mandate in 1922, there is serious
consideration of moving to Palestine, and the Zionist movement
emerges. Still, it does not gain popularity until the 1930s when Jew
begin to get rounded up into ghettos first, and then concentration
camps.

Before the 30s, most Jews had never heard of a Zionist movement and

Persian, African and Zephardi Jews were not part of this movement
since they originally had not intention to move away from their
homelands. It was essentially an upper class Ashkenazi initiative.
Those European Jews with resources were able to buy their way to
Palestine during WW2, and in in the 40s an organized Zionist movement
emerges in Europe.

Assume you have the history right. So what? Palestine was the only logical
place for a Jewish state since it was the land of the Jews from time
immemorial. A Jew with a brain in his head is going to be a Zionist whether
he wants to live there or not. Any other way of thinking about it is an
absurdity.

It is? Jews have lived all over the map from time immemorial. The vast
majority never lived in Palestine and they still live all over the
place. The idea that Jews belong in Palestine is a contemporary US-
Brit government idea share by many, but not all.



This was a very simplified history that has many more nuances. If you

know of an alternative history of Judaism or interpretation of it, I
like to hear it, since, as you say, there are multiple histories o
interpretations of it. I'll be glad to refer you to my sources if you
like. In the meanwhile, I'll shut the **** up as you suggest. But, if
you can't articulate an alternative history, I suggest that you shut
the **** up too, not because your opinions bother me, but because you
truly sound like an ignorant dumbass.

Your ****ing history lesson is irrelevant to what matters. I am dealing with
the facts on the ground. No one in this world cares what an Arab sympathizer
and an anti-Zionist like you think since it is prejudicial in the extreme..
Go join Tom Sherman why don't you. He is an Arab lover and a Jew hater just
like you. The only difference between the two of you is that his history is
even more irrelevant than yours.

Unfortunately you don't know the facts on the ground. I just gave them
to you. Instead, you provide suppositions based on intuition and
opinion instead of logic and fact. It is absolutely ok to suppose and
opine which is essentially all you do. You have every right to do
this. However, attempting to pass these as facts and universal truths
makes you appear very unsophisticated. Worse of all, when you proceed
to insult people who don't agree with you, you sound like Jim Beam and
the man from South Afrika. Insults as a substitute for knowledge are
the recourse of the ignorami.

I remember a show about the horse who could talk. You can certainly
write.
But, but, but.....the horse in the show was quite sharp.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota