Anti-zionists only:If Palestine really had been a "place with no people, for a people with no place"...

An intriguing question.

Whatever the case, Israel is the true homeland of the Jewish people. Whether other people like it or not. You know it, don't you? The word Palestine itself was invented by the Romans to erase any Jewish links to the land after the Romans managed to suppress a Jewish revolt in year 70 B.C.E.

As for the Palestinian Arabs, I admit they too have right to have their own state someday. Shalom.

Yes and no.

Yes because, in principle, I have no more of a problem with a Jewish state than with any other state.

No because in practice I just happen to have a whole lot against nation states - in fact against states in any form - as such ... it's what us anarchist folks believe in, you know.

... do I still qualify as an anti-zionist if I'm also opposed to Palestinian nationalism but all in favour of Palestinian resistance to an unjust situation?

EDIT:

Re. the 'who had it first' argument to posts above: Unfortunately you can only go back so far before the sources become unreliable. I therefore suggest drawing the line at a time that has been meticulously recorded and thoroughly researched: Palestine was once part of the Roman empire; the Romans were hence there first and it should go to modern day Italy.

I agree completely with Sahar; many Americans (the ones most likely to throw around the term "anti-Semitic") are so ignorant of historical culture that they have no idea that Arabs are the true historical Semites, and the Jews currently living in Israel are mainly of European origin. I'd also like to note that there are probably more Zionists among the Christian faith than the Jewish faith. These Christians tend to be neo-con, right-wing born-agains; strange bedfellows indeed for the largely liberal Jewish population. Since this is the case, equating "anti-Zionism" and "anti-Semitism" is an an unreasonable and downright incorrect conclusion. Edit: AA, AWESOME response! You know your stuff, Girl! And for anyone who may be interested; please read the book "They Dare To Speak Out" by former U.S. Congressman Paul Findley, to see the extent of how the Zionist agenda has infiltrated U.S. politics and policies. Talk about an eye-opener.

Indeed, the Zionist slogan "The Land without a people for the people without a land" was absolutely correct.

The slogan did not mean that there were no inhabitants at all in Palestine, it just indicated that the non-Jewish population constituted a conglomeration of dozens of heterogeneous groups of residents having very little in common, i.e. not constituting a single nation, a people. These residents were not united by any specific national idea.

Professor of history Reverend James Parkes wrote that the Balfour declaration for the first time established a "unit called Palestine on a political map. ...There was no such thing historically as a 'Palestinian Arab', and there was no feeling of unity among 'the Arabs' of this newly defined area."

So before the creation of the State of Israel, who were the Palestinians?

Until 1950, the name of the Jerusalem Post was THE PALESTINE POST; the journal of the Zionist Organization of America was NEW PALESTINE; Bank Leumi was the ANGLO-PALESTINE BANK; the Israel Electric Company was the PALESTINE ELECTRIC COMPANY; there was the PALESTINE FOUNDATION FUND and the PALESTINE PHILHARMONIC. All these were Jewish organizations. In America, Zionist youngsters sang "PALESTINE, MY PALESTINE," "PALESTINE SCOUT SONG" and "PALESTINE SPRING SONG." In general, the terms Palestine and Palestinian referred to the region of Palestine as it was. Thus, "Palestinian Jew" and "Palestinian Arab" are straightforward expressions. "Palestine Post" and "Palestine Philharmonic" refer to these bodies as they existed in a place then known as Palestine. The adoption of a Palestinian identity by the Arabs of Palestine is a recent phenomenon. Until the establishment of the State of Israel, and for another decade or so, the term Palestinian applied almost exclusively to the Jews.

If Palestine had really been a place with no people I wouldn't have a problem with a Jewish state being created there. Although in general, I don't like the idea of theocracies or exclusive discrimination. What I mean is, I think it was wrong for the US to discriminate in its immigration policy back when it was doing so, so why should any modern immigrant country do so? However, the real crime was against the Native Americans anyway. I don't really have a problem with a bunch of like-minded people going to a deserted place and creating their own country there.

On the other hand as arguments against it other countries like the US might lose some good citizens who happen to be Jews as well, and it might give anti-semites an excuse to get rid of Jews which would be horrible.

Interesting question.

The "indigenous population" was not an indigenous population.

The Jews did not steal anyone's lands.

There is no "occupation." Israel left Gaza in 2005.

You want Israel to "abstain from incessant air and ground attacks on it's [sic] neighbors"? Then stop launching rockets -- so far 7000 of them -- at Israeli civilians.

"If Palestine had really been a place with no people." Another answerer has brought ample proof of that.

One bigot is candid enough to admit his racism, "I WOULDNT SUPPORT A JEWISH STATE IF IT WAS ON THE MOON EITHER." How kind and humanitarian of this fellow!

And you expect there to be peace in the Middle East when you get these kinds of answers?!!

.

God gave the lands of Israel to the Jewish people in perpetuity after Moses led them out of Egypt. Forced out, by ?, the Palestinians took over. The Jews had it first and it was given to them by God and this time they are not going to be forced out.

nooooooooooo i would have suggested diminshing them 4 goood which isuggest now they r ur enemies by blood they have fought the prophet mohamed and jesus and i dont see why would they stand with the jews and in the judgemment day when jesus return he shall annihlite them with the remaning muslins

In “Palestine land” no, ether there is peoples or empty desert, Palestine land is a holy land and it should not be controlled by God hated peoples.

Even in different place…….. maybe before 1948 it will be easy to accept Israel as a country if it is established in different place other than my land, but after seeing the behavior of this country the world should not allow such country to exist on our beautiful earth.

I am talking about the behavior of a country its major aim to make weapon of mass destruction, Israel is having nuclear, biological and chemical weapons enough to destroy the entire world, why such country should exist.

it is not the case, as the land had its people. and even the few jews living there were speaking arabic as a mother tongue, which lets everybody understand that the land was inhabited by an arab majority.

if it was empty and unclaimed, in my opinion it would have been ok to establish a state there for whoever wanted (though holy sites accessibility must have been granted, but then if there are holy sites, somebody is surely claiming the land).

sincerly, i dont see the point in this question.