ISRAEL VS. PALESTINE...AGAIN

[rothschild]

“A land without people and a people without land” is falsely attributed to the precepts of Zionism . . . as is your claim of ethnic cleansing, being a fundamental principle of Zionism.  It is patently anti-Zionism propaganda.

The land-people quote was a slogan among Zionists, having nothing to do with "precepts". I never stated that ethnic cleansing was/is a fundamental principle of Zionism. It's openly acknowledged in Zionist circles. A Zionist military report, referenced by Israeli historian Benny Morris' in his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947—1949, concluded that the Palestinian exodus was primarily the result of Zionist military and paramilitary operations. In a 2004 interview with Haaretz conducted by Ari Shavit, Morris stated that:

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21^st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing."

Do you stand with Morris, Tiki? Would extermination have been inevitable without the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

The world, and those Arab countries ceding the land (as did the Jewish immigrants), knew the land for the creation of Israel was occupied . . . including the newly formed United Nations. The Arabs willingly tossed the inhabitants (of the land that would become Israel) under the bus and then broke promises, made to these indigenous people, regarding their rights and independence.

If the land had been formally ceded, as you claim, Morris would not have acknowledged the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians because it would have been precluded by the lawful imposition of a partition plan. The only authority that could have ordered the partition of Palestine was the UN Security Council. It never took up the UN general Assembly partition proposal for consideration. The Zionists unilaterally established Israel by means of military force, which began in 1947, prior to the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. 

You asked: If I'd said "death to South Africa" during the time of apartheid, do you honestly believe that would by necessity be calling for the death of all Afrikaners?

No.  I would believe you meant the destruction of every institution and person that perpetuates South Africa, as it currently exists . . . not just apartheid.  Why wouldn’t I?

It would be completely nonsensical to interpret "nation" in that manner given the global awareness of apartheid. You'd be assuming advocation for the extermination of the victims of apartheid on the basis of opposition to apartheid. 

You stated: I've shown that "nation" doesn't necessarily refer to the people who live in it, yet you insist there is only one correct interpretation in spite of the fact that Zionism is the core institution of Israel. Is it implausible that people who say "death to Israel" hate Zionism rather than Jews per se? Hardly.

Is it implausible that “Death to Israel” means just that?  Hardly!  As it is subject to interpretation, it is an overly broad and dangerous statement.

Again, why am I forced to mind-read intent? If you are against a specific ideology, institution or practice JUST SAY IT and remove any ambiguity.  I interpret “Death to Israel” as a literal statement . . . not hyperbole or a reference to a specific practice or practices.  FFS!  Say what you mean. 
 
Why should I be forced to become a mind reader and guess what people mean when they say, “Death to Israel”?  Why?

Keep on dancing!

Reading minds isn't within the realm of possibility, rational interpretation is; which in this instance means acknowledging that there isn't a single, universally correct interpretation. We can estimate probabilities with a degree of accuracy, or we can assume the worst and make claims along the lines of "they want to exterminate the Jews!", which is no less ambiguous than "death to Israel".

Asking why you should be forced to allow for all possibilities is an improvement over claiming there's no ambiguity. A small improvement, but an improvement nonetheless.