“or being ruled by other nations.”

In Europe it was common for people of one place to rule those of another, often which had no common language,

if you see things in terms of modern nations exceptions to what you suggest would have been the rule rather than the exception.

It was simply not a big issue.

” Of course nationalism was always different in different times and in different nations,”

So if he had said “nations in the modern sense” you would have agreed with him?

“but to suggest that people did not had ethnic identities”

Ethnocentrism is not necessarily nationalism.

“or did not value self-governance is to ignore the obvious. ”

People did not value self-governance because they had never known or even heard of it with a few exceptions like England and Poland, but even then they were often merely the expressions of aristocrats rather than commoners.

“The only difference is that before it was much harder to create large states and as a consequence same nation was often split into many states”

Countries bigger than those that have spawned nationalism were standard, actually they usually came bigger and often lasted longer.

The fact of the matter is that Zionism is not even remotely comparable to the nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th century when it was around.

There were two ways at looking at how state boundaries should be, the ancient one based on maps and heridetary titles and a new one which gave self-determination and tailored the boundaries of states around ethnic groups.

Zionism was the former, as Israelis were a small minority in Israel when it began, and remained a minority until just up to its founding (which was accompanied by population transfers).

Jews claiming land not occupied by Jews based on ancient kingdoms and proceeding to suplant its current occupants is not self-determination, not nationalism, it is imperialism/colonialism.

“But if group of people calls itself a nation does not automatically grants that group any particular rights, including having their own country”

So if you were alive in the 19th century you would have opposed Zionism?

“In Europe it was common for people of one place to rule those of another, often which had no common language,”

I am not saying it wasn’t, but this is a moot point. This is true even today, but doesn’t changes the fact that people more often then not prefer this not to be happening to them.

“if you see things in terms of modern nations exceptions to what you suggest would have been the rule rather than the exception.”

I am not following, could you restate this?

“So if he had said “nations in the modern sense” you would have agreed with him?”

The statement would have been too ambiguouse to agree with. Like in the past nationalism differs from nation to nation. To have a meaningfull conversation about nationalism we need to decide which nation and during what period in time (let it be modern) we are talking about.

“Ethnocentrism is not necessarily nationalism.”

But I think it is similar enough for the purposes of this discussion. Besides, Nouri was the first to lamp them together.

“People did not value self-governance because they had never known or even heard of it with a few exceptions like England and Poland, but even then they were often merely the expressions of aristocrats rather than commoners.”

I am afraid you are mistaken. Now, I am not nesseserily talking about variations of democracy (of which there are also many readily avaliable axamples, like greek city-states, or even native-american tribes). I am talking about situations in which the rulling classes belong to the same ethnos/nation as the ruled ones. Examples of this are plenty. Take russians for example. They were never ruled by anybody (even mongols, those simply asked for tribute), or Jews, who even though were often under foreign rule always differentiated themselves, and even tried a few ill-fated uprisings.

“Countries bigger than those that have spawned nationalism were standard, actually they usually came bigger and often lasted longer.”

But only through power of the sword, not because people did not care.

“Jews claiming land not occupied by Jews based on ancient kingdoms and proceeding to suplant its current occupants is not self-determination, not nationalism, it is imperialism/colonialism.”

The argument of ancient kingdom only seeks to explain why Israel was established were it was, not the reason for it’s establishment. You want to call those people impirialists or colonialists? On what grounds? Do you see an emerging empire when you look at the map of middle east? Do you expect Israel to make Lebanese or Syrians it’s subjects? Those people you speak of want to govern themselves, and only themselves, and only within current borders of Israel. And that is a drive for self-determination. Israel is a colony? As much as United States is. You can call it that, if you wish, but I don’t see how it is a negative word.

“So if you were alive in the 19th century you would have opposed Zionism?”

I never said that a newly emergent nation needs to be opposed. I merely said it’s rights are not implicit. I wouldn’t oppose Zionism, and I do not see anything wrong with supporting Palestinianism (if this word even exists). Neither do I oppose it. However, I do oppose the particular way in which Palestinians are trying to achive their national aspirations.

“I am talking about situations in which the rulling classes belong to the same ethnos/nation as the ruled ones.”

At the level of the majority of the population, the peasantry the ultimate political authority was usually irrelevant to anyone. Often the empire to which an area belonged to changed without anyone’s life being affected.

“But only through power of the sword, not because people did not care. ”

There was no popular opposition to the conquest though, only one ruling class deposing another.

“You want to call those people impirialists or colonialists? On what grounds?”

A colonialist state would be one where it was decided by a foreign population to take control and they proceeded to systematically “colonize”, transefer population into little enclaves until there was a sufficient prescence to control directly.

“I never said that a newly emergent nation needs to be opposed.”

What you said was:

“if group of people calls itself a nation does not automatically grants that group any particular rights, including having their own country”

That would seem to question the right of Zionists to a state in YOUR VIEW if looked at from the perspective of early Zionists.

“A colonialist state would be one where it was decided by a foreign population to take control and they proceeded to systematically “colonize”, transefer population into little enclaves until there was a sufficient prescence to control directly.”

You say nothing here about imperialism. Have you abandoned that claim? As to colonialism, several points:

1. The population is not foreign, jewish presence was never interrupted in what is now Israel. People left and came back. Jewish state would be foreign in Uganda, but not in Judea,

2. As I said before, I see nothing wrong with colonization. You live in US. Are you a colonist? Whould you care if you were called one?

“That would seem to question the right of Zionists to a state in YOUR VIEW if looked at from the perspective of early Zionists.”

No it does not. I said, “no automatic right based on merely being called a nation”, I dodn’t said “automatic absense of rights”. Just because Jews are a nation doesn’t mean they are entitled to a state, true. But it doesn’t mean there are no deeper reasons why Jews ARE entitled to a state. I wasn’t even trying to address this issue in what I wrote. Moreover the fact of life is that Jews DID build a state. And they did so without destroying another state in the proccess. Let me remind you: before Israel it was British mandate, and before – Ottoman empire, and before …. and so on.

“You say nothing here about imperialism. Have you abandoned that claim? ”

[The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. ]

The definition uses the word nation rather than “State” so it still fits, but not in the standard sense in that Jews did not constitute the action of a state.

“jewish presence was never interrupted in what is now Israel. ”

Yes, as a small minority. Note that your claim also assumes the European Jews to be more similar to those already there than they in fact were.

The fact that there was expansion into areas Jews were not living as a systemic policy still makes it colonialism.

“You live in US. Are you a colonist?”

No, and I do think both the manner and general purpose of how the colonization was carried out was immoral. (And it was the British anyway)

Plus My ancestors were still in Poland until around WWI. (Fled the wave of Pogroms following the assasination of Alexander II)

“And they did so without destroying another state in the proccess.”

The Arabs living in the area consistently displayed a preference not to have a Jewish state imposed on them.

A considerable population was physically and or economically displaced. In some cases deliberately and others not.

The right to continue to live in the land of your birth, where you and your forefathers for generations have lived,

comes not from some empire or government, it is a fairly basic principal of justice.

(By the way, what do you think of moving this to the discussion forum? the ” ” are really not very useful and I’m not sure you can type HTMLs, plus that’s what the forum is for, we can just copy all the comments and maybe you should make one about your debate with Nouri too)

“The definition uses the word nation rather than “State” so it still fits, but not in the standard sense in that Jews did not constitute the action of a state.”

Sorry but this is very confusing statement.

“Note that your claim also assumes the European Jews to be more similar to those already there than they in fact were.”

More similar, less similar… How do you measure? Size of the nose? Sorry but this is nonsence.

“The fact that there was expansion into areas Jews were not living as a systemic policy still makes it colonialism.”

What does it matter how you call it?

“And it was the British anyway”

Brits, Spaniards, Portugese, French, and that is just the major players. Nearly every european nation had it’s emisars in the new world. Half Ireland came. And now that everybody who lives in America is suddenly an American it is easy to blaim “the British”. Your ancestors came later then others? They still came to enjoy fruits of immoral (according to your own words) colonization. And I don’t blaim them. Pogroms are a nasty business.

“The Arabs living in the area consistently displayed a preference not to have a Jewish state imposed on them.”

Yes, they did. They gave very clear hints at their “preference” when they were doing pogroms to jewish population long before talk about Jewish state was anything more then wishfull thinking. They gave more hints when they rejected the state that was given to them in the same document that gave Jews their portion of the land (the pre-1948 borders) and instead lauched an orchestrated attack on the new state (the 1948 war). Then they willlingly abandoned their settlements because they were told arab armies are coming in to massacre the jews and they needed everybody out (reminds of today’s Nasrala’s calls to Haifa’s arabs to leave the city). E.t.c. I am sure you can take the story from here.

“A considerable population was physically and or economically displaced. In some cases deliberately and others not.”

This is simply not true. See above.

“The right to continue to live in the land of your birth, where you and your forefathers for generations have lived, comes not from some empire or government, it is a fairly basic principal of justice”

There is also the right to live in the land that was lawfully purchased. Jews were doing just that. Also, there is the right not to be massacred.

—

Discussion forum sounds fine, I dont mind. (I read this after writing everything so I will just press “submit”)

“Discussion forum sounds fine, I dont mind.”

I copyed comment 7. and added a response, its in general (after an embarrassing clarification about my attributing it to the wrong person, huge mistake on my part)

“(I read this after writing everything so I will just press “submit”) ”

In retrospect I should have put it first.
oh well.

[...] Shaky Grounds [...]