Actually the term Zionism was coined by Austrian Jewish publisher Nathan Birnbaum in 1890. Mark Twain visited Palestine in 1867. Neither Mark Twain, nor Alphonse de Lamartine, nor German Kaiser Wilhelm II nor many other researchers and travelers who reported and testified that Palestine was a desolate, abandoned desert were first Zionists. In fact they were not Zionists at all, they simply wrote what they observed.
No buddy, the thought of stealing my land and giving it to Khazarah so called Jews was coined waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before that through Evanglical Christians like George Eliot and others. Good try though!!
Actually we can go even farther back then, the thought of reclaiming their historic land was on the mind of every jew for two thousand years, since the day they were expelled by the Romans. It was not called Zionism then but even by this definition neither Mark Twain nor hundreds of other 19th century reserchers and travelers could not possibly be first zionists. Fortunately the land was not occupied, it was desolate and abandoned so the jewish dream finally came true. PS You're not accusing German Kaiser Wilhelm II whose quote I posted above of being a Zionist, are you?
Not true! You guys, in your first Zionist meeting, were debating a location of a country to steal for your nomad Zionists. Some of the options that were given were Uganda, Argentina and others. It was tilted toward Palestine because of the influence of Evangelical Christians in England as I mentioned previously. Good try again!!
This is the other source our little Zionist is using as a reference of who were the Palestinians; Germany was, at that time, the major European power, and Herzl correspondingly allotted her a central role in the scenario. Even in his early days, Herzl attempted to meet with Kaiser Wilhelm II, with the idea he could persuade him of the justness of the Zionist cause. From there, he hoped to gain access to the Court of the Turkish Sultan at Kushta, since Germany's ties to Turkey were the closest of all the European powers. When Herzl met the Duke of Baden, the Kaiser's uncle, he tried to persuade him of the importance of a meeting with Kaiser Wilhelm for the Zionist cause. After more than one and a half years of fruitless contacts with influential German figures, Herzl was called to the German consul during a stay in Amsterdam and informed that the German Kaiser was prepared to meet him on his journey to Jerusalem. Kaiser Wilhelm II's first stop on his journey to the land of Israel was at Kushta. In October 1898, Herzl traveled to Kushta, where he met with the Kaiser for the first time and received a promise of a subsequent meeting in Jerusalem. http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/act/14zion.html
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE INTENSITY OF THE RESULTS of Sharon's provocative visit without returning to the principles of Barak's policy which led to the final status agreement, and which, together with the U.S., Barak tried without success to enforce on Arafat at Camp David. All these paved the way both to Sharon's provocation itself, to the reaction in the territories and in Israel, and to the atrocities that the Israeli army and police have been committing. Moreover, it is Barak's policy up until Camp David and the agreement proposed there, not the actual outbreak of violence, which are responsible for the end of the Oslo process. As Professor Baruch Kimmerling says, "If anybody is responsible for the burial that was held for the Oslo Agreements, including a possible chaotic collapse in the areas of the Palestinian Authority -- it is Barak" (Ha'aretz, 4/10/00). Barak repeated his former rejectionist positions, which he had declared in his election campaign eighteen months before. These are positions that actually say, "Either peace according to Israel's terms -- or war." And Arafat had no alternative but to choose the only way open to him: to walk out of Camp David. The following are the main points in Barak's proposed agreement of surrender. First, the absolute and categorical rejection of the Palestinian Right of Return, which is in accord with the positions of all Israeli governments since the end of the 1948 war. (Barak suggested a few hundred returnees every year during the coming fifteen years.) Indeed, a concession on this issue would present a negation of the central aims of Zionism from its very beginning, namely, the establishment of an exclusively Jewish state. Therefore, the Oslo Agreements, as well as the proposal for a final settlement, were precisely designed to liquidate the refugee question, to disperse the refugees throughout the Diaspora, and thus to remove the Palestinian national problem from world consciousness. The refugee problem is the core of the Palestinian national question (which was the rationale behind the foundation of the PLO), a reality acknowledged by all Palestinians, wherever they might be. Precisely because of this, Barak could not but reject the Right of Return, and Arafat could not but insist on this right. Neither did Barak at Camp David retreat from his other positions regarding the final status solution, namely, the refusal to withdraw to the borders of June 4, 1967, and maintaining Israeli sovereignty over the settlements and 80 percent of the settlers on 20 percent of the West Bank area. (He even demanded an additional 8 percent on a lease for 99 years.) Both the Labor and Likud governments have taken great advantage of the postponement of border issue until the final talks in order to carry out a massive wave of settlement building, designed to determine the Bantustan character of the enclaves comprising the future Palestinian state. As Amira Hass testifies: "Even in these very days, bulldozers are working overtime to manage to determine additional facts in the 61 percent of the West Bank area, which is still under the military and security control of Israel [Areas B and C]. Under the cover of the 'State Lands' category [whose designation is defined as 'for the good of all residents'], the plans to build two parallel, unequal infrastructures in the West Bank, are being completed in great haste, including roads, water, electricity, telephones, sewage, and future development. One is excellent, efficient, wide, secure, and connected to Israel, for the Jews, the other- inferior, reduced, restricted, contracted, for the Palestinians" (Ha'aretz, 9/27/00). In addition, the haste to establish facts in Jerusalem and its surroundings utterly negate Israel's claim that Barak is willing "to make extreme compromises" in Jerusalem, as well as the opposition's accusation that Barak is "dividing Jerusalem." "In the midst of the talks, when the differences in opinion on the future of Jerusalem seemed to become smaller, an irreversible geo-political fact was established in the form of "The Eastern Ring Road." This road is designed to cut off Arab Jerusalem from its hinterland and to firmly determine the severing of the Northern canton of the Palestinian state from the Southern, to ease the connection between the settlements and the Jewish city, and to prevent the Palestinian communities, strewn all along this road, from developing, since their lands were confiscated. Likewise, the hasty building within the range of the city and in the settlements surrounding it, is actually aimed at presenting a new "status quo," to which the Palestinians will have to "adapt themselves" if they wish to achieve any agreement in Jerusalem (Meron Benvenisti, Ha'aretz, 9/28/00). These facts clarify the cunning game with which Barak chose to proceed at Camp David, attempting to convince the world of his willingness to make "extreme compromises." He turned Jerusalem, and in fact the whole question of Israeli sovereignty over the Al Aqsa compound, into the red line from which Israel could not retreat. To this political aim, he adopted the claim that under the Al Aqsa mosque are buried the remnants of the Temple, and he emphasized their importance as "national symbols" and "Israeli sanctuaries," about which Kimmerling comments, "[by these] Barak meant the relics of a Jewish ritual temple, which may be buried under the central mosque of Muslims, to whose symbols he showed no sensitivity" (Ha'aretz, 10/4/00). In fact, the Al Aqsa compound has been in the full ownership of the Palestinians since the '67 occupation. The Islamic Waqf does what it pleases there, and Israelis hardly ever visit. General Moshe Dayan determined the pragmatic policy regarding the compound, receiving the approval of the Chief Rabbinate, who represented the trend in Judaism that forbade entrance to the Temple Mount until the coming of the Messiah. The extension of the Zionist colonization project by the '67 occupation led to increased adherence to religious symbols within Israeli society. These were now needed, even more than before, for the legitimization of the occupation in the name of the "historic- divine right," and also for the strengthening of the national identity of the collective, for which Zionism had failed to provide secular criteria for defining its bounderies (thereby adopting the religious criterion which characterizes a Jew according to the Jewish origin of his/her mother). Focusing then on the Temple Mount as the "red line" for Israel's "concessions" was meant to give the impression that an agreement had already been achieved on the remaining central issues owing to "Barak's great willingness to make concessions that Netanyahu had not been willing to make"; then the accusation could be made of Arafat that "for the sake of a few meters he was willing to relinquish the Peace Agreement with Israel" (Ben Ami, Minister of Internal Security and deputy Foreign Minister). But this is not so. Without concessions regarding Jerusalem, Netanyahu also was prepared to sign a settlement with the Palestinians. Moreover, as Kimmerling estimates, "Barak made less efforts towards the Palestinians than did Netanyahu, who carried out the Hebron Agreement" (Ha'aretz, 10/4/00). Recall that with the evacuation of Hebron, Netanyahu implemented the second of the three withdrawals which the Oslo Agreement had determined, whereas Barak refused to fulfill Israel's commitment to implement the third -- which he postponed until the final status settlement. http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue30/honig30.htm
This is an Israeli peace site that exposes our resident little Zionist for the liar he is! http://gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html This is another link to further expose this little Zionist lie; http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113 Further evidance of this zionists deception; http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story416.html And more; http://www.doublestandards.org/myth02.html
No Wael, not me, you give me way too much credit, they must be exposing the French Government (one of the most pro-Palestinian governments in Europe), they must be exposing Bill Clinton, they must be exposing pretty much the rest of the world that found Barac/Clinton proposal to be extremely generous and more than fair at that time: "The US proposal includes Israeli concession of sovereignty over much of East Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa mosque to Palestinians, while Palestinians give up the right of return for Palestinian refugees and keep 95 percent of the land of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. " ... "Spokesman of the French Foreign Ministry Francois Rivasseau said ..."Is there a better solution which can come out for a foreseeable term? I don't think so," http://english.people.com.cn/english/200012/27/eng20001227_58896.html Now the question of course is whether you believe even-handed Bill Clinton and pro-palestinian french officials or some absurd anonymous websites. PS You were offered 100% of Gaza, 95% of the West Bank (with the compensation for the remaining 5%) and East Jerusalem. That you turned down this offer without even a counter-offer proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't want peace and a two-state solution.
French governoment has its own interest and political agenda. Have witnessed them on many occasions carry the "scratch my back and I will scratch yours" The Bill Clinton administration? the same one who had Dennis Ross as the Cheif American negotiator? the Same negotiator who instructed Barak to break the negotiations for the Saturday Jewish holiday? As for Clinton, he was always an opportunist first and last, a Zionist second, and a clumsy politician third. The Palestinians were the weakest party; they were badly led and poorly prepared. Clinton surmised that because his (and Barak's) terms in office were ending, he could produce a peace ceremony based on Palestinian capitulation, a ceremony that would forever enshrine his presidency by erasing the memory of Monica Lewinsky and the developing scandal of Marc Rich's pardon. This great plan, of course, failed completely. Even American sources recently made public supported the Palestinian argument that Barak's "generous offer" was neither an offer nor generous. Robert Malley, a member of Clinton's White House-based National Security Council, has published a report on what took place and, although it is critical of Palestinian tactics during the Camp David summit, it shows clearly that Israel wasn't even close to offering what the Palestinians' legitimate national aspirations required. But Malley spoke out in July 2001, a full year after the Camp David summit ended and well after Israel's well-oiled propaganda machine launched the by now standard chorus that Arafat had mischievously rejected the best imaginable Israeli offer. This chorus was abetted by Clinton's repeated claim that, whereas Barak was courageous, Arafat was only disappointing. And so the thesis has lodged in public discourse ever since, to Palestine's immense detriment. Unnoticed was the observation made by an Israeli information flunky that after Camp David and Taba, no Palestinians played a consistent role disseminating a Palestinian version of the debacle. Thus, Israel has had the field to itself, with results in exploitation and backlash that have been virtually incalculable.