Scotland is technically my 'ancestoral homeland'. What no one has ever explained adequately to me is this: If I (and a bunch of other Americans with Scottish/Irish heritage) flew over to Scotland today and used an up-armored D9 bulldozer to raze some Scottish farmer's home and force him off it, would I be in the right? It's my 'ancestral' homeland after all. Granted, my family hasn't lived there for generations, but there's a small town in Scotland that bares my last name. So it must be mine, all mine for the taking, right?
I really don't understand why Zionists get a free pass on this. It would be utterly outrageous if anyone else marched over to a country and started razing and killing based on the claims that some book said their god told them the land was theirs, or that it is their 'ancestral homeland', or that they are god's chosen people.
When ISIS tried this while attempting to form their 'caliphate', the US/West and the rest of the world (rightfully) was outraged and intervened to put a stop to it. I fail to see how Zionism is not merely a different religion's version of the same extremism/jihadism or their version of a theocratic ethno-centric theocracy or 'caliphate'. We think one is good, and the other bad. Aren't they both bad? Maybe the REAL issue is this fanaticism around forcefully carving out religious theocracies amidst populations of already-existing people... rather than what the religion of those engaged in this misguided quest happens to be.
You know what else is the 'ancestral homeland' of a displaced people? The United States of America. I wonder how Americans would react if an army of Lakota or Sioux showed up on their doorstep with bulldozers at the ready. Would they be as eager and enthusiastic about supporting projects of violent 'reclaiming' of 'ancestral homelands' then?
It's pretty hilarious when people on the North American continent claim support for Zionism and talk sanctimoniously about the sacredness of 'ancestral homelands' while existing on land that was brutally seized by forcing a native population from it and engaging in a genocide against them. But now, these same people (many with no connection to the middle east whatsoever) have suddenly taken a keen interest in hoisting the banner of defense of 'ancestral homelands' there - all in the name of defending the side once again engaged in what is quickly becoming one of the worst genocidal rampages of the 21st century.
New rule: Retreat from the land you're now occupying and return it to the Dakotas or Cherokee. Then you can go around crusading for other people's right to return to their 'ancestral homeland'.
Also strange: the middle east is also the 'ancestoral homeland' of the people that were actually living on it when they were forcefully removed during the creation of Israel and the Nakhbah. Many are refused the basic 'right to return' to the land they were forced from. So.... why do the Zionist's claims of 'ancestoral homeland' trump those who more recently existed on it?
I think what's really going on here, is most people (especially in the US) don't actually give two flying flips about the sanctity of 'ancestral homelands', but sure love to drag that rhetoric out when it suits their political/economic/imperialistic ambitions.... just as long as its not THEM having to leave (or be forcefully removed) from someone else's 'ancestral homeland'
