Nationalism

The Star of David was used as a Jewish symbol throughout the centuries, and was even used by the Nazis to identify Jews, when they were forced to wear it at all times.

It was in 1897 that the World Zionist Congress decided to adapt the symbol as a Zionist emblem, and, in the end, it was also introduced into the Israeli flag and many other Zionist propaganda.

Just as the Cross is associated with Christianity, the Star of David represents either Judaism or Zionism (although they are not the same at all).

The unification of Germany

Rebellions in Austria

The unification of Italy

Rebellions in Austria

republicans come from a tradition which up to recent times advocated a military and political solution. nationalists favour the political method only. both aspire to a united Ireland. republicans would also be more radical in economic theory etc than most nationalists. in present terms the differences are largely historical and social.

democracy

Taiwan, though it's quite debatable as to whether you could really call it Nationalist China in reality, though they still use the name.

Their independence as the new State of Israel.

Pan Slavic nationalism was and is nationalismwhcih regaed all slavs as one nation.

Or nationalism which is based on Slovene race, cutlutes and languages.

On common Slavic identity.

Slovakian and Slovenia today are states of panslavic nationalists.

because more Jews felt that they needed an internationally recognised state to represent them and defend them.

no se

Nationalism to Africa is the political movement for Pan-Africanism and for national self-determination. This started in 1890.

Nationalism affected the music and poetry of the 19th century. Calls for democracy were a factor in the revolutions that took place across Europe in 1848.

Aom ywn

There is no connection whatsoever. One-letter differences are like comparing BOB and JOB, or ANNE and ANNA: it can mean whatever you want it to mean. It means nothing anyway, because if you have two extremes one cancels the other out.

secure a charter for the Bank of North America; congress assume payment of the entire national debt; use tax revenues to pay off the growing national deficit

because i think he really wanted to. If he was the boss he can do it, there is nothing anyone else can do about it. See what i mean now.

wtf ; your hella stupid. if your not smart enough to know the answer then dont put shii down!

Zionism is certainly one of the causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It is not the only cause of the conflict and is also not the most important cause of the conflict.

There was no only one, but perhaps the most famous one was Prince Faisal.

Napoleon served as a unifying figure for the English in the sense that they could easily define themselves in opposition to him and his desire for conquest. Especially after Napoleon had subdued most of Continental Europe, England became defined as the sole resistor to Napoleon's attacks and English people rallied to this new definition of the lone democracy against an authoritarian empire.

Being a Zionist only means one thing: Believing that the Jews have a right to an independent State and that this State should be in the Land of Israel. As a result, the main goal of Zionism has consistently been the establishment and maintenance of such a state.

Many people incorrectly believe that Zionism refers to the Anti-Semitic depictions of a worldwide Jewish Cabal or some other conspiracy theory. However, that is not what Zionism is.

Of course, everyone's view is going to be different on this question, so take my view into consideration, but do not necessarily brand it as the right answer.

I would say that it would be possible, but highly unlikely.

Both could have become federal republics in much the same way that Switzerland is a federal republic or similar to the European Union structure, i.e. a united government with numerous highly autonomous and distinctive parts. A singular nation-state, a la Germany, would be impossible with so many different ethnic cultures and languages. However, the implementation of such a policy of creating a federal republic would have to come rather early in the timeline of both empires, such as in the 18th century, following a strict policy of increasing liberalization and recognition of ethnic distinctions and historical territories. For example, the recognition of an Austro-Hungarian federation only in 1867 as the result of several Hungarian uprisings against the Austrian Imperial Authorities, was far too late to be anything substantial. Or in the Ottoman Empire, the passage of the minimally effective Edict of Gulhane in 1839 and the Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856, were similarly too little too late.

They would have needed to be forward thinking and innovative long before protests had reached such a fever pitch that tens of thousands of commoners became nationalists arguing for the dismantling of these empires. It would require the Austrians to grant Hungarians autonomy in the mid-1700s, the Rumelians and Romanians in the late-1700s, to support the Polish Liberation movement in opposition to Czarist Russia and Absolutist Prussia, to engage Poles, Croats, Slovenes, Czechs, and Slovaks in the empire and create local administrations that would provide local information in their language. The Ottomans would be required to do the same for Non-Turkish Ottomans, such as Greeks, Serbs, Romanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Kurds, Georgians, Jews, and Lebanese Christians. Both regimes would have to become open quickly to religions other than the official religion, treating them all equal. The Austrian Empire would have to embrace Protestantism, Judaism, and Eastern Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism. The Ottoman Empire would have to embrace the various flavors of Christianity, Judaism, Yazidi, Yarsanism, Druze, Alawite, Alevi, Shiite Islam, Baha'i, and numerous other religions throughout the empire as opposed to exclusively Sunni Islam.

In contrast to this imagined reality, the Austrian Empire and the Ottoman Empire were ultra-conservative states that made little political progress towards liberalization that was not forced on them by the more powerful and liberal Western European States.

Mao Tse-Tung

Like people from any country, they wanted their independence and not to be ruled by someone else. So naturally, they were not happy at a country trying to rule them.

No. Zionism is not even a form of Judaism. Zionism is a political ideology concerned with the nationalist aspiration of Jews to have a homeland. It is no more Judaism than the German Nationalism of Otto von Bismarck was Christian. Zionism identifies Jews as an ethnicity with almost no reference to religious belief. Zionism operates separately from the religion of Judaism and does not cite the Torah, Mishnah, Talmud, or the Rabbis in its day to day operations. Zionism also has created a relatively secular state and a significant number of Religious Jews in Israel are bothered that the State is less theocratic than they believe a Jewish State should be.

There are a number of such movements, but the most popular has been FASCISM.

The religion you are looking for is Judaism, however Diaspora is not an exclusively Jewish term and Zionism is not an exclusively Jewish phenomenon.

Diaspora applies to any ethnic group living outside of its original land. While the Jewish Diaspora is the most famous, there is also the Armenian Diaspora, the Palestinian Diaspora, the Greek Diaspora, the Circassian Diaspora, and numerous other Diasporas.

Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have political self-sovereignty and is the patriotic sentiment behind the Establishment of the State of Israel. It is entirely political in nature and a large number of Zionists are Christians, even though the the question is about Jewish sovereignty. Similarly, a person does not have to be Polish to support the right of Poles to have self-determination (as Woodrow Wilson did in 1918) or a person does not have to be Bengali to believe that Bangladesh had the right to be free of India in 1947 and Pakistan in 1971. Additionally, there are some Jews who are either apathetic towards Zionism or are Anti-Zionist.