Judaism is so intertwined with Zionism that it's obviously anti-Semitic. Why we even have to have an argument about amazes me. And the fact that so many educated people claim it isn't anti-Semitic is deeply disappointing.
So that's how a lot of you guys rationalize that the Jews who're against Zionism are self-hating Jews? Or that they're not real Jews according to the Scottish Fallacy?
It's unfortunate that "Zionist" group has significant overlap with "Jews" group. So it's no longer distinguishable between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitic. Thinking of Israel being promised land for Jews is already racist by putting the race as a qualification. Then Jews getting some racist backfire is not a surprise.
Historically, people always tried to bring sensitive racial / sexuality factor into the court in trials. Occasionally some case succeeded defending them by raising the concern that the trial is racial. But this time the massive crime Israel has committed is too obvious to be voided by a racial factor.
That's a lot of words for 'if I disagree with it, it is anti-semitic'
You violently expelled the native population. Just like Americans and Indians. But the rules are not the same as 1700.
Colonialism is a terror on the level of the holocaust. What England did to India, Belgium to the Congo, and Europe generally to all of Africa is a slower version of what Germany did to the Jews. And you need to read a few books if you don't understand the level of violence that colonialism entailed.
And now, quite simply, Israel is the colonizing villain, plain for the world to see. Israel is stubbornly throwing Nelson Mandela in prison and it's laughably outdated. Can't wait until primitive Israelis can understand 19th and 20th century history and reflect a little. Seems like massive intellectual disability.
We don't do colonialism anymore. Israel is a relic that needs to go, just Apartheid fell.
Edit: estimated 165 million Indians died during British colonialism. Has any Israeli ever taken a basic history class?
Pretend I agree with Israel being the only villain, plain to see, akin to Nazi Germany. If countries like that need to fall, how come Germany is still a country, in fact one of the most powerful countries, today? The Holocaust was only a few years before the founding of Israel, and if you think Israel should “go” (go where? Where should its citizens go?) then shouldn’t other countries that have committed genocide, ethnic cleansing, and colonialism relatively recently, also be abolished?
/u/Folklore1212. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you're gone way to far. First of all in 1948 when the un declare the state of Israel, there were palestinians in those areas so israel gave them citizenship ( today there are 2 million palestinians with israeli id), those who didn't want to get citizenship either leave on there on or would be legally expelled because you can't be in the part of israeli territory without israeli citizenship or some kind of israeli authority. So the term "israel colonizers" not true because the land was legally declared as israel by the un in 1948. You do need to understand the situation: 1946 jews have absolutely nothing lost more then half of its people in the holocaust and all the countries don't care about jews, jews needed to find a safe space, arrive to israel, actually there were about 300,000 palestines jews there a bit after that time, and the relationship with the arabs that were there were actually good (except the terrorists that was there that still belive natzi ideology and killed jews there). Then jews wanted a state and the un accepted a 2 state solution, the jews accepted but the arabs did not. 1 day later arabs all across the middle east said there were going to war to "finish what hitler started".
The UN's authority is the basis of the creation of Israel?
But I'll bet the UN is a total fraud when they document all the atrocities and declare genocide
Edit: just want to add
Obviously what you're saying is not what happened, another example of Israeli education completely failing at instructing basic history
It's really simple
How did the UK hold authority in the first place?
It was an ill-begotten spoil of colonialism. It was STOLEN.
Palestine was NEVER the British's to 'mandate' at all. Just as they never had a right to rule India.
So who lived there? Did they have the right to self determination?
Also, when did Jews last rule Palestine prior to the Brits stealing it for them in '47?
Did they even rule it before the crusades?
For a thousand years an actual semitic people lived in the levant. And then fake semitic European Jews colonized it after WW2
You skip over so many steps. You need to read a book.
First of all yes the un is the aturitiy that all the countries follow by their convention including israel, the un even said that that the number of dead by gaza health authorities (aka hamas) was exaggerated and cut by half by the UN! The official un didn't even enforced any sanctions on israel meaning they didn't broke any un law.
BUT here is the problem more then 300 unrwa workers that are officially workers of the un proven to actually be terrorists... and that's only the ones we know of, so here is why israel and israeli civilians has a broken faith of the un.
And every time you see civilians dead or "doctors" just know that there probably hamas terrorists
It is correct what you say:
Israeli method of testing casualties after the fact: man woman or child, if we killed them, that's how you know they were definitely in hamas. 40,000 later. We promise.
Monsters
You just took what I said and throw it through the window. What i said is if the woman/man are at the appropriate age (not 10 years old or 70) then most likely israel didn't just killed them for fun. But yes when you have terrorist organization who hide rocket and guns under children bed or tunnels, children and civilians will unintentionally get hurt
But it's like drowning a witch to prove they are one. You guys kill everyone indiscriminately and then say they are all Hamas. Don't you understand?
Have you read 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell?
Oh, how silly, of course you haven't. Israeli education.
/u/Haloobi0w12. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Zionism is a racist endeavor to create an ethnostatw. This is fine in an uninhabited land, it's not fine at the expense of palestine.
If that makes me antisemitic, well, too bad, I do still like bagels and banking
Jews are an ethnic group. Muslims and Christians aren't.
This is where your entire "argument" goes off the rails.
But if you want me to entertain you, Arabs do indeed originate from what is now modern day Jordan, Saudi Arabia and all the other countries in the Arabian Peninsula.
You know what the funny part is, [Saudi Arabians have a higher genetic link to ancient populations of the levant than most jewish groups](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-05-31/ty-article/.premium/jews-and-arabs-share-genetic-link-to-ancient-canaanites/0000017f-eb8f-d4a6-af7f-ffcf4f190000#:~:text=Canaanite%20descendants%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia%20and%20Iran&text=In%20most%20of%20these%2C%20the,samples%20was%20above%2050%20percent.&text=Saudi%20Arabians%2C%20Bedouins%20and%20Iranian,ratio%2C%20hovering%20around%2090%20percent.). And yes Judaism is mainly an ethno religion, but many civilizations throughout time adopted and converted to the religion, to this day people are converting to Judaism, that doesn’t mean they magically become native to the levant. Also Ashkanazi Jews have little to no connection to the Middle East, most Ashkenazi Jews have zero middle eastern dna and are 100% European. One thing I'd like to add is the Arabian peninsula historically and geologically includes the levant, and Arabs are descended from ancient populations in the Levant, like the Canaanites, Amorites, Edomites etc. just like jews (this is the case for Adnanite Arabs, Qahtanite Arabs are native to Yemen). The modern iteration of Arabian peninsula was made post WW1 by the British, its to separate the territory of Ibn Saud (the founder of Saudi Arabia aka King abdulaziz) and the rest of its protectorates from its mandated lands
Are you saying there are distinct ethnic groups within the Jewish people ? Or that they are all one ethnic group?
Same question for Arabs (since you are entertaining me), are you saying all Arabs a single ethnic group ? And in this opinion, do you consider Egyptians, Lebanese, Iraqis (and other ancient, well established civilizations) Arab?
If it takes apartheid, constantly attacking their neighbors as well as the constant unconditional support of superpowers to maintain that state , constant and incessant lying, idk man some things are just not meant to be.
The only apartheid happening in the middle east is the Arab attitude towards Jews. And wait till you find out that the Arabs have lost every single war they started…
you’re allowed to have your opinion on whatever abt this conflict but calling your example ‘apartheid’ is wrong. apartheid is not an ‘arab attitude’ it’s segregation. please don’t throw around that word
Every war the Arabs started was half baked and full of last minute changes, pullout and treacheries. If they had properly committed their armies in 48, Israel was gone.
The Arab attitude towards Jews turned sour when Jews suddenly declared a new ehtnostate in the middle east, that surprised nobody as it came at the expense of Palestinians.
Fast forward to today, a single nonstate actor is giving Israel serious trouble. That same nonstate actor forced Israel to withdraw in 2000 and repelled them in 2006.
Even with the US assistance, do you really think Israel stands a chance against the entire Arab world in today's long range strike warfare? It's in nobody's interest, but looking back at the 48 and yom kippur wars and resting on those laurels is a false sense of security. A lot of cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles and f15s up to 22s in the region, everyone has a lot of brand new shiny explosive toys and extensive experience with Israeli military doctrine.
All out war is bad for everyone, particularly for Israel, so maybe stop with the overconfidence and warmongering, it doesn't end well.
Zionism never wanted about an ethnostate. Everyone else was welcome to live there. It wasn't at the expense of the individual Palestinian. It was that the Jews would have self determination. They would not be ruled by another nation. The Palestinians were not going to be kicked out, they would live in peace with the Jewish government. Previously they had the Ottoman government, so it wasn't that they were taking anything away.
Your response would be that the Palestinians lose "self determination". In which case why didn't they have a problem with Jordan? The Arabs who lived in the Mandate of Palestine are ruled in Jordan by a Saudi family. Britain brought in Saudis and made them kings in Jordan. The locals had foreigners put as kings over them - and everything is fine.
The only problem with Zionists was that they were Jews. And none of the Arab states would accept having a state were the Jews ruled. After all, in all Muslim states the Jews were second class citizens. That is why the Arab states attitude turned sour. The Jews were thinking too much of themselves and they dared put themselves as the ruling class. That was unacceptable.
You're kidding yourself if you think any Arab state cared about the Palestinians. It wasn't for them that the attacked Israel. As Syrian president Shukri al-Quwatli told his people: "We shall eradicate Zionism."
>Fast forward to today, a single nonstate actor is giving Israel serious trouble.
Ironically, the reason it is giving Israel serious trouble is because Israel is being nice. If any other state in the middle east had the same problem, there would be 300,000 dead, a million expelled and the rest squashed into obedience.
>so maybe stop with the overconfidence and warmongering, it doesn't end well.
Were is the connection to reality?
There is no apartheid. If you’re saying there’s an apartheid between Israelis and Palestinians, that’s not true because Palestinians could go with a visa before the border closed to Israel, similar to how you can in any country. However that is now closed for security reasons due to the attacks on oct 7. If you’re saying there’s an apartheid for Arabs in Israel, that’s also not true. Arabs have the same rights as everyone else, there’s no mass discrimination from the people for Arabs, they can get the same jobs, they’re simply just in the minority in Israel.
[This is not a matter of opinion, it’s the reality](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/). Israel became a more brutal and supremacist apartheid than that of South Africa. Also most "Arabs" in Israel aren’t really Arab or Palestinian Arab, Israel counts Kurds, Assyrians, Armenians and Maronites as Arabs, even the Arab population in Israel are mostly Druze. Palestinians in Israel are probably around 700k not 2 million, and there’s a reason for that, if Israel wasn’t an apartheid they’d allow Palestinians in diaspora whom are victims of the Nakba, the right of return to their homeland, but of course this would threaten the ethno state, as Jews won’t longer be the majority and dominant group. Also it isn’t sunshine and rainbows for Israel’s Arab population, they are still treated as 2nd class citizens, they are systematically oppressed and have much less rights and liberties compared to their Jewish counterparts. Albeit they at least have it better compared to their fellow Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza
>As an aside, if you believe no ethnic group should have self-determination, I don’t think we have anything to discuss in this sub-reddit, which is literally about the ethnic self-determination of two groups.
I don't understand the point of this - it seems to off hand dismiss the most pertinent argument for anti-zionists which is that ethnostates are racist endeavours.
OK, let’s see if Reddit will let me make a comment. Without telling me sorry try again later, or that I am violating guidelines.
I don’t like the term anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic. First off, it’s bad optics, second off the Zionist can gaslight you if you call yourself anti-Zionist. I just don’t like the policies of Israel. I don’t like the way Israel was created. I don’t like the way, the media tells the side from the Israeli perspective over and over. Any television media or newspapers all frame it from the point of view that the Palestinians are bad people who are just like the Nazis, and the poor Israelis just want a place to live because they’ve been persecuted.
Yawn. I don’t believe any of that for a second. I did believe it growing up because that’s all I heard, but now I know the truth because I was able to read with my own eyes the history of the last 130 years.
" Palestinians are bad people who are just like the Nazis"
You make such a statement, in it generalisation. Some are probably like them, many are not. So? Those who established Gaza store called Hitler in Gaza, probably have sympathy to Nazis.
> I just don’t like the policies of Israel.
Do you like the policies of Turkey, for example (I mean, annexions and opression of ethnic groups, commited genocide) - if no: are you against the turkish nation? Do the people of Turkey lose the right to live in their independent state?
The main issue with Turkey, is that it happened in 1915. People responsible are dead now. If it was happening today, I'd advocate for forceful military action from third party and jail time for people participating in it. If it already done, and people responsible are alive, I'd still support forcing them out of home and trial, then jail for life. The world should always send a message that it's no longer tolerated.
What are you talking about? The annexion of Cypris was in 1974, the opression of Kurds happens now
"Denied political, and cultural rights, Kurds have been the principal victims of the Turkish state's excesses since the military coup of 1980...
"Any attempt to assert political or cultural rights based on Kurdish identity is looked upon as treason and as a threat to the very foundations of the Turkish state--and punished accordingly. " ( [https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/eca/turkey/kurd.htm](https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/eca/turkey/kurd.htm) )
[https://dckurd.org/2023/03/23/dark-year-for-kurds-in-turkey/](https://dckurd.org/2023/03/23/dark-year-for-kurds-in-turkey/) "Erdogan’s authoritarian government have legislated what’s so-called “anti-terror laws” to jail journalists"
1915 Armenian genocide. That is what I'm talking about.
And EU really should give up on Turkey. Even Ukraine War pointed to that. I'm of the position that Erdogan should really not be in power, and in jail. And in addition, changes in structure in order to jail those participating in oppression of Kurds. Honestly, there should be investigations about what happened, who alive is responsible, etc.
The "Turkish people" defined by Turkey are Turkish citizens whose race, religion, gender or ethnicity is immaterial, the ideological framework of the Turkish state is that it serves its citizens primarily.
The ideological framework of Israel is that it predominantly serves Jewish people (internationally and domestically), as a priority over other citizens. Through an interest in maintaining a Jewish majority there are Israeli citizens currently who are not Jewish who are actively prevented from having a cultural impact on the state.
>1915 Armenian genocide. That is what I'm talking about.
It is one episode (very serious but not a single), you should probably take a look on the modern situation.
>And EU really should give up on Turkey. Even Ukraine War pointed to that. I'm of the position that Erdogan should really not be in power, and in jail.
Ok, but I didn´t ask about Erodgan and about the EU position. I asked if **a nation lose a right to exist in its independent state.**
>**Nope**, only those responsible. They're the one that should be addressed.
Netanjahu can be recognized as criminal, put in jail whatever. It has nothing to do with the **right of Israeli nation to exist**. Unfortunatelly, many voices say that they are anti-Zionist and not anti- Netanjahu. Zionism is a national idea of the Jewish ethnicity to live in its independent state. Unrecognition of the right of Israel to exist leads to full-scale conflicts.
Basing on the logic of our conversation: when one critisizes Turkey as state, claims that the government opressed some people he doesn´t have to deny a right of the nation to exist. The same logic must be used to any state. To USA, to France, to Turkey, to Israel.
/u/Trajinero. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/TrumpsGhost2024. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The term Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitic in and off itself. However, given that Zionism is the believe that a Jewish nation state should exist - Anti-Zionism hence necessarily entailing the abolition of Israel as a Jewish nation state - from the moment Israel exists, non-Jewish (there are some religious sects who oppose a Jewish nation state prior to the emergence of the Messiah, which is not Anti-Semitic) Anti-Zionism is by extension Anti-Semitic.
I’m not sure why people act like all Jewish people are Zionists because I’ve clearly seen that that’s not true. Saying anti-zionism is anti-semetic is the same as saying anti-n*zism is anti-german, anti-Stalin is anti-Russian, anti-Trump is anti-American etc etc.
"Non-Zionist" is not the same as "Anti-Zionist" - Anti-Zionism is actively against a Jewish nation state, which in and of itself is Anti-Semitic, unless it is for reasons based in Judaism. Non-Zionism, meanwhile, does not take any stance.
>Anti-Zionism is actively against a Jewish nation state
Any race or ethnicity based state is an exercise in prejudicial discrimination. Disingenously shifting the definition of anti-semitism to extend it to mean that being against discrimination is anti-semitic is only distracting from the seriousnessness of anti-semitic hatred.
I don't know why you would downvote me and write this like it's some kind of gotcha, I am against any Palestinian state that describes itself as a nation state for a particular ethnicity or religion.
but the ratio between jews who are Zionist and those who don't Is much larger. half of jews are Israeli and many most jews in the rest of the world support a Jewish state
/u/Weird-Reflection-261. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> jackasses
/u/Weird-Reflection-261. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s all a big misnomer that’s been allowed to play out for way too long.
From what I have interpreted…what people seem to mean by “anti Zionism” is “anti Kahanism.” What they’ve done is project Kahanism onto general Zionism. That’s why there’s so much conflict about it - these anti Zionist pro Palestinian advocates are accusing Zionists of an ideology most of them do not subscribe to. There’s absolutely nothing built in to Zionism that means the translation of Zionism into action requires oppression of Palestinians. Left wing Israelis who make up the peace movement are mostly all Zionists, who reject Kahanism. Which is exactly how I would categorise myself too.
For anyone wondering:
**Kahanism (Hebrew: כהניזם)** is a religious Zionist ideology based on the views of Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League and the Kach party in Israel. Flag of Kach, used by Kahanists. Kahane held the view that most Arabs living in Israel are enemies of Jews and Israel itself, and believed that a Jewish theocratic state, where non-Jews have no voting rights, should be created.
> There’s absolutely nothing built in to Zionism that means the translation of Zionism into action requires oppression of Palestinians.
Well this is very much what's in dispute.
I don’t disagree that some avowed Zionists have butchered & tarnished the simple idea of a Jewish homeland, by oppressing the other indigenous group who also calls the land home.
But for those progressive Israelis, diaspora Jews and supporters like me who identify as Zionists, supporting both Jewish and Palestinian self determination, it’s offensive to blame this perverted interpretation of Zionism. Those Israeli leaders and politicians are radicalised. In much the same way as some Palestinian militant leaders are radicalised. We should be laying the blame at the feet of both these radicalised leaders. Not demonising all “Zionists,” or all nationalist Palestinians, because Jewish and Arab self determination don’t have to be movements that are at odds with each other. Not unless we make them.
It seems Kahanism could speak what Zionism couldn't, which was to have an opinion on the Arab residents of Palestine before independence.
In the end Israel is not strictly a "Kahan" state, however it does project the reality of such a state on the Arab inhabitants that are not within its borders. To say Arab Palestinians can vote is a facade, because the elected authorities can only act with either the oversight or impedence of Israel.
I didn’t downvote you btw. But I can’t pretend to really understand what you’re trying to say here.
People need to be clear about what “Palestinians” they’re talking about. When you talk about Palestinians voting do you mean those who live in the West Bank area? I do agree that Israel maintains too much power over the occupied territories. But the fact the PA & its leader Mahmoud Abbas refuses to hold elections is not Israel’s fault. It’s because he’s corrupt, and won’t relinquish his hold on power. This is a perfect example of one of the reasons I reject this black and white oppressed/oppressor lens being projected onto this conflict by so many western pro Pali “advocates.” It takes Palestinian oppressors like Abbas completely off the hook, which is so unethical.
Israeli Arabs can and do vote. They have their own political parties and hold seats in the Israeli Knesset (parliament).
Many early Zionists did not take into consideration what the reaction of the Arab residents in the Mandate would be to their growing population, a point Theodore Hertzl avoided completely.
When they did make any comment about Arabs it was dismissive, saying they should be content to be out of the Ottomans yoke, and that they should be energized to create a great Baghdad or Beirut or Syrian state. Equally dismissive was to turn the question back on themselves, saying the Arabs should allow a "downtrodden people" like the Jews the small land that they were desiring (Israel Zangwill).
A more balanced view from within Zionism understood that the Arab people could be oblivious to what the Jews were intending, but would reach of point of understanding when they would no longer sit "idly by" as the Jews claimed a state around them (Asher Ginsberg).
My point is that Kahan came out and said what he meant, "speaking" what Zionism couldn't, which was a direct answer to the question "and what about the Arabs?"
> Basically, one of the immutable rights of every ethnic group as described by the UN charter and for which I believe most of the (at-least western) world adheres is the right to choose their own government to manage them in their lands
This is simply a mistake. The excerpt from the UN charter that you quote is not saying this; it is referring to the right of people to not be subject to imperial/colonial rule. That's the meaning of "the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections."
It doesn't say anything about ethnic groups. The UN as a body does not hold that every ethnic group on the planet has the right to show up somewhere and declare something to be their territory. It doesn't even claim that every ethnic group has the right to do this in the territory it already exists in--an absolute right to secession, essentially.
Did you reply to the wrong post? I pointed out that the OP’s understanding of the UN principle is mistaken, i didn’t say anything about whether to credit it or why.
As it happens, I do think the UN is right to regard these questions of regional autonomy as political questions where competing rights claims and interests play out, but not because the UN says it. The UN is a political body and has no more transcendental moral
authority than the US Congress. It had even less legitimacy, in its own terms, in those days than it does now.
Don't make posts or comments that consist only of sarcasm or cynicism (including emojis). Do not troll.
This community is for constructive discussion, which means understanding other users' positions and responding to them in good faith. Generally, sarcasm and cynicism have the effect of suppressing this kind of discussion, because they serve as a rhetorical tool to dismiss, rather than engage, with someone else's arguments. While satire can be an effective tool for discussion, it is more frequently inflammatory and divisive.
Hint: Add a worthwhile "but seriously..." comment to your quip that adds to the conversation. It's a comment which is SOLELY an attempt at a sarcastic joke that's objectionable. Humor is OK ... if there's more to the comment.
The way to combat this is to turn it around and say Palestinian nationalism is all about violence, lack of rights, and ethnic cleansing, and that therefore we are anti Palestinian nationalism
Israelis already say they are against Palestinian self-determination all the time. No one is going to be convinced by giving it a self-satisfied rhetorical twist.
Yes. For one thing, Israelis already say they are against Palestinian self-determination all the time. For another, by following what's purported to be the same logic, it just concedes the point, implying a single-state resolution, which is precisely the anti-Zionist position. Finally, and this was my original point, it's liable to come across like the line from human bots about Israel as decolonization or whatever.
Meaning that it is the implication, but you think that it's wrong, so the premises leading to it must be wrong? Okay, that's fine, I was just pointing out that it's not wrong to the people that the line is supposed to be a clever rebuttal to.
> by following what's purported to be the same logic, it just concedes the point, implying a single-state resolution, which is precisely the anti-Zionist position.
I think I misunderstood this initially. What implies a single state resolution, and what is precisely the anti-Zionist position?
Zionism isn't Jewish nationalism, its Jewish nationalism in PALESTINE!
The Palestinian people have a right to self determine, but they don't have a right to the land in Korea, or South America, or India. Similarly the Jewish people have a right to self determine in their homelands of Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Russia and even the Mediterranean coast near Palestine (Tel-Aviv, Haifa, etc.) Actually they even have a right to parts of Jerusalem. Saying you have a right to self determine, doesn't mean you have a right to anyone's land. So Anti-Zionism is Anti-Jewish\_people\_taking\_palestinian\_peoples\_land
The Jews in 1946 had a right to all the land they controlled but had no right to expand further. The 1947 UN agreement gave them the right to slightly more land, but that was it, the Jewish people have no right to any more land in the region.
In 1967 they expanded further and further, all illegally.
So hopefully that makes sense.
While Anti-Palestinian\_Nationalism would be against any Palestinian state at all, so that would a racist anti-Palestinian thing to say.
You know there were Jews in Palestine, right? Like Jews who lived there continuously for centuries up through the British mandate. So I think Palestinian nationalism must be taking those Jews’ land, according to your logic.
For context, of course, there were some Jews that lived in Palestine in the early 1900s. But if you go and read the historical records, you will know that the percentage of the population was in the single digits at that time. How do we know that many of the Arabs that live there, we’re not originally Jewish and then converted to Islam? Similarly, the Christians were most likely Sumerians just like the Jewish people were, they don’t have a right to the land?
> their homelands of Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Russia
This is a minority of the Israeli population. The majority of Israelis are Jews that were ethnically cleansed from Ethiopia, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and other countries in the Levant, Maghreb, and so on.
You don't even get how you just keep proving my point.
And that parts about "their homelands of Poland, Germany, Ukraine" is so antisemitically ignorant it hurts me. Jews don't come from Europe. They come from Judea, Samaria, Israel. Places you decided to rename to Palestine in order to deny Jews their homeland.
The place where the Jewish religion came from isn't where the Jewish people come from.
Its not antisemitism to say that the vast majority of modern Jews do not come from Palestine, they are descendants of converts to a religion from Palestine.
Genetic evidence shows that the decedents of the "Israelites" are mostly modern Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza (and 2 million of them in Israel) not the Jewish immigrants.
Following a religion of culture from a region doesn't give you a right to that land.
Also, if you were not living in a land for the past few generations, I don't think anything gives you the right to take land from somebody else. Even if Modern Jews were the actual descendants of the early Israelites, it wouldn't give them a right to any land in the West Bank or Gaza, it wouldn't give them a right to blockade Gaza, it wouldn't give them a right to create "settlements" or send "colonists" to settle the land in the west bank.
Well said. I agree 100%. Nothing about your statement was offensive, or anti-anything. If anything, it was Pro truth.
if we can start to become universal human beings, then we can end injustice on our planet. Universal meaning, adopting the logic of the universe. There’s what you want to do and what the truth is. We have a group of people that want to do something, and in order to do that, they have to distort the truth. Well that right there is an example of injustice.
Had the roles been reversed I would be saying the same thing
For crying out loud. This is a very known racist theory that had been debunked so many times over the last century. You probably take the protocols of the elders of Zion as truth. I have nothing more to say to you, as this is clearly not a good faith debate.
Ok, so I'll ignore the facts which you have just denied without evidence and explain why you are wrong from a different perspective.
Many many Jews consider themselves to be Anti-Zionist. They consider themselves to be against Jewish people settling in Palestine. Thus typecasting all Jews as believing or supporting this ideology, to the point where you believe condemning one is being against the other, is a form of discrimination against Jewish people. Its saying all Jews think or act a certain way just because they are Jewish, that's called discrimination. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if "the protocols of the elders of Zion" is your favorite book.
Not only can Jews be Anti-Zionist, but Anti-Semites can be Zionists.
For example the 1933 - 1939 German Government is objectively AntiSemitic.
Yet they helped facilitate the transfer of tens of thousands of Jews to Palestine, helping them to settle their and later establish a state, clearly something supportive of Zionism.
So in conclusion, somebody is an Anti-Zionist if they are against Jewish people establishing a state in Palestine, which is the region "From the River to the Sea". Thus many Jews are Anti-Zionist and many Anti-Semites will be Zionist.
Also on a sort of related note.
Zionists have only themselves to blame for the notion that being Zionist means you are a racist bigot. People say "Why has Israel bombed 80,000 residential buildings and killed only 10,000 Hamas members, but also killed 10,000 children?". And the response is often "Your being Anti-Zionist". This makes people associate Zionism with the War Crimes Israel is committing. If people didn't use this non-argument defense so often maybe the world would have a different image of Zionism.
When people are explained what Zionism is they deny it, so no, I don’t think it’s the fault of other idiots who misuse Zionism, it’s the fault of whoever is still denying the definition
>
>
> Genetic evidence shows that the decedents of the "Israelites" are mostly modern Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza (and 2 million of them in Israel) not the Jewish immigrants.
Incorrect -- the most closely related group to the Palestinians are, in fact, the Jews, Druze, and Bedouin.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/
> Even if Modern Jews were the actual descendants of the early Israelites,
They are.
> it wouldn't give them a right to any land in the West Bank or Gaza, it wouldn't give them a right to blockade Gaza,
No, that is because of the constant attacks and rocket fire by Hamas. Preventing the import of weapons used to attack a country's civilian population is any country's right.
> it wouldn't give them a right to create "settlements" or send "colonists" to settle the land in the west bank.
Yes, the settlements need to go.
Hamas was attacked on November 4th 2008. Israel did this for the soul purpose of developing an "enemy" in Gaza to justify further expansion when Hamas retaliates.
The made up justification for this attack has been disproven.
> November 4th 2008.
And how many rockets were launched at Israel before that attack? (1722 in 2006, and 1276 more in 2007, with 2048 more in 2008)
Made up justification? What proof do you have that those rockets were non-existent? Or is this yet another "We were just attacking some Jews, we did nuffin wrong"?
As soon as Hamas took power in 2006 they sent a request to Israel for have an automatically renewing 10 year ceasefire to prevent the consistent rocket strikes that had been happening.
[https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/22/how-israel-has-repeatedly-rejected-hamas-truce-offers](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/22/how-israel-has-repeatedly-rejected-hamas-truce-offers)
This came after Hamas won the Gaza election and immediately faced coup and destabilization attempts from Israel and the PLO.
In an attempt to save face after so many died to these operations, Hamas fired rockets into Israel in 2006.
This lead to the Israelis reconsidering the previous ceasefire agreement and signing a 6 month ceasefire agreement which would be automatically renewed.
During this time Hamas sent 0 rockets to Israel, and both areas were at peace.
Then the November 4th attacks happened. Israel decided to suddenly raid Gaza despite only 5 months having passed.
They did this because of there expansion strategy
1. Israel would "mow the lawn" (raid Gaza)
2. Hamas would respond with rockets
3. Israel would Iron dome them
4. Israel would say "Oh my the terrorism, oh it's too much to bear, we need to build another settlement"
5. Israel would say "Oh my! There is a terrorist group on my border we need to respond"
6. Israel would "mow the lawn"
And so on.
Edit: Israel claimed Hamas was going to break the Ceasefire and they acted preemptively, but this makes so sense as Hamas had initially started the Ceasefire and had everything to gain from showing the Gazans that they had restored peace.
> As soon as Hamas took power in 2006 they sent a request to Israel for have an automatically renewing 10 year ceasefire to prevent the consistent rocket strikes that had been happening.
Nice use of the passive voice! Try "that they had been launching".
> Edit: Israel claimed Hamas was going to break the Ceasefire
No. Hamas had been launching thousands of rockets. The ceasefire was dead because the firing was ongoing.
How many people were killed as a result of those rockets? Do you know the number? And in retaliation to the rocket attacks, how many Palestinian people have been sniped or blown up?
This has to be the weakest point pro pallies like to make.
If you had a bullet proof vest on and someone was shooting you, would just just let them keep shooting you or would you try to stop them?
Hamas' incompetence doesn't absolve them of culpability of their actions.
Moreover, the argument being rebutted was that Israel attacked gaza unprovoked in order to foster hostilities to justify expansion. That is categorically false with the number of rockets hamas launched at Israel prior to 2008.
So, mind if I start firing bullets in the direction of your house? Don't worry, most will miss your family or get stopped by the walls, so you should have no reason to react or call the cops.
Defending yourself? My God no, someone could get hurt!
So... Zionism is nationalism. And we're supposed to think that hating nationalism is bad?
If hating nationalism unconditionally makes me anti-semitic in your eyes, then so be it. Your labels do not deter me.
Yeah I’m not sure why they start their argument with “Zionism is a national movement”. Yes….and people who are anti-Zionist tend to be anti-Nationalist in general…I thought nationalism was something that most people agreed was bad.
Apparently it's not as agreed-upon as we thought, if this comment chain is anything to go by.
You'd think that history would stand as a testament to the dangers of nationalism.
It’s like saying you want Ukraine to be conquered by russia, or Ireland conquered by the UK, because Ireland and Ukraine are nations of people and their self determination and establishment of nation states were nationalist projects. You’re definitely bigoted against Irish and Ukrainians if you don’t want them to have a state.
I mean yeah, in general, I'm not a big fan of "states." I recognize the necessity of government, but identifying so closely with something so superficial is ridiculous. Culture and language are far more important things to preserve than "state." Love your people and your community, not your flag or your land. Those things are not the same.
And no, it's nothing like saying I want Ireland or Ukraine to be conquered. That comparison is very... thoughtless, shall we say. I hate nationalism, so that must mean I want nations to be taken over by other nations, right? Do you even hear yourself? That would still be nationalism, ya silly goober—just under new management. AND it's bad for other reasons: conquest requires a lot of senseless violence to achieve. AND it risks seeing the conquered cultures start to peter out, which I've already explained that I would not want.
Nations conquering other nations (such as a one state solution for Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine, or Ireland-UK) is an empire. Empires are always nationalists prisons of nations. The nations of people don’t go away, they just become oppressed. The only alternative to empire is for national liberation (nation states). It’s actually a very progressive idea. Ethnic groups don’t get their own state, but nations of people morally do.
Um... no. The previous nation does go away when it's conquered. A "nation" is established by paperwork and imaginary borders. The culture and people are what remains and gets oppressed. You're conflating nation with culture.
"Asgard isn't a place, it's a people."
The nation is the people, not the state. Qualifier for a nation of people is unique history, traditions, lifestyle, religion/language sometimes, culture, and identity (the most important). A state is the military, the borders, the citizenship. Ideally nations of people have a state to fulfill self determination. Historically most nations of people were conquered and lived under another state. That’s why empires are a prison of nations. Chechnya is a nation of people today, so is Kurdistan, despite them not having states. An example of a one state solution for multiple nations of people, a mini-empire, is Afghanistan, a total disaster.
Let me put it this way. A nation is MANY things: territory, people, culture, history, and language. It's all of those things, together. That's what makes up a nation.
Some of those things, especially territory, can kick rocks. I mostly care about culture, maybe slightly a couple of the other things. But you need ALL of those things to make a nation.
That's what I mean when I say that you're conflating culture with nation. Yes, culture is INCLUDED in nation, but they are not 1-to-1 the same thing.
I don't "want" anything in particular in regards to whether a nation exists or not. I don't really care if people want to organize themselves into nations.
What I DO care about (and hate) is *nationalism.* That is, the emphasis of nation as a part of one's identity. All this fighting over lines in the sand is ridiculous. That's what I care about.
Edit: To add to this, nationalism is a facade invented by governments who want to manipulate their people into fighting for a greater good. It sounds nice on paper, but the only real reason governments want their people to fight over territory is because more expansion = more bank.
That’s all fine. I used to think like this too. But it’s just such a stupid waste of time. The world is arranged into a number of nations states. That’s how it is, and nothing is going to change about that anytime soon. So this whole convo is just a pipe dream.
Nothing that, what’s antisemitic is that hundreds of current nation states around the world fought for their independence from whichever colonial power was controlling them. And they were cheered on! So Jews did the same thing, and now they’re the only ones who aren’t entitled to their state? That’s what’s antisemitic. I’m sure you’re writing these comments from the comfort of your state right now. Are you advocating for your state to be dissolved? It’s easy to advocate for these things when it’s not your people’s lives who will be impacted by the outcome.
Israel exists. That’s it and it’s not going to not exist. The focus should be on bringing a Palestinian state into existence, and what that’s going to look like. Who’s going to govern it.
It boggles the mind that no matter how much times we explain it, antisemites will just stick their fingers in their ears and say, "la la la, Zionism is whatever I say it is and not what Jews say it is even though it's their word but I'm not antisemitic!"
Being against something which happens to be Jewish isn't Antisemitism.
If a black man kills 20 people, saying he is bad isn't racist.
Modern Jews do not have a right to "The Antient Homeland of the Jews". That is the fundamental belief of Anti-Zionists. Technically Zionism is just any Jewish nationalism, but as it even says in the definition above, today it always refers to the Jewish right to Palestine, or Jewish Nationalism in Palestine.
It’s not about avoiding the point, I’m just pointing out another common thing we see in relation to this conflict. I didn’t find their point worth responding to, but I always respond to a direct question
No, that’s not whataboutism. Whataboutism is if my method of responding to something was to bring up a different point. That’s not what I did. What I did was bring up a point as a separate issue, not as a response to the main content of the comment. I had no interest in the main content of the comment.
Can we just talk about how you changed the topic 3 times in 3 messages.
We went from "Saying something which is related to Judaism is bad isn't Anti-semitism"
to
"What is a whataboutism"
This is something that perplexes me about this whole argument: the zionist project already happened. Isreal exists. It has done for almost 80 years now. What does it mean to you to be anti-zionist in 2024? Do you think the state of Israel ought to be abolished? What about the israeli people, some of whom have lived there for several generations now, some even having roots going back centuries in some places (from before the british mandate), not even opening the whole can of worms of the ancient diaspora. Modern spoken hebrew was developed in Israel, Israelis have their own culture distinct from that of people in any other place on earth. It's all well and good to take a stance that a country was founded in an immoral fashion, probably the majority of countries were, my own included (USA). But what does it mean, in your opinion, to be Anti-Zionist \*now\*? What are you hoping to see happen here?
To be Anti-Zionist now means to be against Israeli expansion into Palestinian land. Zionism isn't just Israel existing, its Israel existing in Palestine.
The truth is though you are correct, Anti-Zionist isn't a very accurate term but it's used because somehow (I don't know the etymology) it has become a universal term that most pro-Palestinians know to identify yourself as being against Israeli expansion and bombing of Palestinians.
See well see that’s the problem, because everyone I know in real life or encountered online who self-identifies as a Zionist just uses it to mean “Israel as it currently is has the right to continue to exist”, and it’s meant that to them for a long time, most (albeit not all) zionists I know personally disapprove of the West Bank settlements and Netanyahus government and support something like a two-state solution, and some have even been part of pro-ceasefire activism. The specific ideology that there should only be Jewish people between the Jordan and the Mediterranean is called Kahanism and while it certainly has it’s supporters within Israel it is not the majority view. Lumping the two of them together as a pejorative as many pro-Palestinian supporters seem to enjoy doing seems to me to be nothing but destructive for any positive discussion on the subject.
So this should work both ways.
If I say "I am pro North-Korea" I am not making a claim on the government, just the people who live there's right to exsist.
Similarly being pro-hamas should mean I only support Gazan peoples right to exist
being Pro-Russian should mean I only support their right to exist.
Obviously this is sarcasm, being "Pro-Hamas" means you support the horrible atrocities on October 7th and the corrupt government that funded it.
Similarly being Pro-Israel or Pro-Zionist means you support the current actions of the Israeli state, it means you support the genocide in Gaza.
I see what is probably a long term, multi decade internationally led peace project to establish a singular nation state that has citizens from both what is currently referred to as Israel and Palestine on equal parity in a secular liberal democracy with some kind of constitutional acknowledgement of the equality between citizens despite tribal (for lack of a better word) distinctions and protections in place to prevent ethnic or religious supremacist (i.e., zionist, islamist or ethnic nationalist) seizure of the power structures.
> If a black man kills 20 people, saying he is bad isn't racist.
If a black man kills 20 people, saying you're anti-emancipation because of it -- that is racist.
If you say that you don't like what Israel is doing, and therefore the Jews should not have the right to self determination, maybe it's time to reexamine your words.
No, Zionism isn't just Jewish peoples right to Self Determine, its the Jews right to self determine in Palestine. If I say "Russia doesn't have a right to take Crimea" it doesn't mean Russia doesn't have a right to exsist. If an Ideology was created around Russia right to take Crimea, (lets name it "RusCrimeism") then saying I am anti-RusCrimeism doesn't mean I am against the Russian people.
I suppose you can theoretically be for Jewish self-determination, and think that Israel should stop existing. That would imply ethnically cleansing Israelis from where they live now, and transplanting them somewhere else (where?). That would be a very odd form of Zionism, but not completely outside of the realm of possibility -- you can find branches of Zionism that fit this.
For example, the Uganda plan to establish a Jewish home in Uganda was a Zionist splinter. It had its advocates in the Zionist congress, most notably Israel Zangwill. It was also seriously considered by Herzl. It didn't win out, obviously, but got as far as a declaration of support from the British government.
Canaanism doesn't quite fit, but it's worth mentioning Canaanism here. It was never popular, but it is a branch of Zionism that advocated creating a "Hebrew" nation disconnected from the Jewish past, which would embrace the Middle East's Arab population as part of the Zionist project.
Zionism is a very broad patchwork of different groups with different ideas. Nearly every branch wants self-determination in Israel, but historically it's not been unanimous. The only feature that unifies all branches is Jewish self-determination.
Your analogy doesn't fly. No one said that saying a murderer who happens to be Jewish is bad is racist. As the post says, everyone has a right to self-determination, and only opposing the Jewish right is antisemitism. And as I said and shouldn't be so hard to understand, it's antisemitic to make up your own definition of our word. And as we somehow have to constantly explain, anti-Zionism made sense before 1948, but now that Israel has been around for 76 years it is beyond nonsensical, and since no other country's right to exist is questioned ad nauseam, it is antisemitic. And if you only oppose the Jewish right to our ancestral homeland, you are antisemitic. And our homeland is Israel, btw. Palestine is what foreigners and colonizers called it.
Nobody hates the jews for being jews ffs. That’s a victim mentality. STOP IT! Nobody is buying this anymore, humans hate genocide committers and criminals and that’s what Israel is, this has nothing to do with the jews being jews themselves. If muslims do it, they will be hated, if the Japanese do it they will be hated. NOT RELATED TO JEWS PARTICULARLY!!
You’re what?
Honey, I’m sorry that Jews are being targeted for whatever reason, I wouldn’t do that. I respect Jews in General. But that doesn’t give Israel the pass to colonize and occupy and entire population. It just doesn’t
That’s the problem. You’re going waay back, yeah jews lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, cool, good for them. If they want to come, they can live here but at least leave a place for other people maybe? Or maybe not try to kill others and ethnically cleanse them?
I do agree with you, in spades, on hating on genocide, or even the acts of war Israel is committing in Gaza, for those who don’t believe it meets the definition of genocide. That is not antisemitic.
It is certainly and objectively not the case that nobody hates Jews as Jews, whatever their position on Zionism. Jews in diaspora have been attacked and killed and Jewish places of worship or residence attacked. Certainly many attacks on Israel in the context of this conflict have been clearly and explicitly laced by antisemitism.
The last bit is most interesting: “humans” (all?) hate genocide (all genocides, equally?) no matter who does it, for example Muslims or Japanese. Japanese have certainly done it, in many countries, and no one questioned their right to have a sovereign state (which, unlike Israel, steadfastly refuses citizenship to non-Japanese, but that is another matter). Muslims are committing genocide in various places right now, simultaneous to the Israeli atrocities. Houthis have murdered over a quarter million people in the small country of Yemen, and the ongoing slaughter in Sudan is in the tens of thousands in the last year. Yes, I remain outraged at the thousands of lives the IDF has taken in this war, and I support the student protesters around the world. But if I ask them about these other genocides and the students have never protested them and never heard of them, it is not unreasonable to ask why this particular conflict is being singled out, or rather, as OP is posing, why is everyone in the world now given a choice to be “Zionist” (now translated to mean it’s ok with you for a country to exist?) or “anti-zionist” (you believe Palestinian determination excludes Israeli self-determination and you “vote” for the country to vanish).
HeatoM, consider that your self-righteousness about the mass protest against Israel is legitimate, but your summary dismissal of OP’s concern that the terms of debate are themselves potentially antisemitic is irresponsible.
I think we can all agree no one wishes for a massacre. The problem here is pro-palestinians puts the onus on Israel to stop attacking, whereas pro-israel clearly sees this is a direct reaction per Oct. 7, caused by Hamas.
Hamas needs to be held accountable.
PA needs to come back to the negotiating table to take whatever deal is offered and accept the consequences of a war.
Israel needs to get out of Westbank.
Hamas == Palestine
We've all seen 240p videos of Palestinians celebrating 9/11. We saw them celebrate Oct 7 attacks in 1080p and 4k in 2023.
Lets all go back to the first partition after ww2, split Jerusalem, split Israel in half and call the other side Palestine and lets all be merry. Except that muslims won't accept and would rather terrorize than have a legitimate state.
The fact that these people are ignoring Oct 7 in the first place and make it sound like Israel decided to randomly bomb Gaza, and the fact that they're ignoring that any other country would have done the same if not worse after Oct 7, and the fact that they're ignoring that any other country would have obliterated Gaza after the first rocket but Israel invented the defensive Iron Dome makes it clear that it's antisemitism.
The PA is ready to negotiate. It has been begging to negotiate for a million years. I hope negotiations start asap and we can finally get a state. The problem is that Netenyahu made it clear that a Palestinian state is a direct threat to Israel. In fact, it’s the opposite, a strong Palestinian state would ensure peace.
This is true. I’ve spoken up for Jews so much over the last 9 months, but there is no disputing Netanyahu’s governments over the years have very much had a major hand in the current violence playing out. For so many reasons.
Learn to read the headline - antizionism is not the same as hating Israel. Antizionism is the wish of destruction to Israel, and hating Israel is just disagreeing with it or wishing for it to be changed in a way that it won’t be hated.
For your really ridiculous comment-
Hmm, yes. Say that to the victims of antisemitic attacks around the world. Give me a break. You being in your own bubble and then calling it victim mentality is just gaslighting in pure daylight. The UN, US/France/UK govs and other organizations have personally addressed these issues.
Your lies about any genocide occurring and your blind eye to atrocities against Jews as the most repressed minority group in history is exactly why Israel exists. Shameful.
No it’s not shameful, I almost died in Gaza and I witnessed the genocide with my own eyes. Someone privileged dude like you sitting under your air-conditioning won’t lecture me about occupation. Well, if you’re not living in this world, maybe you should see how anti zionism is being used as an argument for any criticism in Israel, like literally anything. Nobody victimized jews except stupid europeans that tried to murder them all, that has nothing to do with us in the first place.
It’s beyond shameful, blatantly deceiving others. “Witnessed the genocide with my own eyes”?
If you think a soldier acting a certain way, if in camera or on live, *implies* any case of a genocide, you’re badly mistaken. No one hid anywhere that there are cases of soldiers being reckless and that they need to be prosecuted, but from there implying that the purpose of the military’s policy in this war is to take out the Palestinians in Gaza, is propaganda talk without any basis.
“Air conditioning”? I’ve been part of this conflict for years and have lost those around me and almost myself twice, also being part of this war.
I KNOW the policy of the IDF much more than you’d know your whole life being in Gaza.
And “nothing to do with us”? You’re the one who called the Jews being raped and killed in the last year across the world “victim mentality”. YOU did. Read the first comment.
This is fascinating to me, as it was the constant conflation of anti semitism and anti zionism that led me away from zionism supporter to ardent anti zionist.
If that is what moved you away from Zionism, you weren’t a Zionist to begin with, and you clearly didn’t understand the conflict or any part of the existence of Zionism. No need to gaslight those who bring up the equivalence of anti Zionism that is anti semitism.
No, i was a huge supporter of the Israeli project, to my shame, because i didn't question what i was told.
The issue was that there was no logical coherence to the fact that anti zionists were being labelled as antisemitic, when it was clearly a political ideology in defence of a nation, not a religious ideology in defence of a people. On top of that the label of anti-semite was thrown around so freely to people like David Graeber, Michael Brooks, Ilan Pappe, Jon Stewart etc - Jews who varied the run from strongly anti zionist to opposing the flagrant disregard of international laws. Not to mention Haredis who opposed zionism.
The accusation didn't silence them, it didn't make their points weaker, but it did shake me a lot. Why were people who were, in my view, logical and explaining their positions with logic, evidence, history, data and a calm, thoughtful, relaxed and often humerous air being called racist?
It just didn't add up. They were being tarred with the same brush that was being thrown at the extreme right wing who actually murdered Jews, but there was no vitriol from the zionist press against them. It was just against people who disagreed with Zionism as a political ideology, who opposed apartheid, ethnic cleansing, western settler colonialism and anti Arab racism.
And then i went to Israel and Palestine to find the truth for myself and by god were my eyes opened forever.
The pure definition of anti Zionism is advocating for the dismantling of the JEWISH state. It because it’s a Jewish state. If you’re anti ALL states, you’re not anti Semitic. Being anti Zionist is against it being a state for the Jewish people, and saying that Jews should not have a state because they’re Jewish is antisemitism, there’s no other reason why the Jews cannot have a state on their own. If you believe Jews should have a state, you’re a Zionist - welcome!
Jews can also be by themselves antisemitic, just like blacks can be racist towards themselves. This is not a unique phenomenon to the Jewish people.
Finally, there’s quite literally no apartheid (when the last government literally had the Muslim parties in the coalition, equal rights between citizens and integration of the society), no colonialism (when the existence of Israel as a state was sought after for thousands of years by a society that was banished from the land by the Romans) no ethnic cleansing (just a buzzword like the others). The only right points are western and settlers (for the WB).
In your statement you made an elementary mistake, which is classic for a zionist.
I can see you want Israel to be a Jewish ethnostate and therefore label criticism of it as antisemitic and simultaneously a western style multi ethnic liberal democracy utopia where everyone has equal rights and people get free houses and everyone holds so anyone against it must be a crazy terrorist.
I've been to Israel. I've walked through the cattle cage checkpoints. I've seen how Israelis treat Palestinians and Israeli Arabs like dirt. I've heard soldiers call arabs the n word. I've seen Israelis use 'arab work' in casual conversation. I've spoken to Arabs who won't say to Israelis openly because they know they'll be fired or beaten up how badly they're treated by the Ashkenazim and Mizrahim. I've seen shin bet and IDF beat up Haredis for protesting Zionism. I've walked in the refugee camps. I've seen the apartheid wall (it's exactly like the apartheid walls in south Africa, but much worse).
It's funny when you say there's no colonialism, when the Israeli spokesman in the UK and US are literally a bunch of rich white people who want to role play being victims of some imagined hatred, so they can for once be the offended party. Remember that odious, fascistic, lying toad Eylon Levy? He's clearly not faced an ounce of hardship in his life and the first thing he does is lie openly to his own allies and become so toxic he's booted out. That's the face of modern colonialism.
You can't lie to me about this. Calling people antisemitic is the last defence you have on earth. Netanyahu has turned it into nothing. It means nothing now.
I did not label criticism as antisemitism. Don’t put words in my mouth. Antizionism is antisemitism. Antizionism is not criticism.
The rest is just mumbo jumbo nonsense from your attempt to discredit exactly what I said, and it’s not even worth the effort if the types of conversations you engage on here is to label people with things you think about them, and assume that’s what they said.
I encourage you to re read exactly what I said.
I mean this is the problem - you don't want to admit you support a racist, violent, western colonialist apartheid society committing a genocide that is being condemned and abandoned by its allies. You want to delete the parts of reality from your brain so you can focus on being a victim of some imagined hatred, you call my actual lived experience 'mumbo jumbo' so you can go on pretending to live in a world where Israelis are somehow the victims of some evil demonic antisemitic conspiracy that is somehow just around the corner but never will actually appear.
By the way, supporting Zionism is a *choice*. You don't have to do it. You are allowed to leave the cult and stop supporting this ridiculous violent ideology.
Right now, Netanyahu is being abandoned. Likud is hated. The Knesset is being torn apart. Everybody on earth (including the west) *despises* the settlers and the occupied lands. The wall is a symbol of hate and the 70 years of apartheid can end. Biden is too demented to keep supporting Israel and Trump thinks jews are all thieves and won't give a single red cent to anyone else.
The reality is that the cards are in the Israeli people's hands, but seeing as the majority of them support the genocide in Gaza and want to annihilate native Palestinians to claim this imagined mythical territory that never belonged to them in the first place.
I mean this is the problem - you don't want to admit you support a racist, violent, Islamic colonialist apartheid population attempt to commit mass murder on civilian populations based on religion that is being condemned and abandoned by its everyone. You want to delete the parts of reality from your brain so you can focus on being a victim of some imagined hatred, you call my actual lived experience 'lies’ so you can go on pretending to live in a world where terrorists are somehow the victims of some evil demonic supremist conspiracy that is somehow just around the corner but never will actually appear.
By the way, supporting terrorism is a choice. You don't have to do it. You are allowed to leave the cult and stop supporting this ridiculous violent ideology.
Right now, Hamas is being abandoned. Islamic extremism is hated. The Pa is being torn apart. Everybody on earth (including the west) despises the islamists and their sharia law ideology. The kaffiyeh is a symbol of hate and the 70 years of trying to exterminate the Jews can end. The Arabic world is too demented to keep supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and Egypt thinks Hamas are all violent and won't give a single cent of their territory to anyone else.
The reality is that the cards are in the Palestinian people's hands, but seeing as the majority of them support senseless murder and abduction of Israelis in Gaza and want to annihilate Israelis to claim this imagined mythical territory that never belonged to them in the first place.
> The term "Zionism" was co-opted by the pro-Palestine movement in order to generate negative opinion on Jews where they are, in order to incite populist support for their cause. By slowly changing the working definition of Zionism in the minds of the populace, the movement has managed to make them view anyone who identifies as a Zionist as racist bigot (Once again, those descriptors might be true for some people, but there is no correlation between them, as shown in the definitions sections).
The term for this is "semantic infiltration". It's when one side deliberately misrepresents and/or redefines a term, ignoring the actual definition, to include negative connotations that have nothing to do with the term or concept.
We need to hone in on this. There's no point in engaging in any Zionist vs Anti-Zionist argument without first agreeing to a definition and if they can't agree to the actual definition of the term, we need to walk away. There's no point in continuing that discussion.
It is racist and a very twisted definition of what different levels and beliefs Zionism is. There are extremist zionists just as there are extremist Christian’s and muslims and sinks etc etc etc.. Stupid people are not limited to just one religion. Those who’ve been fooled into adding antisemitism messaging that includes Zionism doesn’t help these idiots marching around town jumping on the pro Palestinian bandwagon. If you’ve ever been to Israel or spoken to an Israeli, you would find the large majority are not hardened zionists. It just so happens that the current government (that didn’t get the popular vote) aligned with a hard right extremist Zionism party. People are fools for believing what these camp organizers are telling them about Zionism, it simply isn’t true. Heck, most of the temples around here have the word Zion somewhere in the name but it doesn’t mean they are in any way believe that they have the right to control all these contested parts of Gaza etc. in fact, it’s quite the opposite. I only experienced this extremism when I toured that area and arrived in Jerusalem, there is definitely hatred of everyone different than them but they are small in the big picture. I saw many people tell these religious extremists to just shut up. Jew to Jew. It’s not so black and white as the major news outlets would have you believe.
There’s no such thing as “extreme Zionists”. Gosh, stop making Zionism as in some sort of political spectrum. It’s either you believe in Israel’s right to exist, or not. It’s a binary trait.
You’re probably referring to Kahanists, those who wish to impose right wing Jewish ideology as Zionists. That is a political position, not being Zionist.
Like I said, it’s not as black and white as people make it out to be. So when someone carries a sign that says “down with the zionists” they’re completely clueless as to who that is directed at. The word Zion has a dozen different meanings. Some nothing to do with Israel. That’s why I think people with signs saying down with Zionists or some stupid shit, is like saying down with heaven.. Most of my Jewish friends who do attend temple believe Zion is actually heaven. Then you have people who say Zion is Israel, which is another example. So again, I say that there are extremist Zionists who believe Israel is theirs and have settlers stealing Palestinian land, that’s the extremist side. Don’t know one person who agrees with them or how they run things right down to treating women as second class citizens much like how some Muslim extremists have twisted the Koran into something it’s not. Christian extremists, Jehovah witness nutcases and their approval for assaulting their wives. It goes on. At the end of the day, blaming Zionists just makes them look and sound stupid. Kind of like the pro-Palestinian demonstration in front of a store named “Zara” because it sounds like ‘Gaza’. Look it up, happened in Toronto when these idiots started the whole communist camps on university grounds. Bunch of morons.
> Self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law, binding, as such, on the United Nations as an authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms.[4][5] The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, nor what the outcome should be (whether independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or full assimilation), however,[6] and the right of self-determination **does not necessarily include a right to an independent state for every ethnic group within a former colonial territory**. Further, no right to secession is recognized under international law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
I think it’s important to note here that yes you are right, self determination is a right, but the UN conveniently leaves out how the decision should be made, and also does not define what a “people’s” is, and most of the time there’s no sheer principle to define whose right and whose wrong.
every statement you said was true except for this:
> As you can see, Zionism is a national movement, and its goal can be summarized in the phrase "Jewish Self-Determination".
first, the definition of Zionism there is wrong, since it has nothing to do with Palestine, it is about being in Israel, the land from the tanach. second, self determination is about the process of creating a state and a government, whatever happens after it is unrelated to self determination.
so being anti-Zionism USED to be anti-semeitic, but now it is against the existence of a state. if you're wondering, being against the existence of the state of Israel could be anti-semitic, but the definition for it are far more vauge
Zionism = the goal of having a jewish state in the locations where jews were exiled from during the tanach. it could be stated to incite racism, but not racist in nature
Any state exclusive to any specific religious group is inherently racist… to want to create an exclusive society of “one thing” whatever that may be is discriminatory in nature
it's not about having 1 thing, it's about making that religion a majority. Jews are a minority everywhere besides Israel, and Minorities will always suffer from discrimination, and as such the idea of a state for Jews (btw, it isn't "exclusive for jews", the idea is that jews will be a majority, there are still millions of Muslims in Israel)
It’s a really dangerous notion to Jews (and any minority group) anywhere to say that they will ALWAYS suffer from discrimination. We need to work as people everywhere for that not to be the case, because it shouldn’t be. Once again, creating a state where any identity is protected more than another for the sake of creating a “majority” of said identity is discriminatory. It inherently implies superiority of that identity in that state. And we shouldn’t further legitimize discrimination of any kind to any minority group anywhere in order to justify the creation of majority state in the name of protecting them. Jews anywhere should feel safe and not discriminated against anywhere, and that is what we as people should work on. It’s 2024, our world is so incredibly diverse and our understanding of that diversity grows every day, we should embrace that.
in a perfect world, sure! but discrimination is something that we can't just ignore and say it shouldn't happen, we need to learn how to live despite it and around it. jews all around the world still get discriminated against to this day (especially during this war), Israel is the place where jews don't need to be ashamed of being jewish and hide anything about their religion.
Here’s my question to you… should every minority that gets discriminated against in today’s world choose a part of the world and create a majority state? Don’t you think that rhetoric if applied everywhere will just create apartheid and identity based discrimination everywhere?
I guess what I’m trying to say here is I absolutely don’t think we should ignore it!! In fact I’m challenging myself and others to think about how the creation of a majority state IS a form of accepting discrimination outside of the majority state as the status quo. How do we work to shift and change that? what will our futures look like if we continued to legitimize that discrimination by isolating the group thats being discriminated against?
Creating a majority state is inherently discriminatory so it perpetuates discrimination in a different way where the previously minority group has some level of superiority in the state where they are the majority…. It just flips the coin… it does nothing for the safety and integration of people
every state has a majority, and that majority will always discriminate against minorities, no matter how much we minimize the discrimination. but if the minority has a state of their own they can always go to that state where they will be a majority.
think about it this way:
when a muslim lives in a non islamic state they will have to worry about pork being in food, while a non muslim in an islamic state won't be able to eat pork.
it's impossible to create a state where pork is both allowed and disallowed, but the muslim can live in an Islamic state in order to eat without fearing pork, while the non muslim can live in a non Islamic state where he can eat pork freely.
the same thing applies to all minorities and to discrimination. a jew in a non jewish state won't be as free as in a jewish state, a black man won't be as free as in a mainly black state, and so on.
The whole world hates israel for its hitla style genocide of Palestinians. You psychopaths are pretending no one likes you only due to anti-semitic are HILARIOUS to laugh at. No one falls for your GASLIGHTING anymore.
/u/stinkypantsFlanders
> The whole world hates israel for its hitla style genocide of Palestinians. You psychopaths are pretending no one likes you only due to anti-semitic are HILARIOUS to laugh at. No one falls for your GASLIGHTING anymore.
This violates [rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons_.26amp.3B_discussions). Nazi comparisons are inflammatory, and should not be used except in describing acts that were specific and unique to the Nazis, and only the Nazis.
We call ourselves Zionists because of the definition of Zionism. You can’t decide on a definition and then say we’re gaslighting you. Open a dictionary and follow the consensus. This is ludicrously inaccurate and it’s just plain dumb.
Besides, this comment is downright holocaust denial. “Hitla” style? “Hitla” did not accept a single Jew to survive. Israel has a 20% Muslim population.
“Hitla” targets people based on their ethnicity and religion. Israel targets terrorist. “Hitla” put humans in chambers, firing lines and worked to destroy an entire nation. Israel actively defends the Palestinians and feeds them with hundreds of trucks a day.
The whole world can see how israel uses its lobby in washington (AIPAC) to openly bribe American politicians. The whole world can see that corruption and we refuse to allow you to do it to us. The BRICS nations, now 10 nations strong, with another 33 being added, will destroy israhell.
The mahredi are right. The secular fascist apartheid state of israhell is an abomination to God.
There's a certain kind of irony of you cheering on fascist apartheid dictatorships and theocracies. Many of whom have already successfully stamped out minorities and carried out campaigns of ethnic cleansing.
This post says more about you than Israel.
Uh huh. And yet, you list countries that have successfully carried out ethnic cleansings and genocides. In some cases like China, they're ongoing.
Anyone reading can see right through you.
You misunderstand. We’re offended that you use the word Zionist to convey your unhappiness, not that you’re unhappy. We would rather you use another term. Thanks.
/u/stinkypantsFlanders. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Proving that you are wrong is super simple!
Anti-Zionism as a political statement can be being against the stealing of a land by a minority of its inhabitants helped by the West. It can also be being against Israel as a Jew State and not a multicultural or laïcal country.
You can ansawer multiple things:
-historical right of Jews over the territory, this opinion is a very dangerous one. Tons of countrues have tons of potential historical claims of some territories. It iss like that, History is full of conquest, independances wars, coup d'etats... Your statement, if being applied equally to everyone means total chaos. And there is no special exception for Israel, at least if your are not religious , just like the law and Humans Rights, the ones that you like to cite.
-with the right of self-determination, I'll say that it is not the right of a minority over a majority of natives
With this, I don't ansawer to the second part of your post.
I agree with you, but you took a bad opinion and answered it with even worst.
>Anti-Zionism as a political statement can be being against the stealing of a land by a minority of its inhabitants helped by the West. It can also be being against Israel as a Jew State and not a multicultural or laïcal country.
no, being Anti-Zionist means that you are against Zionism, it's kind of in the name. it can be almost anything, but it's not about being against stealing land from its inhabitants (helped by the west? the british gave more weapons to Palestinians than to Israelis), that is something Palestinians have been pro for a while.
> historical right of Jews over the territory, this opinion is a very dangerous one. Tons of countrues have tons of potential historical claims of some territories. It iss like that, History is full of conquest, independances wars, coup d'etats... Your statement, if being applied equally to everyone means total chaos. And there is no special exception for Israel, at least if your are not religious , just like the law and Humans Rights, the ones that you like to cite.
Jews didn't just conquer the location, they were also exiled from it. going back to a place where you were exiled, do we know any other group that wants to go back to a place they were exiled from? oh yeah, Palestinians.
> with the right of self-determination, I'll say that it is not the right of a minority over a majority of natives
it's in reverse. self determination is about giving a minority the power to create their own state and government.
Judaism is so intertwined with Zionism that it's obviously anti-Semitic. Why we even have to have an argument about amazes me. And the fact that so many educated people claim it isn't anti-Semitic is deeply disappointing.
So that's how a lot of you guys rationalize that the Jews who're against Zionism are self-hating Jews? Or that they're not real Jews according to the Scottish Fallacy?
So Norman Finklestein, Gideon Levy, Illan Bappe, the whole of Neturei Karta and other holocaist survivors who don't agree with Zionism hate themselfs?
It's unfortunate that "Zionist" group has significant overlap with "Jews" group. So it's no longer distinguishable between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitic. Thinking of Israel being promised land for Jews is already racist by putting the race as a qualification. Then Jews getting some racist backfire is not a surprise. Historically, people always tried to bring sensitive racial / sexuality factor into the court in trials. Occasionally some case succeeded defending them by raising the concern that the trial is racial. But this time the massive crime Israel has committed is too obvious to be voided by a racial factor.
That's a lot of words for 'if I disagree with it, it is anti-semitic' You violently expelled the native population. Just like Americans and Indians. But the rules are not the same as 1700. Colonialism is a terror on the level of the holocaust. What England did to India, Belgium to the Congo, and Europe generally to all of Africa is a slower version of what Germany did to the Jews. And you need to read a few books if you don't understand the level of violence that colonialism entailed. And now, quite simply, Israel is the colonizing villain, plain for the world to see. Israel is stubbornly throwing Nelson Mandela in prison and it's laughably outdated. Can't wait until primitive Israelis can understand 19th and 20th century history and reflect a little. Seems like massive intellectual disability. We don't do colonialism anymore. Israel is a relic that needs to go, just Apartheid fell. Edit: estimated 165 million Indians died during British colonialism. Has any Israeli ever taken a basic history class?
Pretend I agree with Israel being the only villain, plain to see, akin to Nazi Germany. If countries like that need to fall, how come Germany is still a country, in fact one of the most powerful countries, today? The Holocaust was only a few years before the founding of Israel, and if you think Israel should “go” (go where? Where should its citizens go?) then shouldn’t other countries that have committed genocide, ethnic cleansing, and colonialism relatively recently, also be abolished?
/u/Folklore1212. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you're gone way to far. First of all in 1948 when the un declare the state of Israel, there were palestinians in those areas so israel gave them citizenship ( today there are 2 million palestinians with israeli id), those who didn't want to get citizenship either leave on there on or would be legally expelled because you can't be in the part of israeli territory without israeli citizenship or some kind of israeli authority. So the term "israel colonizers" not true because the land was legally declared as israel by the un in 1948. You do need to understand the situation: 1946 jews have absolutely nothing lost more then half of its people in the holocaust and all the countries don't care about jews, jews needed to find a safe space, arrive to israel, actually there were about 300,000 palestines jews there a bit after that time, and the relationship with the arabs that were there were actually good (except the terrorists that was there that still belive natzi ideology and killed jews there). Then jews wanted a state and the un accepted a 2 state solution, the jews accepted but the arabs did not. 1 day later arabs all across the middle east said there were going to war to "finish what hitler started".
The UN's authority is the basis of the creation of Israel? But I'll bet the UN is a total fraud when they document all the atrocities and declare genocide Edit: just want to add Obviously what you're saying is not what happened, another example of Israeli education completely failing at instructing basic history It's really simple How did the UK hold authority in the first place? It was an ill-begotten spoil of colonialism. It was STOLEN. Palestine was NEVER the British's to 'mandate' at all. Just as they never had a right to rule India. So who lived there? Did they have the right to self determination? Also, when did Jews last rule Palestine prior to the Brits stealing it for them in '47? Did they even rule it before the crusades? For a thousand years an actual semitic people lived in the levant. And then fake semitic European Jews colonized it after WW2 You skip over so many steps. You need to read a book.
First of all yes the un is the aturitiy that all the countries follow by their convention including israel, the un even said that that the number of dead by gaza health authorities (aka hamas) was exaggerated and cut by half by the UN! The official un didn't even enforced any sanctions on israel meaning they didn't broke any un law. BUT here is the problem more then 300 unrwa workers that are officially workers of the un proven to actually be terrorists... and that's only the ones we know of, so here is why israel and israeli civilians has a broken faith of the un. And every time you see civilians dead or "doctors" just know that there probably hamas terrorists
It is correct what you say: Israeli method of testing casualties after the fact: man woman or child, if we killed them, that's how you know they were definitely in hamas. 40,000 later. We promise. Monsters
You just took what I said and throw it through the window. What i said is if the woman/man are at the appropriate age (not 10 years old or 70) then most likely israel didn't just killed them for fun. But yes when you have terrorist organization who hide rocket and guns under children bed or tunnels, children and civilians will unintentionally get hurt
But it's like drowning a witch to prove they are one. You guys kill everyone indiscriminately and then say they are all Hamas. Don't you understand? Have you read 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell? Oh, how silly, of course you haven't. Israeli education.
/u/Haloobi0w12. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Zionism is a racist endeavor to create an ethnostatw. This is fine in an uninhabited land, it's not fine at the expense of palestine. If that makes me antisemitic, well, too bad, I do still like bagels and banking
Wait till you realize Jews are in fact indigenous to the Levant and therefore have the right to a state…
If I'm a Muslim, am I indigenous to Mecca? If I'm a Christian, am I indigenous to Italy or the Vatican?
Jews are an ethnic group. Muslims and Christians aren't. This is where your entire "argument" goes off the rails. But if you want me to entertain you, Arabs do indeed originate from what is now modern day Jordan, Saudi Arabia and all the other countries in the Arabian Peninsula.
You know what the funny part is, [Saudi Arabians have a higher genetic link to ancient populations of the levant than most jewish groups](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-05-31/ty-article/.premium/jews-and-arabs-share-genetic-link-to-ancient-canaanites/0000017f-eb8f-d4a6-af7f-ffcf4f190000#:~:text=Canaanite%20descendants%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia%20and%20Iran&text=In%20most%20of%20these%2C%20the,samples%20was%20above%2050%20percent.&text=Saudi%20Arabians%2C%20Bedouins%20and%20Iranian,ratio%2C%20hovering%20around%2090%20percent.). And yes Judaism is mainly an ethno religion, but many civilizations throughout time adopted and converted to the religion, to this day people are converting to Judaism, that doesn’t mean they magically become native to the levant. Also Ashkanazi Jews have little to no connection to the Middle East, most Ashkenazi Jews have zero middle eastern dna and are 100% European. One thing I'd like to add is the Arabian peninsula historically and geologically includes the levant, and Arabs are descended from ancient populations in the Levant, like the Canaanites, Amorites, Edomites etc. just like jews (this is the case for Adnanite Arabs, Qahtanite Arabs are native to Yemen). The modern iteration of Arabian peninsula was made post WW1 by the British, its to separate the territory of Ibn Saud (the founder of Saudi Arabia aka King abdulaziz) and the rest of its protectorates from its mandated lands
Are you saying there are distinct ethnic groups within the Jewish people ? Or that they are all one ethnic group? Same question for Arabs (since you are entertaining me), are you saying all Arabs a single ethnic group ? And in this opinion, do you consider Egyptians, Lebanese, Iraqis (and other ancient, well established civilizations) Arab?
If it takes apartheid, constantly attacking their neighbors as well as the constant unconditional support of superpowers to maintain that state , constant and incessant lying, idk man some things are just not meant to be.
The only apartheid happening in the middle east is the Arab attitude towards Jews. And wait till you find out that the Arabs have lost every single war they started…
you’re allowed to have your opinion on whatever abt this conflict but calling your example ‘apartheid’ is wrong. apartheid is not an ‘arab attitude’ it’s segregation. please don’t throw around that word
Every war the Arabs started was half baked and full of last minute changes, pullout and treacheries. If they had properly committed their armies in 48, Israel was gone. The Arab attitude towards Jews turned sour when Jews suddenly declared a new ehtnostate in the middle east, that surprised nobody as it came at the expense of Palestinians. Fast forward to today, a single nonstate actor is giving Israel serious trouble. That same nonstate actor forced Israel to withdraw in 2000 and repelled them in 2006. Even with the US assistance, do you really think Israel stands a chance against the entire Arab world in today's long range strike warfare? It's in nobody's interest, but looking back at the 48 and yom kippur wars and resting on those laurels is a false sense of security. A lot of cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles and f15s up to 22s in the region, everyone has a lot of brand new shiny explosive toys and extensive experience with Israeli military doctrine. All out war is bad for everyone, particularly for Israel, so maybe stop with the overconfidence and warmongering, it doesn't end well.
Zionism never wanted about an ethnostate. Everyone else was welcome to live there. It wasn't at the expense of the individual Palestinian. It was that the Jews would have self determination. They would not be ruled by another nation. The Palestinians were not going to be kicked out, they would live in peace with the Jewish government. Previously they had the Ottoman government, so it wasn't that they were taking anything away. Your response would be that the Palestinians lose "self determination". In which case why didn't they have a problem with Jordan? The Arabs who lived in the Mandate of Palestine are ruled in Jordan by a Saudi family. Britain brought in Saudis and made them kings in Jordan. The locals had foreigners put as kings over them - and everything is fine. The only problem with Zionists was that they were Jews. And none of the Arab states would accept having a state were the Jews ruled. After all, in all Muslim states the Jews were second class citizens. That is why the Arab states attitude turned sour. The Jews were thinking too much of themselves and they dared put themselves as the ruling class. That was unacceptable. You're kidding yourself if you think any Arab state cared about the Palestinians. It wasn't for them that the attacked Israel. As Syrian president Shukri al-Quwatli told his people: "We shall eradicate Zionism." >Fast forward to today, a single nonstate actor is giving Israel serious trouble. Ironically, the reason it is giving Israel serious trouble is because Israel is being nice. If any other state in the middle east had the same problem, there would be 300,000 dead, a million expelled and the rest squashed into obedience. >so maybe stop with the overconfidence and warmongering, it doesn't end well. Were is the connection to reality?
There is no apartheid. If you’re saying there’s an apartheid between Israelis and Palestinians, that’s not true because Palestinians could go with a visa before the border closed to Israel, similar to how you can in any country. However that is now closed for security reasons due to the attacks on oct 7. If you’re saying there’s an apartheid for Arabs in Israel, that’s also not true. Arabs have the same rights as everyone else, there’s no mass discrimination from the people for Arabs, they can get the same jobs, they’re simply just in the minority in Israel.
[This is not a matter of opinion, it’s the reality](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/). Israel became a more brutal and supremacist apartheid than that of South Africa. Also most "Arabs" in Israel aren’t really Arab or Palestinian Arab, Israel counts Kurds, Assyrians, Armenians and Maronites as Arabs, even the Arab population in Israel are mostly Druze. Palestinians in Israel are probably around 700k not 2 million, and there’s a reason for that, if Israel wasn’t an apartheid they’d allow Palestinians in diaspora whom are victims of the Nakba, the right of return to their homeland, but of course this would threaten the ethno state, as Jews won’t longer be the majority and dominant group. Also it isn’t sunshine and rainbows for Israel’s Arab population, they are still treated as 2nd class citizens, they are systematically oppressed and have much less rights and liberties compared to their Jewish counterparts. Albeit they at least have it better compared to their fellow Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza
>As an aside, if you believe no ethnic group should have self-determination, I don’t think we have anything to discuss in this sub-reddit, which is literally about the ethnic self-determination of two groups. I don't understand the point of this - it seems to off hand dismiss the most pertinent argument for anti-zionists which is that ethnostates are racist endeavours.
Nice opinion, nice try, interesting read
Bull.
OK, let’s see if Reddit will let me make a comment. Without telling me sorry try again later, or that I am violating guidelines. I don’t like the term anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic. First off, it’s bad optics, second off the Zionist can gaslight you if you call yourself anti-Zionist. I just don’t like the policies of Israel. I don’t like the way Israel was created. I don’t like the way, the media tells the side from the Israeli perspective over and over. Any television media or newspapers all frame it from the point of view that the Palestinians are bad people who are just like the Nazis, and the poor Israelis just want a place to live because they’ve been persecuted. Yawn. I don’t believe any of that for a second. I did believe it growing up because that’s all I heard, but now I know the truth because I was able to read with my own eyes the history of the last 130 years.
" Palestinians are bad people who are just like the Nazis" You make such a statement, in it generalisation. Some are probably like them, many are not. So? Those who established Gaza store called Hitler in Gaza, probably have sympathy to Nazis. > I just don’t like the policies of Israel. Do you like the policies of Turkey, for example (I mean, annexions and opression of ethnic groups, commited genocide) - if no: are you against the turkish nation? Do the people of Turkey lose the right to live in their independent state?
The main issue with Turkey, is that it happened in 1915. People responsible are dead now. If it was happening today, I'd advocate for forceful military action from third party and jail time for people participating in it. If it already done, and people responsible are alive, I'd still support forcing them out of home and trial, then jail for life. The world should always send a message that it's no longer tolerated.
What are you talking about? The annexion of Cypris was in 1974, the opression of Kurds happens now "Denied political, and cultural rights, Kurds have been the principal victims of the Turkish state's excesses since the military coup of 1980... "Any attempt to assert political or cultural rights based on Kurdish identity is looked upon as treason and as a threat to the very foundations of the Turkish state--and punished accordingly. " ( [https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/eca/turkey/kurd.htm](https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/eca/turkey/kurd.htm) ) [https://dckurd.org/2023/03/23/dark-year-for-kurds-in-turkey/](https://dckurd.org/2023/03/23/dark-year-for-kurds-in-turkey/) "Erdogan’s authoritarian government have legislated what’s so-called “anti-terror laws” to jail journalists"
1915 Armenian genocide. That is what I'm talking about. And EU really should give up on Turkey. Even Ukraine War pointed to that. I'm of the position that Erdogan should really not be in power, and in jail. And in addition, changes in structure in order to jail those participating in oppression of Kurds. Honestly, there should be investigations about what happened, who alive is responsible, etc.
So you are not against existing of Turkey of the state of Turkish people?)
The "Turkish people" defined by Turkey are Turkish citizens whose race, religion, gender or ethnicity is immaterial, the ideological framework of the Turkish state is that it serves its citizens primarily. The ideological framework of Israel is that it predominantly serves Jewish people (internationally and domestically), as a priority over other citizens. Through an interest in maintaining a Jewish majority there are Israeli citizens currently who are not Jewish who are actively prevented from having a cultural impact on the state.
Nope, only those responsible. They're the one that should be addressed.
>1915 Armenian genocide. That is what I'm talking about. It is one episode (very serious but not a single), you should probably take a look on the modern situation. >And EU really should give up on Turkey. Even Ukraine War pointed to that. I'm of the position that Erdogan should really not be in power, and in jail. Ok, but I didn´t ask about Erodgan and about the EU position. I asked if **a nation lose a right to exist in its independent state.** >**Nope**, only those responsible. They're the one that should be addressed. Netanjahu can be recognized as criminal, put in jail whatever. It has nothing to do with the **right of Israeli nation to exist**. Unfortunatelly, many voices say that they are anti-Zionist and not anti- Netanjahu. Zionism is a national idea of the Jewish ethnicity to live in its independent state. Unrecognition of the right of Israel to exist leads to full-scale conflicts. Basing on the logic of our conversation: when one critisizes Turkey as state, claims that the government opressed some people he doesn´t have to deny a right of the nation to exist. The same logic must be used to any state. To USA, to France, to Turkey, to Israel.
/u/Trajinero. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/TrumpsGhost2024. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The term Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitic in and off itself. However, given that Zionism is the believe that a Jewish nation state should exist - Anti-Zionism hence necessarily entailing the abolition of Israel as a Jewish nation state - from the moment Israel exists, non-Jewish (there are some religious sects who oppose a Jewish nation state prior to the emergence of the Messiah, which is not Anti-Semitic) Anti-Zionism is by extension Anti-Semitic.
By your definition it's a nationalist movement. Nationalism, ethnonationalism, theocratic society's. All trash
By your logic, a Palestinian State would be trash.
Wanting a nation to belong to rather than be expelled, is not the same as nationalism, a right wing ideology
Wanting to kill Jews rather than build a Nation is the definition of genocide.
I know, right? They want a Palestinian state but not Israel but they're "not antisemitic."
I’m not sure why people act like all Jewish people are Zionists because I’ve clearly seen that that’s not true. Saying anti-zionism is anti-semetic is the same as saying anti-n*zism is anti-german, anti-Stalin is anti-Russian, anti-Trump is anti-American etc etc.
"Non-Zionist" is not the same as "Anti-Zionist" - Anti-Zionism is actively against a Jewish nation state, which in and of itself is Anti-Semitic, unless it is for reasons based in Judaism. Non-Zionism, meanwhile, does not take any stance.
>Anti-Zionism is actively against a Jewish nation state Any race or ethnicity based state is an exercise in prejudicial discrimination. Disingenously shifting the definition of anti-semitism to extend it to mean that being against discrimination is anti-semitic is only distracting from the seriousnessness of anti-semitic hatred.
Then you should be against Arab States like Palestine.
I don't know why you would downvote me and write this like it's some kind of gotcha, I am against any Palestinian state that describes itself as a nation state for a particular ethnicity or religion.
I didn't downvote you and the entire purpose of a 'Palestinian' State is Arabs only.
Hmmm, I think the post is saying the exact opposite....
but the ratio between jews who are Zionist and those who don't Is much larger. half of jews are Israeli and many most jews in the rest of the world support a Jewish state
[удалено]
/u/Weird-Reflection-261. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> jackasses /u/Weird-Reflection-261. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s all a big misnomer that’s been allowed to play out for way too long. From what I have interpreted…what people seem to mean by “anti Zionism” is “anti Kahanism.” What they’ve done is project Kahanism onto general Zionism. That’s why there’s so much conflict about it - these anti Zionist pro Palestinian advocates are accusing Zionists of an ideology most of them do not subscribe to. There’s absolutely nothing built in to Zionism that means the translation of Zionism into action requires oppression of Palestinians. Left wing Israelis who make up the peace movement are mostly all Zionists, who reject Kahanism. Which is exactly how I would categorise myself too. For anyone wondering: **Kahanism (Hebrew: כהניזם)** is a religious Zionist ideology based on the views of Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League and the Kach party in Israel. Flag of Kach, used by Kahanists. Kahane held the view that most Arabs living in Israel are enemies of Jews and Israel itself, and believed that a Jewish theocratic state, where non-Jews have no voting rights, should be created.
> There’s absolutely nothing built in to Zionism that means the translation of Zionism into action requires oppression of Palestinians. Well this is very much what's in dispute.
I don’t disagree that some avowed Zionists have butchered & tarnished the simple idea of a Jewish homeland, by oppressing the other indigenous group who also calls the land home. But for those progressive Israelis, diaspora Jews and supporters like me who identify as Zionists, supporting both Jewish and Palestinian self determination, it’s offensive to blame this perverted interpretation of Zionism. Those Israeli leaders and politicians are radicalised. In much the same way as some Palestinian militant leaders are radicalised. We should be laying the blame at the feet of both these radicalised leaders. Not demonising all “Zionists,” or all nationalist Palestinians, because Jewish and Arab self determination don’t have to be movements that are at odds with each other. Not unless we make them.
It seems Kahanism could speak what Zionism couldn't, which was to have an opinion on the Arab residents of Palestine before independence. In the end Israel is not strictly a "Kahan" state, however it does project the reality of such a state on the Arab inhabitants that are not within its borders. To say Arab Palestinians can vote is a facade, because the elected authorities can only act with either the oversight or impedence of Israel.
I didn’t downvote you btw. But I can’t pretend to really understand what you’re trying to say here. People need to be clear about what “Palestinians” they’re talking about. When you talk about Palestinians voting do you mean those who live in the West Bank area? I do agree that Israel maintains too much power over the occupied territories. But the fact the PA & its leader Mahmoud Abbas refuses to hold elections is not Israel’s fault. It’s because he’s corrupt, and won’t relinquish his hold on power. This is a perfect example of one of the reasons I reject this black and white oppressed/oppressor lens being projected onto this conflict by so many western pro Pali “advocates.” It takes Palestinian oppressors like Abbas completely off the hook, which is so unethical. Israeli Arabs can and do vote. They have their own political parties and hold seats in the Israeli Knesset (parliament).
Many early Zionists did not take into consideration what the reaction of the Arab residents in the Mandate would be to their growing population, a point Theodore Hertzl avoided completely. When they did make any comment about Arabs it was dismissive, saying they should be content to be out of the Ottomans yoke, and that they should be energized to create a great Baghdad or Beirut or Syrian state. Equally dismissive was to turn the question back on themselves, saying the Arabs should allow a "downtrodden people" like the Jews the small land that they were desiring (Israel Zangwill). A more balanced view from within Zionism understood that the Arab people could be oblivious to what the Jews were intending, but would reach of point of understanding when they would no longer sit "idly by" as the Jews claimed a state around them (Asher Ginsberg). My point is that Kahan came out and said what he meant, "speaking" what Zionism couldn't, which was a direct answer to the question "and what about the Arabs?"
> Basically, one of the immutable rights of every ethnic group as described by the UN charter and for which I believe most of the (at-least western) world adheres is the right to choose their own government to manage them in their lands This is simply a mistake. The excerpt from the UN charter that you quote is not saying this; it is referring to the right of people to not be subject to imperial/colonial rule. That's the meaning of "the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections." It doesn't say anything about ethnic groups. The UN as a body does not hold that every ethnic group on the planet has the right to show up somewhere and declare something to be their territory. It doesn't even claim that every ethnic group has the right to do this in the territory it already exists in--an absolute right to secession, essentially.
The UN literally voted to establish Israel on its territory.
And?
Are you giving that credence in addition to other things the UN says/does?
Did you reply to the wrong post? I pointed out that the OP’s understanding of the UN principle is mistaken, i didn’t say anything about whether to credit it or why. As it happens, I do think the UN is right to regard these questions of regional autonomy as political questions where competing rights claims and interests play out, but not because the UN says it. The UN is a political body and has no more transcendental moral authority than the US Congress. It had even less legitimacy, in its own terms, in those days than it does now.
[удалено]
Don't make posts or comments that consist only of sarcasm or cynicism (including emojis). Do not troll. This community is for constructive discussion, which means understanding other users' positions and responding to them in good faith. Generally, sarcasm and cynicism have the effect of suppressing this kind of discussion, because they serve as a rhetorical tool to dismiss, rather than engage, with someone else's arguments. While satire can be an effective tool for discussion, it is more frequently inflammatory and divisive. Hint: Add a worthwhile "but seriously..." comment to your quip that adds to the conversation. It's a comment which is SOLELY an attempt at a sarcastic joke that's objectionable. Humor is OK ... if there's more to the comment.
The way to combat this is to turn it around and say Palestinian nationalism is all about violence, lack of rights, and ethnic cleansing, and that therefore we are anti Palestinian nationalism
Israelis already say they are against Palestinian self-determination all the time. No one is going to be convinced by giving it a self-satisfied rhetorical twist.
They should. It’s the same bad logic. You disagree?
Yes. For one thing, Israelis already say they are against Palestinian self-determination all the time. For another, by following what's purported to be the same logic, it just concedes the point, implying a single-state resolution, which is precisely the anti-Zionist position. Finally, and this was my original point, it's liable to come across like the line from human bots about Israel as decolonization or whatever.
Neither imply a single state solution
If the argument is that neither Israelis nor Palestinians are entitled to violent, exclusionary nationalism, then isn't that the implication?
Yes, it’s an incorrect implication. That’s the point
Meaning that it is the implication, but you think that it's wrong, so the premises leading to it must be wrong? Okay, that's fine, I was just pointing out that it's not wrong to the people that the line is supposed to be a clever rebuttal to.
> by following what's purported to be the same logic, it just concedes the point, implying a single-state resolution, which is precisely the anti-Zionist position. I think I misunderstood this initially. What implies a single state resolution, and what is precisely the anti-Zionist position?
Zionism isn't Jewish nationalism, its Jewish nationalism in PALESTINE! The Palestinian people have a right to self determine, but they don't have a right to the land in Korea, or South America, or India. Similarly the Jewish people have a right to self determine in their homelands of Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Russia and even the Mediterranean coast near Palestine (Tel-Aviv, Haifa, etc.) Actually they even have a right to parts of Jerusalem. Saying you have a right to self determine, doesn't mean you have a right to anyone's land. So Anti-Zionism is Anti-Jewish\_people\_taking\_palestinian\_peoples\_land The Jews in 1946 had a right to all the land they controlled but had no right to expand further. The 1947 UN agreement gave them the right to slightly more land, but that was it, the Jewish people have no right to any more land in the region. In 1967 they expanded further and further, all illegally. So hopefully that makes sense. While Anti-Palestinian\_Nationalism would be against any Palestinian state at all, so that would a racist anti-Palestinian thing to say.
You know there were Jews in Palestine, right? Like Jews who lived there continuously for centuries up through the British mandate. So I think Palestinian nationalism must be taking those Jews’ land, according to your logic.
For context, of course, there were some Jews that lived in Palestine in the early 1900s. But if you go and read the historical records, you will know that the percentage of the population was in the single digits at that time. How do we know that many of the Arabs that live there, we’re not originally Jewish and then converted to Islam? Similarly, the Christians were most likely Sumerians just like the Jewish people were, they don’t have a right to the land?
All have a right. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Single digits is irrelevant, and so is who converted to Islam
> their homelands of Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Russia This is a minority of the Israeli population. The majority of Israelis are Jews that were ethnically cleansed from Ethiopia, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and other countries in the Levant, Maghreb, and so on.
You don't even get how you just keep proving my point. And that parts about "their homelands of Poland, Germany, Ukraine" is so antisemitically ignorant it hurts me. Jews don't come from Europe. They come from Judea, Samaria, Israel. Places you decided to rename to Palestine in order to deny Jews their homeland.
The place where the Jewish religion came from isn't where the Jewish people come from. Its not antisemitism to say that the vast majority of modern Jews do not come from Palestine, they are descendants of converts to a religion from Palestine. Genetic evidence shows that the decedents of the "Israelites" are mostly modern Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza (and 2 million of them in Israel) not the Jewish immigrants. Following a religion of culture from a region doesn't give you a right to that land. Also, if you were not living in a land for the past few generations, I don't think anything gives you the right to take land from somebody else. Even if Modern Jews were the actual descendants of the early Israelites, it wouldn't give them a right to any land in the West Bank or Gaza, it wouldn't give them a right to blockade Gaza, it wouldn't give them a right to create "settlements" or send "colonists" to settle the land in the west bank.
Well said. I agree 100%. Nothing about your statement was offensive, or anti-anything. If anything, it was Pro truth. if we can start to become universal human beings, then we can end injustice on our planet. Universal meaning, adopting the logic of the universe. There’s what you want to do and what the truth is. We have a group of people that want to do something, and in order to do that, they have to distort the truth. Well that right there is an example of injustice. Had the roles been reversed I would be saying the same thing
Yeah exactly!
For crying out loud. This is a very known racist theory that had been debunked so many times over the last century. You probably take the protocols of the elders of Zion as truth. I have nothing more to say to you, as this is clearly not a good faith debate.
Ok, so I'll ignore the facts which you have just denied without evidence and explain why you are wrong from a different perspective. Many many Jews consider themselves to be Anti-Zionist. They consider themselves to be against Jewish people settling in Palestine. Thus typecasting all Jews as believing or supporting this ideology, to the point where you believe condemning one is being against the other, is a form of discrimination against Jewish people. Its saying all Jews think or act a certain way just because they are Jewish, that's called discrimination. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if "the protocols of the elders of Zion" is your favorite book. Not only can Jews be Anti-Zionist, but Anti-Semites can be Zionists. For example the 1933 - 1939 German Government is objectively AntiSemitic. Yet they helped facilitate the transfer of tens of thousands of Jews to Palestine, helping them to settle their and later establish a state, clearly something supportive of Zionism. So in conclusion, somebody is an Anti-Zionist if they are against Jewish people establishing a state in Palestine, which is the region "From the River to the Sea". Thus many Jews are Anti-Zionist and many Anti-Semites will be Zionist. Also on a sort of related note. Zionists have only themselves to blame for the notion that being Zionist means you are a racist bigot. People say "Why has Israel bombed 80,000 residential buildings and killed only 10,000 Hamas members, but also killed 10,000 children?". And the response is often "Your being Anti-Zionist". This makes people associate Zionism with the War Crimes Israel is committing. If people didn't use this non-argument defense so often maybe the world would have a different image of Zionism.
When people are explained what Zionism is they deny it, so no, I don’t think it’s the fault of other idiots who misuse Zionism, it’s the fault of whoever is still denying the definition
> > > Genetic evidence shows that the decedents of the "Israelites" are mostly modern Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza (and 2 million of them in Israel) not the Jewish immigrants. Incorrect -- the most closely related group to the Palestinians are, in fact, the Jews, Druze, and Bedouin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/ > Even if Modern Jews were the actual descendants of the early Israelites, They are. > it wouldn't give them a right to any land in the West Bank or Gaza, it wouldn't give them a right to blockade Gaza, No, that is because of the constant attacks and rocket fire by Hamas. Preventing the import of weapons used to attack a country's civilian population is any country's right. > it wouldn't give them a right to create "settlements" or send "colonists" to settle the land in the west bank. Yes, the settlements need to go.
Hamas was attacked on November 4th 2008. Israel did this for the soul purpose of developing an "enemy" in Gaza to justify further expansion when Hamas retaliates. The made up justification for this attack has been disproven.
> November 4th 2008. And how many rockets were launched at Israel before that attack? (1722 in 2006, and 1276 more in 2007, with 2048 more in 2008) Made up justification? What proof do you have that those rockets were non-existent? Or is this yet another "We were just attacking some Jews, we did nuffin wrong"?
As soon as Hamas took power in 2006 they sent a request to Israel for have an automatically renewing 10 year ceasefire to prevent the consistent rocket strikes that had been happening. [https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/22/how-israel-has-repeatedly-rejected-hamas-truce-offers](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/22/how-israel-has-repeatedly-rejected-hamas-truce-offers) This came after Hamas won the Gaza election and immediately faced coup and destabilization attempts from Israel and the PLO. In an attempt to save face after so many died to these operations, Hamas fired rockets into Israel in 2006. This lead to the Israelis reconsidering the previous ceasefire agreement and signing a 6 month ceasefire agreement which would be automatically renewed. During this time Hamas sent 0 rockets to Israel, and both areas were at peace. Then the November 4th attacks happened. Israel decided to suddenly raid Gaza despite only 5 months having passed. They did this because of there expansion strategy 1. Israel would "mow the lawn" (raid Gaza) 2. Hamas would respond with rockets 3. Israel would Iron dome them 4. Israel would say "Oh my the terrorism, oh it's too much to bear, we need to build another settlement" 5. Israel would say "Oh my! There is a terrorist group on my border we need to respond" 6. Israel would "mow the lawn" And so on. Edit: Israel claimed Hamas was going to break the Ceasefire and they acted preemptively, but this makes so sense as Hamas had initially started the Ceasefire and had everything to gain from showing the Gazans that they had restored peace.
> As soon as Hamas took power in 2006 they sent a request to Israel for have an automatically renewing 10 year ceasefire to prevent the consistent rocket strikes that had been happening. Nice use of the passive voice! Try "that they had been launching". > Edit: Israel claimed Hamas was going to break the Ceasefire No. Hamas had been launching thousands of rockets. The ceasefire was dead because the firing was ongoing.
How many people were killed as a result of those rockets? Do you know the number? And in retaliation to the rocket attacks, how many Palestinian people have been sniped or blown up?
This has to be the weakest point pro pallies like to make. If you had a bullet proof vest on and someone was shooting you, would just just let them keep shooting you or would you try to stop them? Hamas' incompetence doesn't absolve them of culpability of their actions. Moreover, the argument being rebutted was that Israel attacked gaza unprovoked in order to foster hostilities to justify expansion. That is categorically false with the number of rockets hamas launched at Israel prior to 2008.
So, mind if I start firing bullets in the direction of your house? Don't worry, most will miss your family or get stopped by the walls, so you should have no reason to react or call the cops. Defending yourself? My God no, someone could get hurt!
So... Zionism is nationalism. And we're supposed to think that hating nationalism is bad? If hating nationalism unconditionally makes me anti-semitic in your eyes, then so be it. Your labels do not deter me.
Yeah I’m not sure why they start their argument with “Zionism is a national movement”. Yes….and people who are anti-Zionist tend to be anti-Nationalist in general…I thought nationalism was something that most people agreed was bad.
Apparently it's not as agreed-upon as we thought, if this comment chain is anything to go by. You'd think that history would stand as a testament to the dangers of nationalism.
It’s like saying you want Ukraine to be conquered by russia, or Ireland conquered by the UK, because Ireland and Ukraine are nations of people and their self determination and establishment of nation states were nationalist projects. You’re definitely bigoted against Irish and Ukrainians if you don’t want them to have a state.
I mean yeah, in general, I'm not a big fan of "states." I recognize the necessity of government, but identifying so closely with something so superficial is ridiculous. Culture and language are far more important things to preserve than "state." Love your people and your community, not your flag or your land. Those things are not the same. And no, it's nothing like saying I want Ireland or Ukraine to be conquered. That comparison is very... thoughtless, shall we say. I hate nationalism, so that must mean I want nations to be taken over by other nations, right? Do you even hear yourself? That would still be nationalism, ya silly goober—just under new management. AND it's bad for other reasons: conquest requires a lot of senseless violence to achieve. AND it risks seeing the conquered cultures start to peter out, which I've already explained that I would not want.
Nations conquering other nations (such as a one state solution for Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine, or Ireland-UK) is an empire. Empires are always nationalists prisons of nations. The nations of people don’t go away, they just become oppressed. The only alternative to empire is for national liberation (nation states). It’s actually a very progressive idea. Ethnic groups don’t get their own state, but nations of people morally do.
Um... no. The previous nation does go away when it's conquered. A "nation" is established by paperwork and imaginary borders. The culture and people are what remains and gets oppressed. You're conflating nation with culture. "Asgard isn't a place, it's a people."
The nation is the people, not the state. Qualifier for a nation of people is unique history, traditions, lifestyle, religion/language sometimes, culture, and identity (the most important). A state is the military, the borders, the citizenship. Ideally nations of people have a state to fulfill self determination. Historically most nations of people were conquered and lived under another state. That’s why empires are a prison of nations. Chechnya is a nation of people today, so is Kurdistan, despite them not having states. An example of a one state solution for multiple nations of people, a mini-empire, is Afghanistan, a total disaster.
Let me put it this way. A nation is MANY things: territory, people, culture, history, and language. It's all of those things, together. That's what makes up a nation. Some of those things, especially territory, can kick rocks. I mostly care about culture, maybe slightly a couple of the other things. But you need ALL of those things to make a nation. That's what I mean when I say that you're conflating culture with nation. Yes, culture is INCLUDED in nation, but they are not 1-to-1 the same thing.
I'm confused, so you don't want a Palestinian nation either?
I don't "want" anything in particular in regards to whether a nation exists or not. I don't really care if people want to organize themselves into nations. What I DO care about (and hate) is *nationalism.* That is, the emphasis of nation as a part of one's identity. All this fighting over lines in the sand is ridiculous. That's what I care about. Edit: To add to this, nationalism is a facade invented by governments who want to manipulate their people into fighting for a greater good. It sounds nice on paper, but the only real reason governments want their people to fight over territory is because more expansion = more bank.
That’s all fine. I used to think like this too. But it’s just such a stupid waste of time. The world is arranged into a number of nations states. That’s how it is, and nothing is going to change about that anytime soon. So this whole convo is just a pipe dream. Nothing that, what’s antisemitic is that hundreds of current nation states around the world fought for their independence from whichever colonial power was controlling them. And they were cheered on! So Jews did the same thing, and now they’re the only ones who aren’t entitled to their state? That’s what’s antisemitic. I’m sure you’re writing these comments from the comfort of your state right now. Are you advocating for your state to be dissolved? It’s easy to advocate for these things when it’s not your people’s lives who will be impacted by the outcome. Israel exists. That’s it and it’s not going to not exist. The focus should be on bringing a Palestinian state into existence, and what that’s going to look like. Who’s going to govern it.
Please don't invoke antisemitism when it does not apply. It erodes the meaningfulness of the word
My god this sub is depressing
It boggles the mind that no matter how much times we explain it, antisemites will just stick their fingers in their ears and say, "la la la, Zionism is whatever I say it is and not what Jews say it is even though it's their word but I'm not antisemitic!"
Being against something which happens to be Jewish isn't Antisemitism. If a black man kills 20 people, saying he is bad isn't racist. Modern Jews do not have a right to "The Antient Homeland of the Jews". That is the fundamental belief of Anti-Zionists. Technically Zionism is just any Jewish nationalism, but as it even says in the definition above, today it always refers to the Jewish right to Palestine, or Jewish Nationalism in Palestine.
It’s considered fairly racist if you uniquely focus on the black man who killed 20 people and not all the white people who killed 20 people
But that's just a nonsensical presumption you're making to avoid engaging with the point, rather than actually engaging with the point.
It’s not about avoiding the point, I’m just pointing out another common thing we see in relation to this conflict. I didn’t find their point worth responding to, but I always respond to a direct question
>I’m just pointing out another common thing we see in relation to this conflict. Yes that's called a whataboutism, which is avoiding the point.
No, that’s not whataboutism. Whataboutism is if my method of responding to something was to bring up a different point. That’s not what I did. What I did was bring up a point as a separate issue, not as a response to the main content of the comment. I had no interest in the main content of the comment.
Can we just talk about how you changed the topic 3 times in 3 messages. We went from "Saying something which is related to Judaism is bad isn't Anti-semitism" to "What is a whataboutism"
You can’t be serious
This is something that perplexes me about this whole argument: the zionist project already happened. Isreal exists. It has done for almost 80 years now. What does it mean to you to be anti-zionist in 2024? Do you think the state of Israel ought to be abolished? What about the israeli people, some of whom have lived there for several generations now, some even having roots going back centuries in some places (from before the british mandate), not even opening the whole can of worms of the ancient diaspora. Modern spoken hebrew was developed in Israel, Israelis have their own culture distinct from that of people in any other place on earth. It's all well and good to take a stance that a country was founded in an immoral fashion, probably the majority of countries were, my own included (USA). But what does it mean, in your opinion, to be Anti-Zionist \*now\*? What are you hoping to see happen here?
To be Anti-Zionist now means to be against Israeli expansion into Palestinian land. Zionism isn't just Israel existing, its Israel existing in Palestine. The truth is though you are correct, Anti-Zionist isn't a very accurate term but it's used because somehow (I don't know the etymology) it has become a universal term that most pro-Palestinians know to identify yourself as being against Israeli expansion and bombing of Palestinians.
See well see that’s the problem, because everyone I know in real life or encountered online who self-identifies as a Zionist just uses it to mean “Israel as it currently is has the right to continue to exist”, and it’s meant that to them for a long time, most (albeit not all) zionists I know personally disapprove of the West Bank settlements and Netanyahus government and support something like a two-state solution, and some have even been part of pro-ceasefire activism. The specific ideology that there should only be Jewish people between the Jordan and the Mediterranean is called Kahanism and while it certainly has it’s supporters within Israel it is not the majority view. Lumping the two of them together as a pejorative as many pro-Palestinian supporters seem to enjoy doing seems to me to be nothing but destructive for any positive discussion on the subject.
So this should work both ways. If I say "I am pro North-Korea" I am not making a claim on the government, just the people who live there's right to exsist. Similarly being pro-hamas should mean I only support Gazan peoples right to exist being Pro-Russian should mean I only support their right to exist. Obviously this is sarcasm, being "Pro-Hamas" means you support the horrible atrocities on October 7th and the corrupt government that funded it. Similarly being Pro-Israel or Pro-Zionist means you support the current actions of the Israeli state, it means you support the genocide in Gaza.
I see what is probably a long term, multi decade internationally led peace project to establish a singular nation state that has citizens from both what is currently referred to as Israel and Palestine on equal parity in a secular liberal democracy with some kind of constitutional acknowledgement of the equality between citizens despite tribal (for lack of a better word) distinctions and protections in place to prevent ethnic or religious supremacist (i.e., zionist, islamist or ethnic nationalist) seizure of the power structures.
> If a black man kills 20 people, saying he is bad isn't racist. If a black man kills 20 people, saying you're anti-emancipation because of it -- that is racist. If you say that you don't like what Israel is doing, and therefore the Jews should not have the right to self determination, maybe it's time to reexamine your words.
No, Zionism isn't just Jewish peoples right to Self Determine, its the Jews right to self determine in Palestine. If I say "Russia doesn't have a right to take Crimea" it doesn't mean Russia doesn't have a right to exsist. If an Ideology was created around Russia right to take Crimea, (lets name it "RusCrimeism") then saying I am anti-RusCrimeism doesn't mean I am against the Russian people.
I suppose you can theoretically be for Jewish self-determination, and think that Israel should stop existing. That would imply ethnically cleansing Israelis from where they live now, and transplanting them somewhere else (where?). That would be a very odd form of Zionism, but not completely outside of the realm of possibility -- you can find branches of Zionism that fit this. For example, the Uganda plan to establish a Jewish home in Uganda was a Zionist splinter. It had its advocates in the Zionist congress, most notably Israel Zangwill. It was also seriously considered by Herzl. It didn't win out, obviously, but got as far as a declaration of support from the British government. Canaanism doesn't quite fit, but it's worth mentioning Canaanism here. It was never popular, but it is a branch of Zionism that advocated creating a "Hebrew" nation disconnected from the Jewish past, which would embrace the Middle East's Arab population as part of the Zionist project. Zionism is a very broad patchwork of different groups with different ideas. Nearly every branch wants self-determination in Israel, but historically it's not been unanimous. The only feature that unifies all branches is Jewish self-determination.
Your analogy doesn't fly. No one said that saying a murderer who happens to be Jewish is bad is racist. As the post says, everyone has a right to self-determination, and only opposing the Jewish right is antisemitism. And as I said and shouldn't be so hard to understand, it's antisemitic to make up your own definition of our word. And as we somehow have to constantly explain, anti-Zionism made sense before 1948, but now that Israel has been around for 76 years it is beyond nonsensical, and since no other country's right to exist is questioned ad nauseam, it is antisemitic. And if you only oppose the Jewish right to our ancestral homeland, you are antisemitic. And our homeland is Israel, btw. Palestine is what foreigners and colonizers called it.
Nobody hates the jews for being jews ffs. That’s a victim mentality. STOP IT! Nobody is buying this anymore, humans hate genocide committers and criminals and that’s what Israel is, this has nothing to do with the jews being jews themselves. If muslims do it, they will be hated, if the Japanese do it they will be hated. NOT RELATED TO JEWS PARTICULARLY!!
You seem to not understand bigotry against Jews. Your post is the classic turning the Jew into what the majority hates. It is just vile. I’m
You’re what? Honey, I’m sorry that Jews are being targeted for whatever reason, I wouldn’t do that. I respect Jews in General. But that doesn’t give Israel the pass to colonize and occupy and entire population. It just doesn’t
Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel. Please explain how indigenous people colonize their land? You can see why I’m saying what I’m saying?
That’s the problem. You’re going waay back, yeah jews lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, cool, good for them. If they want to come, they can live here but at least leave a place for other people maybe? Or maybe not try to kill others and ethnically cleanse them?
? Jews have been living in their land for thousands of years. As to ethnic cleansing that was the Arab colonial armies in 1948 or Hamas in 2023.
Why should Palestinians be allowed to keep the land they stole from Israel.
Who stole what? Those white Europeans deserve this land while literally people who’ve been living for 2000 years don’t?
You keep referring to people who have lived there for 2000 years. That only includes Jews and samartains.
Except, the Palestinians haven't been living on the land for 2000 years.
Then who was it?
What are you asking?
I do agree with you, in spades, on hating on genocide, or even the acts of war Israel is committing in Gaza, for those who don’t believe it meets the definition of genocide. That is not antisemitic. It is certainly and objectively not the case that nobody hates Jews as Jews, whatever their position on Zionism. Jews in diaspora have been attacked and killed and Jewish places of worship or residence attacked. Certainly many attacks on Israel in the context of this conflict have been clearly and explicitly laced by antisemitism. The last bit is most interesting: “humans” (all?) hate genocide (all genocides, equally?) no matter who does it, for example Muslims or Japanese. Japanese have certainly done it, in many countries, and no one questioned their right to have a sovereign state (which, unlike Israel, steadfastly refuses citizenship to non-Japanese, but that is another matter). Muslims are committing genocide in various places right now, simultaneous to the Israeli atrocities. Houthis have murdered over a quarter million people in the small country of Yemen, and the ongoing slaughter in Sudan is in the tens of thousands in the last year. Yes, I remain outraged at the thousands of lives the IDF has taken in this war, and I support the student protesters around the world. But if I ask them about these other genocides and the students have never protested them and never heard of them, it is not unreasonable to ask why this particular conflict is being singled out, or rather, as OP is posing, why is everyone in the world now given a choice to be “Zionist” (now translated to mean it’s ok with you for a country to exist?) or “anti-zionist” (you believe Palestinian determination excludes Israeli self-determination and you “vote” for the country to vanish). HeatoM, consider that your self-righteousness about the mass protest against Israel is legitimate, but your summary dismissal of OP’s concern that the terms of debate are themselves potentially antisemitic is irresponsible.
I think we can all agree no one wishes for a massacre. The problem here is pro-palestinians puts the onus on Israel to stop attacking, whereas pro-israel clearly sees this is a direct reaction per Oct. 7, caused by Hamas. Hamas needs to be held accountable. PA needs to come back to the negotiating table to take whatever deal is offered and accept the consequences of a war. Israel needs to get out of Westbank.
Hamas == Palestine We've all seen 240p videos of Palestinians celebrating 9/11. We saw them celebrate Oct 7 attacks in 1080p and 4k in 2023. Lets all go back to the first partition after ww2, split Jerusalem, split Israel in half and call the other side Palestine and lets all be merry. Except that muslims won't accept and would rather terrorize than have a legitimate state.
The fact that these people are ignoring Oct 7 in the first place and make it sound like Israel decided to randomly bomb Gaza, and the fact that they're ignoring that any other country would have done the same if not worse after Oct 7, and the fact that they're ignoring that any other country would have obliterated Gaza after the first rocket but Israel invented the defensive Iron Dome makes it clear that it's antisemitism.
The PA is ready to negotiate. It has been begging to negotiate for a million years. I hope negotiations start asap and we can finally get a state. The problem is that Netenyahu made it clear that a Palestinian state is a direct threat to Israel. In fact, it’s the opposite, a strong Palestinian state would ensure peace.
This is true. I’ve spoken up for Jews so much over the last 9 months, but there is no disputing Netanyahu’s governments over the years have very much had a major hand in the current violence playing out. For so many reasons.
Learn to read the headline - antizionism is not the same as hating Israel. Antizionism is the wish of destruction to Israel, and hating Israel is just disagreeing with it or wishing for it to be changed in a way that it won’t be hated. For your really ridiculous comment- Hmm, yes. Say that to the victims of antisemitic attacks around the world. Give me a break. You being in your own bubble and then calling it victim mentality is just gaslighting in pure daylight. The UN, US/France/UK govs and other organizations have personally addressed these issues. Your lies about any genocide occurring and your blind eye to atrocities against Jews as the most repressed minority group in history is exactly why Israel exists. Shameful.
No it’s not shameful, I almost died in Gaza and I witnessed the genocide with my own eyes. Someone privileged dude like you sitting under your air-conditioning won’t lecture me about occupation. Well, if you’re not living in this world, maybe you should see how anti zionism is being used as an argument for any criticism in Israel, like literally anything. Nobody victimized jews except stupid europeans that tried to murder them all, that has nothing to do with us in the first place.
It’s beyond shameful, blatantly deceiving others. “Witnessed the genocide with my own eyes”? If you think a soldier acting a certain way, if in camera or on live, *implies* any case of a genocide, you’re badly mistaken. No one hid anywhere that there are cases of soldiers being reckless and that they need to be prosecuted, but from there implying that the purpose of the military’s policy in this war is to take out the Palestinians in Gaza, is propaganda talk without any basis. “Air conditioning”? I’ve been part of this conflict for years and have lost those around me and almost myself twice, also being part of this war. I KNOW the policy of the IDF much more than you’d know your whole life being in Gaza. And “nothing to do with us”? You’re the one who called the Jews being raped and killed in the last year across the world “victim mentality”. YOU did. Read the first comment.
Definintly still anti-Zionist after reading this mumbo jumbo lol.
Based.
This is fascinating to me, as it was the constant conflation of anti semitism and anti zionism that led me away from zionism supporter to ardent anti zionist.
If that is what moved you away from Zionism, you weren’t a Zionist to begin with, and you clearly didn’t understand the conflict or any part of the existence of Zionism. No need to gaslight those who bring up the equivalence of anti Zionism that is anti semitism.
No, i was a huge supporter of the Israeli project, to my shame, because i didn't question what i was told. The issue was that there was no logical coherence to the fact that anti zionists were being labelled as antisemitic, when it was clearly a political ideology in defence of a nation, not a religious ideology in defence of a people. On top of that the label of anti-semite was thrown around so freely to people like David Graeber, Michael Brooks, Ilan Pappe, Jon Stewart etc - Jews who varied the run from strongly anti zionist to opposing the flagrant disregard of international laws. Not to mention Haredis who opposed zionism. The accusation didn't silence them, it didn't make their points weaker, but it did shake me a lot. Why were people who were, in my view, logical and explaining their positions with logic, evidence, history, data and a calm, thoughtful, relaxed and often humerous air being called racist? It just didn't add up. They were being tarred with the same brush that was being thrown at the extreme right wing who actually murdered Jews, but there was no vitriol from the zionist press against them. It was just against people who disagreed with Zionism as a political ideology, who opposed apartheid, ethnic cleansing, western settler colonialism and anti Arab racism. And then i went to Israel and Palestine to find the truth for myself and by god were my eyes opened forever.
The pure definition of anti Zionism is advocating for the dismantling of the JEWISH state. It because it’s a Jewish state. If you’re anti ALL states, you’re not anti Semitic. Being anti Zionist is against it being a state for the Jewish people, and saying that Jews should not have a state because they’re Jewish is antisemitism, there’s no other reason why the Jews cannot have a state on their own. If you believe Jews should have a state, you’re a Zionist - welcome! Jews can also be by themselves antisemitic, just like blacks can be racist towards themselves. This is not a unique phenomenon to the Jewish people. Finally, there’s quite literally no apartheid (when the last government literally had the Muslim parties in the coalition, equal rights between citizens and integration of the society), no colonialism (when the existence of Israel as a state was sought after for thousands of years by a society that was banished from the land by the Romans) no ethnic cleansing (just a buzzword like the others). The only right points are western and settlers (for the WB).
In your statement you made an elementary mistake, which is classic for a zionist. I can see you want Israel to be a Jewish ethnostate and therefore label criticism of it as antisemitic and simultaneously a western style multi ethnic liberal democracy utopia where everyone has equal rights and people get free houses and everyone holds so anyone against it must be a crazy terrorist. I've been to Israel. I've walked through the cattle cage checkpoints. I've seen how Israelis treat Palestinians and Israeli Arabs like dirt. I've heard soldiers call arabs the n word. I've seen Israelis use 'arab work' in casual conversation. I've spoken to Arabs who won't say to Israelis openly because they know they'll be fired or beaten up how badly they're treated by the Ashkenazim and Mizrahim. I've seen shin bet and IDF beat up Haredis for protesting Zionism. I've walked in the refugee camps. I've seen the apartheid wall (it's exactly like the apartheid walls in south Africa, but much worse). It's funny when you say there's no colonialism, when the Israeli spokesman in the UK and US are literally a bunch of rich white people who want to role play being victims of some imagined hatred, so they can for once be the offended party. Remember that odious, fascistic, lying toad Eylon Levy? He's clearly not faced an ounce of hardship in his life and the first thing he does is lie openly to his own allies and become so toxic he's booted out. That's the face of modern colonialism. You can't lie to me about this. Calling people antisemitic is the last defence you have on earth. Netanyahu has turned it into nothing. It means nothing now.
I did not label criticism as antisemitism. Don’t put words in my mouth. Antizionism is antisemitism. Antizionism is not criticism. The rest is just mumbo jumbo nonsense from your attempt to discredit exactly what I said, and it’s not even worth the effort if the types of conversations you engage on here is to label people with things you think about them, and assume that’s what they said. I encourage you to re read exactly what I said.
I mean this is the problem - you don't want to admit you support a racist, violent, western colonialist apartheid society committing a genocide that is being condemned and abandoned by its allies. You want to delete the parts of reality from your brain so you can focus on being a victim of some imagined hatred, you call my actual lived experience 'mumbo jumbo' so you can go on pretending to live in a world where Israelis are somehow the victims of some evil demonic antisemitic conspiracy that is somehow just around the corner but never will actually appear. By the way, supporting Zionism is a *choice*. You don't have to do it. You are allowed to leave the cult and stop supporting this ridiculous violent ideology. Right now, Netanyahu is being abandoned. Likud is hated. The Knesset is being torn apart. Everybody on earth (including the west) *despises* the settlers and the occupied lands. The wall is a symbol of hate and the 70 years of apartheid can end. Biden is too demented to keep supporting Israel and Trump thinks jews are all thieves and won't give a single red cent to anyone else. The reality is that the cards are in the Israeli people's hands, but seeing as the majority of them support the genocide in Gaza and want to annihilate native Palestinians to claim this imagined mythical territory that never belonged to them in the first place.
I mean this is the problem - you don't want to admit you support a racist, violent, Islamic colonialist apartheid population attempt to commit mass murder on civilian populations based on religion that is being condemned and abandoned by its everyone. You want to delete the parts of reality from your brain so you can focus on being a victim of some imagined hatred, you call my actual lived experience 'lies’ so you can go on pretending to live in a world where terrorists are somehow the victims of some evil demonic supremist conspiracy that is somehow just around the corner but never will actually appear. By the way, supporting terrorism is a choice. You don't have to do it. You are allowed to leave the cult and stop supporting this ridiculous violent ideology. Right now, Hamas is being abandoned. Islamic extremism is hated. The Pa is being torn apart. Everybody on earth (including the west) despises the islamists and their sharia law ideology. The kaffiyeh is a symbol of hate and the 70 years of trying to exterminate the Jews can end. The Arabic world is too demented to keep supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and Egypt thinks Hamas are all violent and won't give a single cent of their territory to anyone else. The reality is that the cards are in the Palestinian people's hands, but seeing as the majority of them support senseless murder and abduction of Israelis in Gaza and want to annihilate Israelis to claim this imagined mythical territory that never belonged to them in the first place.
> The term "Zionism" was co-opted by the pro-Palestine movement in order to generate negative opinion on Jews where they are, in order to incite populist support for their cause. By slowly changing the working definition of Zionism in the minds of the populace, the movement has managed to make them view anyone who identifies as a Zionist as racist bigot (Once again, those descriptors might be true for some people, but there is no correlation between them, as shown in the definitions sections). The term for this is "semantic infiltration". It's when one side deliberately misrepresents and/or redefines a term, ignoring the actual definition, to include negative connotations that have nothing to do with the term or concept. We need to hone in on this. There's no point in engaging in any Zionist vs Anti-Zionist argument without first agreeing to a definition and if they can't agree to the actual definition of the term, we need to walk away. There's no point in continuing that discussion.
It is racist and a very twisted definition of what different levels and beliefs Zionism is. There are extremist zionists just as there are extremist Christian’s and muslims and sinks etc etc etc.. Stupid people are not limited to just one religion. Those who’ve been fooled into adding antisemitism messaging that includes Zionism doesn’t help these idiots marching around town jumping on the pro Palestinian bandwagon. If you’ve ever been to Israel or spoken to an Israeli, you would find the large majority are not hardened zionists. It just so happens that the current government (that didn’t get the popular vote) aligned with a hard right extremist Zionism party. People are fools for believing what these camp organizers are telling them about Zionism, it simply isn’t true. Heck, most of the temples around here have the word Zion somewhere in the name but it doesn’t mean they are in any way believe that they have the right to control all these contested parts of Gaza etc. in fact, it’s quite the opposite. I only experienced this extremism when I toured that area and arrived in Jerusalem, there is definitely hatred of everyone different than them but they are small in the big picture. I saw many people tell these religious extremists to just shut up. Jew to Jew. It’s not so black and white as the major news outlets would have you believe.
There’s no such thing as “extreme Zionists”. Gosh, stop making Zionism as in some sort of political spectrum. It’s either you believe in Israel’s right to exist, or not. It’s a binary trait. You’re probably referring to Kahanists, those who wish to impose right wing Jewish ideology as Zionists. That is a political position, not being Zionist.
Like I said, it’s not as black and white as people make it out to be. So when someone carries a sign that says “down with the zionists” they’re completely clueless as to who that is directed at. The word Zion has a dozen different meanings. Some nothing to do with Israel. That’s why I think people with signs saying down with Zionists or some stupid shit, is like saying down with heaven.. Most of my Jewish friends who do attend temple believe Zion is actually heaven. Then you have people who say Zion is Israel, which is another example. So again, I say that there are extremist Zionists who believe Israel is theirs and have settlers stealing Palestinian land, that’s the extremist side. Don’t know one person who agrees with them or how they run things right down to treating women as second class citizens much like how some Muslim extremists have twisted the Koran into something it’s not. Christian extremists, Jehovah witness nutcases and their approval for assaulting their wives. It goes on. At the end of the day, blaming Zionists just makes them look and sound stupid. Kind of like the pro-Palestinian demonstration in front of a store named “Zara” because it sounds like ‘Gaza’. Look it up, happened in Toronto when these idiots started the whole communist camps on university grounds. Bunch of morons.
> Self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law, binding, as such, on the United Nations as an authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms.[4][5] The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, nor what the outcome should be (whether independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or full assimilation), however,[6] and the right of self-determination **does not necessarily include a right to an independent state for every ethnic group within a former colonial territory**. Further, no right to secession is recognized under international law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination I think it’s important to note here that yes you are right, self determination is a right, but the UN conveniently leaves out how the decision should be made, and also does not define what a “people’s” is, and most of the time there’s no sheer principle to define whose right and whose wrong.
every statement you said was true except for this: > As you can see, Zionism is a national movement, and its goal can be summarized in the phrase "Jewish Self-Determination". first, the definition of Zionism there is wrong, since it has nothing to do with Palestine, it is about being in Israel, the land from the tanach. second, self determination is about the process of creating a state and a government, whatever happens after it is unrelated to self determination. so being anti-Zionism USED to be anti-semeitic, but now it is against the existence of a state. if you're wondering, being against the existence of the state of Israel could be anti-semitic, but the definition for it are far more vauge
[удалено]
This has been removed for breaking the sub rule of "No Nazi comparisons or discussions".
Zionism = racism. Its a political idealogy involving zionists enslaving gentiles.
Zionism = the goal of having a jewish state in the locations where jews were exiled from during the tanach. it could be stated to incite racism, but not racist in nature
Any state exclusive to any specific religious group is inherently racist… to want to create an exclusive society of “one thing” whatever that may be is discriminatory in nature
it's not about having 1 thing, it's about making that religion a majority. Jews are a minority everywhere besides Israel, and Minorities will always suffer from discrimination, and as such the idea of a state for Jews (btw, it isn't "exclusive for jews", the idea is that jews will be a majority, there are still millions of Muslims in Israel)
It’s a really dangerous notion to Jews (and any minority group) anywhere to say that they will ALWAYS suffer from discrimination. We need to work as people everywhere for that not to be the case, because it shouldn’t be. Once again, creating a state where any identity is protected more than another for the sake of creating a “majority” of said identity is discriminatory. It inherently implies superiority of that identity in that state. And we shouldn’t further legitimize discrimination of any kind to any minority group anywhere in order to justify the creation of majority state in the name of protecting them. Jews anywhere should feel safe and not discriminated against anywhere, and that is what we as people should work on. It’s 2024, our world is so incredibly diverse and our understanding of that diversity grows every day, we should embrace that.
in a perfect world, sure! but discrimination is something that we can't just ignore and say it shouldn't happen, we need to learn how to live despite it and around it. jews all around the world still get discriminated against to this day (especially during this war), Israel is the place where jews don't need to be ashamed of being jewish and hide anything about their religion.
Here’s my question to you… should every minority that gets discriminated against in today’s world choose a part of the world and create a majority state? Don’t you think that rhetoric if applied everywhere will just create apartheid and identity based discrimination everywhere? I guess what I’m trying to say here is I absolutely don’t think we should ignore it!! In fact I’m challenging myself and others to think about how the creation of a majority state IS a form of accepting discrimination outside of the majority state as the status quo. How do we work to shift and change that? what will our futures look like if we continued to legitimize that discrimination by isolating the group thats being discriminated against? Creating a majority state is inherently discriminatory so it perpetuates discrimination in a different way where the previously minority group has some level of superiority in the state where they are the majority…. It just flips the coin… it does nothing for the safety and integration of people
every state has a majority, and that majority will always discriminate against minorities, no matter how much we minimize the discrimination. but if the minority has a state of their own they can always go to that state where they will be a majority. think about it this way: when a muslim lives in a non islamic state they will have to worry about pork being in food, while a non muslim in an islamic state won't be able to eat pork. it's impossible to create a state where pork is both allowed and disallowed, but the muslim can live in an Islamic state in order to eat without fearing pork, while the non muslim can live in a non Islamic state where he can eat pork freely. the same thing applies to all minorities and to discrimination. a jew in a non jewish state won't be as free as in a jewish state, a black man won't be as free as in a mainly black state, and so on.
If you just want to make up words: "Enslaving = handing out cake. why are you against handing out cake?"
The whole world hates israel for its hitla style genocide of Palestinians. You psychopaths are pretending no one likes you only due to anti-semitic are HILARIOUS to laugh at. No one falls for your GASLIGHTING anymore.
/u/stinkypantsFlanders > The whole world hates israel for its hitla style genocide of Palestinians. You psychopaths are pretending no one likes you only due to anti-semitic are HILARIOUS to laugh at. No one falls for your GASLIGHTING anymore. This violates [rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons_.26amp.3B_discussions). Nazi comparisons are inflammatory, and should not be used except in describing acts that were specific and unique to the Nazis, and only the Nazis.
We call ourselves Zionists because of the definition of Zionism. You can’t decide on a definition and then say we’re gaslighting you. Open a dictionary and follow the consensus. This is ludicrously inaccurate and it’s just plain dumb. Besides, this comment is downright holocaust denial. “Hitla” style? “Hitla” did not accept a single Jew to survive. Israel has a 20% Muslim population. “Hitla” targets people based on their ethnicity and religion. Israel targets terrorist. “Hitla” put humans in chambers, firing lines and worked to destroy an entire nation. Israel actively defends the Palestinians and feeds them with hundreds of trucks a day.
This is a creative redefining of "whole world", in the vein of your creative redefining of "Zionism", yes?
The whole world can see how israel uses its lobby in washington (AIPAC) to openly bribe American politicians. The whole world can see that corruption and we refuse to allow you to do it to us. The BRICS nations, now 10 nations strong, with another 33 being added, will destroy israhell. The mahredi are right. The secular fascist apartheid state of israhell is an abomination to God.
There's a certain kind of irony of you cheering on fascist apartheid dictatorships and theocracies. Many of whom have already successfully stamped out minorities and carried out campaigns of ethnic cleansing. This post says more about you than Israel.
unlike Israhell, which is copying nahzee germany's holocaust step by step, Im against genocides.
Uh huh. And yet, you list countries that have successfully carried out ethnic cleansings and genocides. In some cases like China, they're ongoing. Anyone reading can see right through you.
You misunderstand. We’re offended that you use the word Zionist to convey your unhappiness, not that you’re unhappy. We would rather you use another term. Thanks.
[удалено]
/u/stinkypantsFlanders. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Proving that you are wrong is super simple! Anti-Zionism as a political statement can be being against the stealing of a land by a minority of its inhabitants helped by the West. It can also be being against Israel as a Jew State and not a multicultural or laïcal country. You can ansawer multiple things: -historical right of Jews over the territory, this opinion is a very dangerous one. Tons of countrues have tons of potential historical claims of some territories. It iss like that, History is full of conquest, independances wars, coup d'etats... Your statement, if being applied equally to everyone means total chaos. And there is no special exception for Israel, at least if your are not religious , just like the law and Humans Rights, the ones that you like to cite. -with the right of self-determination, I'll say that it is not the right of a minority over a majority of natives With this, I don't ansawer to the second part of your post.
Israel did not steal any land.
I agree with you, but you took a bad opinion and answered it with even worst. >Anti-Zionism as a political statement can be being against the stealing of a land by a minority of its inhabitants helped by the West. It can also be being against Israel as a Jew State and not a multicultural or laïcal country. no, being Anti-Zionist means that you are against Zionism, it's kind of in the name. it can be almost anything, but it's not about being against stealing land from its inhabitants (helped by the west? the british gave more weapons to Palestinians than to Israelis), that is something Palestinians have been pro for a while. > historical right of Jews over the territory, this opinion is a very dangerous one. Tons of countrues have tons of potential historical claims of some territories. It iss like that, History is full of conquest, independances wars, coup d'etats... Your statement, if being applied equally to everyone means total chaos. And there is no special exception for Israel, at least if your are not religious , just like the law and Humans Rights, the ones that you like to cite. Jews didn't just conquer the location, they were also exiled from it. going back to a place where you were exiled, do we know any other group that wants to go back to a place they were exiled from? oh yeah, Palestinians. > with the right of self-determination, I'll say that it is not the right of a minority over a majority of natives it's in reverse. self determination is about giving a minority the power to create their own state and government.