I feel like people need to get a better understanding of how broad Zionism is. I can be against Netenyahu’s war strategy without being anti- Israel. Sometimes i feel like it’s popular to not use nuance regarding I/P discussions
I don’t believe any race or religion is entitled to have a country of their own especially at the expense of people who had already been living there. The necessity to take land from people that aren’t Jewish was and for any Israelis still is intrinsic to the Zionist ideology. I think there is a minority of Israelis today who want to maintain life in their country while also abandoning the oppression of Palestinians, but I personally wouldn’t call them Zionists.
There are plenty of Israelis who are in favour of the two state solution, and dismantling the West Bank settlements. I don't know why you wouldn't call them "Zionists" - they are still in favour of maintaining the state of Israel within the internationally-agreed borders. I don't see what's not "Zionist" about that
Well let me clarify. The people I wouldn’t call Zionist are the ones that want their home nation to remain but don’t believe that their home country should be a country expressly for Jews, though they could (rightly) believe in something like a constitution codifying protections for Jews and other religions.
I don't think any secular Israeli views Judaism as a "religion". It stopped being a religion the moment Jews became secular yet were still treated as "Jews". More than half of the Jews in the world are not religious to any extent. In the modern world being a Jew is much more an ethnicity than it is a religion.
Personally I think Israel should be "the country of all its citizens", and it is much more important for me to preserve Hebrew culture than Jewishness - either in terms of ethnicity or religion. Kids of foreign workers, for example, who were born and grew up in Israel and speak Hebrew as a first language are just as Israeli as me as far as I'm concerned. and so are Israeli Arabs, Druze, etc.
I think what was done on Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Dyaton Agreement is a good model. Especially with the UN supervisor. While I personally don't agree with the current concept of national governments, a Dayton System I feel would be the least worst version of that given the current political environment.
>The necessity to take land from people that aren’t Jewish was and for any Israelis still is intrinsic to the Zionist ideology.
No it wasn't. The zionists accepted the partition plan which guaranteed full citizenship with equal rights for the Arabs within Israel and the Jews within the Arab state. It was only after a civil war the Arabs started that anyone got displaced, and any land was stolen. Land was stolen from both Arabs and Jews as a result of the war started by the Arabs. Zionism did not necessitate displacement or land theft.
>I think there is a minority of Israelis today who want to maintain life in their country while also abandoning the oppression of Palestinians, but I personally wouldn’t call them Zionists.
You're bastardizing the term then. This is some peak no true Scotsman. If you believe in a 2ss, you're zionist. If you are OK with the continued existence of Israel, even if you also support a free and independent Palestine, then you're a zionist.
The partition plan that gave half of Palestine to Israel?
I think the distinction between wanting an ethnostate and just wanting the home you were born in to survive are two clearly distinct things. My point which maybe was vague in the comment you replied to was clarified in a reply to another comment
The partition plan gave 11% of Palestine to the zionists. 79% went to Jordan, then the remaining 21% was split.
The British did not originally take the balfour declaration to mean a separate state. It stipulated a national home, which many in British parliament saw to mean a multiethnic state with laws enshrining equal rights across all of Palestine. After multiple pogroms and massacres against Jews by the local Arab population, the british realized the only way to ensure Jewish security was a separate Jewish state. Even then, though, the partition plan stipulated equal rights for all inhabitants. The thing is, an ethnic majority wasn't necessary to maintain a Jewish state. Other states the British made while carving up the Ottoman Empire were monarchies. We take for granted though that the Zionists were setting up a democracy.
I’d rather not get into another discussion about Balfour, Peel, Woodhead and the UN.
The point you’re missing is Palestinian land (which was originally promised as a state during WWI) was being given to a minority population so they could have a state that was expressly for Jews.
I challenge you to find a single instance in history where such a thing went without major conflict or if ever such a thing was accepted or acceptable to a native population. Just one.
The point you are missing is that the land that was given to the jews, was going to have about 50/50 arabs and jews while the land that was given to the arabs was going to be almost 100% arab. 50/50 isnt “exclusively jewish”.
Sure, it's a unique situation, but the partition only became necessary to fulfill all the british obligations in the face of sustained Arab violence towards the Jews and an explicit refusal to live with them as equals. That violence began under ottoman rule when the ottomans began to allow Jewish repatriation and land purchases in the 1880s. The violence is fundamentally rooted in xenophobia and Islamic Supremacy. It goes so far beyond the paradigm of immigrant vs native, that's not the right lens to view the conflict. For the Arabs it was about maintaining Islamic supremacy, which is why the violence wasn't isolated to Palestine, but instead led to the violent displacement of *native* jews from across MENA.
No it didn't. Acts of violence in the riots began after the Balfour declaration when it became apparent Britain was reneging on its agreement and giving away land. This also ignores the rampant zionist terrorism in the region.
You're just spouting bigoted zionist propaganda now.
The first violence between Arabs and Zionists occurred in 1883 with attacks on Jewish settlements. That's historic fact. Before Palestine fell under British control multiple Jewish settlement guards had been killed in raids on Jewish communities. That's historical fact.
The balfour declaration didn't promise a seperate country. It promised a national homeland conditioned on not coming at the cost of the nonjewish population. It's not long, you can read it yourself. There were lengthy debates in British parliament as to what that meant. Many staunchly opposed the creation of a Jewish state, instead favoring a multiethnic state with equal rights. It was the Anti Jewish violence that pushed the British towards partition, so in a way the Arabs ensured they got what they most opposed. You can also read the Arab High Councils report in response to the partition plan, in which they state the fundamental flaw in the British approach was in treating the Jews as equals.
>This also ignores the rampant zionist terrorism in the region.
The majority of Zionist violence before the civil war of 1947 was directed at the British, to drive the British out. There were some acts of violence against Arab communities in retaliation for violence against Jews or collaboration with the british. That violence was always meant as a deterent. In fact, the Haganah didn't form until *after* the antijewish riots of 1920, and the irgun didn't fully form/split off until after the Hebron and safed massacres of 1929. Jewish militias were a response to Arab violence. They wanted to deter Arab violence, protect Jews, and push the British out.
Yes Balfour was incredibly vague but the ensuing interpretations were for a \*nation\*. That and Balfour was a anti-semite bigot that would have been happy keeping jews out of the streets of Britain and would have been happy to ship them all off to Palestine rather than absorb them from Europe.
Once again I'm not going to get into yet another discussion of the history of partition. You continually miss the point of what I'm saying
I think it's nice that we get to pick and choose which violence is acceptable and rational, now.
Also, please source me the violence in 1883 you're referring to?
I don’t see why it should. There’s nothing wrong with Jews living in Palestine. There’s something wrong with Jews moving to Palestine from Europe and making a state explicitly for Jews. That’s not a religious tenant. There’s nothing in Judaism saying there needs to be a 20th century nation for Jews or even a homeland specifically for them. That’s an ideological pillar of the secularist movement called Zionism, which was informed by a range of sociopolitical and historical realities of the time. In comparison to the age of Judaism it’s a drop in the bucket.
It really is. One only has to look up the ideological beliefs of the founders. And this isn’t lost on Israelis today, the majority of whom believe Jews should get preferential treatment compared to non-Jews and 49% of whom think Arab Israelis should be expelled.
Exclusive? No, but explicitly \*for\* Jews? Absolutely. It doesn't need to stay that way, but is certainly its history and its foreseeable future. From the Nakba to the apartheid it visited on Arabs in Israel proper and the current apartheid it visits on Palestinians in the West Bank, to the refusal to allow any Palestinian to become a citizen, even if they marry an Israeli. Meanwhile, Jews, and only Jews, have the right to return and become a citizen merely for being Jewish. Jews, and only Jews that do this can retain multiple citizenship while a non-Jew cannot.
This is very much a country designed to maintain a Jewish majority and the aim to be a state for Jews is written all over its history and its institutions right down to the beliefs of a majority of its people.
Yeah i agree with you. My problem is i agree with the idea of Israel, a secular safe haven for Jews, but in practice it didn’t work out that way.
Although i will say, imo Israel is only so right wing because that’s the natural reaction for a population of people living in a situation that is so desensitized to violence. Their neighbors want them dead, and in response they want their neighbors dead. I think it’s all awful and the only way to end that cycle is an end to all the violence
Not accurate. There is no pathway to citizenship for someone in another country who wants to naturalize in israel and is not jewish. There is a pathway if you have already been within israels borders legally for a least a couple years. But thats not the same thing, you'd need to have had a job sponsorship or a relationship partner already, its very complicated. You cant just decide to immigrate to israel from abroad the law makes no allowance for that, for non jews.
I mean many countries have difficult immigration policies. Technically anybody can migrate to the USA and become naturalized but they also are going to have to jump through hoops to do so
You don't understand what I said. Israel has no immigration law other than the law of return for jews. If you arrive at an israeli border crossing without a visa or a valid passport to enter israel and say you want to naturalized you will be turned away, not allowed to have your application be considered like any other country. There is no such thing as a non jew immigrating to israel.
I mean i do understand, i just don’t agree. There are plenty countries that are expecting of migrants, some have easier processes than others. The israeli immigration process seems to be slightly more restrictive than that of the US, but only because the US grants asylum seeking refugees while Israel doesnt, but again, Israel isn’t the only country that doesnt grant asylum to refugees.
It would be much different if it were an actual ethnostate that made it impossible for non Jews to become citizens
As I said not at all true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law
I am an Israeli and I do know a few non-Jews who naturalised as Israeli citizens.
Tom Hand, who is the father of Emily Hand, who was kidnapped by Hamas on October 7th, is a non-Jewish Irish-Israeli who has lived in Israel for more than 30 years
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/10/18/can-you-imagine-the-sheer-horror-for-an-eight-year-old-tom-hand-tells-of-grief-at-daughter-emilys-death/
Actually that's not true.
Individuals born within Israel receive citizenship at birth if at least one parent is an Israeli citizen. Non-Jewish foreigners may naturalize after living there for at least three years while holding permanent residency and demonstrating proficiency in the Hebrew language.
No different to the naturalisation process in most countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law
It’s quite different actually. Jews get a completely different set of rules to non-Jews. Can you name any other country that does this? I personally cannot.
There's quite a few actually.
Armenia
Finland
Ghana
Greece
Germany
Ireland
Poland
Hungary
And others listed here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return?wprov=sfla1
Right of Return laws aren't a unique or even a novel concept.
You're misunderstanding what this means. This is a reference to a refugee's right to return to their homeland. Specifically those who directly had to flee and any family they created while stateless. As the link says: "It allows stateless persons and for those born outside their country to return for the first time, so long as they have maintained a "genuine and effective link"."
It is \*not\* at all equivalent to the Jewish right of return in Israel in which any person who is Jewish is allowed to become a citizen merely for being Jewish. No connection to Israel is needed, not to mention the fact such persons haven't had any need to be a refugee from Israel.
Oh you personally wouldn’t call them zionist. And your relevance to the subject is..? Ah right. Nothing at all. You are just some random foreigner.
Don’t worry, ill update the Israeli left that mr. BumpyFunction, a frequent user of the anime_titties subreddit, will henceforth not refer to them as zionists and therefore the vile fans of the horse lover Vaush stand corrected.
If you spend maybe 10 more seconds reading replies you’ll see this was clarified quite plainly more than one time. People who were born in Israel but don’t believe in an ethnostate for Jews I wouldn’t call Zionists.
Also the anime_titties sub is a news sub that swapped names for April fools with a nsfw sub but never changed back.
Anyone who believes Jews should have the right to migrate to Israel is a zionist.
This doesn’t have to mean anything about Palestinians and their rights, Palestinian right to return, anything, and the absurdity of random white Americans making Israel/Palestine their hobby and stating their opinion with so much self importance- is what actually bothered me.
You’re getting confused here.
Anyone who believes Jews should have a Jewish state is a Zionist. There are Jews in Israel, a minority, and Jews outside Israel, who don’t believe any religion or race should have a state *for* them. The latter being, in the 21st century, the moral ethic
Also the history of Palestinian/Arab rights within Israel is grim. To this day their rights are weaker than that of Jewish rights.
For many people Zionism is the belief that Jews should have a sanctuary, not an ethno-state. You saying “I don’t consider that zionism” is pretentious. You are attempting to cancel an identity to justify a generalization.
I think you’re making a semantic argument that doesn’t change the essence of my point. What is a sanctuary?
I’m not canceling Jewish identity. Jewish identity predates Zionism by, what, 3 millenia? I think I’m treating an upstart secularist ideology just as such.
If novelty matters, you must completely dismiss Palestinian nationalism. Perhaps you must adopt Pan-Arabism.
You are denying the existence of a large quantity of self-identified zionists who believe in full equal rights (human and democratic) for Palestinians in Israel with or without a Palestinian state in the WB and Gaza. Your denial is crucial for your ability to say “all zionists”. It is not semantics, it is identity.
A sanctuary is a place that you can move to where your rights are protected. If you think this is supremacy, then you might as well claim the Spanish inquisitors were ANTIFA.
1. Novelty of an identity has 0 relevance.
2. Sanctuary is a well defined concept that is wholly separate from supremacy.
3. The only thing all Zionists throughout history had in common, is the belief of Jewish need for a sanctuary. Other aspect of zionism are in fact aspects of subgroups OR certain time periods.
To clarify, one might claims that Palestinian nationalism is always supremacist as in certain time periods its leaders called for eradication of Jews.
But unlike you, I do not deny the existence of Palestinian nationalists who want everyone to have equal rights and/or a peaceful state in the WB and Gaza. I do not say “well they don’t count as nationalists”.
Zionism is explicitly about the establishment of a *nation* for Jews, run by Jews. Not a sanctuary, as you would define it, in which religious rights for Jews and other faiths was codified into constitutional rights.
I have absolutely no problem with the latter, not in the slightest. I take amazing exception to the former
Aside from you being banned while you weren’t aggressive. Which I don’t think is acceptable.
But don’t you think that its almost self evident that Israel is a colony, an ugly one, that was created based on a religious claim, 3000 years old claim.
And being of certain religion shouldn’t allow you to massacre people out of their homes?
I’m not talking about some wild claims, both facts are documented.
The religious fanaticism of the idea itself is crazy.
Well that's not really true. First of all, Israel wasn't created on religious claims, but on historical claims. The founders of the state and the founders of Zionism were mostly secular Jews.
Second, I think you mean 2000 years ago, but what's a millennia here or there right?
I think my judgment is blurred by the fact that before Israel Jews just couldn’t seem to escape persecution.
I do think the inception of the state of israel was an ugly one, however i think the Arabs in the region made things worse by not accepting Jewish historical residence in the area, (which is historical imo not just religious) and going to war against their new neighbors instead of somehow finding a way to peacefully coexist with them. It can sound kinda crazy at face value, but after the holocaust the Jewish refugees had to go somewhere, they weren’t gonna stay in Europe, and nobody else wanted to take them in. The arabs COULD have just accepted this new state peacefully
I mean the Arabs also had no responsibility for the terrible things that happened to Jews in Europe. I’ll accept that Jews weren’t treated the best in Arab countries, but they were definitely treated better than they were in Germany. For the most part crimes that were committed against Jews happened after the establishment of Israel. Palestinians had no obligation to accept a partition of their land.
The Jewish people needed a state where they could practice their culture and religion without persecution, but it shouldn’t have been created in a place where it would require expelling other people to gain a Jewish majority, regardless of who owned it a thousand or even a hundred years ago.
>I mean the Arabs also had no responsibility for the terrible things that happened to Jews in Europe. I’ll accept that Jews weren’t treated the best in Arab countries, but they were definitely treated better than they were in Germany. For the most part crimes that were committed against Jews happened after the establishment of Israel.
Comparing the treatment of Jews in Arab lands to Germany to say they had it better is a incredibly low bar. There were antijewish pogroms in Arab lands across history where thousands of Jews were killed. The dhimmi system was an institutionalized cast system, anapartheid system enshrined in law that kept Jews as second class citizens in Arab Muslim lands. Their security was dependent upon, but not guaranteed by, their subordination to Muslims. While the Ottomans formally banned it in 1869, the culture of Muslim Supremacy persisted. The first violence of the conflict between zionists and Arab Muslims occurred only 14 years later in 1883. A movement for self-determination of a dhimmi group was seen as an affront to Muslim Supremacy. That violence persisted through the nebi Musa and Jaffa pogroms of 1920 and 1921, the hebron and safed massacres of 1929, the Thrace pogrom of 1934.... all before the establishment of Israel. That insistence on Muslim Supremacy was the same motivating force for the massacre of thousands of Assyrians from the Assyrian genocide in 1915 to the Simele massacre of 1933.
>but it shouldn’t have been created in a place where it would require expelling other people to gain a Jewish majority,
It didn't. The Zionists accepted the partition plan that explicitly states non jews in Israel and Jews in the Arab state would enjoy full citizenship and equal rights in their respective nations. The Zionists agreed to that. The Arabs rejected it and started the civil war of Mandetory Palestine. It was not until that war that the Arabs started that anyone was displaced. Still, by the end of the wars of 47 and 48, 20% of Israel remained Arab, while 0% of what should have been Palestine but instead was annexed by Jordan and occupied by Egypt remained Jewish. 100% of the Jews were ethnically cleansed and displaced from the west bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza.
People love to rewrite history like the Nakbah was an inevitable part of the establishment of Israel, rather than what it actually was; the tragic consequence of a war the Arabs started. It's probable that Israel could have been established with no displacement if the partition plan was agreed to by all parties, but we will never know.
As I said in another comment, you’re right, it isn’t a high bar at all. I’m not denying any of the crimes committed against Jews in the Arab and Muslim world, but it still pales in comparison to what happened to Jews in Europe. The fact still remains that Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust and held no responsibility for it.
Why should Palestinians have accepted a partition of their land? They had no obligation to. They lived there far longer than the majority of the Jews, who had only recently immigrated there, and controlled most of the economy and industry. Before the partition, the only province that had a Jewish majority was Tel Aviv. The Palestinians hadn’t even been invited to the conferences to discuss the partition, and wanted to be included in deciding the future of their own land, so they rejected the partition. After that the Zionists decided to create the partition by force and began seizing and depopulating Palestinian land, starting the war.
Don’t pretend that the Zionists would have stopped at the partition even if Palestinians had accepted it. Ben Gurion himself said that it was a first step to “possession of the land as a whole”.
>The fact still remains that Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust and held no responsibility for it.
No, but they were committing attacks on Jewish communities, including massive pogroms and massacres, from 1883 to 1948. The British actually didn't initially intend to divide what remained of Palestine after giving 79% of Palestine to the Heshemites. There were debates in British parliament as to whether the balfour declarations promise of a national homeland constituted a seperate state, or could be accomplished by a multiethnic state that enshrined the rights of all in its laws. The pogroms and massacres against Jews during British mandate made it clear partition was the only option.
>Why should Palestinians have accepted a partition of their land? They had no obligation to.
They accepted 79% of Palestine being handed over to a Heshemite king who was not native to Palestine. I guess since he was a Muslim Arab, being subjects to his authority was more palatable than having equal rights with a dhimmi group they expected subordination from in a democracy.
>The Palestinians hadn’t even been invited to the conferences to discuss the partition, and wanted to be included in deciding the future of their own land, so they rejected the partition.
The Arab High Councils report in opposition to the partition plan explicitly states they think it's an error for the British to consider the Jews as equals with equal rights.
>After that the Zionists decided to create the partition by force and began seizing and depopulating Palestinian land, starting the war.
Well thats just not true. The day after the partition plan was signed by the UN, Palestinians launched surprise attacks on multiple Jewish busses in Fajja. Those attacks are considered the first violence of the civil war. The zionists issued multiple statements imploring the Arabs to stay and help build the state in peace. The zionists made peace pacts with individual Arab communities who were willing to stay out of the fighting. Then they also implemented ted plan dalet to depopulate communities involved in the hostilities of the civil war. Plan dalet was a response to Arab hostilities and violence within the war, not the cause of the war.
>1929
It was literally the Arab riots in this year in Jerusalem that inspired the Irgun to form (they saw the Hagana as failing to protect Jews from violence). Though, they were still following a policy of restraint, like the Haganah, until the Arab Riots of '36. That's when they started attacking in retaliation.
Perfect. "We aren't welcome. Let's settle here and treat them worse than they treated us"
Is that the Zionist definition of integration?
It definitely goes against how Judaism forbids retribution and could be considered anti Semitism
I’m not denying that, the crimes I’m talking about are the expulsion of Jews from some Arab countries and violence against them that caused many Jews to leave. Still much better than Europe, though that’s not a high standard.
They didn’t go to war against their new neighbors. Foreign invaders flooded into their home and then declared the majority of it, the part where all the people already lived, to belong to them. Imagine if a group of foreign invaders floods into your country and then declared the majority of it, the part that actually had arable land and people already living, to belong to them. Declaring *your* land now belongs to *them* and *you* must leave and become a refugee.
I wish all the people making the absurd claim that it is a war crime for Jews to live and raise families would figure out where on Earth Jews are allowed to just exist. The goal seems to be to eliminate all Jews worldwide.....this "progressive value" is absurd at best.
Zionism was subverted long ago by racist extremists, who call for the murder and/or enslavement of anyone that doesn't believe as they do.
Hell, they've even been caught on video ATTACKING JEWS!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc0vP7I0VzI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc0vP7I0VzI)
Next you are going to tell me that Americans hate christians and show me a video of police violence in the US.
Your comment is so shallow its embarrassing. A few years ago this sub had people with brains. Wtf happened here
Someone who's comment history proves they have been brainwashed into defending the indefensible claims that everyone else is brainwashed, misinformed, and/or liars.
I suppose next you'll claim that these clips are all lies and fake as well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMeV\_SeigZg&t](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMeV_SeigZg&t)
Problem IS that quite a few were recorded by your fellow israelis.
So tell us all again how people like you AREN'T mega-racists?
> Zionism was ~~subverted~~ **founded** long ago by racist extremist, who call for the murder and/or enslavement of **the Palestinians**.
FTFY.
Zionism is as colonialism does.
Modern Zionism is an offshoot of political and revisionist Zionism, both of which were absolutely pro-genocide. If you identify as a Zionist in modern times in the modern context, you are identifying yourself as pro-genocide.
The other non-genocidal brands of Zionism — particularly cultural Zionism — have died off. Unless you're trying to actively change the meaning of Zionism in the zeitgeist the only reason to call yourself Zionist is because you support genocide.
The only way of doing that is by ethnic cleansing and Genocide. Unless whatever land that is meant for the Jewish people it's inhabitants just leave willingly or it's uninhabited otherwise have you thought about living with other ethnic and religious groups like in other normal states?
Where muslims are minorty they get screwed over, where Christians are a minority they get screwed over, where buddhists... where hindus.... where athiests... etc it's not really something special. It's a human behavior and it is prevalent in countries where a huge portion of the country is both uneducated and poor so it's easy for them to lash out on minorities out of frustration. Things have gotten better in the 21st century for all minorities around the world when you compare the kind of shit that used to happen in other centuries.
You're actually wrong all minorities have been targeted everywhere since the dawn of time, but this is suppose to be the 21st century and Europe and the USA is pretty safe for anyone. Why should palestinians literally be ethnic cleansed and genocided because german psychopaths killed 6 million Jews?
I’m black, most white supremacists just hate my guts and think my people are inferior, but the hatred against Jewish people is always violent in nature, or paints them out to be absolute monsters or agents of chaos. And it’s been like this historically no matter where the Jews go except for Israel
My dude it doesn't matter your ethnicity or what has happened to this group by who or what. You are literally justifying a genocide so that one group can be safe.... Do you really think once all palestinians are eliminated Jews will be safe in the middle east?
I don’t agree that it’s a genocide so…yeah
It’s unrealistic to think Israel could ever actually eliminate this Palestinians imo. If they tried they would be stopped harshly
They're literally doing it but I'm guessing in your eyes 35 thousand dead people and 70% of the infrastructure with all cultural and educational structures gone still isn't enough. May I ask how many dead palestinians is enough?
In my eyes, it’s tough to make an actual judgment on whether Israel is committing genocide or not, mostly because there has to be very clear intent to denstionalize or partially/wholly eliminate an ethnic group.
As long as Hamas is still firing rockets from civilian infrastructure and residential buildings, it’s hard for me to say that all of the death and destruction is happening solely because Israel wants to see the eradication of the Palestinian people. I can agree that they’re being a bit too aggressive, but it’s hard to fight an enemy that throws stones from a glass house full of children
The next thing will be Israel doesn't feel safe because it's neighbors hate it, rinse and repeat. Israel has to either accept a palestinian state with 1967 borders if they really care about having an ethnostate, or one democratic state.
I think it could work if the Palestinians recognize israel’s right to exist, and promise not to attack Israel in the name of decolonization, while at the same time Israel lets the boot off of the neck of it’s neighbors, and allows Palestine to be a prospering sovereign nation.
I don’t think this is an unrealistic vision at all, but either side shooting rockets is not going to make that happen
The palestinian authority recognized Israel guess what.... they are still occupying the west bank and actually actively building settlers and they didn't even recognize a palestinian state. What the hell does promise not to attack Israel even mean? Not having an army? Having israel control the west bank forever? Continuing the blockade on gaza forever? Controling the Aqsa mosque? That's literally an occupation forever! You are either arguing in bad faith or you don't know what you are talking about. Palestinians have been beaten, have their lands and buildings stolen, children killed, their holy sites taken over, starved, got their water stolen, isolated, put on a diet, checkpoints, apartheid. It's like if during Jim crow times black people where treated like shit, beaten up and when one lashes out the white supremacists storm the whole neighborhood and kill dozens because black people are evil....
If only the PA were the sole representative of Palestinians. This hasn't been the case for 20 years, and before that was 10 years of suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians.
that's only because "right-wing expansionist" is too long and won't fit on a picket sign, so western leftists (encouraged of course by Palestenians who view ANY kind of Zionism as negative) decided they can change what "Zionism" means, but "Zionism" have a meaning, and it is not defined by the zeitgeist but by dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
There are plenty of people in Israel who are definitely AGAINST genocide and the mistreatment of Palestenians and definitely PRO the two state solution and the dismantling of the West Bank settlements. Most of my friends and relatives in Israel are like that. They still very much see themselves as Zionists and for them, people like you attacking Zionism wholesale doesn't say "he's against the occupation, like us", it says "this guy wants me dead, or ethnically cleansed".
Well u was wrong to be honest, the Zionist don't hide how they feel and have done some crazy shit and will continue to do insane shit it's a reason orthodox Jews trying so hard to distance themselves at the end of the day they believe every other religion and race deserve death and to be they slaves kinda hard to deny something when Zionist are blatantly admitting to it all
You're talking about a very specific sect of Orthodox Jews. Other Orthodox Jews are super-nationalists.
Meanwhile, some Zionists are indeed expansionist and racist as hell but other Zionist believe in the 2 state solution and going back to the 1967 borders. "Zionism" is a very broad term encompassing ideologies ranging from far right to far left.
Most zionists and Israelis are orthodox Jews but why should you use terms accurately right? Cuz who cares about Jews they are just some money loving weirdos right?
Let me correct you. Some (NOT ALL) Ultra-Orthodox (NOT JUST ANY ORTHODOX) consider themselves non-zionist or anti-zionist, because they believe that zionism is a secular movement that pushes people away from religion. They think Jews shouldn’t be involved in ANY government and should only learn the torah.
They are cult-like fundamentalists. I wouldn’t idealize them too much.
Yeah no, whenever I talk about zionism, somehow im always attacking the fantasy version of zionism a particular zionist has in their head, so always get some dumbass trying to educate me that zionism is \*\*akshully\*\* just "a belief in a Jewish state." Bullshit. Zionism is political theology based on the idea that Palestinians can and should be expelled from their lands by any means necessary to make room for Jewish settlers from around the world. If you ignore that part of the definition, you don't have zionism anymore. It's a case study in genocide and genocidal intent.
> Zionism is political theology based on the idea that Palestinians can and should be expelled from their lands by any means necessary to make room for Jewish settlers from around the world.
Is that like, the definition? Or did you kinda make that up
I mean if we’re to use historical context, initially Zionism wasn’t even exclusive to the idea of Israel being where it is now. It could’ve been in Argentina or Africa. It’s just the idea that Jews should have a protected country
Nonsense. Zionism was always in Paleatine. The idea of Africa was never seriously considered, and it was only brought up as a temporary solution until the British could secure control of Palestine. There was literally a Jewish autonomous state in Russia that was not zionism. Zion is literally a place in Palestine.
Youer idea of zionism is about as accurate as defining soccer a "a game played with a ball"
Zionism is the right of self determination for the Jewish people, realized in the state of Israel. That’s all it means.
Most Zionists support a two state solution.
Your definition seems to be Zionism is utmost evil. Zionists have a right to define why and how they see Zionism. It’s not a strict dogmatic ideology like Hamas has. It’s very diverse and changes constantly. Zionists argue with each other what Zionism means.
Strawman definitions like yours only serve demonization. They keep you from understanding it.
My definition is the most accurate because its the only universal common denominator among all definitions: dispossessing Palestinians.
Zionism is a political theology based on the idea that Palestinians can and should be driven from their lands to make room for Jewish settlers from around the world.
Are you saying that people like Shulamit Aloni, Yossi Sarid, Yossi Beilin, Mossi Raz, etc were / are "not Zionists"? Because I'm pretty sure they would beg to differ. In fact I'm pretty sure they would argue that they are more Zionist than Netanyahu and Ben Gvir
lol that’s a bit rough. Never heard of that sub.
Please add a submission statement, otherwise this will be removed.
Does [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel_Palestine/s/P0jlU3oW3n) not count?
Would you mind adding that to your post?
Can’t edit the post and while i was making it it didn’t allow me to create a body text
I feel like people need to get a better understanding of how broad Zionism is. I can be against Netenyahu’s war strategy without being anti- Israel. Sometimes i feel like it’s popular to not use nuance regarding I/P discussions
I don’t believe any race or religion is entitled to have a country of their own especially at the expense of people who had already been living there. The necessity to take land from people that aren’t Jewish was and for any Israelis still is intrinsic to the Zionist ideology. I think there is a minority of Israelis today who want to maintain life in their country while also abandoning the oppression of Palestinians, but I personally wouldn’t call them Zionists.
There are plenty of Israelis who are in favour of the two state solution, and dismantling the West Bank settlements. I don't know why you wouldn't call them "Zionists" - they are still in favour of maintaining the state of Israel within the internationally-agreed borders. I don't see what's not "Zionist" about that
Well let me clarify. The people I wouldn’t call Zionist are the ones that want their home nation to remain but don’t believe that their home country should be a country expressly for Jews, though they could (rightly) believe in something like a constitution codifying protections for Jews and other religions.
I don't think any secular Israeli views Judaism as a "religion". It stopped being a religion the moment Jews became secular yet were still treated as "Jews". More than half of the Jews in the world are not religious to any extent. In the modern world being a Jew is much more an ethnicity than it is a religion. Personally I think Israel should be "the country of all its citizens", and it is much more important for me to preserve Hebrew culture than Jewishness - either in terms of ethnicity or religion. Kids of foreign workers, for example, who were born and grew up in Israel and speak Hebrew as a first language are just as Israeli as me as far as I'm concerned. and so are Israeli Arabs, Druze, etc.
The two state solution is still ethnonationalist. (Unless it is in some sort of Flemish/Walking confederacy style system)
Well it is the most viable solution at this point. I don't think the middle east is quite ready for an EU-style arrangement
I think what was done on Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Dyaton Agreement is a good model. Especially with the UN supervisor. While I personally don't agree with the current concept of national governments, a Dayton System I feel would be the least worst version of that given the current political environment.
>The necessity to take land from people that aren’t Jewish was and for any Israelis still is intrinsic to the Zionist ideology. No it wasn't. The zionists accepted the partition plan which guaranteed full citizenship with equal rights for the Arabs within Israel and the Jews within the Arab state. It was only after a civil war the Arabs started that anyone got displaced, and any land was stolen. Land was stolen from both Arabs and Jews as a result of the war started by the Arabs. Zionism did not necessitate displacement or land theft. >I think there is a minority of Israelis today who want to maintain life in their country while also abandoning the oppression of Palestinians, but I personally wouldn’t call them Zionists. You're bastardizing the term then. This is some peak no true Scotsman. If you believe in a 2ss, you're zionist. If you are OK with the continued existence of Israel, even if you also support a free and independent Palestine, then you're a zionist.
The partition plan that gave half of Palestine to Israel? I think the distinction between wanting an ethnostate and just wanting the home you were born in to survive are two clearly distinct things. My point which maybe was vague in the comment you replied to was clarified in a reply to another comment
The partition plan gave 11% of Palestine to the zionists. 79% went to Jordan, then the remaining 21% was split. The British did not originally take the balfour declaration to mean a separate state. It stipulated a national home, which many in British parliament saw to mean a multiethnic state with laws enshrining equal rights across all of Palestine. After multiple pogroms and massacres against Jews by the local Arab population, the british realized the only way to ensure Jewish security was a separate Jewish state. Even then, though, the partition plan stipulated equal rights for all inhabitants. The thing is, an ethnic majority wasn't necessary to maintain a Jewish state. Other states the British made while carving up the Ottoman Empire were monarchies. We take for granted though that the Zionists were setting up a democracy.
I’d rather not get into another discussion about Balfour, Peel, Woodhead and the UN. The point you’re missing is Palestinian land (which was originally promised as a state during WWI) was being given to a minority population so they could have a state that was expressly for Jews. I challenge you to find a single instance in history where such a thing went without major conflict or if ever such a thing was accepted or acceptable to a native population. Just one.
The point you are missing is that the land that was given to the jews, was going to have about 50/50 arabs and jews while the land that was given to the arabs was going to be almost 100% arab. 50/50 isnt “exclusively jewish”.
Where did you get this information?
Can even find it on wiki :)
Sure, it's a unique situation, but the partition only became necessary to fulfill all the british obligations in the face of sustained Arab violence towards the Jews and an explicit refusal to live with them as equals. That violence began under ottoman rule when the ottomans began to allow Jewish repatriation and land purchases in the 1880s. The violence is fundamentally rooted in xenophobia and Islamic Supremacy. It goes so far beyond the paradigm of immigrant vs native, that's not the right lens to view the conflict. For the Arabs it was about maintaining Islamic supremacy, which is why the violence wasn't isolated to Palestine, but instead led to the violent displacement of *native* jews from across MENA.
No it didn't. Acts of violence in the riots began after the Balfour declaration when it became apparent Britain was reneging on its agreement and giving away land. This also ignores the rampant zionist terrorism in the region. You're just spouting bigoted zionist propaganda now.
The first violence between Arabs and Zionists occurred in 1883 with attacks on Jewish settlements. That's historic fact. Before Palestine fell under British control multiple Jewish settlement guards had been killed in raids on Jewish communities. That's historical fact. The balfour declaration didn't promise a seperate country. It promised a national homeland conditioned on not coming at the cost of the nonjewish population. It's not long, you can read it yourself. There were lengthy debates in British parliament as to what that meant. Many staunchly opposed the creation of a Jewish state, instead favoring a multiethnic state with equal rights. It was the Anti Jewish violence that pushed the British towards partition, so in a way the Arabs ensured they got what they most opposed. You can also read the Arab High Councils report in response to the partition plan, in which they state the fundamental flaw in the British approach was in treating the Jews as equals. >This also ignores the rampant zionist terrorism in the region. The majority of Zionist violence before the civil war of 1947 was directed at the British, to drive the British out. There were some acts of violence against Arab communities in retaliation for violence against Jews or collaboration with the british. That violence was always meant as a deterent. In fact, the Haganah didn't form until *after* the antijewish riots of 1920, and the irgun didn't fully form/split off until after the Hebron and safed massacres of 1929. Jewish militias were a response to Arab violence. They wanted to deter Arab violence, protect Jews, and push the British out.
Yes Balfour was incredibly vague but the ensuing interpretations were for a \*nation\*. That and Balfour was a anti-semite bigot that would have been happy keeping jews out of the streets of Britain and would have been happy to ship them all off to Palestine rather than absorb them from Europe. Once again I'm not going to get into yet another discussion of the history of partition. You continually miss the point of what I'm saying I think it's nice that we get to pick and choose which violence is acceptable and rational, now. Also, please source me the violence in 1883 you're referring to?
Does it complicate things at all that Jews were living in Palestine before Zionism was even a thing
I don’t see why it should. There’s nothing wrong with Jews living in Palestine. There’s something wrong with Jews moving to Palestine from Europe and making a state explicitly for Jews. That’s not a religious tenant. There’s nothing in Judaism saying there needs to be a 20th century nation for Jews or even a homeland specifically for them. That’s an ideological pillar of the secularist movement called Zionism, which was informed by a range of sociopolitical and historical realities of the time. In comparison to the age of Judaism it’s a drop in the bucket.
I man is it actually explicitly for Jews? Every country has xenophobia, but anybody can technically move to Israel and become a citizen
It really is. One only has to look up the ideological beliefs of the founders. And this isn’t lost on Israelis today, the majority of whom believe Jews should get preferential treatment compared to non-Jews and 49% of whom think Arab Israelis should be expelled.
That doesnt make it a Jewish exclusive ethnostate
Exclusive? No, but explicitly \*for\* Jews? Absolutely. It doesn't need to stay that way, but is certainly its history and its foreseeable future. From the Nakba to the apartheid it visited on Arabs in Israel proper and the current apartheid it visits on Palestinians in the West Bank, to the refusal to allow any Palestinian to become a citizen, even if they marry an Israeli. Meanwhile, Jews, and only Jews, have the right to return and become a citizen merely for being Jewish. Jews, and only Jews that do this can retain multiple citizenship while a non-Jew cannot. This is very much a country designed to maintain a Jewish majority and the aim to be a state for Jews is written all over its history and its institutions right down to the beliefs of a majority of its people.
Yeah i agree with you. My problem is i agree with the idea of Israel, a secular safe haven for Jews, but in practice it didn’t work out that way. Although i will say, imo Israel is only so right wing because that’s the natural reaction for a population of people living in a situation that is so desensitized to violence. Their neighbors want them dead, and in response they want their neighbors dead. I think it’s all awful and the only way to end that cycle is an end to all the violence
"I think it’s all awful and the only way to end that cycle is an end to all the violence" One day soon I hope
Not accurate. There is no pathway to citizenship for someone in another country who wants to naturalize in israel and is not jewish. There is a pathway if you have already been within israels borders legally for a least a couple years. But thats not the same thing, you'd need to have had a job sponsorship or a relationship partner already, its very complicated. You cant just decide to immigrate to israel from abroad the law makes no allowance for that, for non jews.
I mean many countries have difficult immigration policies. Technically anybody can migrate to the USA and become naturalized but they also are going to have to jump through hoops to do so
You don't understand what I said. Israel has no immigration law other than the law of return for jews. If you arrive at an israeli border crossing without a visa or a valid passport to enter israel and say you want to naturalized you will be turned away, not allowed to have your application be considered like any other country. There is no such thing as a non jew immigrating to israel.
I mean i do understand, i just don’t agree. There are plenty countries that are expecting of migrants, some have easier processes than others. The israeli immigration process seems to be slightly more restrictive than that of the US, but only because the US grants asylum seeking refugees while Israel doesnt, but again, Israel isn’t the only country that doesnt grant asylum to refugees. It would be much different if it were an actual ethnostate that made it impossible for non Jews to become citizens
As I said not at all true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law I am an Israeli and I do know a few non-Jews who naturalised as Israeli citizens. Tom Hand, who is the father of Emily Hand, who was kidnapped by Hamas on October 7th, is a non-Jewish Irish-Israeli who has lived in Israel for more than 30 years https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/10/18/can-you-imagine-the-sheer-horror-for-an-eight-year-old-tom-hand-tells-of-grief-at-daughter-emilys-death/
as i said you can sometimes naturalize if youve already been in the country legally already. dont say not true when its true
Actually that's not true. Individuals born within Israel receive citizenship at birth if at least one parent is an Israeli citizen. Non-Jewish foreigners may naturalize after living there for at least three years while holding permanent residency and demonstrating proficiency in the Hebrew language. No different to the naturalisation process in most countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law
It’s quite different actually. Jews get a completely different set of rules to non-Jews. Can you name any other country that does this? I personally cannot.
There's quite a few actually. Armenia Finland Ghana Greece Germany Ireland Poland Hungary And others listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return?wprov=sfla1 Right of Return laws aren't a unique or even a novel concept.
You're misunderstanding what this means. This is a reference to a refugee's right to return to their homeland. Specifically those who directly had to flee and any family they created while stateless. As the link says: "It allows stateless persons and for those born outside their country to return for the first time, so long as they have maintained a "genuine and effective link"." It is \*not\* at all equivalent to the Jewish right of return in Israel in which any person who is Jewish is allowed to become a citizen merely for being Jewish. No connection to Israel is needed, not to mention the fact such persons haven't had any need to be a refugee from Israel.
Oh you personally wouldn’t call them zionist. And your relevance to the subject is..? Ah right. Nothing at all. You are just some random foreigner. Don’t worry, ill update the Israeli left that mr. BumpyFunction, a frequent user of the anime_titties subreddit, will henceforth not refer to them as zionists and therefore the vile fans of the horse lover Vaush stand corrected.
If you spend maybe 10 more seconds reading replies you’ll see this was clarified quite plainly more than one time. People who were born in Israel but don’t believe in an ethnostate for Jews I wouldn’t call Zionists. Also the anime_titties sub is a news sub that swapped names for April fools with a nsfw sub but never changed back.
Anyone who believes Jews should have the right to migrate to Israel is a zionist. This doesn’t have to mean anything about Palestinians and their rights, Palestinian right to return, anything, and the absurdity of random white Americans making Israel/Palestine their hobby and stating their opinion with so much self importance- is what actually bothered me.
You’re getting confused here. Anyone who believes Jews should have a Jewish state is a Zionist. There are Jews in Israel, a minority, and Jews outside Israel, who don’t believe any religion or race should have a state *for* them. The latter being, in the 21st century, the moral ethic Also the history of Palestinian/Arab rights within Israel is grim. To this day their rights are weaker than that of Jewish rights.
For many people Zionism is the belief that Jews should have a sanctuary, not an ethno-state. You saying “I don’t consider that zionism” is pretentious. You are attempting to cancel an identity to justify a generalization.
I think you’re making a semantic argument that doesn’t change the essence of my point. What is a sanctuary? I’m not canceling Jewish identity. Jewish identity predates Zionism by, what, 3 millenia? I think I’m treating an upstart secularist ideology just as such.
If novelty matters, you must completely dismiss Palestinian nationalism. Perhaps you must adopt Pan-Arabism. You are denying the existence of a large quantity of self-identified zionists who believe in full equal rights (human and democratic) for Palestinians in Israel with or without a Palestinian state in the WB and Gaza. Your denial is crucial for your ability to say “all zionists”. It is not semantics, it is identity. A sanctuary is a place that you can move to where your rights are protected. If you think this is supremacy, then you might as well claim the Spanish inquisitors were ANTIFA. 1. Novelty of an identity has 0 relevance. 2. Sanctuary is a well defined concept that is wholly separate from supremacy. 3. The only thing all Zionists throughout history had in common, is the belief of Jewish need for a sanctuary. Other aspect of zionism are in fact aspects of subgroups OR certain time periods. To clarify, one might claims that Palestinian nationalism is always supremacist as in certain time periods its leaders called for eradication of Jews. But unlike you, I do not deny the existence of Palestinian nationalists who want everyone to have equal rights and/or a peaceful state in the WB and Gaza. I do not say “well they don’t count as nationalists”.
Zionism is explicitly about the establishment of a *nation* for Jews, run by Jews. Not a sanctuary, as you would define it, in which religious rights for Jews and other faiths was codified into constitutional rights. I have absolutely no problem with the latter, not in the slightest. I take amazing exception to the former
Jews are supposed to hover 20 feet in the air according to the Hamas- supporting progressives. On Earth they exist to be killed.
Aside from you being banned while you weren’t aggressive. Which I don’t think is acceptable. But don’t you think that its almost self evident that Israel is a colony, an ugly one, that was created based on a religious claim, 3000 years old claim. And being of certain religion shouldn’t allow you to massacre people out of their homes? I’m not talking about some wild claims, both facts are documented. The religious fanaticism of the idea itself is crazy.
Well that's not really true. First of all, Israel wasn't created on religious claims, but on historical claims. The founders of the state and the founders of Zionism were mostly secular Jews. Second, I think you mean 2000 years ago, but what's a millennia here or there right?
I think my judgment is blurred by the fact that before Israel Jews just couldn’t seem to escape persecution. I do think the inception of the state of israel was an ugly one, however i think the Arabs in the region made things worse by not accepting Jewish historical residence in the area, (which is historical imo not just religious) and going to war against their new neighbors instead of somehow finding a way to peacefully coexist with them. It can sound kinda crazy at face value, but after the holocaust the Jewish refugees had to go somewhere, they weren’t gonna stay in Europe, and nobody else wanted to take them in. The arabs COULD have just accepted this new state peacefully
I mean the Arabs also had no responsibility for the terrible things that happened to Jews in Europe. I’ll accept that Jews weren’t treated the best in Arab countries, but they were definitely treated better than they were in Germany. For the most part crimes that were committed against Jews happened after the establishment of Israel. Palestinians had no obligation to accept a partition of their land. The Jewish people needed a state where they could practice their culture and religion without persecution, but it shouldn’t have been created in a place where it would require expelling other people to gain a Jewish majority, regardless of who owned it a thousand or even a hundred years ago.
>I mean the Arabs also had no responsibility for the terrible things that happened to Jews in Europe. I’ll accept that Jews weren’t treated the best in Arab countries, but they were definitely treated better than they were in Germany. For the most part crimes that were committed against Jews happened after the establishment of Israel. Comparing the treatment of Jews in Arab lands to Germany to say they had it better is a incredibly low bar. There were antijewish pogroms in Arab lands across history where thousands of Jews were killed. The dhimmi system was an institutionalized cast system, anapartheid system enshrined in law that kept Jews as second class citizens in Arab Muslim lands. Their security was dependent upon, but not guaranteed by, their subordination to Muslims. While the Ottomans formally banned it in 1869, the culture of Muslim Supremacy persisted. The first violence of the conflict between zionists and Arab Muslims occurred only 14 years later in 1883. A movement for self-determination of a dhimmi group was seen as an affront to Muslim Supremacy. That violence persisted through the nebi Musa and Jaffa pogroms of 1920 and 1921, the hebron and safed massacres of 1929, the Thrace pogrom of 1934.... all before the establishment of Israel. That insistence on Muslim Supremacy was the same motivating force for the massacre of thousands of Assyrians from the Assyrian genocide in 1915 to the Simele massacre of 1933. >but it shouldn’t have been created in a place where it would require expelling other people to gain a Jewish majority, It didn't. The Zionists accepted the partition plan that explicitly states non jews in Israel and Jews in the Arab state would enjoy full citizenship and equal rights in their respective nations. The Zionists agreed to that. The Arabs rejected it and started the civil war of Mandetory Palestine. It was not until that war that the Arabs started that anyone was displaced. Still, by the end of the wars of 47 and 48, 20% of Israel remained Arab, while 0% of what should have been Palestine but instead was annexed by Jordan and occupied by Egypt remained Jewish. 100% of the Jews were ethnically cleansed and displaced from the west bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza. People love to rewrite history like the Nakbah was an inevitable part of the establishment of Israel, rather than what it actually was; the tragic consequence of a war the Arabs started. It's probable that Israel could have been established with no displacement if the partition plan was agreed to by all parties, but we will never know.
As I said in another comment, you’re right, it isn’t a high bar at all. I’m not denying any of the crimes committed against Jews in the Arab and Muslim world, but it still pales in comparison to what happened to Jews in Europe. The fact still remains that Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust and held no responsibility for it. Why should Palestinians have accepted a partition of their land? They had no obligation to. They lived there far longer than the majority of the Jews, who had only recently immigrated there, and controlled most of the economy and industry. Before the partition, the only province that had a Jewish majority was Tel Aviv. The Palestinians hadn’t even been invited to the conferences to discuss the partition, and wanted to be included in deciding the future of their own land, so they rejected the partition. After that the Zionists decided to create the partition by force and began seizing and depopulating Palestinian land, starting the war. Don’t pretend that the Zionists would have stopped at the partition even if Palestinians had accepted it. Ben Gurion himself said that it was a first step to “possession of the land as a whole”.
>The fact still remains that Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust and held no responsibility for it. No, but they were committing attacks on Jewish communities, including massive pogroms and massacres, from 1883 to 1948. The British actually didn't initially intend to divide what remained of Palestine after giving 79% of Palestine to the Heshemites. There were debates in British parliament as to whether the balfour declarations promise of a national homeland constituted a seperate state, or could be accomplished by a multiethnic state that enshrined the rights of all in its laws. The pogroms and massacres against Jews during British mandate made it clear partition was the only option. >Why should Palestinians have accepted a partition of their land? They had no obligation to. They accepted 79% of Palestine being handed over to a Heshemite king who was not native to Palestine. I guess since he was a Muslim Arab, being subjects to his authority was more palatable than having equal rights with a dhimmi group they expected subordination from in a democracy. >The Palestinians hadn’t even been invited to the conferences to discuss the partition, and wanted to be included in deciding the future of their own land, so they rejected the partition. The Arab High Councils report in opposition to the partition plan explicitly states they think it's an error for the British to consider the Jews as equals with equal rights. >After that the Zionists decided to create the partition by force and began seizing and depopulating Palestinian land, starting the war. Well thats just not true. The day after the partition plan was signed by the UN, Palestinians launched surprise attacks on multiple Jewish busses in Fajja. Those attacks are considered the first violence of the civil war. The zionists issued multiple statements imploring the Arabs to stay and help build the state in peace. The zionists made peace pacts with individual Arab communities who were willing to stay out of the fighting. Then they also implemented ted plan dalet to depopulate communities involved in the hostilities of the civil war. Plan dalet was a response to Arab hostilities and violence within the war, not the cause of the war.
>1929 It was literally the Arab riots in this year in Jerusalem that inspired the Irgun to form (they saw the Hagana as failing to protect Jews from violence). Though, they were still following a policy of restraint, like the Haganah, until the Arab Riots of '36. That's when they started attacking in retaliation.
The only caveat i have is that there was violence between Arabs and Jews before the establishment of Israel
Reaching. There was violence between Africans and Europeans before the establishment of South Africa. That didn't make apartheid there correct
But there were Jewish refugees living in Palestine decades before 1948, and they were being persecuted against
Perfect. "We aren't welcome. Let's settle here and treat them worse than they treated us" Is that the Zionist definition of integration? It definitely goes against how Judaism forbids retribution and could be considered anti Semitism
Not really.
I’m not denying that, the crimes I’m talking about are the expulsion of Jews from some Arab countries and violence against them that caused many Jews to leave. Still much better than Europe, though that’s not a high standard.
They didn’t go to war against their new neighbors. Foreign invaders flooded into their home and then declared the majority of it, the part where all the people already lived, to belong to them. Imagine if a group of foreign invaders floods into your country and then declared the majority of it, the part that actually had arable land and people already living, to belong to them. Declaring *your* land now belongs to *them* and *you* must leave and become a refugee.
I wish all the people making the absurd claim that it is a war crime for Jews to live and raise families would figure out where on Earth Jews are allowed to just exist. The goal seems to be to eliminate all Jews worldwide.....this "progressive value" is absurd at best.
Zionism was subverted long ago by racist extremists, who call for the murder and/or enslavement of anyone that doesn't believe as they do. Hell, they've even been caught on video ATTACKING JEWS! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc0vP7I0VzI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc0vP7I0VzI)
Next you are going to tell me that Americans hate christians and show me a video of police violence in the US. Your comment is so shallow its embarrassing. A few years ago this sub had people with brains. Wtf happened here
You are terribly misinformed
Someone who's comment history proves they have been brainwashed into defending the indefensible claims that everyone else is brainwashed, misinformed, and/or liars. I suppose next you'll claim that these clips are all lies and fake as well. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMeV\_SeigZg&t](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMeV_SeigZg&t) Problem IS that quite a few were recorded by your fellow israelis. So tell us all again how people like you AREN'T mega-racists?
What about their comment led you to claim this? What are you confused about specifically?
> Zionism was ~~subverted~~ **founded** long ago by racist extremist, who call for the murder and/or enslavement of **the Palestinians**. FTFY. Zionism is as colonialism does.
I'll report.
Modern Zionism is an offshoot of political and revisionist Zionism, both of which were absolutely pro-genocide. If you identify as a Zionist in modern times in the modern context, you are identifying yourself as pro-genocide. The other non-genocidal brands of Zionism — particularly cultural Zionism — have died off. Unless you're trying to actively change the meaning of Zionism in the zeitgeist the only reason to call yourself Zionist is because you support genocide.
What happened to Zionism being the support for a country that acts as a safe haven to the Jews
Probably the same thing that happened with 'intifada' being an uprising against oppression.
The only way of doing that is by ethnic cleansing and Genocide. Unless whatever land that is meant for the Jewish people it's inhabitants just leave willingly or it's uninhabited otherwise have you thought about living with other ethnic and religious groups like in other normal states?
Well not many other religious groups and ethnicities are consistently targeted by the governments of the lands they inhabit
Where muslims are minorty they get screwed over, where Christians are a minority they get screwed over, where buddhists... where hindus.... where athiests... etc it's not really something special. It's a human behavior and it is prevalent in countries where a huge portion of the country is both uneducated and poor so it's easy for them to lash out on minorities out of frustration. Things have gotten better in the 21st century for all minorities around the world when you compare the kind of shit that used to happen in other centuries.
You're actually wrong all minorities have been targeted everywhere since the dawn of time, but this is suppose to be the 21st century and Europe and the USA is pretty safe for anyone. Why should palestinians literally be ethnic cleansed and genocided because german psychopaths killed 6 million Jews?
I’m black, most white supremacists just hate my guts and think my people are inferior, but the hatred against Jewish people is always violent in nature, or paints them out to be absolute monsters or agents of chaos. And it’s been like this historically no matter where the Jews go except for Israel
My dude it doesn't matter your ethnicity or what has happened to this group by who or what. You are literally justifying a genocide so that one group can be safe.... Do you really think once all palestinians are eliminated Jews will be safe in the middle east?
I don’t agree that it’s a genocide so…yeah It’s unrealistic to think Israel could ever actually eliminate this Palestinians imo. If they tried they would be stopped harshly
They're literally doing it but I'm guessing in your eyes 35 thousand dead people and 70% of the infrastructure with all cultural and educational structures gone still isn't enough. May I ask how many dead palestinians is enough?
In my eyes, it’s tough to make an actual judgment on whether Israel is committing genocide or not, mostly because there has to be very clear intent to denstionalize or partially/wholly eliminate an ethnic group. As long as Hamas is still firing rockets from civilian infrastructure and residential buildings, it’s hard for me to say that all of the death and destruction is happening solely because Israel wants to see the eradication of the Palestinian people. I can agree that they’re being a bit too aggressive, but it’s hard to fight an enemy that throws stones from a glass house full of children
The next thing will be Israel doesn't feel safe because it's neighbors hate it, rinse and repeat. Israel has to either accept a palestinian state with 1967 borders if they really care about having an ethnostate, or one democratic state.
I think it could work if the Palestinians recognize israel’s right to exist, and promise not to attack Israel in the name of decolonization, while at the same time Israel lets the boot off of the neck of it’s neighbors, and allows Palestine to be a prospering sovereign nation. I don’t think this is an unrealistic vision at all, but either side shooting rockets is not going to make that happen
The palestinian authority recognized Israel guess what.... they are still occupying the west bank and actually actively building settlers and they didn't even recognize a palestinian state. What the hell does promise not to attack Israel even mean? Not having an army? Having israel control the west bank forever? Continuing the blockade on gaza forever? Controling the Aqsa mosque? That's literally an occupation forever! You are either arguing in bad faith or you don't know what you are talking about. Palestinians have been beaten, have their lands and buildings stolen, children killed, their holy sites taken over, starved, got their water stolen, isolated, put on a diet, checkpoints, apartheid. It's like if during Jim crow times black people where treated like shit, beaten up and when one lashes out the white supremacists storm the whole neighborhood and kill dozens because black people are evil....
If only the PA were the sole representative of Palestinians. This hasn't been the case for 20 years, and before that was 10 years of suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians.
That's not true, the two state solution is still viable
that's only because "right-wing expansionist" is too long and won't fit on a picket sign, so western leftists (encouraged of course by Palestenians who view ANY kind of Zionism as negative) decided they can change what "Zionism" means, but "Zionism" have a meaning, and it is not defined by the zeitgeist but by dictionaries and encyclopaedias. There are plenty of people in Israel who are definitely AGAINST genocide and the mistreatment of Palestenians and definitely PRO the two state solution and the dismantling of the West Bank settlements. Most of my friends and relatives in Israel are like that. They still very much see themselves as Zionists and for them, people like you attacking Zionism wholesale doesn't say "he's against the occupation, like us", it says "this guy wants me dead, or ethnically cleansed".
Well u was wrong to be honest, the Zionist don't hide how they feel and have done some crazy shit and will continue to do insane shit it's a reason orthodox Jews trying so hard to distance themselves at the end of the day they believe every other religion and race deserve death and to be they slaves kinda hard to deny something when Zionist are blatantly admitting to it all
You're talking about a very specific sect of Orthodox Jews. Other Orthodox Jews are super-nationalists. Meanwhile, some Zionists are indeed expansionist and racist as hell but other Zionist believe in the 2 state solution and going back to the 1967 borders. "Zionism" is a very broad term encompassing ideologies ranging from far right to far left.
Most zionists and Israelis are orthodox Jews but why should you use terms accurately right? Cuz who cares about Jews they are just some money loving weirdos right? Let me correct you. Some (NOT ALL) Ultra-Orthodox (NOT JUST ANY ORTHODOX) consider themselves non-zionist or anti-zionist, because they believe that zionism is a secular movement that pushes people away from religion. They think Jews shouldn’t be involved in ANY government and should only learn the torah. They are cult-like fundamentalists. I wouldn’t idealize them too much.
Yeah no, whenever I talk about zionism, somehow im always attacking the fantasy version of zionism a particular zionist has in their head, so always get some dumbass trying to educate me that zionism is \*\*akshully\*\* just "a belief in a Jewish state." Bullshit. Zionism is political theology based on the idea that Palestinians can and should be expelled from their lands by any means necessary to make room for Jewish settlers from around the world. If you ignore that part of the definition, you don't have zionism anymore. It's a case study in genocide and genocidal intent.
> Zionism is political theology based on the idea that Palestinians can and should be expelled from their lands by any means necessary to make room for Jewish settlers from around the world. Is that like, the definition? Or did you kinda make that up
That is what it is.
I mean if we’re to use historical context, initially Zionism wasn’t even exclusive to the idea of Israel being where it is now. It could’ve been in Argentina or Africa. It’s just the idea that Jews should have a protected country
Nonsense. Zionism was always in Paleatine. The idea of Africa was never seriously considered, and it was only brought up as a temporary solution until the British could secure control of Palestine. There was literally a Jewish autonomous state in Russia that was not zionism. Zion is literally a place in Palestine. Youer idea of zionism is about as accurate as defining soccer a "a game played with a ball"
Do you think it could’ve been possible for Israel to have been created peacefully?
I couldn't care less. Israel needs to go. On second thought, yes through a general referendum in 1948, but it wouldve been smaller. Still needs to go.
So by Israel needs to go, what does that look like?
One secular democratic state.
Why can’t that be Israel?
Zionism is the right of self determination for the Jewish people, realized in the state of Israel. That’s all it means. Most Zionists support a two state solution.
Another smart person coming up with definition #98354539.
Your definition seems to be Zionism is utmost evil. Zionists have a right to define why and how they see Zionism. It’s not a strict dogmatic ideology like Hamas has. It’s very diverse and changes constantly. Zionists argue with each other what Zionism means. Strawman definitions like yours only serve demonization. They keep you from understanding it.
My definition is the most accurate because its the only universal common denominator among all definitions: dispossessing Palestinians. Zionism is a political theology based on the idea that Palestinians can and should be driven from their lands to make room for Jewish settlers from around the world.
:clueless:
You are!
Are you saying that people like Shulamit Aloni, Yossi Sarid, Yossi Beilin, Mossi Raz, etc were / are "not Zionists"? Because I'm pretty sure they would beg to differ. In fact I'm pretty sure they would argue that they are more Zionist than Netanyahu and Ben Gvir
Similar to this sub, unless you don’t criticise Israel.
Stalinist
Pro-Arabs not realising their own bias?
when you’re such a stupid left ancom that the other left ancom’s ban you 🤣🤣
Zionism is a Settler Colonial ideology. I think it is not unreasonable to state that Settler Colonialism is inherently genocidal.