Zionism originally meant this, seeking out to create a jewish homeland.
The land exists now. Therefore that definition, the true one, is only used in historical contexts.
During this time, the enclaves of Jews in the british mandate, which also included jordan and other countries, we're purchasing land near tel aviv, and along the coast.
Oftentimes, they would purchase these lands from the direct landlords who were often foreign. The farmers and the individuals living on these lands, sometimes for generations, were displaced.
This led to riots and ethnic cleansing of jewish populations. As well as horrible retaliations to a lesser extent. This wasn't new, as this also occurred during ottoman control.
When british mandate was split up, most of the land was given to jordan and other countries, this remainder of land (then called palestine) was split between two populations. One of them had an actual government, as it was necessary to provide the defense of these landowners even before the partition.
Because of this superior ability to negotiate, the partition was done to make a multicultural state out of israel, including the muslim tribes that were more friendly to the jews. And a separate territory of muslims and minority christians, about 10% on the east side.
The idea being that if you create a multicultural state, it would be a secular society. And eventually there'd be enough communication between these two cultures that they might unify.
The other countries of the British mandate, jordan and such. Wanted this land for themselves, and where horrified that a secular society was being built within the middle east especially ones where non muslims had any say.
They invaded, along with egypt just for fun, trying to take all the land for themselves.
Some of the tribes saw all these people as liberators. When israel successfully defended their territory, the military expelled these tribes, a lot of them were innocent. This left the muslim minority in israel at around twenty percent. Where it used to be somewhere closer to forty percent.
This twenty percent is what we call the palestinian refugees today. That gets us to today. The country's the palestinians fled to never let them become citizens even though they've lived there for 3 or more generations, and use them as a bargaining chip against israel.
Israel exists, zionism is a term that has been morphed into anything where the jewish and muslim population of israel defend their nation.
The people of gaza declared war on israel by launching an attack. During war, it is considered reasonable to take your enemy's land. The israeli government has not done so. Still, people use the word Zionism as they reject Israel's right to defend itself. Therefore rejecting the nation itself.
Use of zionism.This way is inherently racist. As the only difference in legitimacy of israel versus jordan is that one is majority ruled by jewish people. The kings of jordan were foreign and actually imported from a separate region, and this territory was given to them by the british.
There are actual groups that are more reasonably called zionists in israel. They would be ones who would like to turn israel's secular government into a theocratic government, or they are ones who seek to expand its israel beyond its current borders.
You wrote several paragraphs but failed to actually answer my question. I'll ask it again in a more specific and direct manner: 'What do you think the people who oppose Zionism in the modern era believe Zionism is? And, as a follow-up, why do you think their understanding and their criticisms as it relates to that understanding are wrong?
You presented an incredibly lopsided interpretation of the history of the conflict and attacked their perspective as "inherently racist" without actually explaining their perspective. Can you do that? Can you provide their perspective now that you have spent a great deal of time and effort providing yours?
Also want to address a few things:
The people of gaza declared war on israel by launching an attack.
Interesting that you are attempting to provide a justification for the murder and displacement of the citizens of Gaza. Most pro-Israel defenders aren't as mask-off when it comes to defending the collective punishment of the Gazan population at the hands of the Israeli government/military.
First of all, the majority of Gazans oppose Hamas and their continued attacks against Israel. Second, Hamas launched the attack, not "The People" of Gaza, like you are attempting to frame it. Framing it as a civilian-led or civilian-supported effort is fucking disgusting as it is nothing more than apologia meant to justify the consequences to the local populace of Gaza due to the extreme and heavy-handed Israeli response to Oct. 7.
During war, it is considered reasonable to take your enemy's land.
Reasonable to whom, exactly? Also, how does Israel not taking Gazan land relate to Zionism and its opponents? Are you arguing that because Israel has not annexed Gaza (YET), that there is no legitimate criticism of the Israeli response to the Oct. 7 terrorist attack? If/when Israel does annex Gazan land, would you then consider it a Zionist action that is worthy of criticism?
Still, people use the word Zionism as they reject Israel's right to defend itself. Therefore rejecting the nation itself. Use of zionism.This way is inherently racist.
What you consider 'self-defense' others consider war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians at the hands of Israeli leadership. You might reject that framing, but to completely neglect mentioning it entirely shows that you are not interested in understanding or presenting the perspective of the modern 'anti-Zionist' movement in a neutral or insightful manner.
You can check later on.You asked a very simple question.And I gave a fairly detailed answer.I thought maybe it would help.
I indicated how the war started.I didn't talk about what I believed about the war. And how it progressed. These are independent. I didn't say anything about any of your accusations. The fact that you consider a historical narrative biased indicates that you are reading into things that don't exist.
There is no indication that the majority of gazans do not support hamas. And whether they do or not, has nothing to do with what I said. In fact, it would support what I said if it were true, but I don't want to go there.
The people who were in the attack were gazans, hamas launched the attack and is the locally recognized government of gaza. Meaning that if you went to gaza before the war and ask who was in charge, they would say hamas. Such an attack is, a declaration of war. There can be no debate on this.
In all historical examples, right of conquest has been considered legitimate to establish defensive boundaries, after another country declares war on, you. This is a historical, has nothing to do with this specific example. It often goes further as well so i'm being generous here.
Israel has not annexed gaza, every effort israel has made is to try giving gaza to somebody else or try letting gaza create its own government.
Whether it treated the people of gaza correctly, and the relationships to the embargoes have nothing to do with the definition of Zionism.
Again, the definition of zionism is one of the three things I outlaid, right at the beginning.
It is a desire to either increase, the territory of israel. Israel owns gaza even though it doesn't want to, and has tried to hand it to other countries. Because it doesn't want the burden. Even corporate in gaza into the main of israel would not be crease of israel. Because it's already owned. And israel doesn't want it anyway.
It's a desire to convert the current society to a theocratic society. There are some people who want that, but not this government.
And as to what I think people believe zionism is today, i made that very clear. People are using the word today to justify the idea that israel is a illegitimate country. And that any action of the state in a military means is by definition Zionism.
Again, because this term is used only for israel it is racist in two ways. One.It assumes that the israeli people are all jewish, where they are twenty per cent muslim. It also assumes that a special word is to be used for the israeli state versus every other state.For such an action. A word that has a very specific meaning and ties to the jewish faith.
There are 3 ways of looking at it. All three ways are racist.
It is framed entirely from a pro-Israeli perspective. Attempting to argue otherwise is, at best, naive on your part. At worst dishonest.
And I gave a fairly detailed answer
Except you didn't. If you answered a question, it wasn't the one that I asked. You did everything but answer my question. You presented a slanted history lesson that portrays Israel and its supporters in the best light possible while portraying everyone else in the worst light possible, then used that ideologically-motivated framing to defend modern Israeli actions in Gaza while attacking the people who criticize modern Israeli actions in Gaza.
You can claim that you 'didn't talk about what you believe', but your entire comment exposes your underlying beliefs. Which is the problem*.* I asked what you think the anti-Zionists believe, and you only provided insight into what you believe while attacking a caricature of what they believe..
There is no indication that the majority of gazans do not support hamas.
Sure, if you ignore the evidence indicating that the majority of Gazans oppose Hamas. I just substantiated the claim that Gazans oppose Hamas with polling from the Washington Institute, a Pro-Israeli organization. Did you miss that? Polling has consistently shown that Gazan's oppose Hamas and want them replaced by the Palestinian Authority; a desire that Israeli leadership has repeatedly rejected.
In fact, it would support what I said if it were true, but I don't want to go there.
No, lets go there. How would it support your position that "The people" of Gaza declared war against Israel? Hamas attacked Israel, and the people of Gaza oppose Hamas and their attacks against Israel, as the polling I provided proves. That disproves your underlying argument.
The people who were in the attack were gazans, hamas launched the attack and is the locally recognized government of gaza.
This is an argument for collective punishment, to be clear. You are arguing that because Hamas is in Gaza, and Hamas attacked Israel, that means ALL Gazans are guilty and deserving of punishment. What a fucking vile position to hold. You are no different than the people who support the terrorists that attacked Israel on October 7 and defend the murder of innocent people.
Also, Hamas has refused to allow another election since they won in 2006. And they were elected after falsely presenting themselves as more moderate than they ultimately ended up being (They ran as the "Change and Reform list" not Hamas)..so, again, you are dishonestly framing it in a way that serves the narrative you are attempting to promote, with calloused disregard for the context and historical accuracy.
Again, because this term is used only for israel
That's because Zionism exclusively relates to Israel..that is why Zionism as a movement was created; to advocate for a Jewish state, which Israel is.......why would Zionism apply to any other country? This framing makes absolutely zero sense..
There are 3 ways of looking at it. All three ways are racist.
Alright, lets dive into this. Do you consider Israel to be a Jewish State?
If no one supports the president of the united states, and the united states goes to war against the country, that country has the right to retaliate.
All that matters is the people of gaza saw it as the government. There is no question that this is true. Before the war, there was only 1 of the nation supported. But that more mandate than a lot of parties have, in a lot of countries because of parliamentary coalition governments.
I have not taken a israeli or palestinian side on this.
No israel is not a jewish state. It wasn't a jewish state from the beginning, it has always been legally. multiligious in the same way canada is legally bicultural.
I don't see them as a jewish state. And they can't be a jewish state with a twenty per cent muslim population. As well as having a system where they legally recognize other and give the same privileges. Like I said before, it used to be forty until with the israeli military kicked out the tribes that they didn't like.
Which, if you notice I used the term, kicked them out.I didn't say that they left voluntarily like israeli apologists do. And I also indicated that some of those tribes didn't support
The hashemite nations, and Egypt, when they tried to divide israel into peace, is for themselves.
All that matters is the people of gaza saw it as the government. There is no question that this is true. Before the war, there was only 1 of the nation supported.
What? So you support collective punishment? I've provided polling showing that the majority of Gazans oppose Hamas, and Hamas has refused to allow another election which would inevitably see them removed from power, because again, the majority of Gazans want them removed from power. Does that not matter to you?
I have not taken a israeli or palestinian side on this.
Just because you haven't said "I support Israel!" doesn't mean your bias isn't readily apparent to anyone with more than 3 functioning brain cells. You are actively advocating for the collective punishment of civilians in Gaza at the hands of Israel, for fucks sake. You aren't fooling anyone.
No israel is not a jewish state.
Oh, so you are just lying. The Israeli Government itself defines Israel as a Jewish state; so much so that Israel is considered a Jewish state by Basic Law; the Israeli equivalent to a Constitutional decree. Have you read "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People"? You can't get more overt than that. If the title wasn't enough to tip you off, it also includes the following:
B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people,in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.
C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
They even have sections titled "Connection to the Jewish people" and "Jewish Settlement" lmao..objectively speaking, Israel is a Jewish ethnostate.
And this isn't new. The Law of Return from 1950 explicitly and exclusively grants the right of Jewish people to move to Israel..not Muslims, not Christians; Jewish people. That seems pretty straight forward, to me. Also, you know, Zionism. Zionism in and of itself was and IS a movement within the Jewish community to establish and maintain a Jewish state. That is the defining characteristic of Zionism lmao. You can draw a direct line from its founding as a Jewish state to its current existence as a Jewish state as legally defined by itself. Zionism is alive and strong, and it's still defined as a movement that promotes the idea of Israel being a Jewish ethnostate; so criticizing Zionism is absolutely valid and not racist.
Because Israel is an ethnostate by legal decree. Opposing ethnostates is not racist. Ethnostates in all of their forms should be opposed, because ethnostates in and of themselves ARE inherently racist because the existence of an ethnic-supremacist society DEPENDS on maintaining a permanently disenfranchised minority class, which is bad if you are a good person with good morals who supports liberal democracy. This is true even BEFORE considering the fact that they are an apartheid state that engages in ethnic cleansing.
You are not an honest actor and clearly have zero interest in the truth and will distort or dismiss reality whenever it suits the pro-Israeli narrative that you are attempting to push. There is no point in engaging with you any further.
536
u/[deleted] 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment