Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Nivsch said:

How do you define the word "Zionism"? What is Zionism for you?

If you can break it down.

By Zionism I mostly mean right-wing stage Blue Zionists and/or people who blindly defend nearly all of Israel's selfish and manipulative actions vis a vis Palestine.

I call it Zionism when people just start from the axiomatic position that Israel is an objective good. Zionism is fundamentally a profound ethnocentric self-bias, which is why it is wrong.

You can be Israeli or Jew without holding such a bias.

For example, when America does something wrong I have no problem admitting it because I do not hold America as axiomatically good. If I was an Americanist that would be wrong.

Edited August 25 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

30 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

I'm going to have to condemn Dan here. He said problematic anti-Semitic talking points, such as bringing up the Talmud and apparently how its okay to kill non-Jews.

This is literally a Nazi talking point.

It is true though that stage Blue Zionists believe that Jews are the Chosen People and Children of Light.

Dan was saying that that's a problematic worldview which leads to devilry. That is spot-on.

Of course Dan resembles an American Nazi. But even a Nazi can be right on some points. You can agree with a Nazi that kicking dogs is wrong. That's basically what Dan said.

Edited August 25 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura 

You might agree on what's being said.

They might say it's wrong for another reason.

So, Dan is probably unknowingly spot-on.

Edited August 25 by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Nemra said:

They might say it's wrong for another reason.

Dan is saying it because he doesn't want America to be a tool for Zionists. Which is not wrong.

[Nivsch]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

By Zionism I mostly mean right-wing stage Blue Zionists and/or people who blindly defend nearly all of Israel's selfish and manipulative actions vis a vis Palestine.

I call it Zionism when people just start from the axiomatic position that Israel is an objective good. Zionism is fundamentally a profound ethnocentric self-bias, which is why it is wrong.

You can be Israeli or Jew without holding such a bias.

For example, when America does something wrong I have no problem admitting it because I do not hold America as axiomatically good. If I was an Americanist that would be wrong.

Ok fair I understand.

In school, Zionism has been defined to us as the aspiration of the Jewish people to their own land, and thats it.

Seems like the exact definition of this word is subjectively given depend on the piece of the cake (= reality) one wants to focus on.

For example the center-left camp will define the exact same word by their own values of equality, acceptance etc.

The problem is that subconsciously the word implies a generalized meaning what can be weaponized to unfair propaganda purposes by extreme leftists abroad for example.

This is what a bit difficult here for me with this word I learned about from its more pure meaning and intention.

Nevertheless, your definiton although different then mine, is fair in my opinion in the way it focuses on the problem itself and explains itself nuancly.

Edited August 25 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

In school, Zionism has been defined to us as the aspiration of the Jewish people to their own land, and thats it.

That seems to be its original meaning 100 years ago, but today I mostly see Zionists in the media who shamelessly defend a self-biased form of Israeli nationalism. An innocent idea has turned into a kind of partisan, promote-Israeli-nationalism-at-all-costs attitude.

Jews have had their own land for quite some time now, so at this point you don't need to be a Zionist, you can just be an Israeli citizen.

I also define Zionists as those who endorse or turn a blind eye to Israel settlement expansion.

Of course these are just my definitions. You could could define Zionism as something more milqutoast.

Edited August 25 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura 

I think he is thinking that if you are concerned about Jews, then you are a Zionist. No?

[Nivsch]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

but today I mostly see Zionists in the media who shamelessly defend a self-biased form of Israeli nationalism

They themselves also use this word Zionism when they describe themselves in the videos you watch?

Edited August 25 by Nivsch

[Minini]

Revisionist Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky one of the fathers of Zionism, in an essay titled The Iron Law (1925) wrote that:

“A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!… Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important… to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonizing.”

I don't see innocence here. 

Edited August 25 by Minini

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

They themselves also use this word Zionism when they describe themselves in the videos you watch?

I can't remember. But I bet if you asked them they would proudly wear the label, as Biden does.

Why the f does Biden call himself a Zionist??

Edited August 25 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Minini said:

Revisionist Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky one of the fathers of Zionism, in an essay titled The Iron Law (1925) wrote that:

“A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!… Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important… to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonizing.”

I don't see innocence here. 

Well, that's just one radical. Zionism goes back into the 1800s before Palestinian land was even a target.

Edited August 25 by Leo Gura

[Minini]

 

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, that's just one radical. Zionism goes back into the 1800s.

But that's the actual trajectory that it ended up in. Choosing a land that already had people and resorting to violence to establish the state. The idea itself CAN be innocent, but it didn't end up to be because they insisted on the 'Holy Land'. 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

But to use the Talmud and to suggest that all Jews follow the (likely fabricated) quotes in the Talmud where it says that its okay to kill non-jews, this is too far. I'm sure most zionists don't think this way.

[Nemra]

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

I find it very unfair that Jews around the world are being shat on because of Israel actions.

@Karmadhi 

I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

I hear people "criticizing" and insulting them. Those people are probably nationalists.

[Leo Gura]

37 minutes ago, Minini said:

The idea itself CAN be innocent, but it didn't end up to be because they insisted on the 'Holy Land'.

Of course. The reality is that all the land in the world is taken by someone and they ain't gonna just give it over to you. So domination was baked into the Zionist cake even if it wasn't the conscious intent of most Zionists.

Most corporations don't have the intent to harm people, but they end up doing so automatically as they pursue profits at all costs. Zionism is just like that but with land. Sure, they don't want to hurt Arabs, but if some Arabs get killed in the process, it's just baked into the cake.

The Zionist emoji:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited August 25 by Leo Gura

[Moutushi]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course. The reality is that all the land in the world is taken by someone and they ain't gonna just give it over to you. So domination was baked into the Zionist cake even if it wasn't the conscious intent of most Zionists.

Most corporations don't have the intent to harm people, but they end up doing so automatically as they pursue of profits at all costs. Zionism is just like that but with land. Sure, they don't want to hurt Arabs, but if some Arabs get killed in the process, it's just baked into the cake.

In that case @Leo Gura, can there be such a thing as ethical Zionism, just like the concept of ethical entrepreneurship and business?

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Moutushi said:

In that case @Leo Gura, can there be such a thing as ethical Zionism, just like the concept of ethical entrepreneurship and business?

There could be ethical Zionism if settlement expansion is stopped, and if lies and manipulation stops, if shameless self-bias stops, and if there is a good-faith effort toward a 2-state solution. That would be about as ethical as Zionism could realistically be.

Edited August 25 by Leo Gura

[Karmadhi]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course. The reality is that all the land in the world is taken by someone and they ain't gonna just give it over to you. So domination was baked into the Zionist cake even if it wasn't the conscious intent of most Zionists.

Most corporations don't have the intent to harm people, but they end up doing so automatically as they pursue profits at all costs. Zionism is just like that but with land. Sure, they don't want to hurt Arabs, but if some Arabs get killed in the process, it's just baked into the cake.

The Zionist emoji:

How come the Christian countries in the 20th century, which had long evolved past fundamentalist religion chose Israel as a land based on religious reasons?

To me, deciding where a new country should be created should be based on concrete factors, religion is basically irrelevant.

Biggest factor in determining a land for Israel to be created would be so nobody was forced in mass to leave their homes.

 

[Leo Gura]

@Karmadhi How can you say religion is irrelevant when the entire Jewish identity is based on religion? And same for Christians.

You're living in fantasy land. Religion defines the whole shebang.

We have still not evolved past Christianity in 2024.

Edited August 25 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Karmadhi How can you say religion is irrelevant when the entire Jewish identity is based on religion? And same for Christians.

You're living in fantasy land. Religion defines the whole shebang.

We have still not evolved past Christianity in 2024.

Most religious Jews were actually against the formation of Israel before it happened, even now many support it for non religious reasons, as there is a popular argument it goes against their religion.