Today, Zionism is often seen in a negative light, and “Zionist” is regularly used as an insult. A common misconception is that Zionism is the same as colonizing Palestinian territories. That is not correct: at its core, Zionism means the aspiration for a Jewish state. At the same time, there are indeed settlers in Israel who seize Palestinian land, and the war in Gaza is often viewed in this context. It is important to distinguish between these settlers and the broader meaning of Zionism.
Then don’t be that guy. You’re quoting a Zionist source that is desperately trying to redefine Zionism in real time. Zionism is colonizing Palestinian land and building that joke of a country on top of it. Zionism is a colonization project.
(And no, all Jews are not Zionists, but the Zionists are very happy to try and conflate the two as much as possible.)
Are you kidding me? The Anne Frank House is a fucking museum in memory of Anne Frank. Your allegations are not only absolutely baseless, but an insult to Anne Franks legacy.
How is this Anne Frank’s legacy? Did she advocate for this during her lifetime? She was killed by people seeking to establish an ethno-state, so how does “her legacy” involve defending the desire for an ethno-state?
Even if she had been an advocate of a Jewish state, would her fate automatically sanitise those views? Does the violence done to her justify the violence done to others? Do we need to agree with the convictions of everyone who fell victim to atrocities?
Or is this someone parading her corpse around as shield against criticism? Should I pick a victim of genocide too, so we can both bludgeon each other with the names of dead people in some fucked up battle of Pokémartyrs?
Leave Frank out of this. She has suffered enough. This is our conflict to fight with our arguments.
that’s a fun spin on the accepted historical context that zionism was started by nationalists who banded together to get the jews out of their own countries and dump them somewhere nobody cared about. rabbis of the time even rejected the idea.
They thought Herzl was too radical with his idea of a homeland, as they were then pushing towards assimilation and acceptance within their respective adopted countries in Europe until Hitler came to power.
Equating “the desire for a jewish colonial ethnostate in the middle east as part of and supported by a Christian nationalist attempt to fulfill misinterpreted prophecy about the end times” to “a people culturally connected to and practicing a 5000 year old Semitic religion” is antisemitism because it equates the brutalities of colonialism and genocide with Judaism as a whole and puts innocent Jewish people in harms way who have no desire to create a jewish colonial ethnostate.
They need to accept something every other group of people realized long ago: when assholes steal your word, you need a new word, otherwise you’ll be associated with assholes.
Ok? But you also think the swastika argument is ridiculous? You can’t have it both ways. Don’t give those Nazis so much leverage, rock that swastika loud and proud!
You’d have a point if all the other examples you gesture to were also colonizing within the borders of other nations, the Kurds were explicitly screwed over by Sykes-Picot to purposefully set up the middle east for maximum civil unrest following the fall of the ottoman empire, likewise with Palestine, and Tibet is being invaded by Chinese colonists.
All other examples you’ve listed don’t have a bunch of pasty white New Yorker saying “my ancestors lived here 3000 years ago” and kicking people out of their homes half a globe away.
There’s already people everywhere, they can’t just designate some patch of land and say “Jews only!” without either physically removing or exterminating the people already living there.
Jewish people have lived in the levante for literal centuries and were displaced as well. In recent history the part of land which is now Israel was under British mandate for the longest time. I don’t want to say that Palestinians have no right to claim that land but Jewish people have at least an equivalent right to claim the same land. That’s basically the whole conflict. Therefore we need a two state solution or a one state solution in the sense that Palestinians and Jewish people can peacefully live together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel
The Muslims and Christians that live in Palestine are mostly descended from the Jews that lived in the Levant, it’s not like literally everyone was expelled. There’s a reason Israel doesn’t require a DNA test to determine if someone is actually descended from people from the Levant, there’s a reason Israel has some of the highest skin cancer rates in the world (on par with other white settler colonies like Australia), and there’s a reason they pretended Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land.”
They’re white colonizers stealing land. They don’t have any right to take it, they can either become Palestinian or go back to Europe.
There were people there, and they have a right to the land. Europeans can move there and join a single multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious democracy where Jews live with everyone else. They don’t need to steal land from people already living there, they don’t get to make a nation where Jews have special rights and everyone else is second class, they don’t get to have apartheid.
Ok sure I’ll bite. How do today’s Zionists define said state? Does it include occupied Palestinian territories? Can you see how that might be an issue for the people who are being occupied?
This is like the “Civil War was fought about states’ rights and not slavery” argument. Technically true I guess but states’ rights to do WHAT exactly?
Don’t blame the world for conflating Zionism with genocide, when a large enough portion of Israelis support genocide that people like Netanyahu and Smotrich are in positions of power and are publicly calling for genocide on an almost daily basis.
The genocidal maniacs could, you know, stop genociding and support a two state solution, then maybe the exact definition of Zionism wouldn’t be a punchline for the angry goose meme.
Depends of the type of Zionism you ask. Post-Zionism wants a multi-ethnic democratic Israel, Cultural Zionism doesn’t want a nation state at all and the contemporary Liberal Zionism is roughly in favor of a two state solution, so a sovereign Palestine state as well as equal rights for Arab citizen in Israel.
And yes I blame the world for conflating Zionism with the genocidal right-wing politics of the Israeli government because it’s simply lazy and not true. There are many historical and contemporary types of Zionism and only Religious and Revisionist Zionism are what Israels government is currently pushing.
Yeah that is before they got their state, how bout now? If that’s what it is, why are they still colonising west bank and bombing gaza? This is like arguing for the white guy with a swastika, because they’re 100% not use it as a buddhism/hinduism symbol.
That’s because different types of Zionism define Israel differently. Those right wing maniacs like Netanyahu and Smotrich are Religious and Revisionist Zionists and want the racist ideal of a Greater Israel while other Zionists define the goal of a Jewish state as accomplished when Israel was first founded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_Zionism
Considering those are the type of zionism that lead the state today, and many people within it believing it, its safe to say none of the other type really exists these day, and even if it were still here, it’s very very few and far between to make any distinction.
Probably because coexistence has failed and the radical left that founded Israel has died and is replaced by radicals due to external pressures. “Allah is great. Death to America. Death to Israel. Cursed be the Jews. Victory Islam” does not bode well for coexistence.
Didn’t start off that way. It was constructed due to persistent attacks on Israeli citizens. It’s a shit idea since it does not provide a pathway forward into a unified Israel/Palestine. But it didn’t manifest out of evil.
Israel’s Gaza policy is shit because it is a bunch of halve assed attempts to reduce violence while creating further systemic reasons for violence. They dug themselves in a hole. And there is no way out. Parts of the world want to see their state burn and parts of their populus suffer. That must not happen from their view. I have no idea on what to do for all pathways suggest genocide may occur. In particular after the horrific actions against the Palestinian people.
Modern day Israel’s majorities indicate a support for right wing politics with the extreme right being in government and saying the quiet part out loud. Such as that 30some Palestinians must die every day for some forsaken, genocidal reason.
Colonialism is the practice of extending and maintaining political, social, economic, and cultural domination over a territory and its people by another people in pursuit of interests defined in an often distant metropole, who also claim superiority.
Well, guess what. The definition has changed and Zionist now means “people who like Israel killing children”. That original definition is the old, inaccurate one now.
Because words are defined by how they’re used, and when self identifying Zionists are using the new definition, and everyone else is using the new definition, your “technically that’s incorrect” statement means nothing.
The meme is using the word Zionist to mean “people who like Israel killing children” and you, me, and everyone else knows it.
Sorry but that’s not how language works. Definitions change. You might be technically correct, but I’m this context, we know what Zionism means, and it’s not what your said it is.
Had that exact discussion a while ago. Maybe you can take something away from the comments. It absolutely made me think about how the current state (as in modus) of Israel is literally not what I support. Even though I do support the existence of a state that actively hinges itself on being a safe space for the jewish ethnicity/culture/religion.
Then stop supporting them by splitting hairs I guess? The guy you are responding to is a supporter of the current Israel government. Like just don’t call yourself that.
Thanks for the rational reply. And I definitely don’t support the second definition and never said so. I just don’t like the baseless generalization of the term “Zionism” because it has more than one meaning.
![[Discussion] Victim complex final bosses](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/be62e747-afcb-4002-803f-fa3cf6775c7e.png){kind=link}
Hate to be that guy:
https://www.annefrank.org/en/topics/antisemitism/are-all-jews-zionists/
Then don’t be that guy. You’re quoting a Zionist source that is desperately trying to redefine Zionism in real time. Zionism is colonizing Palestinian land and building that joke of a country on top of it. Zionism is a colonization project.
(And no, all Jews are not Zionists, but the Zionists are very happy to try and conflate the two as much as possible.)
Easy, just call the Anne Frank house “Zionist” and devalue whatever the say.
Anne Frank is no longer alive and anyone using her name to give themselves unearned political legitimacy is a monster.
Are you kidding me? The Anne Frank House is a fucking museum in memory of Anne Frank. Your allegations are not only absolutely baseless, but an insult to Anne Franks legacy.
How is this Anne Frank’s legacy? Did she advocate for this during her lifetime? She was killed by people seeking to establish an ethno-state, so how does “her legacy” involve defending the desire for an ethno-state? Even if she had been an advocate of a Jewish state, would her fate automatically sanitise those views? Does the violence done to her justify the violence done to others? Do we need to agree with the convictions of everyone who fell victim to atrocities?
Or is this someone parading her corpse around as shield against criticism? Should I pick a victim of genocide too, so we can both bludgeon each other with the names of dead people in some fucked up battle of Pokémartyrs?
Leave Frank out of this. She has suffered enough. This is our conflict to fight with our arguments.
Museums aren’t typically in the business of current politics, but this one is.
Huh? Have you read the news in the last couple years?
Saying that museums aren’t in the business of current politics is somewhat naive.
At a minimum, current politics is crashing into the museum’s business every other week. Most obvious recent example is Trump vs the Smithsonian.
But it’s by no means the only recent case of politicians trying their hand at historical revisionism, or making partisan issues out of science.
Of course museums are! Culture of Remembrance is a highly political field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Remembrance
Stop blaming a museum in memory of a Jewish victim of the Holocaust.
“You know, a swastika can also be a symbol of peace in India” says the guy with the shaved head that is constantly defending Hitler.
Half your comments are mossad talking points. You are literally the bad kind of Zionist.
That’s such a dumb comparison. And what the heck are ‘Mossad talking points’ supposed to be? That’s simply absurd.
There’s enough people here with thoughtful rebuttals
All I have to add is fuck you, you deplorable genocide apologist
You’re fucking scum
Why do you think I apologize genocide?
that’s a fun spin on the accepted historical context that zionism was started by nationalists who banded together to get the jews out of their own countries and dump them somewhere nobody cared about. rabbis of the time even rejected the idea.
They thought Herzl was too radical with his idea of a homeland, as they were then pushing towards assimilation and acceptance within their respective adopted countries in Europe until Hitler came to power.
Equating “the desire for a jewish colonial ethnostate in the middle east as part of and supported by a Christian nationalist attempt to fulfill misinterpreted prophecy about the end times” to “a people culturally connected to and practicing a 5000 year old Semitic religion” is antisemitism because it equates the brutalities of colonialism and genocide with Judaism as a whole and puts innocent Jewish people in harms way who have no desire to create a jewish colonial ethnostate.
What’s about the Jewish people that have a desire to create a Jewish state that’s not colonial and/or genocidal? Because those are Zionists too.
They need to accept something every other group of people realized long ago: when assholes steal your word, you need a new word, otherwise you’ll be associated with assholes.
That’s giving a lot of leverage to assholes.
Ok? But you also think the swastika argument is ridiculous? You can’t have it both ways. Don’t give those Nazis so much leverage, rock that swastika loud and proud!
Anyone who wants to create an ethnostate is de facto bigoted.
So Palestinians too? Or Kurds? What’s with Tibetans?
You’d have a point if all the other examples you gesture to were also colonizing within the borders of other nations, the Kurds were explicitly screwed over by Sykes-Picot to purposefully set up the middle east for maximum civil unrest following the fall of the ottoman empire, likewise with Palestine, and Tibet is being invaded by Chinese colonists.
All other examples you’ve listed don’t have a bunch of pasty white New Yorker saying “my ancestors lived here 3000 years ago” and kicking people out of their homes half a globe away.
You’re really telling on yourself by putting all 4 of these situations in the category of ethnostate.
Well how do you define the term “Ethnostate” and what do you think the Palestinian cause is in contrast to that?
The Palestinian “cause”? Why don’t you start by sharing your idea of what that is?
Where? Mars?
There’s already people everywhere, they can’t just designate some patch of land and say “Jews only!” without either physically removing or exterminating the people already living there.
Jewish people have lived in the levante for literal centuries and were displaced as well. In recent history the part of land which is now Israel was under British mandate for the longest time. I don’t want to say that Palestinians have no right to claim that land but Jewish people have at least an equivalent right to claim the same land. That’s basically the whole conflict. Therefore we need a two state solution or a one state solution in the sense that Palestinians and Jewish people can peacefully live together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel
The Muslims and Christians that live in Palestine are mostly descended from the Jews that lived in the Levant, it’s not like literally everyone was expelled. There’s a reason Israel doesn’t require a DNA test to determine if someone is actually descended from people from the Levant, there’s a reason Israel has some of the highest skin cancer rates in the world (on par with other white settler colonies like Australia), and there’s a reason they pretended Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land.”
They’re white colonizers stealing land. They don’t have any right to take it, they can either become Palestinian or go back to Europe.
There were people there, and they have a right to the land. Europeans can move there and join a single multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious democracy where Jews live with everyone else. They don’t need to steal land from people already living there, they don’t get to make a nation where Jews have special rights and everyone else is second class, they don’t get to have apartheid.
Ok sure I’ll bite. How do today’s Zionists define said state? Does it include occupied Palestinian territories? Can you see how that might be an issue for the people who are being occupied?
This is like the “Civil War was fought about states’ rights and not slavery” argument. Technically true I guess but states’ rights to do WHAT exactly?
Don’t blame the world for conflating Zionism with genocide, when a large enough portion of Israelis support genocide that people like Netanyahu and Smotrich are in positions of power and are publicly calling for genocide on an almost daily basis.
The genocidal maniacs could, you know, stop genociding and support a two state solution, then maybe the exact definition of Zionism wouldn’t be a punchline for the angry goose meme.
Depends of the type of Zionism you ask. Post-Zionism wants a multi-ethnic democratic Israel, Cultural Zionism doesn’t want a nation state at all and the contemporary Liberal Zionism is roughly in favor of a two state solution, so a sovereign Palestine state as well as equal rights for Arab citizen in Israel.
And yes I blame the world for conflating Zionism with the genocidal right-wing politics of the Israeli government because it’s simply lazy and not true. There are many historical and contemporary types of Zionism and only Religious and Revisionist Zionism are what Israels government is currently pushing.
Yeah that is before they got their state, how bout now? If that’s what it is, why are they still colonising west bank and bombing gaza? This is like arguing for the white guy with a swastika, because they’re 100% not use it as a buddhism/hinduism symbol.
That’s because different types of Zionism define Israel differently. Those right wing maniacs like Netanyahu and Smotrich are Religious and Revisionist Zionists and want the racist ideal of a Greater Israel while other Zionists define the goal of a Jewish state as accomplished when Israel was first founded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_Zionism
Considering those are the type of zionism that lead the state today, and many people within it believing it, its safe to say none of the other type really exists these day, and even if it were still here, it’s very very few and far between to make any distinction.
Probably because coexistence has failed and the radical left that founded Israel has died and is replaced by radicals due to external pressures. “Allah is great. Death to America. Death to Israel. Cursed be the Jews. Victory Islam” does not bode well for coexistence.
Coexistence is never possible considering they basically hold Palestine in an open air prison for decades.
Didn’t start off that way. It was constructed due to persistent attacks on Israeli citizens. It’s a shit idea since it does not provide a pathway forward into a unified Israel/Palestine. But it didn’t manifest out of evil.
Israel’s Gaza policy is shit because it is a bunch of halve assed attempts to reduce violence while creating further systemic reasons for violence. They dug themselves in a hole. And there is no way out. Parts of the world want to see their state burn and parts of their populus suffer. That must not happen from their view. I have no idea on what to do for all pathways suggest genocide may occur. In particular after the horrific actions against the Palestinian people.
“they hate us so much, we have to genocide them!”
holy shit, you actually believe this.
What part is wrong? Israel being founded in part by a bunch of secular leftist? The Jews were enemy of the Nazis for their political opinions in part.
The sarkha does exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarkha
Modern day Israel’s majorities indicate a support for right wing politics with the extreme right being in government and saying the quiet part out loud. Such as that 30some Palestinians must die every day for some forsaken, genocidal reason.
Noted radical leftist Ben-Gurion
A leninist is usually rather left wing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism
Great argument. Of course Israel is practicing colonialism, but that doesn’t make it the necessary definition of Zionism.
Well, guess what. The definition has changed and Zionist now means “people who like Israel killing children”. That original definition is the old, inaccurate one now.
Because words are defined by how they’re used, and when self identifying Zionists are using the new definition, and everyone else is using the new definition, your “technically that’s incorrect” statement means nothing.
The meme is using the word Zionist to mean “people who like Israel killing children” and you, me, and everyone else knows it.
No, you can’t just change the definition of a word because you’re (rightfully so) angry. Especially not a word that’s mostly defined by Jewish people.
Sorry but that’s not how language works. Definitions change. You might be technically correct, but I’m this context, we know what Zionism means, and it’s not what your said it is.
see also: moot, nonplused, literally, “beg the question”, etc
also “euphemism treadmill”
Had that exact discussion a while ago. Maybe you can take something away from the comments. It absolutely made me think about how the current state (as in modus) of Israel is literally not what I support. Even though I do support the existence of a state that actively hinges itself on being a safe space for the jewish ethnicity/culture/religion.
https://feddit.org/post/35550078/14988338
Then stop supporting them by splitting hairs I guess? The guy you are responding to is a supporter of the current Israel government. Like just don’t call yourself that.
How am I a supporter of the current Israel government? Please tell me because I never said that in any fucking way.
Thanks for the rational reply. And I definitely don’t support the second definition and never said so. I just don’t like the baseless generalization of the term “Zionism” because it has more than one meaning.