What exactly? I agree that Israel has done mistakes. However, that’s not fault of zionism, just like Slovakia’s mistakes were not the fault of czechoslovakism
Its an ideology that has inspired an ongoing genocide for the past 75 years to start, its religious colonialism. When did slovakia do a genocide inspired/justified by a few thousand year old text?
You are calling genocide something that is not a genocide. Definitely not for 75 years. The need for the existence of Israel became mainly present after the WW2. The most logical choice of land was middle east due to the historical ties.
Yes, I agree that 1948 exodus of Palestinians was handled terribly (also from the Israel’s side) but it was a direct result the war that happened there (which was btw started by Arab nations).
Imagine a Catholic or Muslim president loudly say he identify with movement that sole purpose is to genocide people from a land and live on it.
Nonetheless, a movement that resulted in multiple miltant organization that considerd as a terrorist organization by the US and the UK. Yes the literally bombed hotels where UK officials where staying at. Then become the current IDF.
Not defending Biden because he deserves all the shit he needs to get for his stance on this issue, but this is Times of Israel afterall. Almost all Israeli news outfits have a habit of posturing as if all of America’s political leadership is behind them no questions asked, while the truth isn’t so cut and dry.
Bernie for example has been quoted by Haaretz and TOI where he is calling for Israel’s right to “defend itself”, while Bernie’s stance on Israeli support is more nuanced and comes with a bunch of strings and caveats. He’s all called out Netyanhu’s government as a terrorist/extremist regime.
Israeli media is absolute dogshit for neutrality and is straight up propaganda. Best stay away from it and take it with a grain of salt.
OK, so hear me out: anyone who is for a Two State Solution can legitimately call themselves a zionist, because one of those two states is going to be Israel.
a political movement that was originally begun in order to establish an independent state for Jewish people, and now supports the development and protection of the state of Israel
In current parlance, “zionism” has come be equated with kahanism and its variations, but that is wildly inaccurate. This is to say that Netanyahu’s and his allies’ brand of zionism is an extremist variant that threatens to subsume the whole.
But there are other brands of zionism that are peaceful and pro-palestinian. Namely: the zionism of Fatah and the PLO, who have accepted the 2 state solution.
I would even go so far as to claim that any One State Solution that envisions a pluralistic and democratic country shared in freedom and liberty between Jews, Muslims, Christians and others is also a zionist vision, as it assumes that this state would also be for the Jewish people (similar to how Canada is supposed to be also for the Quebecois people).
So, I am not sure why “zionism” should be a dirty word. Call the extremist zionists what they are: kahanists, reclaim the basic idea that zionism means that Jews also have the right to be safe in the lands of Israel-Palestine, and let’s have some peace and reconciliation.
That’s great, except it’s not how it’s actually used in either a geopolitical or casual context.
I doubt, very, very much Biden meant it that way either, because no one would ever use it that way in these circumstances without adding in your very explanation by requirement to make it clear they’re not calling for genocide.
Until Bernie Sanders the word socialism was a dirty word in American politics. Now it’s a millennial and gen Z staple and does not connotate the soviet union and other cold war ghosts.
The fact that the kahanist Zionists are almost done eating up the word zionism doesn’t mean we should let them. We need to be appropriating the word back and putting it to good use.
Conceding Zionism to the extreme right (both in and out of Israel )is just a lack of political imagination, that condemns us to stay locked in the cycle.
The word Zionism can and should be réappropriated and made a tool for peace. It has a strong emotional attachment for Jews, while the majority of Palestinian political and civil society organizations have embraced its original and literal meaning in the sense of support for a Two State Solution. This means that Zionism can be a word that means the common sense of peace, justice and reconciliation. When the PLO and Fatah stand for the common sense solution, Palestinians have won.
Call me naive but I actually think that soon there will exist a brief window where peace will be more possible than it has been for a long time. So long as Israel, currently controlled by the kahanist virus, is not allowed to carry out genocide, that is. And as much as my commie ass hates to admit It, I kinda have a bit of faith on the Americans to play a good role in this.
Socialism is still very demonized in American politics. Try to get into a position of power while describing yourself as a socialist (and I mean an actual socialist eg. ending the Cuban embargo, supporting left-wing movements across the world and advocating for the end of capitalism).
Also neither Bernie nor any democratic politician is a actually socialist, they are still very capitalist. At best they are for "capitalism with a human face)
Exactly, I’m also thinking Mercosur’s role in this conflict will be decisive! Or were you talking about the USA that has eaten up the word America?
I agree with your point though, words get eaten up all the time. It’s a very good strategy for capturing the attachment people have with the word. It’s been done with the word democracy as well.
You used a learner’s dictionary definition of the word, which is a little bit different. Learner’s dictionaries are for people who are first learning their first language, and give simple definitions using simple language. Think of it like comparing Wikipedia to Simple Wikipedia
Zionism has always had multiple different meanings, so this isn’t a new phenomenon. Humans made up every word in existence. There is no single definition for any word and there is no universal dictionary handed down by some higher power. We make up everything and write the rules ourselves. Pretending that isn’t how language works on a fundamental level is simply wrong.
Why did you use the Oxford Leaner’s Dictionary to define Zionism, as opposed to the Oxford Reference? From the Oxford Reference, emphasis mine:
A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
In the same vein, why didn’t you use wikipedia to define Zionism like you did for for kahanism? FTA on Wikipedia about Zionism, emphasis mine:
Zionism (/ˈzaɪəˌnɪzəm/; Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsīyyonūt, [tsijoˈnut]; derived from Zion) is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.
What both of these definitions point out that the one you linked did not mention is that original Zionism was about more than just the creation of a Jewish state–it was about the creation of a Jewish state in the Jewish holy land. That last bit is important-- there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict if Israel was located in Idaho.
I did not know the difference between the two types of dictionaries. I just used the last reference (#11) of the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Zionism.
But I don’t see how my argument is changed by the addition of the geographical component in the dictionary definition, which I already was assuming in my head at least. The Two State Solution is about two states in the areas that are currently Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
ITT: Copium on still voting for this senile dumbass because the alternative is a brain dead orange or in the case that he is disqualified, another senile dumbass.
The choice is a guy who is okay with participating via weapons delivery in the active slaughtering of innocents half a world a way, or a guy who wants to slaughter everyone that doesnt worshop him as god at home.
or a guy who wants to slaughter everyone that doesnt worshop him as god at home.
Oh God, spare us the performative melodrama. The only difference between Trump and any Republican president in the last half century is that Trump is crass.
What, you don’t like the scare tactics being pushed by Dems and all of his supporters? You don’t like being shamed or scared into voting for a candidate you don’t really agree with?
Dang I thought that worked well in 2016, just barely in 2020, should be great this time around, too!
Yes. Correct, the main issue is the crassness. You nerds never gave a shit about this legalise bullshit before, and W Bush literally did overthrow “American democracy” and you people adore him.
Yes I give a shit about living in a democracy believe it or not. I’m an American. You’ve lost your mind to think that’s just some pretense.
The Supreme Court sided with Bush, Trump lost 50 court challenges and still denied the results and riled up his little cult of insurrectionists who attacked the capital and now continue to believe every GOP loss is the direct result of “Demonrats” stealing more elections.
Yes I give a shit about living in a democracy believe it or not.
Well I have news for you; you don’t.
The Supreme Court sided with Bush
Famously impartial and honest political body, the US supreme court. Do you actually know what happened in 2000? Like, this isn’t disputed, Bush straight up stole an election he lost, and the fact that he did it through bullshit legal manipulation doesn’t make it batter. In fact, the fact that you think it does make it better supports my point that you only care about crassness.
“Crassness”. What a fucking joke.
Again, Trump hasn’t done anything that every Republican president in the last half century didn’t do, and he didn’t do nearly as much damage to your democracy as Bush did, but you only care about it when he’s crass about it.
And Trump did much worse than Bush yet you cite Bush as some precedent to justify Trump even though you don’t actually support that precedent to begin with…? I have my own thoughts on Bush vs Gore, but sorry if I didn’t take your bait and engage about a completely different election, I knew it would end in some nonsense distraction like this.
Not even worth arguing with you, you seem perfectly content with arguing with whatever made up anti-crass, democracy-ambivalent character you’ve concocted in your head. Have fun with that.
I have my own thoughts on Bush vs Gore, but sorry if I didn’t take your bait and engage about a completely different election, I knew it would end in some nonsense distraction like this.
Sounds like you don’t have your own thoughts about it.
Not even worth arguing with you
What, were you expecting to get paid?
At the end of the day, if Trump was just polite and followed decorum, you’d have no more problem with him than you did Bush.
timesofisrael.com
Oldest