6 ms·

You appear to have fallen victim to a similar attempt at conflation, Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native la

You appear to have fallen victim to a similar attempt at conflation, Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land of thousands of years. Being antizionism is antisemitism because it negates the right to self-determination of the Jewish people. I realize though that what you actually means is anti-Israel, or if we are being more specific, I assume anti-Israeli-far-right or anti-Israeli-right. E.g. if you are for a two-state solution you are in agreement with the Israeli center and left (mostly, but that's just going into too many details).

ethbr1 2y ago
> Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land of thousands of years. This is the definition that makes Zionism troubling. Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-Jewish person within the borders of the Jewish people's native land?
- Adverblessly 2y ago
  Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-French person within the borders of the French people's native land?
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    What's meant is that nobody would be called antisemitic for being against them if not for the fairy tale definition of a promised land.
    - Adverblessly 2y ago
      Not sure what you mean by a fairy tale definition of a promised land, we are talking about actual land that they've actually lived in for thousands of years (though naturally not all of it continuously, after the Roman exile not that many Jews were left. Though if you accept that as removing their right to live there then surely you'll have no problem with Israel doing the same to the Palestinians).
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        You're using imaginary references, there's nothing to discuss here.
      - bakuninsbart 2y ago
        > Not sure what you mean by a fairy tale definition of a promised land, we are talking about actual land that they've actually lived in for thousands of years (though naturally not all of it continuously, after the Roman exile not that many Jews were left. This is false, there's a reason for modern Palestinians and modern Jews sharing around the same genetic material with ancient Israelites, and that is conversion. The conflation of the ethnic group and the religious group is where your entire argument falls apart. What you are arguing for is not just an ethni-nationalist state, it is one steeped in religion, which is as good as any definition for fascism.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-French person within the borders of the French people's native land? Historically? Because post-revolutionary France has been a militantly-secular state. And a decent counter-example on why conflating a state with a specific ethno-religious identity is a terrible idea.
    - Adverblessly 2y ago
      I still don't follow your logic, I can't find a more charitable interpretation then you just saying that Jews are inherently murderous and the French are inherently not. Somewhat ironic as currently the average French person is probably safer in Tel Aviv than the average Jew is in Paris.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        You said "Being antizionism is antisemitism because it negates the right to self-determination of the Jewish people." To which I pointed out that unlimited rights to self-determination include justifying genocide. To which you rebutted that other countries have self-determination and avoid genocide. To which I rebutted that those other states aren't founded on ethno-religious identities.
        Adverblessly 2y ago
        So here is my understanding of your point, feel free to correct it in a clearer statement, since your point still seems incomprehensible to me. You are saying that denying the rights of Jews to self determination in their native land is not antisemitic, because Jewish identity is tied into both an ethnicity and a religion, making Jews inherent murderers and thus undeserving of a state. This is as opposed to say the French or German people, whose identity is mostly ethnic, who have a long history of peace, devoid of genocide, murder and disenfranchisement.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        Maybe you're not saying what you mean. What limits do you place on "self determination", as you define it? And I'd point out that modern France and Germany are much less religious and more religiously diverse than Israel. (Even including Israeli Muslims) But yes, historically states with high religiosity and state-entwined religions tend to be murderous: it's always a good reason for a just war.
harimau777 2y ago
Don't the Palestinians also have the right to self determinization in their native land? My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination. It is opposed to preventing Arabs living in Palestine from having self determination and/or oppossed to Israel existing as an ethnostate (since most people on the left are opposed to the concept of ethnostates).
- Adverblessly 2y ago
  > Don't the Palestinians also have the right to self determinization in their native land? Sure, in fact Israel's declaration of independence (which doesn't have an official legal status, but is considered to be the base of a future constitution for Israel) calls for peaceful co-existence with its neighbouring Arab states. It would be an interesting alternate history to observe where Israel was not attacked by all of its neighbouring Arab states, could we really have peaceful co-existence? (I'd like to think the answer is "yes"). Now if you define "Palestinian native land" as the Jewish native land that was colonized by Arabs around 1,400 years ago, then you'll have a problem since that will legitimize Jews to themselves recolonize (and regular colonize) whatever areas they please thus making it their own native land. Of course, reverting the borders to 3,000 years ago is also not practical (especially as that would revert the peace agreement with Jordan which would have to give up a substantial piece of land). That's why IMO something like a two state solution makes the most sense, maybe along the lines of the agreement that was almost signed in 2008? > My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination. No need to keep to the Roman convention of renaming Israel to Palestine. > My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination. It is opposed to preventing Arabs living in Palestine from having self determination That just sounds like you are redefining "Anti-Zionism" to mean "Pro-Palestine". Sure, under a different definition it means something else, but how is that useful? If I define "Jews" to mean "Bananas" can I say that I think Jews are disgusting because I actually mean bananas are disgusting? Anti-Zionism means exactly that, against the right for Jews for self determination in their native land. > Israel existing as an ethnostate I think this term is a bit excessively vague. Naturally the Jewish people want to live in their land of the Jewish people in much the same way that the French or Palestinian people want to live in their land of the French or Palestinian people. A right of return for the Jewish people to the land of self-determination for Jews is only natural, just as much as an emerging state of Palestine should want a right of return for Palestinians into it (it sounds like madness for Palestine to refuse Israeli Arabs from moving to it). It would also be madness to deny Israel a right to control immigration to it, especially as it is already very densely populated. That said, I agree that current policies are too extreme, and I'm generally for a much greater separation between state and religion in Israel.
AlecSchueler 2y ago
> Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land The thing is, though, it's not a right, it's their belief. They're very welcome to hold their beliefs and take democratic means to achieve their aims, but in a free and peace centred society they should not be allowed to take violent means to pursue their aims. Certainly if they want me to be happy taking financial and material support from a government that I'm supporting with my tax then they need to follow these basic ideals of respect for the other. Long story short, we can accept their belief in their promised land without accepting it as their right to take it by whatever means necessary.
- Adverblessly 2y ago
  > The thing is, though, it's not a right, it's their belief. Would you also say you have no right to live in the United States, and it is only your personal belief? If you think it is equally fictional then at least I can't fault your views for their internal consistency. > They're very welcome to hold their beliefs and take democratic means to achieve their aims, but in a free and peace centred society they should not be allowed to take violent means to pursue their aims. Are Jews prohibited from taking violent means to pursue their aims while Arabs are permitted? If not, then how do you accept Arab use of violent means to conquer and settle Israel 1,400 years ago? > Long story short, we can accept their belief in their promised land without accepting it as their right to take it by whatever means necessary. First, we aren't talking about a promised land being taken, we are talking about at land that was taken away from them and is at best being taken back. Second, you aren't required to support anyone in any endeavor. You can even be pro-Israel and pro-Zionism and still not think they deserve your financial support. But if you single out Jews as being the only people in the world that are not allowed to have a state and not allowed to live in their native land of thousands of years (especially for the reason "but the Arabs took it away from them, so it isn't theirs anymore"), then you are indeed being antisemitic.
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    > Would you also say you have no right to live in the United States, and it is only your personal belief? I'm not American so I would of course agree. But I believe I have a right to live in my current state because those rights are granted to me by the law. The distinction with Zionism is that the right for "the Jews" (i use quotes because of course this is not an homogeneous group, just as ideal) to claim, inhabit and govern Israel as their own is ordained by God. I find this as contrary to the ideals of equality and akin to totalitarianism. > But if you single out Jews as being the only people in the world that are not allowed to have a state... Wow there, that's quite a leap. I'm not saying anyone should be made stateless, only that if they're claiming to do the whole democracy thing then they need to recognise the right of their neighbours not to live by the rules of their Gods. > then you are indeed being antisemitic I would appreciate if you asked me to clarify when I was saying instead of delivering uncharitable readings, presumed arguments, and conclusions like these.
YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
>> You appear to have fallen victim to a similar attempt at conflation, Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land of thousands of years. That doesn't make sense. I am Greek and we lost our ancestral lands in Asia Minor when we were slaughtered and expelled from them by the modern Turkish nation [1]. The same thing happened to the Armenians, Cappadocian Christians and Assyrian Christians, also. And yet it is not anti-hellenic, or anti-christian, or anti-anything to deny that all those people and the Greeks have a right to return to their ancestral lands, where Turkish people now live. Resisting irredentist nationalism is not racist. __________________________ [1] The Jewish are not the only people who were kicked out of the land they lived in for thousands of years, lost their greatest city and had their greatest temple turned into a mosque: this also happened to the Greeks: Asia Minor, Constantinoupolis and Agia Sophia, were Greek for thousands of years and now they belong to the Turkish nation. If the Greeks and every other ethnic and religious group claimed their "right to self-determination in their native land of thousand years", there would be bloodshed and war without end. Greek genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide Armenian genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide Assyrian genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayfo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayfo Pontic Greek genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek_genocide About the Cappadocian Greeks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Greeks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Greeks

ethbr1 2y ago

> Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land of thousands of years. This is the definition that makes Zionism troubling. Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-Jewish person within the borders of the Jewish people's native land?

Adverblessly 2y ago
Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-French person within the borders of the French people's native land?
- meiraleal 2y ago
  What's meant is that nobody would be called antisemitic for being against them if not for the fairy tale definition of a promised land.
  - Adverblessly 2y ago
    Not sure what you mean by a fairy tale definition of a promised land, we are talking about actual land that they've actually lived in for thousands of years (though naturally not all of it continuously, after the Roman exile not that many Jews were left. Though if you accept that as removing their right to live there then surely you'll have no problem with Israel doing the same to the Palestinians).
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      You're using imaginary references, there's nothing to discuss here.
    - bakuninsbart 2y ago
      > Not sure what you mean by a fairy tale definition of a promised land, we are talking about actual land that they've actually lived in for thousands of years (though naturally not all of it continuously, after the Roman exile not that many Jews were left. This is false, there's a reason for modern Palestinians and modern Jews sharing around the same genetic material with ancient Israelites, and that is conversion. The conflation of the ethnic group and the religious group is where your entire argument falls apart. What you are arguing for is not just an ethni-nationalist state, it is one steeped in religion, which is as good as any definition for fascism.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-French person within the borders of the French people's native land? Historically? Because post-revolutionary France has been a militantly-secular state. And a decent counter-example on why conflating a state with a specific ethno-religious identity is a terrible idea.
  - Adverblessly 2y ago
    I still don't follow your logic, I can't find a more charitable interpretation then you just saying that Jews are inherently murderous and the French are inherently not. Somewhat ironic as currently the average French person is probably safer in Tel Aviv than the average Jew is in Paris.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      You said "Being antizionism is antisemitism because it negates the right to self-determination of the Jewish people." To which I pointed out that unlimited rights to self-determination include justifying genocide. To which you rebutted that other countries have self-determination and avoid genocide. To which I rebutted that those other states aren't founded on ethno-religious identities.
      - Adverblessly 2y ago
        So here is my understanding of your point, feel free to correct it in a clearer statement, since your point still seems incomprehensible to me. You are saying that denying the rights of Jews to self determination in their native land is not antisemitic, because Jewish identity is tied into both an ethnicity and a religion, making Jews inherent murderers and thus undeserving of a state. This is as opposed to say the French or German people, whose identity is mostly ethnic, who have a long history of peace, devoid of genocide, murder and disenfranchisement.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        Maybe you're not saying what you mean. What limits do you place on "self determination", as you define it? And I'd point out that modern France and Germany are much less religious and more religiously diverse than Israel. (Even including Israeli Muslims) But yes, historically states with high religiosity and state-entwined religions tend to be murderous: it's always a good reason for a just war.

harimau777 2y ago

Don't the Palestinians also have the right to self determinization in their native land? My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination. It is opposed to preventing Arabs living in Palestine from having self determination and/or oppossed to Israel existing as an ethnostate (since most people on the left are opposed to the concept of ethnostates).

Adverblessly 2y ago
> Don't the Palestinians also have the right to self determinization in their native land? Sure, in fact Israel's declaration of independence (which doesn't have an official legal status, but is considered to be the base of a future constitution for Israel) calls for peaceful co-existence with its neighbouring Arab states. It would be an interesting alternate history to observe where Israel was not attacked by all of its neighbouring Arab states, could we really have peaceful co-existence? (I'd like to think the answer is "yes"). Now if you define "Palestinian native land" as the Jewish native land that was colonized by Arabs around 1,400 years ago, then you'll have a problem since that will legitimize Jews to themselves recolonize (and regular colonize) whatever areas they please thus making it their own native land. Of course, reverting the borders to 3,000 years ago is also not practical (especially as that would revert the peace agreement with Jordan which would have to give up a substantial piece of land). That's why IMO something like a two state solution makes the most sense, maybe along the lines of the agreement that was almost signed in 2008? > My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination. No need to keep to the Roman convention of renaming Israel to Palestine. > My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination. It is opposed to preventing Arabs living in Palestine from having self determination That just sounds like you are redefining "Anti-Zionism" to mean "Pro-Palestine". Sure, under a different definition it means something else, but how is that useful? If I define "Jews" to mean "Bananas" can I say that I think Jews are disgusting because I actually mean bananas are disgusting? Anti-Zionism means exactly that, against the right for Jews for self determination in their native land. > Israel existing as an ethnostate I think this term is a bit excessively vague. Naturally the Jewish people want to live in their land of the Jewish people in much the same way that the French or Palestinian people want to live in their land of the French or Palestinian people. A right of return for the Jewish people to the land of self-determination for Jews is only natural, just as much as an emerging state of Palestine should want a right of return for Palestinians into it (it sounds like madness for Palestine to refuse Israeli Arabs from moving to it). It would also be madness to deny Israel a right to control immigration to it, especially as it is already very densely populated. That said, I agree that current policies are too extreme, and I'm generally for a much greater separation between state and religion in Israel.

AlecSchueler 2y ago

> Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land The thing is, though, it's not a right, it's their belief. They're very welcome to hold their beliefs and take democratic means to achieve their aims, but in a free and peace centred society they should not be allowed to take violent means to pursue their aims. Certainly if they want me to be happy taking financial and material support from a government that I'm supporting with my tax then they need to follow these basic ideals of respect for the other. Long story short, we can accept their belief in their promised land without accepting it as their right to take it by whatever means necessary.

Adverblessly 2y ago
> The thing is, though, it's not a right, it's their belief. Would you also say you have no right to live in the United States, and it is only your personal belief? If you think it is equally fictional then at least I can't fault your views for their internal consistency. > They're very welcome to hold their beliefs and take democratic means to achieve their aims, but in a free and peace centred society they should not be allowed to take violent means to pursue their aims. Are Jews prohibited from taking violent means to pursue their aims while Arabs are permitted? If not, then how do you accept Arab use of violent means to conquer and settle Israel 1,400 years ago? > Long story short, we can accept their belief in their promised land without accepting it as their right to take it by whatever means necessary. First, we aren't talking about a promised land being taken, we are talking about at land that was taken away from them and is at best being taken back. Second, you aren't required to support anyone in any endeavor. You can even be pro-Israel and pro-Zionism and still not think they deserve your financial support. But if you single out Jews as being the only people in the world that are not allowed to have a state and not allowed to live in their native land of thousands of years (especially for the reason "but the Arabs took it away from them, so it isn't theirs anymore"), then you are indeed being antisemitic.
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  > Would you also say you have no right to live in the United States, and it is only your personal belief? I'm not American so I would of course agree. But I believe I have a right to live in my current state because those rights are granted to me by the law. The distinction with Zionism is that the right for "the Jews" (i use quotes because of course this is not an homogeneous group, just as ideal) to claim, inhabit and govern Israel as their own is ordained by God. I find this as contrary to the ideals of equality and akin to totalitarianism. > But if you single out Jews as being the only people in the world that are not allowed to have a state... Wow there, that's quite a leap. I'm not saying anyone should be made stateless, only that if they're claiming to do the whole democracy thing then they need to recognise the right of their neighbours not to live by the rules of their Gods. > then you are indeed being antisemitic I would appreciate if you asked me to clarify when I was saying instead of delivering uncharitable readings, presumed arguments, and conclusions like these.

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago

>> You appear to have fallen victim to a similar attempt at conflation, Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land of thousands of years. That doesn't make sense. I am Greek and we lost our ancestral lands in Asia Minor when we were slaughtered and expelled from them by the modern Turkish nation [1]. The same thing happened to the Armenians, Cappadocian Christians and Assyrian Christians, also. And yet it is not anti-hellenic, or anti-christian, or anti-anything to deny that all those people and the Greeks have a right to return to their ancestral lands, where Turkish people now live. Resisting irredentist nationalism is not racist. __________________________ [1] The Jewish are not the only people who were kicked out of the land they lived in for thousands of years, lost their greatest city and had their greatest temple turned into a mosque: this also happened to the Greeks: Asia Minor, Constantinoupolis and Agia Sophia, were Greek for thousands of years and now they belong to the Turkish nation. If the Greeks and every other ethnic and religious group claimed their "right to self-determination in their native land of thousand years", there would be bloodshed and war without end. Greek genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide Armenian genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide Assyrian genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayfo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayfo Pontic Greek genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek_genocide About the Cappadocian Greeks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Greeks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Greeks