4 ms·

The situation is ripe for a new political party that isn't wed to zionism. Opposition to zionism is growing on both the left and the right, particularly among

The situation is ripe for a new political party that isn't wed to zionism. Opposition to zionism is growing on both the left and the right, particularly among young people, but neither had a party to represent this.

Qwertious 2y ago
I'm hoping that the last year or so will finally deliver a replacement for American FPTP - the Republicans are split between RINOs and MAGA devouts, and the democrats are split too between the centrist and progressives too. I don't know if it'll actually happen, but this is probably the most likely path towards it, if there is one.
- nebula8804 2y ago
  The RINOs are moving towards the welcoming arms of Democrats and the "progressives" don't have a home anywhere as they are barely even tolerated in the Democratic party.
octopoc 2y ago
Normally you'd think at least one of the parties would adapt to appeal to the younger generations. Unfortunately I think there is some truth to the idea that Israeli influence is very strong in D.C., so neither party has so much as offered an olive branch to the young.
ars 2y ago
What the heck does "Opposition to Zionism" even mean? Opposing Zionism is the same as opposing the Irish desire to have Ireland, or the Kiwi desire to have New Zealand. I suspect you don't know what Zionism is, because otherwise your message makes no sense.
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  It is the opposition to Israel as an ethnostate, which describes neither Ireland nor New Zealand.
  - ars 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand And I'm not picking on them - tons of countries are like that, and that's fine as long as they ensure equality of all citizens, which Ireland, New Zealand, and Israel have all done.
    - racional 2y ago
      The section on NZ refers to a set of racist policies that ended in the 1980s and are now thoroughly discredited. Are you sure you want to cite it as a comparator to Israel?
      - runarberg 2y ago
        Same with Norther Ireland. Parent links to policies of Northern Ireland aimed at minimizing Catholic’s political powers, including via controlling the demographics. History has shown these policies to be very wrong and very much the reason for the Troubles. Historically this region suffered from settler colonialism where Britain encourage Protestants to move into the area. If you wanted to make a comparison to anti-Zionism, then the Nationalist‘s fight for civil rights and political representation is much more apt, then Protestant hardliners wanting to keep the demographics in their favor in order for continue suppress the rights of Norther Irish Catholics. Ironically, the IRA were not afraid to use terrorism to further the nationalistic cause (similar to a certain Palestinian resistance movement), and when the British tried to defeat them militarily (including via occupation) it only made matter worse. What did work however was stopping these policies which stripped Catholics from their civil rights, and granting them a political avenue for their prospects. Turns out that if you have political means for your goals, you are less likely to use terrorism.
        racional 2y ago
        Yeah, I didn't really drill down into the Ireland section. I can pretty much only do one deeply flawed country analogy at a time.
- gslepak 2y ago
  > What the heck does "Opposition to Zionism" even mean? If I had to guess, I suspect they might mean "opposition to Zionist control of American foreign policy" rather than "opposition to Zionism".
  - ars 2y ago
    That's a weird thing to oppose considering most parties see the control running exactly the other way. The US needs Israel more than Israel needs the US.
    - racional 2y ago
      The US needs Israel It absolutely does not - and it is not anti-Israel sentiment to say so; it's just geopolitics. For the the US, Israel is optional. Meanwhile if Israel ever decides to pretend it doesn't need the US -- well, you know what would happen.
      - ars 2y ago
        > For the the US, Israel is optional. That's not really true. The reason are complicated and involve the cold war. I touched on some of the highlights here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425327 > well, you know what would happen. Nothing would happen. Israel has defended itself from multiple wars without US help, if anything Israel's enemies are weaker than they were in the past. Weirdly enough it's actually Israel's enemies that benefit from the US - without the US Israel would just do what it needed to to stay safe, and never mind if the other country is hurt. Israel would not care, because their own security comes first. With the US Israel is like "fine, we'll do the bare minimum". This is also why all those people who what the US to stop helping Israel are so incredibly foolish. If Israel felt less secure they would fight with even greater ferocity. If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure.
        racional 2y ago
        Israel has [fought] multiple wars without US help This obviously wrong, and on multiple levels. First, there's $330b of financial support since 1946. Access to advanced weapon systems since 1962. Crucial intelligence + diplomatic support in all the big wars (56/67/73); crucial munitions support, and an offer to send a large numbers of ground troops in 73. Solid and almost unquestioning diplomatic support (or acquiescence) of essentially every action Israel has taken since 67 (no matter how provocative or ultimately detrimental to its own interests), backed by the assurance of automatic UNSC veto of course. In the current operation, you've got 2 carriers parked offshore along with other assets in the region; special access to fuel depots and arms caches (that even Ukraine doesn't get); technical support from U.S. companies like Google, etc. The idea that Israel fights its wars "without US help" just ludicrous. Meanwhile, in return -- Israel just doesn't provide all that much. The U.S. supports Israel mostly for ideological regions (such as the kindling that it provides to the apocalyptic fantasies of the Christian Right) and to please other domestic political constituencies; and yes, out of a legitimate sense of moral responsibility since the Holocaust -- but not because it really needs Israel to be around (in the sense that it needs the UK, Germany, Japan, etc). It objectively needs countries like Sweden and Turkey more than it needs Israel. Completely cut off from U.S. aid -- it would survive of course, but under significantly diminished circumstances. In particular it would have to give up the Greater Israel project -- which it of course needs to do anyway, but it would have to do so much sooner, and in an abrupt, violatile way leaving it in a much less secure position than it would like to find itself shunted into. If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure. This is of course the mantra we've hearing since 67. And which brought us to the place we're in now.
- pyrale 2y ago
  I suspect above poster wrote zionism as a way to refer to neo-zionism, since people often mistakenly call nzo-zionist proponents that way. The gist of the idea is that zionism is a "dead" ideology already, since it has reached its goal of creating a state. The remaining question about it is whether Israel should adhere to post-zionism or to neo-zionism. Most people in the west opposing the current situation would probably fall in the post-zionist category if they were told about the concept.
datavirtue 2y ago
No lasting and significant opposition to Zionism will ever take root. To boil it down to a jingoist set of phrases understandable by the masses would require overt antisemitism.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << set of phrases understandable by the masses I.. think I disagree. In a sense, Trump technically laid a foundation for that with a rather clever MAGA phrase. Regardless of what you think about him, his policy or his stance on anything, he showed that there are phrases could be utilized to tap into that section with little effort and are not as easily dismissed. Now.. those could be attacked as overly nationalistic, but that is a separate discussion. << No lasting and significant opposition to Zionism will ever take root. I think I agree despite (n)'ever' being a really long time. A year is eternity in politics and this year is already pretty crazy. I honestly can't say it is impossible.

Qwertious 2y ago

I'm hoping that the last year or so will finally deliver a replacement for American FPTP - the Republicans are split between RINOs and MAGA devouts, and the democrats are split too between the centrist and progressives too. I don't know if it'll actually happen, but this is probably the most likely path towards it, if there is one.

nebula8804 2y ago
The RINOs are moving towards the welcoming arms of Democrats and the "progressives" don't have a home anywhere as they are barely even tolerated in the Democratic party.

octopoc 2y ago

Normally you'd think at least one of the parties would adapt to appeal to the younger generations. Unfortunately I think there is some truth to the idea that Israeli influence is very strong in D.C., so neither party has so much as offered an olive branch to the young.

ars 2y ago

What the heck does "Opposition to Zionism" even mean? Opposing Zionism is the same as opposing the Irish desire to have Ireland, or the Kiwi desire to have New Zealand. I suspect you don't know what Zionism is, because otherwise your message makes no sense.

jakelazaroff 2y ago
It is the opposition to Israel as an ethnostate, which describes neither Ireland nor New Zealand.
- ars 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand And I'm not picking on them - tons of countries are like that, and that's fine as long as they ensure equality of all citizens, which Ireland, New Zealand, and Israel have all done.
  - racional 2y ago
    The section on NZ refers to a set of racist policies that ended in the 1980s and are now thoroughly discredited. Are you sure you want to cite it as a comparator to Israel?
    - runarberg 2y ago
      Same with Norther Ireland. Parent links to policies of Northern Ireland aimed at minimizing Catholic’s political powers, including via controlling the demographics. History has shown these policies to be very wrong and very much the reason for the Troubles. Historically this region suffered from settler colonialism where Britain encourage Protestants to move into the area. If you wanted to make a comparison to anti-Zionism, then the Nationalist‘s fight for civil rights and political representation is much more apt, then Protestant hardliners wanting to keep the demographics in their favor in order for continue suppress the rights of Norther Irish Catholics. Ironically, the IRA were not afraid to use terrorism to further the nationalistic cause (similar to a certain Palestinian resistance movement), and when the British tried to defeat them militarily (including via occupation) it only made matter worse. What did work however was stopping these policies which stripped Catholics from their civil rights, and granting them a political avenue for their prospects. Turns out that if you have political means for your goals, you are less likely to use terrorism.
      - racional 2y ago
        Yeah, I didn't really drill down into the Ireland section. I can pretty much only do one deeply flawed country analogy at a time.
gslepak 2y ago
> What the heck does "Opposition to Zionism" even mean? If I had to guess, I suspect they might mean "opposition to Zionist control of American foreign policy" rather than "opposition to Zionism".
- ars 2y ago
  That's a weird thing to oppose considering most parties see the control running exactly the other way. The US needs Israel more than Israel needs the US.
  - racional 2y ago
    The US needs Israel It absolutely does not - and it is not anti-Israel sentiment to say so; it's just geopolitics. For the the US, Israel is optional. Meanwhile if Israel ever decides to pretend it doesn't need the US -- well, you know what would happen.
    - ars 2y ago
      > For the the US, Israel is optional. That's not really true. The reason are complicated and involve the cold war. I touched on some of the highlights here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425327 > well, you know what would happen. Nothing would happen. Israel has defended itself from multiple wars without US help, if anything Israel's enemies are weaker than they were in the past. Weirdly enough it's actually Israel's enemies that benefit from the US - without the US Israel would just do what it needed to to stay safe, and never mind if the other country is hurt. Israel would not care, because their own security comes first. With the US Israel is like "fine, we'll do the bare minimum". This is also why all those people who what the US to stop helping Israel are so incredibly foolish. If Israel felt less secure they would fight with even greater ferocity. If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure.
      - racional 2y ago
        Israel has [fought] multiple wars without US help This obviously wrong, and on multiple levels. First, there's $330b of financial support since 1946. Access to advanced weapon systems since 1962. Crucial intelligence + diplomatic support in all the big wars (56/67/73); crucial munitions support, and an offer to send a large numbers of ground troops in 73. Solid and almost unquestioning diplomatic support (or acquiescence) of essentially every action Israel has taken since 67 (no matter how provocative or ultimately detrimental to its own interests), backed by the assurance of automatic UNSC veto of course. In the current operation, you've got 2 carriers parked offshore along with other assets in the region; special access to fuel depots and arms caches (that even Ukraine doesn't get); technical support from U.S. companies like Google, etc. The idea that Israel fights its wars "without US help" just ludicrous. Meanwhile, in return -- Israel just doesn't provide all that much. The U.S. supports Israel mostly for ideological regions (such as the kindling that it provides to the apocalyptic fantasies of the Christian Right) and to please other domestic political constituencies; and yes, out of a legitimate sense of moral responsibility since the Holocaust -- but not because it really needs Israel to be around (in the sense that it needs the UK, Germany, Japan, etc). It objectively needs countries like Sweden and Turkey more than it needs Israel. Completely cut off from U.S. aid -- it would survive of course, but under significantly diminished circumstances. In particular it would have to give up the Greater Israel project -- which it of course needs to do anyway, but it would have to do so much sooner, and in an abrupt, violatile way leaving it in a much less secure position than it would like to find itself shunted into. If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure. This is of course the mantra we've hearing since 67. And which brought us to the place we're in now.
pyrale 2y ago
I suspect above poster wrote zionism as a way to refer to neo-zionism, since people often mistakenly call nzo-zionist proponents that way. The gist of the idea is that zionism is a "dead" ideology already, since it has reached its goal of creating a state. The remaining question about it is whether Israel should adhere to post-zionism or to neo-zionism. Most people in the west opposing the current situation would probably fall in the post-zionist category if they were told about the concept.

datavirtue 2y ago

No lasting and significant opposition to Zionism will ever take root. To boil it down to a jingoist set of phrases understandable by the masses would require overt antisemitism.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
<< set of phrases understandable by the masses I.. think I disagree. In a sense, Trump technically laid a foundation for that with a rather clever MAGA phrase. Regardless of what you think about him, his policy or his stance on anything, he showed that there are phrases could be utilized to tap into that section with little effort and are not as easily dismissed. Now.. those could be attacked as overly nationalistic, but that is a separate discussion. << No lasting and significant opposition to Zionism will ever take root. I think I agree despite (n)'ever' being a really long time. A year is eternity in politics and this year is already pretty crazy. I honestly can't say it is impossible.