4 ms·

You didn't actually answer my question. How does using the word for people who want to create a Jewish state make sense when a Jewish state has existed for 78 y

You didn't actually answer my question. How does using the word for people who want to create a Jewish state make sense when a Jewish state has existed for 78 years?

frollogaston 4mo ago
One reasonable possibility is they're referring to people like Ben-Gvir who have themselves claimed that Zionism means fighting for Israeli control over more territory like the West Bank. They're the ones calling the shots right now. I don't know whether Zionists 78 years ago would've agreed, it's possible. To some it still means favoring any existence of a Jewish state. The inertia isn't there because aside from the original partition plan being pushed by the UK, other countries have attacked Israel several times later in ways they would've have withstood without outside support.
- UltraSane 4mo ago
  "Zionism means fighting for Israeli control over more territory like the West Bank." Now that is a valid use of the term. I think the problem it that Zionism means so many different things it is nearly useless as a description. It seems more useful as a slur which has become very common in some circles. "The inertia isn't there" I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying Israel could be defeated without US assistance?
  - frollogaston 4mo ago
    I think it's valid to use the word the way that Israel's present leadership is using it. > Are you saying Israel could be defeated without US assistance? US and UK, yes. Not just cause of the weapons and money to Israel. After them, the top recipients of US foreign aid in the area are the bordering countries Egypt and Jordan, so that they don't attack.
    - UltraSane 4mo ago
      > I think it's valid to use the word the way that Israel's present leadership is using it. And how is that? Israel has a population of 10 million people and a very modern military and nuclear weapons. If it's existence was ever truly threatened things would get VERY ugly.
      - cindyllm 4mo ago
        [dead]
      - frollogaston 4mo ago
        Because that's what matters. The original Zionists aren't alive to ask what they think. Self-proclaimed Zionists are taking the West Bank and Gaza. In fact they've been kinda doing it for decades under previous governments, but more slowly. If there's some other kind of Zionism around, the most it's doing is complaining, and it's been outvoted. I have doubts about their ability to self-defend because otherwise we wouldn't be giving so much money, the situation would be stable. Even if they can severely hurt the attackers, it doesn't really matter if the attackers stop at nothing. We just lost a war against Iran despite having full air superiority and killing their leader. And especially if you're considering the scenario where Israel never got Western support, and thus never got those advanced weapons.
        UltraSane 4mo ago
        Israel actually LEFT Gaza. You seem biased to the point of just plain lying.
        tovej 4mo ago
        They did not. They're still occupying a buffer zone, have broken the ceasefire countless times, and are blocking people from crossing. Israel razed Gaza to the ground. It was a genocide.
        4mo ago
- FireBeyond 4mo ago
  Let's not forget that while some people like to point to "From the River (Jordan) to the (Red) Sea" as some "gotcha!" that some Palestians want to "exterminate" Israel... it was actually Likud's official election slogan in the 70s and 80s just as ... oh, let me check, Netanyahu, was getting involved in all of this, formally becoming Likud's leader in 1993.
  - UltraSane 4mo ago
    Then please explain in your own words what "From the River (Jordan) to the (Red) Sea" means? And the destruction of Israel is the explicit goal of Hamas as stated in their charter. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it" and called for holy war to establish an Islamic state across historic Palestine.
    - FireBeyond 4mo ago
      And surely you’ll reply with what Likud meant. Look, to be very clear: Hamas is absolutely a terrorist organization who has caused constant harm to both Israelis and the average Palestinian they purport to represent (there have been no elections since 2006, Hamas are the only people with weapons in Gaza, and the average citizen might as well be a hostage - and frankly they’d turn against Hamas a lot more if Israel didn’t steadily inflict collective punishment against them like turning off their electricity or even drinking water for days or weeks for actions of Hamas. All that is doing is making sympathizers of them).
      - UltraSane 4mo ago
        I have no idea what likud meant and don't understand why it matters.

You didn't actually answer my question. How does using the word for people who want to create a Jewish state make sense when a Jewish state has existed for 78 years?

frollogaston 4mo ago

One reasonable possibility is they're referring to people like Ben-Gvir who have themselves claimed that Zionism means fighting for Israeli control over more territory like the West Bank. They're the ones calling the shots right now. I don't know whether Zionists 78 years ago would've agreed, it's possible. To some it still means favoring any existence of a Jewish state. The inertia isn't there because aside from the original partition plan being pushed by the UK, other countries have attacked Israel several times later in ways they would've have withstood without outside support.

UltraSane 4mo ago
"Zionism means fighting for Israeli control over more territory like the West Bank." Now that is a valid use of the term. I think the problem it that Zionism means so many different things it is nearly useless as a description. It seems more useful as a slur which has become very common in some circles. "The inertia isn't there" I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying Israel could be defeated without US assistance?
- frollogaston 4mo ago
  I think it's valid to use the word the way that Israel's present leadership is using it. > Are you saying Israel could be defeated without US assistance? US and UK, yes. Not just cause of the weapons and money to Israel. After them, the top recipients of US foreign aid in the area are the bordering countries Egypt and Jordan, so that they don't attack.
  - UltraSane 4mo ago
    > I think it's valid to use the word the way that Israel's present leadership is using it. And how is that? Israel has a population of 10 million people and a very modern military and nuclear weapons. If it's existence was ever truly threatened things would get VERY ugly.
    - cindyllm 4mo ago
      [dead]
    - frollogaston 4mo ago
      Because that's what matters. The original Zionists aren't alive to ask what they think. Self-proclaimed Zionists are taking the West Bank and Gaza. In fact they've been kinda doing it for decades under previous governments, but more slowly. If there's some other kind of Zionism around, the most it's doing is complaining, and it's been outvoted. I have doubts about their ability to self-defend because otherwise we wouldn't be giving so much money, the situation would be stable. Even if they can severely hurt the attackers, it doesn't really matter if the attackers stop at nothing. We just lost a war against Iran despite having full air superiority and killing their leader. And especially if you're considering the scenario where Israel never got Western support, and thus never got those advanced weapons.
      - UltraSane 4mo ago
        Israel actually LEFT Gaza. You seem biased to the point of just plain lying.
        tovej 4mo ago
        They did not. They're still occupying a buffer zone, have broken the ceasefire countless times, and are blocking people from crossing. Israel razed Gaza to the ground. It was a genocide.
        4mo ago
FireBeyond 4mo ago
Let's not forget that while some people like to point to "From the River (Jordan) to the (Red) Sea" as some "gotcha!" that some Palestians want to "exterminate" Israel... it was actually Likud's official election slogan in the 70s and 80s just as ... oh, let me check, Netanyahu, was getting involved in all of this, formally becoming Likud's leader in 1993.
- UltraSane 4mo ago
  Then please explain in your own words what "From the River (Jordan) to the (Red) Sea" means? And the destruction of Israel is the explicit goal of Hamas as stated in their charter. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it" and called for holy war to establish an Islamic state across historic Palestine.
  - FireBeyond 4mo ago
    And surely you’ll reply with what Likud meant. Look, to be very clear: Hamas is absolutely a terrorist organization who has caused constant harm to both Israelis and the average Palestinian they purport to represent (there have been no elections since 2006, Hamas are the only people with weapons in Gaza, and the average citizen might as well be a hostage - and frankly they’d turn against Hamas a lot more if Israel didn’t steadily inflict collective punishment against them like turning off their electricity or even drinking water for days or weeks for actions of Hamas. All that is doing is making sympathizers of them).
    - UltraSane 4mo ago
      I have no idea what likud meant and don't understand why it matters.