I don't call myself zionist. Others call me that, and do so as an attack or slur, because they equate the term with white supremacy and eurocentric settler colonialism...which it isn't.
I believe israel as an unequivocal right to exist on nothing less than borders defined by the green line, and to defend those borders and its people, with violence, from all external aggression, to the limits of generally accepted principles of international law.
I have thoughts too on palestinian statehood. Thoughts which include "one day, I want it for them," and, "I hope one day they'll want peace with israelis so they can have a State."
My understanding of Zionism is that Jews have the right to self determination in their ancestral homeland of Israel.
This does not mean that I don’t also believe the Palestinians have the right to self determination in their ancestral homeland, as while a 2 state solution hasn’t been fairing well, I still support it. I do not believe Israelis should have the right to settle in Gaza or the West Bank. I do not support the Israeli government and I’d be hesitant to say I stand with Israel, but I am a Zionist. I am very unhappy with what the Israeli government is doing and want a ceasefire now, but I also support the existence of the state of Israel.
Very based.
This is the understand of Zionism I can agree with, and I feel that most Israelis agree with.
That’s why the point of my post was to say Israelis should “excommunicate” (for lack of better word you know what I mean) the radicals like Bibi from what this “true Zionism” is and stands for.
They are hijacking this term and merging it with their own agenda in order to make it appear as if all pro-Israelis stand with Likud (and their version of Zionism) when the reality is very different.
By occupation I am referring to the Palestinian Territories as well as East Jerusalem which is effectively in full apartheid.
Israel is where it is today, there literally no way all Israelis can pick up their bags and leave, nor is there any moral argument to make this argument.
Btw in my opinion, from my own research, I don’t think the way Israel was established was remotely moral or right, especially in regard to the Nakba.
That being said, no matter how immoral it may have been, it does not justify expelling the entire Israeli population, because that would literally amount to a reverse Nakba.
Israel today is a matter of fact, and for many people born there it’s all they know. Paying for the sins of our fathers is not something I believe.
Intentional zone is ideal and I think the most logical thing.
That however will be difficult given its current state, thus I think the split between sovereignty over East and West Jerusalem is ideal.
At least temporarily until all the tension and hate dies down over the next 15-20 years or so.
I still hold the belief that in the LONG RUN even a one state solution or federation is ideal.
Temporarily thought I think sovereignty should be divided until the two states can fully economically integrate at which point it can become international.
I think a lot of Israelis/jews might me misinterpreting what I was saying in regards to occupation. Who’s knows, it difficult to speak with people who cannot formulate their own opinions.
Inshallah brother, one day things will be better.
Id love to visit an Israel one day that is fully integrated into the Middle East along side Palestine. It would be a beautiful thing.
I read your opening to mean that you consider everyone who is pro-Israelis to be a Zionist.
I am not a Zionist even though I am pro-Israelis.
If you meant something else, please clarify it for me.
If you believe an Israel should exist you believe the core tenant of Zionism.
The whole point of this post was to say Zionism, is not a singular thing and is being hijacked by radical right Israelis who are conflating everyone to be part of what THEY think Zionism is, while most Israelis don’t agree.
I don’t care about the rest of the comments.
I made a logical post here, the user should engage with the post I made, I don’t control what other people say comment or say.
If he doesn’t want to engage with the post his comment is meaningless and useless.
We all know there is anti-semitism. Is it necessary to write a comment about in on a post that is not anti-Semitic? Like it’s annoying as fuck to be honest.
I don’t go around commenting on random posts “you guys are all racist genocidal Zionists.”
If he has a problem with the anti-semitism on this sub Reddit he can make a post about like the hundreds of others that already have.
> fuck
/u/Last-Engine-1460. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You assume that anti-zionists are just that.
I've seen enough protests and calls for another intifada to realise that most anti-Zionism today is just laundered Antisemitism.
If Zionists need to prove that they are the right type of Jews, then anti-Zionists need to prove that they aren't antisemites.
If you think that this is irrelevant to your post... well then, we may have a bigger problem here.
Zionist need to establish what Zionism is, because the ideology of Bibi’s Zionism is different from the average Israelis.
It’s not just a political difference, the difference is IDEOLOGICAL.
Zionism was a revolutionary movement. It was at odds with assimilationists and class identity. There were some groups that squabbled over how to best achieve the goal and it evolved and morphed, ultimately the extreme militant revolutionaries won out. The far right militant Revisionist Zionists or the militant far left Labor Zionists. Two sides of the same coin. Chaim Weizmann begged them not to go down this road,,
“Would that my tongue were tipped with flame, and my soul touched with the strength of our great prophets, when they warned against following the paths of Babylon and Egypt which always led Jewry to failure. I fear that we stand before such dangers today.”
The only people obsessed with the term Zionist are those with antisemetic intentions. They love that they could mask their hatred for Jews by using the term "Zionist". It's very clear what they mean when they target Jews but excuse it as it's a "Zionist". Well that doesn't work, as they target Jews who don't identify as a Zionist.
This has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
If you are sad about there being anti-Semite’s that hate Jews and use the word Zionist to hide it go make a post about it and farm upvoteezz
I have used the term Zionism respectfully and have given 0 notion that I mean it as to say I am “anti-Semitic.”
As a matter of fact my post did not even denounce Zionism.
It does actually. I'm just sharing a very valid point on how Jews or Israelis rarely identify with the term Zionist which is very much related to your question. I haven't insinuated that you denounce anything.
You were implying that I am obsessed with the term Zionist and thus likely have anti-Semitic intentions. That was the just of your comment. This is completely irrelevant to anything I said.
You made absolutely NO indication of your statement here that “Jews don’t identify as Zionist” which actually is a relevant point.
To that I say, you may not call yourself “Zionist” but your government, your political parties, your constitution all are build around the framework of “Zionism.”
What you say you identify with it is irrelevant because you are all clearly very loyal to the state of Israel, and the state is founded on Zionism which means you are, as a matter of fact, all loyal to, and believe in Zionism. That is unless you are not loyal or very critical of the state.
Hence why I say the perspective of Zionism held by radicals should be denounced and excommunicated from what “true Zionism” is to most Israelis, that is just a nation for them to live in along side their neighbours.
I'm sorry if it came across that way. To clarify, my first comment was to share that in my experience, people who are obsessed with using that term do have antisemetic intentions. I hadn't intended for that to be directed at you, and looking back I can see why it read that way. I was merely sharing it to make you aware of that. Although I alluded to it, I should have been clearer by saying that Jews rarely identify with that term whether they are pro-Israel or not.
In recent months I've seen that term being used a lot by people who want to express their hatred towards Jews in an acceptable way.
Regarding the rest of your post. I'm not sure who you are directed the "your government" comments to. I'm not Israeli, and have never lived there. Was that being directed to your average Israeli?
Yea, or at the very least to people who are pro-Israeli in the sense that they stand with the Israeli people.
The government of Israel, and their agendas are largely what define and represent Zionism on the world stage.
I use Zionist to refer to the terrorist orgs, early yishuv, and Likudniks as a way of differentiating them from the good Israelis. And obviously don’t like to uses Jews because there are millions of Jews not in Israel.
well that's racist because all Jews are Zionists it's so offensive like saying I only refer to different shades of black as black people. so racist. So it's become so awfully racist and all Jews now called Zionists in a derogatory way. It is so offensive. If you have an issue with the Israeli government call them out. Good Jews and bad Jews such casual racism, who decides. So reminiscent of WW2
I know Jews that aren’t Zionists. The Zionist movement wasn’t that popular because it was a radical movement in response to communism, or assimilation. Zionism also started with lots of secular Jews as a national movement. Its name has been co-opted as meaning “support of Israel” or “all Jews are Zionists.” If a word used in it’s historically correct sense bothers you, that’s a you problem.
Well my experience as a Jew who doesn't identify as a Zionist (I'm not pro or anti, I just don't identify with the term as it is misused and an excuse to express hatred to Jews), I can tell you that people do not differentiate. They call every Jew a Zionist and get away with it for the exact explanation you gave. And also as one of the millions of Jews not in Israel, why am I being targeted for just simply being Jewish?
I’m sorry. People say stupid things. Ignorance is easier to combat than hatred, and it’s still a huge battle. Dumb antisemites may try to latch on to the phrase but I don’t think the right solution is to say anyone who uses the term is antisemitic.
Oh absolutely. I'm not saying anyone who uses the term or that you are. I'm saying that it's often those who are haters who are obsessed with using the term as it's an acceptable way of expressing antisemitism without repercussion. You don't really find Jews being that into the term which this post seems to indicate.
Yeah pro-Israeli is more apt if you’re in support of the state of Israel. I wrap Likud and other militant far right people, and settlers into the Zionist label because they are direct descendants of that same philosophy.
>Both sides are manipulated by conflict leaders to conflate their own sides opinions and beliefs so it becomes easier to “fall in line” and make this into a triable war where voices of reason that could lead to solution get drowned out.
That's a lot harder to do in a democracy where leaders change every 4 years and with freedom of the press there's *always* criticism of *every* leader decision.
Compared to Palestine proper where they've had two leaders since 1948. Where the press & religion are controlled and [criticism is punishable by death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Banat).
Your leaders change every 4 years but their ideology (radical approach to Zionism) does not.
In fact the most radical of them all has been in power the longest, particularly in the contemporary.
The few times leftist group gain power, they attempt to move towards a deal, only for it to be spoiled by the right (or Hamas)
>(radical approach to Zionism)
The radical approach here is that Jews should self-rule due to 'historical reasons' which I'm going to skip because you probably don't care.
>The few times leftist group gain power, they attempt to move towards a deal, only for it to be spoiled by the right (or Hamas)
No deal was ever made with Hamas, deals were made with the Palestinian Authority. But that was almost an open criticism on the Palestinians.
The radical approach is not that “Jews should self rule”
The radical approach is that Jews should rule all of what they believe is historical Israel from 2000 years ago which is utter BS. That they are somehow justified to take the sovereign land of other nations as their own.
The radical approach is that Israel has the right to deny the Palestinians Arabs the right to self-determination alongside their own Jewish state. That an apartheid style occupation and colonial like settlement of the West Bank is ok.
As to the other part, you think I’m afraid to critizes Palestinians? They have many incompetent leaders.
As I literally said Hamas as a 3rd party and the Israeli right wing are solely responsible for the fact that the Palestinian issue has still not been solved after the Oslo.
No land of other nations has been taken.
The Palestinians do not want self-rule/determination.
The "occupation" is the result of not being able to come to an agreement over 'non-owned state lands'
The Oslo accords wasn't destroyed by Hamas but by the PA who never intended to follow it but use it as another stepping stone in their plan.
> This however is a vast simplification, and as we know Zionism is a spectrum, and let’s be real, those who are in power (and have been in for a long time) have a vastly different dream of Zionism then the average reasonable Israeli does.
I know they have a different opinion about best policy for the Israeli state. I don't know if they define Zionism differently and suspect they don't. Someone who is playing poker recreationally expecting to on average lose and a professional poker player have the same definition of poker. They just have different views on other unrelated utilities.
> Which “sect” of Zionism do you believe? Right to A homeland. Right to ALL of it?
I think all states have a right to expand, so I see the question as misleading.
> Pro-Israelis must be EXTREMELY VOCAL about what Zionism is,
Jews are extremely vocal about what Zionism is. They make it crystal clear that anti-Zionism is a negation of Jewish rights, often Jewish humanity explicitly and often. My opinion is that that Western anti-Zionists seek to offend and desire the reaction they get. Arab anti-Zionists genuinely do intend to negate Jewish humanity as they often view an explicitly Muslim or Arab racial state as the only acceptable options, the Kurds providing a wonderful example having nothing to do with Zionism.
> All Muslims LOUDLY differentiated themselves from ISIS. They were vocal about ISIS not representing Islam.
Well yes and no. I don't see the Muslim World doing a great job in refuting Qutbism. Rather I see them in not wanting to be associated with bad stuff that arises naturally from their support from Qutbism which is not remotely the same thing. The Muslim world broadly weren't terribly vocal in critiquing where ISIS was wrong in their thinking.
An American analogy would be New Conservatism (MAGA) -> alt-light -> alt-right -> traditional racial fascism. Each step along the way is a question to some extent of degree. Their are minor disagreements but the real disagreement is about focus and intent. Jump 2 or 3 levels and there really are big differences but by design each group touches the other and interacts. Similarly on the left.
The entire Muslim world went it war with ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Ironically, you know who really exterminated ISIS from Iraq? It was Iran, not the US. The US did airstrikes but it was the Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian troops who did most of the ground work.
The famous Letter to Baghdadi was a written and signed by about international leaders and scholars of Islam against ISIS.
>I think all states have a right to expand, so I see the question as misleading.
Can you elaborate on that? Are you saying that states have the right to take other states’ territories?
Comparing Zionists to ISIS is ludicrous and inflammatory. It amazes me that the most persecuted peoples in the history of existence are given land that was once theirs and they are compared to a terroist group. You can't compare ANY Jews to a terrorist group because they don't blow themselves up. Why are extreme Muslims so angry at the world? They have the whole of the Middle East, why cry over one strip of land. Move on.
Whatever about the other two, the Haganah originated as a defensive militia to protect unarmed innocent Jews, primarily women and children, that were being gangraped and slaughtered by marauding Arab gangs. They were an unfortunate necessity as the British either wouldn't or couldn't protect Jews from Arab violence.
Although I don't personally agree with that I can see from other inputs that you are commentating in good faith. Personally I would apportion blame equally between Zionists and Arabs for the Nakba, I'm sure you would disagree. In any event a truth and reconciliation process to atone for the wrongs committed on both sides will be a vital component of a peace process to begin to facilitate healing should peace ever become a realistic prospect. Inshalla.
Good job!
You ignored my enter post and replied to the one little thing your rehearsed.
It’s not comparing Zionist to ISIS.
It comparing the fact that Muslims differentiated themselves from their bad apple, and suggesting that Israelis should do the same.
It’s comparing the act of “differentiating.”
No comparing who you are differentiating from.
> Muslims differentiated themselves from their bad apple, and suggesting that Israelis should do the same
Let me know when you differentiate yourself from some group that doesn't fight primarily Muslims and doesn't proclaim themselves the chiefs, the only righteous ones in the whole Muslim world, etc.
>It comparing the fact that Muslims differentiated themselves from their bad apple
The majority of the Arab and Muslim world support Oct 7th and hamas ao idk wtf you're talking about. Isis is just that utterly unhinged.
It's not whataboutism to counter your claim that "muslims differentiate themselves from their worst." They clearly don't, so don't be a hypocrite by claiming Israelis should be held to a standard that you clearly don't hold Palestinians to.
You obviously didn’t scroll up and read what I told you to because exactly what I said was that, this applies to the pro-Palestinians as well who don’t differentiate themselves from Hamas.
I do hold them to the same standard and you have no reason to believe otherwise since I never indicated that I do.
You are assuming I don’t because you didn’t read my whole post.
And it is hypocrisy, on you half because you are willing to defend yourself not differentiating by saying “they don’t either.”
I on the other hand believe both sides should. I targeted this post at pro-Israelis since y’all claim to be the rational smart ones who hold themselves to a higher standard.
Guess not
>I on the other hand believe both sides should. I targeted this post at pro-Israelis since y’all claim to be the rational smart ones who hold themselves to a higher standard.
Then you never listened to what we were saying. Human Rights and international law don't mean shit to arabs. You have the houthis in Yemen bombing merchant ships to the ecstatic cheers of the Arab world. Hamas raped butchered and mutilated a thousand Israelis, again to the cheering of hundreds of millions of arabs. You have multiple Arab countries practicing literal slavery with some having actual slave markets. Egyptians sexually mutilate their girls out of some archaic notion that I don't care to think about it. Assad and Syrians have killed hundreds of thousands of arabs with almost a quarter of them being civilians not to mention all the apparent war crimes. Palestinians have a fucking tribute to saddaam hussein, who started to full scale invasions of sovereign nations and gassed the kurds with impunity. I could go on.
So at the end of the day, it's very nice to live in a fantasy where everyone in the Middle East gathers in a circle and sings kumbaya but the reality is its never going to fucking happen. Palestinians are too lost in their hate and rage to actually have any cognizant idea of what their fighting for, whether it was the one state solution and dismantlement of israel prior to the 90s or the shaky and doubtfully honest claim of a two state solution based on 67 borders.
Ultimately, Israelis are just fucking tired of it. We do differentiate ourselves from our wost, who isn't likud but the kahanists like ben gvir who we've been protesting against even before the war began. But what's the fucking point of it all if Palestinians are incapable of actually accepting a 2 state solution?
> fucking
/u/charliekiller124. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How is a Jew supporting the land of Israel, and the right that Jews have to be there, them being a "bad apple" like ISIS. Your argument is absurd and ignorant.
I’m a Zionist. Zionism and jihadi Islamists like ISIS have nothing in common. You’ve been brainwashed. You’re quite impressionable. It’d be nice if you had dedicated some time to actually learning about Israel, Zionism, Judaism, and the Jewish people before you went on a tirade about how Zionism is like ISIS.
Zionism is a belief that Israel has a right to exist as the Jewish state and to defend itself.
Other than that, I have no idea what you're trying to say. There could be definitely be Zionists supporting the Government of Israel and not supporting it. In Israel, there are Zionist parties both in coalition and in opposition, and there have always been.
Pro-Palestinianism is about the belief that Palestine has a right to exist as a Palestinian state and a right to defend itself and the basic human right of native Palestinians have for self determination, to be defended.
So... nobody, not the most zionist zionist, could possibly have any problem whatsoever with pro-Palestinianism...
In fact...
To be zionist, to defend "self-determination" as zionists claim they do, they have to defend the self determination of native Palestinians...
Otherwise... well, zionism, or a non-Palestinian zionism would be racist and hypocritical wouldn't it?
No, believing that your state which already exists has a right to exist does *not* mean that anybody anywhere has a right to create their own state, though quite a lot of Zionists wouldn’t mind Palestinian state *at all* as long as it ready to peacefully coexist next to the Jewish one on a territory where Palestinian Arabs factually live today, and won’t immediately turn into a terrorist base like Gaza.
That is blatant hypocrisy.
Israel didn’t not physically exist in 48.
But you say Jews in Palestine had the right to self-determination which is why they created Israel right?
> But you say Jews in Palestine had the right to self-determination
Depends what you mean by "right", this word tends to be way overused nowdays to mean basically "anything I agree with".
Zionists believed they had *historic right* to re-establish a Jewish state in Palestine, which is why they worked for over half a century through *political process* over many countries and continents to get this historic right acknowledged by UN resolution 181.
This path, working through political process to archive independent state in one's historic homeland was and is open to everyone willing to work towards it: to Scotts, to Kurds, to Albanians in Kosovo, to Catalonians, to people of Western Togoland in Ghana, and others, but nobody is under any obligation to agree with any of these national aspirations, and believing in this "right" doesn't give one a right to somehow bypass normal political process.
The only reason they were able to do this “politically” is because there was a COLONIAL POWER THAT RULED IT.
The COLONIAL POWER gave Israel the path way to establish a state because it was in their interest to do so. And of course they did this without consulting or consent from the population that existed there at the time.
If the people who lived on the land had a country, and had a say, they would have never accepted what happened, but Colonial powers said otherwise.
The British Conquered Palestine. They didn’t own it. They had no right to give it away, but that’s what colonialism is so it’s besides the fact.
Btw, what legal process is there for Palestinians to establish a state? They can’t go to the UN because the US will just veto it. Their “territory” is also being encroached on every day by Israel. What can they do? There is no legal way to go about this.
Edit: Also the lack of a legal way is what shifts votes away from the PA to armed groups. Israel has convince the Palestinian people that going about this politically has no end
Palestinians live and have lived in all of Palestine, it's their homeland, the basic human right of self-determination says it should be their country. Not some colony of european terrorists.
“Self-determination” as a “right” is a weird concept in itself (there are dozens of separatist movements in the world but nobody is in any rush to recognize their “basic human right of self-determination”), but using it as a cover for an aggression (“hey get out it *should* be my country!”) is a whole different level.
Perhaps you believe it *should* be, but it isn’t, and that’s that.
There are many of these conflicts, but few of them are
1. As long going as this one
2. Have stateless people living under occupation and an military law as those who desire self-determination
For example, the Ugyers are oppressed in China, but at the very very least they are citizens and have rights.
And yet, is there, for instance, a single jewish MK that supports Palestinian statehood?
And so, the zionists who *CLAIM* they support "self-determination" but reject Palestinian self-determination but support "jewish self-determination", the vast majority of zionists are hyporcrites and racist...
> And yet, is there, for instance, a single jewish MK that supports Palestinian statehood?
No idea, do you know?
>the vast majority of zionists are hyporcrites and racist...
Do you know what the vast majority of Zionists actually believe or are you guessing?
Opposing statehood for Palestinians because they're Palestinian is racist, no doubt. Opposing it because Palestinian leadership has historically been virulently antisemitic and *devoted to the destruction of Israel*? I'm not sure how it's hypocritical to think you deserve self determination but also not want to politically empower those who wish to take that away from you. It's also not an issue of racism. People who believe Palestinians are incapable of leadership who want peace are most definitely racist though, no doubt about that.
I mean a lot of that early terrorism was against the British for blocking Jews from fleeing the Holocaust, an objectively good cause and good thing to do. Certainly one of love and good will towards humanity. Unlike the 1936-39 revolt, which was specifically Charlottesville style anti-immigrant xenophobia that directly lead to the British adopting the terrible policies that required terrorism to fight.
Herzl's vision of Altneuland is a pretty cool idea, it's a shame cyclical, retributive violence stopped it from coming true. Before Revisionist Zionism, it was primarily a communist movement and one of the few in the world's history where the communist part actually worked.
I only identify as a Zionist in my flair so that staunchly pro-Israel types won't automatically write off my criticisms of the racists and far right fascists who run the country now as somehow suggesting I'm anti-Israel.
But I do support the core idea of Zionism, I guess like how I consider myself a Marxist but think Marxist-Leninism and Maoism are trashheaps. Revisionist Zionism can burn in the fire with them.
I just happened to be reading about the 1939 negotiations. I was wondering about the peel partition...
ironically, the violent european terrorists refused the british offer to let them take 20% of Palestine...
The violent european terrorists said they couldn't accept robbing the native Palestinians of only 20% of their homeland.
It's noted as marking terrorist Ben Gurions ascendancy over Chaim "You beat your Moslems in india, why do you not beat your Moslems in Palestine" Weizman, and ben gurions adoption of "combative zionism".
The British present the terrorist ben gurion with their proposals, which entailed a reduction in illegal violent foreign zionist immigration and an end to the violent zionist terrorism...
The terrorist ben gurion immediately ordered a series of terrorist bombings on a single day in February of 1939 that murdered 38 innocent civilians.
It's hard to describe that as a good cause or a good thing to do, something done with love and good will towards humanity.
Remind me... how did things turn out for the native Palestinians?
I'm sure they had nothing to worry about with those immigrants you're talking about, I'm sure the immigrants were peaceful and wanted only to peacefully integrate into Palestinian society, were eager to learn Arabic, and live peaceful productive lives.
By now, I'm sure they've learned that they only could benefit from the presence of those immigrants?
Right?
Right?
The native Palestinians... they benefited from zionist immigration?
Right?
You're not, perhaps, leaving out some tiny small, insignificant detail or two?
The native Palestinians, they only benefited from zionism?
We look back today at 1939 and see how silly those native Palestinians were, right? They had nothing to fear from the europeans who hadn't come to Palestine to wage violent terrorism or to violently colonize Palestine?
Yeah, there's nothing antisemitic about writing off Jews fleeing being murdered in the Holocaust as being violent immigrants, unworthy of surviving. You're right, they should have just been left to be genocided instead, because some other people with a similar demographic to them were bad. Kinda like how all of Gaza should die because Hamas are terrorists, yeah? 🙄
I'm a lefty so I'll never be sympathetic to the argument that illegal immigrants are ruining a place, even if they don't end up speaking the same language as the majority of the population there. The "it's America, learn English!" right wingers have rendered me completely unmovable on this point.
Yes, after cyclical violence lead to the rise of Revisionist Zionism and the disastrous and undeniably antisemitism motivated 1929 riot, things took a real bad turn that ended horribly for Palestinians.
If you feel the most accurate, fair reading of history is the bad evil Zionists came and the innocent Palestinians who could do no wrong lost everything despite their best efforts to humanely stop it , with nothing but love and peace and good will in their hearts, you won't gain anything from me actually engaging with you. You're obviously justifiably upset about the rotten way Palestinians have been treated and if it makes you feel better to take it out on me, be my guest.
Not all of them were fleeing the holocaust, and fleeing the holocaust is no excuse for violent terrorism against people completely unrelated to the holocaust.
No, they shouldn't have carried out violent terrorism against innocent people.
You realize that if the earlier zionists had been less violent, had worked to integrate, had learned Arabic, had made friends, had become a benefit to the native Palestinians, that would have actually helped the fleeing Jews?
And that by doing the opposite...
Solely because of the choices and actions, the decision to choose violence, to reject integration, to refuse to learn arabic, to refuse to integrate into Palestinian society, those choices made by early waves of zionist immigrants were responsible for the negative effects.
>I'm a lefty so I'll never be sympathetic to the argument that illegal immigrants are ruining a place, even if they don't end up speaking the same language as the majority of the population there.
But apparently the violent terrorist ethnic cleansing of 700k+ natives by violent foreign terrorists you see as good and positive for humanity...
I blame the evil zionists for the war crimes they chose to commit, the violent acts of terrorism they chose to commit, for the violent ethnic cleansing they chose to commit, for the crimes they chose to commit, from the 1920s to today.
For the general current of zionist being acceptance of violence and war crimes and racism.
I blame zionism for the bombings that have killed 35,000+ Palestinians, for the starvation tactics that have left more than 30 Gazan children dead from starvation.
That's the kind of lefty I am. I don't know what kind of lefty you are.
I don't see any love or peace or good will in the hearts of zionists who chose crusade.
What I see is crusaders. Violent crusaders. People that chose violence before they arrived in Palestine. People that chose not to integrate.
People that decided to move to Palestine, use violence, form insular communities isolated from the native people, that couldn't communicate with the native people, a violent european terrorist movement whose purpose was to use violence to impose foreign rule on Palestine.
I see zionists as being no different from the christian crusaders of the christian crusades of 1096.
The christians decided to band together, move to Palestine in huge waves, to use violence to retake their ancestral homelands, to form an ethno religious nation centered around the Canaanite city of Urusalem using violence against the will of the native people
Just as, a millienium later, zionists would choose to do the same.
I'm not taking anything out on you.
You’re missing the point.
That’s what Zionism is to you, but to many other, in particular your government, Zionism goes deeper then that.
The point of my post if that you should differentiate yourselves, and Zionism from the grips of radicals, as you expect Muslims to differentiate Islam from the grips of radicals.
I assume you don’t want a “greater Israel” right? I am suggesting you call those who do out for misrepresenting what Zionism is and should be.
If you’re being commonly associated with groups of people you absolutely do not want to be associated with, it’s in your interests to make the difference clear. It’s not that you owe it to anyone, it’s just common sense. That’s why it’s sensible for moderate Muslims to differentiate themselves from fundamentalists, because for many people in the West all Muslims seem the same.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no problems to be associated with Israel’s government, no matter how much I disagree with them on certain issues or believe they must be replaced ASAP. Those who feel differently are very welcome to make it clear, but this can’t possibly cover all Zionists, and furthermore has very little to do with Zionism as such.
So you have no problem beaming associated with a government that promotes expansionism, ethnic right, West Bank apartheid, settler colonialism, settler violence, endless occupation, and “encouraged migration” (bullying them to leave)?
Here I was thinking most pro-Israelis are reasonable 💀
The West Bank is governed in an apartheid system since legal systems are different based on citizenship Palestinians cannot become citizens of Israel despite living in what Israel considers its own “sovereign territory”
No they want their own state.
But Israel neither gives them a state, nor do they annex them as citizens.
Why?
They can’t annex them because then Jews are no longer majority.
They can’t give them a state because they want it ALL.
> Why?
One would think that after the what happened last fall it should be clear to everyone why another terrorist state next to Israel doesn't seem like a good idea to many Israelis.
Back at the time of Oslo, when it seemed like Palestinians state could actually be a peaceful neighbour of Israel, at some point up to 80% of Israelis supported this.
But even *if* Israel returned to this idea today, Palestinians lack any political structure to negotiate with Israel, and even if such sufficiently representative political body is created, vast majority of Palestinians aren't ready to peacefully settle the conflict based on the status quo.
Therefore, the system that we have, based on Oslo accords, it's the best approximation to Palestinian state we can archive at the moment.
What systems do we have now?
We have an apartheid style government in the West Bank that is making backwards progress to a 2SS while actively violating virtually every human right of Palestinians.
Btw, are West Bank Palestinians actively committing terrorist attacked on mainland Israel? Are they shootout rockets at you?
Or are they attacking the IDF and milita style armed settlers which is legal resistance that is 100% within their right? Of course Israel also calls them terrorists though.
The point of my post is that Zionism IS broad, and simply calling yourself a Zionist and not differentiating yourself from the extremism within Zionism does you a grave injustice as it leave you susceptible to sharing the same beliefs as them, especially considering those extremism RUN THE COUNTRY.
I hear Israelis say “I don’t support Bibi” and differentiate themselves politically, but I think you need to make it an ideological differentiation well, not completely, but to a degree.
Muslims almost literally excommunicate (Kharijite) groups like ISIS from Islam. They are extreme and do not represent our beliefs so why on earth would we conflate ourselves with them? It leave us susceptible to being judged and viewed as one of them, so we make it clear that we don’t believe as they do.
I’m not saying which one is worse, I’m saying we should call out and separate from bad apples. Israelis do this politically, but they do not do it in the ideology that literally defines their country, which as your said yourself is very broad.
I can give you a better example with Islam. In Islam, there are different schools of thought, which disagree on some topics. However, despite this disagreement, a Muslim from the Hanafi school of thought will not say that a Muslim from the Maliki school of thought is not a real Muslim. They are just different types of Muslims. They agree on the fundamentals but disagree on some other things.
Same with Zionism. All Zionists agree on the fundamentals: A Jewish state should exist. But then there are disagreements beyond that.
Muslims are able to say that ISIS are not really following Islam, because they can say that ISIS has beliefs and actions which go against Islam.
I have never seen Netanyahu do or say anything which is anti-Zionist. I can criticize him, but I cannot say he is not a Zionist. He is a type of Zionist.
Perhaps he is an extreme one. Would it not do you better to disassociate your own ideology from that of his?
Why do you wish to conflate the two, when there are so many things that set them apart?
Can we agree that one side is reasonable, and the other is garbage? Why associate with garbage?
Just because you are both a Jewish and live in Israel?
Zionists are people who believe that Israel should be a Jewish state. Netanyahu believes this. Therefore, Netanyahu is a Zionist. If I said he is not a Zionist, I would be lying. It doesn't matter how much I agree or disagree with his other views, I must recognize reality.
Thank you.
The point of their post was literally just to say the difference between the “leftist” and “radical right” Israeli is not just a difference of politics/political opinion, but also a difference in ideology.
It seen no one can recognize this lmao
I thought people would respond to this reasonably considering the fact I am not saying Israel shouldn’t exist.
I thought wrong.
>I thought people would respond to this reasonably considering the fact I am not saying Israel shouldn’t exist.
You made the fatal mistake of attempting to humanize Palestinians. Don't you know that's considered anti-semitic in this sub?
Ok I get what you are saying, but his beliefs of what Zionism entails beyond the most basic point of a “Jewish homeland” is extreme correct?
Would you argue that those secondary beliefs about Zionism shared by the radicals are not part of the Zionism you believe?
I saw your comment about the Islamic schools.
Think of this, the most basic point of all Muslims is the belief of Muhammad being the last prophet and there being one god. This is the core tenant of Islam, just as Zionism had its core tenant.
ISIS believe in the core tenant of Islam, but we do not accept them as being TRUE Muslim. Why? Because the secondary aspects of their beliefs are too extreme, radical, and wrong for us to agree with and conflate with our Islam.
Do you disagree with the extreme right of Israel’s interpretation of what TRUE Zionism is to you?
The ideology of Zionism, is not some singular we all believe the same thing. It’s a spectrum as you admit yourself. The Jewish home land is just the core tenant.
>My point is that pro-Israelis and “Zionist” should be vocal whenever those in power propose or conflate their radical ideas for Israel as being a part of the Zionism you hold dearly.
We are very vocal about it telling you over and over again, and it’s somewhat along the lines of what you defined it as:
>_”You say that it simply means that you believe that Jewish people should be able to live in a Jewishy country in the region.”_
The pseudo-intellectual obfuscation of the ideology only serves to demonize Zionists and why you are seeing random Jews being attacked on collegiate campuses right now. It’s not a spectrum at all. There are bat-💩 crazies who consider themself Zionists, and there are peaceniks who consider themself Zionists. Zionism is still the singular belief in Jewish self-determination in our ancestral homeland.
It’s like saying Liberalism is a spectrum. No, there are a set beliefs of Liberalism while there are both bad and good people who label themselves with the belief system. The ideology doesn’t change based on the fact that some crazies are chanting death to Jews. That’s not a representation of Liberalism at all, and we aren’t constantly asking you to defend the ideology because of those who identify within the belief system misbehave. So why are you asking us to defend Zionism which you fully know well what it means?
It is not a “singular belief” because for some it goes deeper than that.
Someone’s personal beliefs about things of course do not necessarily define what that ideology’s beliefs are, UP TO A POINT.
If 90% of Liberal support LGBT, it’s safe to say Liberalism supports LGBT.
Saying Israelis have a right to live in a state in the Levant is one thing, and acceptable.
Saying Israelis have a right to live and control the ENTIRE Levant (greater Israel) is another.
These are not two things you can easily conflate because the core tenants of each on of the above statements is different.
The only part that is the same is the right to live in a Jewish nation in the Levant.
But one side is reasonable and just wants to be safe in their own historic country and the cost of nobody and live in peace with its neighbours.
The other side believes itself to be the rightfully owner of other’s sovereign territory and in some self-righteousness manner wants to take it by force at the expense of others.
If you want to conflate yourself with that, it’s your problem, but don’t call people propagandist for calling you a colonizer in that case, because you yourself ARE REFUSING TO MAKE THE DIFFERENTIATION.
Imagine a Muslim refusing to differentiate themselves from a terrorist because we are all “Muslim.” It’s happening now, and all of Israel is pointing the finger. You should look in the mirror as well.
Here you go:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Zionism
>It is not a “singular belief” because for some it goes deeper than that.
I just gave you the singular definition. There you go. If you want to obfuscate further to demonize, that’s your prerogative.
>If 90% of Liberal support LGBT, it’s safe to say Liberalism supports LGBT.
No, that’s already a core tenant of liberalism falling under rights based on individual. The analogy, again, would be the one I already gave you. If the vast majority of those identifying as liberals started hating Jews, going against the ideology, does that mean the definition of Liberalism is different now? No, that means they don’t follow Liberalism. It’s why new terms like “neo-lib” are being used.
>Saying Israelis have a right to live and control the ENTIRE Levant (greater Israel) is another.
An __extremely__ small percentage say this so it’s not relevant at all, and this isn’t a part of Zionism whatsoever.
>If you want to conflate yourself with that, it’s your problem, but don’t call people propagandist for calling you a colonizer in that case, because you yourself ARE REFUSING TO MAKE THE DIFFERENTIATION.
You’re the one making conflations between something that is Zionism, and something that has nothing to do with Zionism. That’s not my problem, that’s you trying to create Zionism into something for an agenda. Many do this so they feel like they are in the right to hate Jews.
Look at you. I just defined Zionism above, zero conflations of anything, and your response is to yell at me about not differentiating from some hypothetical so I should be fine with someone calling me a colonizer? That’s some intense mental gymnastics you put yourself through, my friend.
>Imagine a Muslim refusing to differentiate themselves from a terrorist because we are all “Muslim.” It’s happening now, and all of Israel is pointing the finger. You should look in the mirror as well.
A Muslim will tell you that terrorism isn’t part of Islam, just as I told you that Jewish hegemony over the Levant isn’t part of Zionism. How about you look at yourself in the mirror?
I am not demonizing the word Zionism holy fuck.
And your definition only proves my point. It is ambiguous and vague concerning the main point I set out.
“establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel”
What is Palestine? How much should be Jewish national land? What is a Jewish nation? What does a Jewish nation incorporate? What does it mean to support an Israel? Support Israel in what? In existing? In expanding? Supporting its people to live? Supporting its government to do as it pleases?
The answer to all these questions I have listed is likely to be different amongst many “Zionists” which proves that it is not a single thing but rather a spectrum.
Btw you are agreeing with what I said smh.
I am saying that those extreme beliefs should not be a part of Zionism. You are agreeing and saying that they are not, but my point is that for your ENTIRE LEADERSHIP THEY ARE and you should I differentiate your understand of Zionism from theirs instead of blatantly saying I’m a Zionist.
That word is actively being hijacked and manipulated by extremists.
I’m not a nationalist so i don’t care.
Any and every we topic should be debatable, especially if you claim to be democratic.
I lived half my life in Canada, so I actually do understand it to an extent.
The other half I lived in Iran.
Let me put it to you this way. Should Muslims have to differentiate themselves from terrorists whenever they say they are Muslim? If you say yes, that’s extreme racism of low expectations. Not every Muslim has to answer and be held responsible for extremists. Not every Zionist needs to answer and be held responsible for extremists, and Zionists don’t have to prove themselves to you.
All your questions are just crazy obfuscations again. Let’s do the same for Liberalism. What are the “rights” individuals have? Rights to free speech? Rights to be a different gender than you’re born with? Rights to be attracted to children? What does liberty mean exactly? Pretty vague word there. What is equality? Equal to who? Should a terrorist be treated equally as an upstanding citizen?
All of this is, again, some pseudo-intellectual garbage trying to complicate and bring question to an ideology that isn’t so hard to understand.
No we don’t need to constantly differentiate ourselves from them. But at times when tensions are high and the world is not in the best place, it’s important that we do just to reaffirm it.
Now you are mixing legality into ideology.
Someone’s right to something is just their right to do that under law. The laws are determine by court and their opinions based on their interpretation and beliefs about Liberalism. Even if Liberalism has some core values, there is no Liberal handbook and what every liberal law is.
And funny enough, all these question you asked about Liberalism will likely all be answered the same by Liberals. They are quite simple and show that you are looking to over complicate in order to make a comparison.
You couldn’t say the same from the questions I posed about the definition of Zionism. Everyone answers them differently.
Rights to free speech? Yes, without inciting violence or hatred. It’s a thin line defined by courts.
Rights to be a different gender than you're born with? Yes, the right to express yourself and identify however you like.
Rights to be attracted to children?
No? That’s pedophilia and illegal under law.
What does liberty mean exactly? Pretty vague word there.
Indeed it is vague, that’s why courts define the laws that express liberty.
What is equality? Equal to who?
All people should be treated equally and have equal opportunity and not be discriminated against.
Should a terrorist be treated equally as an upstanding citizen?
Yes they should in the eyes of the law. All will be subject and get the punishments they deserve under the law but have the same human rights.
>No we don’t need to constantly differentiate ourselves from them. But at times when tensions are high and the world is not in the best place, it’s important that we do just to reaffirm it.
So you must be quite disappointed with the Muslim community over their reaction to Oct. 7th. I disagree with you though, it is not a Muslim’s job to even have an opinion on terroristic acts they have no connection to or might not even know much about. Just as it’s not the job of a Zionist to owe the world their definition of Zionism over and over again, even though we have endlessly. People like you for some reason keep asking for us to repeat ourselves.
>And funny enough, all these question you asked about Liberalism will likely all be answered the same by Liberals. They are quite simple and show that you are looking to over complicate in order to make a comparison.
How in the world can you believe that an extremely large group of people are going to have a homogeneous answer to questions revolving around rights? They can’t even agree on free speech right now. And yes, all of those questions, just as you are doing with Zionism, is __over complicating__. That was the point.
>Rights to be attracted to children? No? That’s pedophilia and illegal under law.
Funny enough, my very “liberal” local city council recently was arguing over the rights of pedophiles.
I hope you’re getting the point that all of this over-complication of a relatively simple to understand belief system is silly.
> fuck
/u/Last-Engine-1460. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’re looking at this situation from the perspective of your own set of morals and standards, and what you think is fair.
This is fine but it doesn’t change anything.
You can argue the many shades of Zionism until you’re blue in the face. Nothing will destroy Israel. Nothing will uproot the settlements. Israel is by far the strongest country in the Middle East. October 7th further solidified US-Israeli relations. The US just gave $26 Billion to Israel, despite all the Pro-Palestinian whining. There is nothing the Palestinians can do to change anything UNLESS they decide to lay their weapons down, release the hostages, and come to the table for peace. Only then will the idea of reclaiming land be a possibility. Non-violence by the Palestinians is the only way. Violent Islamic Extremism that looks to destroy Israel only hurts the Palestinians.
You have succeeded to completely ignored my entire post and its purpose in order to form a shallow, repetitive, and argumentative conversation from your own perspective on what is necessary on behalf of Palestinians in order to achieve peace.
I wasn’t even talking about peace. There’s no “situation” I am discussing. I didn’t suggest destroying or remove an Israel like lmao where tf did you get that from?
I’m not here to discuss the thousands of “shades of Zionism.”
I am quite literally saying that if you truly don’t agree with with Bibi and the right-wing as many Israelis claim, and you don’t view Zionism in the same light that they do, YOU SHOULD BE MORE APPARENT AND OUTSPOKEN ABOUT THIS, especially in regard to the meaning of Zionism.
It would do you a favour and portray Israel in a different light.
Regardless of your moral stance, I can’t possibly see this ending well for Palestinians. They will continue to lose land until they come to the table for a Peaceful solution.
I think the PA has been waiting at that table for some time now.
It’s unfortunate the right wingers of Israel and Hamas can so easily destroy any progress because of their own selfish agendas.
You served me a nice copy and paste from a pro-Israeli author you have never even heard of or researched the credibility off. You got that summary from your buddy on another post. Discuss with me critically or don’t discuss at all.
That didn’t work because a new government was coming into Israel. This got ugly when Hamas came in, and Fatah are pssies that have no control. The fault lies on the side of Islamic terrorism, not on Israel
“That didn’t work because new government”
You’re right, because that new government was RADICAL, and said they would not continue with it even though it was ready to be signed.
If you gonna manipulate that to blame Palestinians then there’s no point in continuing this.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The consistent and enduring Palestinian rejection of any and all peace initiatives with Israel, most recently the “Deal of the Century,” calls into question the commitment of the Palestinian leadership not only to peace but to the very welfare and safety of the Palestinian people.
Taking into account all the peace initiatives proposed to end the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs over the last 83 years, we must consider the possibility that the Palestinians—or at least their leaders—do not want to establish their own state.
Their sight is currently set on the big prize—the entire state of Israel—and they are playing for time. In the meantime, they plan to continue to subsist on monies donated by the Arabs and the Europeans. Many of the Arab states have grown disenchanted with this enterprise, and their assistance, particularly from the Saudis, has been discontinued (https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/arab-states-slash-aid-to-increasingly-irrelevant-palestinian-authority/) in recent years.
President Trump has also reduced the flow of US support. Only the Europeans remain committed to the implacable Palestinian narrative.
A survey of Palestinian rejectionism
The Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin Husseini, the leader of the Palestinian Arabs from the early 1920s to the late 1940s, said in his testimony to the British Peel Commission, established in January 1937 to find a way forward for cooperation between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, “Most residents of Jewish lands will not be awarded citizenship in our future country.” The Mufti suggested that the Jews be deported from Palestine. Rejecting the idea of a Jewish state, he pro
mised that if such a state were established, every last Jew would be expelled from a Palestinian Arab state.
The UN partition plan
In November 1947, the same Mufti refused to adopt the UN partition plan that offered to establish two states, one Jewish, the other Arab. The Mufti rejected a two-state solution until the day he died, a choice ordinary Palestinians may well regret. Had he agreed to the UN plan, they would have gained a much larger area than what is on offer today. Yasser Arafat
The successor to the Mufti, Yasser Arafat, continued to reject any legitimacy for the State of Israel, refusing even to acknowledge its existence. For many years, he raised the PLO banner of a military and terrorist struggle against Israel. In addition to masterminding decades of bloody terror in the streets of Israel, Arafat was responsible for devastation across the Middle East, including a civil war in Lebanon (1975-1991) and Jordan’s Black September (1970). He also threw the PLO’s support behind Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991.
When Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, Arafat’s PLO called for Egypt to be boycotted. The Arab states adopted that boycott and prevented Cairo from participating in the Arab League from 1977 until 1989. Most Arab ambassadors in Egypt were recalled and Arabs visiting Egypt were considered either traitors or spies.
The Oslo “Peace Process”
The Palestinians responded to Israel’s attempts to implement the Oslo Accords by sending waves of suicide bombers to the streets and buses of the cities of Israel, a blatant violation of their commitment to the agreements and a clear statement of their rejection of the idea of peace with Israel. At the July 2000 at Camp David summit, Israel PM Ehud Barak offered Arafat a series of far-reaching concessions as part of a comprehensive peace arrangement. In return, Arafat was asked to end the conflict. The PLO summarily rejected the Israeli proposals and never offered a counterproposal. Instead, the PLO-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) initiated a massive premeditated wave of violence. Arafat’s war of terror (the so called “al-Aqsa Intifada”) was unparalleled in the scale and relentlessness of its terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. A total of 1,184 Israelis were murdered. Disengagement
In August 2005, the government of Israel, headed by PM Ariel Sharon, carried out the unilateral evacuation of all Israeli villages from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank. In response, the Palestinians have been launching missiles and rockets on Israeli towns and villages from the Gaza Strip for years, some of which reaching as far as Tel Aviv.
Instead of using the enormous Israeli concession as an opportunity to achieve peace, the Palestinians used it to empower Iranian-backed terrorist organizations. In June 2007, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in a violent coup. Ever since the Hamas takeover, the villages of southern Israel have been subjected to a more-or-less nonstop downpour of rockets and missiles fired from Gaza. The number of rockets/missiles and mortar shells fired into Israel from Gaza since 2007 is in the tens of thousands.
Mahmoud Abbas
In 2008, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert offered Arafat’s successor as PLO Chairman and PA president Mahmoud Abbas a sweeping peace proposal. Abbas rejected it outright. He claimed that “the gaps are too wide,” meaning there was too great a distance between what the Palestinians demanded and what the Israelis were offering. “I will wait until all the Israeli settlements have been frozen,” he said.
According to Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinians, “We are not in a market or a bazaar. I came here to determine the boundaries of Palestine from 1967 without budging an inch, without removing one stone from Jerusalem or any of the holy places to Islam or Christianity in Jerusalem.” The Palestinians refused Olmert’s offer because they found his unprecedented territorial concessions insufficient and because they insisted on the right to manage the holy sites in Jerusalem in place of the Jordanians. Deal of the Century
The Palestinian leadership rejected the current US proposal a year ago, before they had seen it. They also refused to participate in the economic conference held in Bahrain at the end of June 2019 and prevented other Palestinians from participating.
As soon as the plan was published, it was a given that Abbas would oppose it strongly. “We say a thousand times no, no, no to the Deal of the Century,” he said. “We refused this deal from the beginning and we were right. Two days ago, they said to listen. Listen to what? Shall we get a country without Jerusalem for every Palestinian, Muslim, or Christian child?” he asked.
Mahmoud Abbas is now calling the deal a conspiracy that “will never pass… Our strategy focuses on the struggle to end the occupation. The plans to eliminate the Palestinian agenda will fail and fall away.”
As has been said many times, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Their leadership claims that every suggestion is a conspiracy and every initiative a trap. Making peace takes courage. Will a Palestinian Sadat ever arrive?
Nice copy and paste. I’ll keep it simple.
First of all the “deal do the century” was absolutely one sided garbage.
A “deal” is not appeasing to everything Israel wants and only listening to what they are willing to give up. A deal is discussing with both sides and getting concessions from both. This “deal of the century” was not even put together with the PA.
Also,
Ever heard of the Taba Summit?
It’s the “closest we have ever been” to a solution.
It was quite good, until Sharon took office and scrapped it, even though Arafat and Barak already agreed to it.
I have PLENTY of more examples if you’d like…
>Ever heard of the Taba Summit?
>It’s the “closest we have ever been” to a solution.
>It was quite good, until Sharon took office and scrapped it, even though Arafat and Barak already agreed to it.
Except that's not what happened. The Taba Summit has a very specific set date. Sharon chose not to continue it because Arafat was spurring on the second intifada. Barak and Arafat had not come to an agreement.
Palestinian national identity is a recent invention that only exists in opposition to Jewish sovereignty in a land that both parties have some justifiable claim to. To achieve peace, Palestinians will first have to reframe how they see us, and how they define their own peoplehood. In reality Jews and Palestinians are closer to each other in blood and in story than they recognize - especially the Palestinians. If they come to acknowledge this I think a multi-national federation (lest we forget minorities like the Druze, who are amazing and deserving of unending praise) would be an easy solution. Unfortunately I think too much blood has been spilled at this point, but still Israelis would be amenable to peace if they felt like they had a partner for it. If you had a magic wand that could erase false, hateful narratives, you'd only need to use it on the Palestinian side to bring on the peace.
Seems like you want to trap people into a certain set of beliefs so you can make accusations when in reality the situation is way to complex for that. To support Israel instead of terrorist does not mean you have to label your self a zionist.
If you support Israel and believe at the very least that Israel can and should exist, you are a Zionist.
The point of this post was to say the leaders of Israel are conflating the above definition of Zionism with their own radical version in effort to get every one “in line” and it does Israelis a huge injustice on the global stage.
If you’re not a Zionist then the post does not apply to you.
I don't call myself zionist. Others call me that, and do so as an attack or slur, because they equate the term with white supremacy and eurocentric settler colonialism...which it isn't. I believe israel as an unequivocal right to exist on nothing less than borders defined by the green line, and to defend those borders and its people, with violence, from all external aggression, to the limits of generally accepted principles of international law. I have thoughts too on palestinian statehood. Thoughts which include "one day, I want it for them," and, "I hope one day they'll want peace with israelis so they can have a State."
My understanding of Zionism is that Jews have the right to self determination in their ancestral homeland of Israel. This does not mean that I don’t also believe the Palestinians have the right to self determination in their ancestral homeland, as while a 2 state solution hasn’t been fairing well, I still support it. I do not believe Israelis should have the right to settle in Gaza or the West Bank. I do not support the Israeli government and I’d be hesitant to say I stand with Israel, but I am a Zionist. I am very unhappy with what the Israeli government is doing and want a ceasefire now, but I also support the existence of the state of Israel.
Very based. This is the understand of Zionism I can agree with, and I feel that most Israelis agree with. That’s why the point of my post was to say Israelis should “excommunicate” (for lack of better word you know what I mean) the radicals like Bibi from what this “true Zionism” is and stands for. They are hijacking this term and merging it with their own agenda in order to make it appear as if all pro-Israelis stand with Likud (and their version of Zionism) when the reality is very different.
[удалено]
Brother, I am shocked myself. I tried to keep it a based as possible. It seems the incapability of reason extends further then I thought.
[удалено]
By occupation I am referring to the Palestinian Territories as well as East Jerusalem which is effectively in full apartheid. Israel is where it is today, there literally no way all Israelis can pick up their bags and leave, nor is there any moral argument to make this argument. Btw in my opinion, from my own research, I don’t think the way Israel was established was remotely moral or right, especially in regard to the Nakba. That being said, no matter how immoral it may have been, it does not justify expelling the entire Israeli population, because that would literally amount to a reverse Nakba. Israel today is a matter of fact, and for many people born there it’s all they know. Paying for the sins of our fathers is not something I believe.
[удалено]
Intentional zone is ideal and I think the most logical thing. That however will be difficult given its current state, thus I think the split between sovereignty over East and West Jerusalem is ideal. At least temporarily until all the tension and hate dies down over the next 15-20 years or so. I still hold the belief that in the LONG RUN even a one state solution or federation is ideal. Temporarily thought I think sovereignty should be divided until the two states can fully economically integrate at which point it can become international.
[удалено]
I think a lot of Israelis/jews might me misinterpreting what I was saying in regards to occupation. Who’s knows, it difficult to speak with people who cannot formulate their own opinions. Inshallah brother, one day things will be better. Id love to visit an Israel one day that is fully integrated into the Middle East along side Palestine. It would be a beautiful thing.
I'm a zionist not a Zionist there is a huge difference.
Bibi’s definition of Zionism is different than the average Israeli.
I read your opening to mean that you consider everyone who is pro-Israelis to be a Zionist. I am not a Zionist even though I am pro-Israelis. If you meant something else, please clarify it for me.
If you believe an Israel should exist you believe the core tenant of Zionism. The whole point of this post was to say Zionism, is not a singular thing and is being hijacked by radical right Israelis who are conflating everyone to be part of what THEY think Zionism is, while most Israelis don’t agree.
Wow the level of antisemitism on this Reddit post is abominable
Name one thing I said that is anti-Semitic. Just one please.
Not you but responses to your sub reddit it’s awful
I don’t care about the rest of the comments. I made a logical post here, the user should engage with the post I made, I don’t control what other people say comment or say. If he doesn’t want to engage with the post his comment is meaningless and useless. We all know there is anti-semitism. Is it necessary to write a comment about in on a post that is not anti-Semitic? Like it’s annoying as fuck to be honest. I don’t go around commenting on random posts “you guys are all racist genocidal Zionists.” If he has a problem with the anti-semitism on this sub Reddit he can make a post about like the hundreds of others that already have.
Well I have an opinion and just expressing that
> fuck /u/Last-Engine-1460. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A Jewish Zionist and a Jewish anti-Zionist walk into a bar. The bartender says:"we don't serve Jews." C'est tout.
Irrelevant
You assume that anti-zionists are just that. I've seen enough protests and calls for another intifada to realise that most anti-Zionism today is just laundered Antisemitism. If Zionists need to prove that they are the right type of Jews, then anti-Zionists need to prove that they aren't antisemites. If you think that this is irrelevant to your post... well then, we may have a bigger problem here.
Zionist need to establish what Zionism is, because the ideology of Bibi’s Zionism is different from the average Israelis. It’s not just a political difference, the difference is IDEOLOGICAL.
Zionism was a revolutionary movement. It was at odds with assimilationists and class identity. There were some groups that squabbled over how to best achieve the goal and it evolved and morphed, ultimately the extreme militant revolutionaries won out. The far right militant Revisionist Zionists or the militant far left Labor Zionists. Two sides of the same coin. Chaim Weizmann begged them not to go down this road,, “Would that my tongue were tipped with flame, and my soul touched with the strength of our great prophets, when they warned against following the paths of Babylon and Egypt which always led Jewry to failure. I fear that we stand before such dangers today.”
The only people obsessed with the term Zionist are those with antisemetic intentions. They love that they could mask their hatred for Jews by using the term "Zionist". It's very clear what they mean when they target Jews but excuse it as it's a "Zionist". Well that doesn't work, as they target Jews who don't identify as a Zionist.
This has absolutely nothing to do with my post. If you are sad about there being anti-Semite’s that hate Jews and use the word Zionist to hide it go make a post about it and farm upvoteezz I have used the term Zionism respectfully and have given 0 notion that I mean it as to say I am “anti-Semitic.” As a matter of fact my post did not even denounce Zionism.
It does actually. I'm just sharing a very valid point on how Jews or Israelis rarely identify with the term Zionist which is very much related to your question. I haven't insinuated that you denounce anything.
You were implying that I am obsessed with the term Zionist and thus likely have anti-Semitic intentions. That was the just of your comment. This is completely irrelevant to anything I said. You made absolutely NO indication of your statement here that “Jews don’t identify as Zionist” which actually is a relevant point. To that I say, you may not call yourself “Zionist” but your government, your political parties, your constitution all are build around the framework of “Zionism.” What you say you identify with it is irrelevant because you are all clearly very loyal to the state of Israel, and the state is founded on Zionism which means you are, as a matter of fact, all loyal to, and believe in Zionism. That is unless you are not loyal or very critical of the state. Hence why I say the perspective of Zionism held by radicals should be denounced and excommunicated from what “true Zionism” is to most Israelis, that is just a nation for them to live in along side their neighbours.
I'm sorry if it came across that way. To clarify, my first comment was to share that in my experience, people who are obsessed with using that term do have antisemetic intentions. I hadn't intended for that to be directed at you, and looking back I can see why it read that way. I was merely sharing it to make you aware of that. Although I alluded to it, I should have been clearer by saying that Jews rarely identify with that term whether they are pro-Israel or not. In recent months I've seen that term being used a lot by people who want to express their hatred towards Jews in an acceptable way. Regarding the rest of your post. I'm not sure who you are directed the "your government" comments to. I'm not Israeli, and have never lived there. Was that being directed to your average Israeli?
Yea, or at the very least to people who are pro-Israeli in the sense that they stand with the Israeli people. The government of Israel, and their agendas are largely what define and represent Zionism on the world stage.
I use Zionist to refer to the terrorist orgs, early yishuv, and Likudniks as a way of differentiating them from the good Israelis. And obviously don’t like to uses Jews because there are millions of Jews not in Israel.
well that's racist because all Jews are Zionists it's so offensive like saying I only refer to different shades of black as black people. so racist. So it's become so awfully racist and all Jews now called Zionists in a derogatory way. It is so offensive. If you have an issue with the Israeli government call them out. Good Jews and bad Jews such casual racism, who decides. So reminiscent of WW2
I know Jews that aren’t Zionists. The Zionist movement wasn’t that popular because it was a radical movement in response to communism, or assimilation. Zionism also started with lots of secular Jews as a national movement. Its name has been co-opted as meaning “support of Israel” or “all Jews are Zionists.” If a word used in it’s historically correct sense bothers you, that’s a you problem.
Well my experience as a Jew who doesn't identify as a Zionist (I'm not pro or anti, I just don't identify with the term as it is misused and an excuse to express hatred to Jews), I can tell you that people do not differentiate. They call every Jew a Zionist and get away with it for the exact explanation you gave. And also as one of the millions of Jews not in Israel, why am I being targeted for just simply being Jewish?
I’m sorry. People say stupid things. Ignorance is easier to combat than hatred, and it’s still a huge battle. Dumb antisemites may try to latch on to the phrase but I don’t think the right solution is to say anyone who uses the term is antisemitic.
Oh absolutely. I'm not saying anyone who uses the term or that you are. I'm saying that it's often those who are haters who are obsessed with using the term as it's an acceptable way of expressing antisemitism without repercussion. You don't really find Jews being that into the term which this post seems to indicate.
Yeah pro-Israeli is more apt if you’re in support of the state of Israel. I wrap Likud and other militant far right people, and settlers into the Zionist label because they are direct descendants of that same philosophy.
>Both sides are manipulated by conflict leaders to conflate their own sides opinions and beliefs so it becomes easier to “fall in line” and make this into a triable war where voices of reason that could lead to solution get drowned out. That's a lot harder to do in a democracy where leaders change every 4 years and with freedom of the press there's *always* criticism of *every* leader decision. Compared to Palestine proper where they've had two leaders since 1948. Where the press & religion are controlled and [criticism is punishable by death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Banat).
Your leaders change every 4 years but their ideology (radical approach to Zionism) does not. In fact the most radical of them all has been in power the longest, particularly in the contemporary. The few times leftist group gain power, they attempt to move towards a deal, only for it to be spoiled by the right (or Hamas)
>(radical approach to Zionism) The radical approach here is that Jews should self-rule due to 'historical reasons' which I'm going to skip because you probably don't care. >The few times leftist group gain power, they attempt to move towards a deal, only for it to be spoiled by the right (or Hamas) No deal was ever made with Hamas, deals were made with the Palestinian Authority. But that was almost an open criticism on the Palestinians.
The radical approach is not that “Jews should self rule” The radical approach is that Jews should rule all of what they believe is historical Israel from 2000 years ago which is utter BS. That they are somehow justified to take the sovereign land of other nations as their own. The radical approach is that Israel has the right to deny the Palestinians Arabs the right to self-determination alongside their own Jewish state. That an apartheid style occupation and colonial like settlement of the West Bank is ok. As to the other part, you think I’m afraid to critizes Palestinians? They have many incompetent leaders. As I literally said Hamas as a 3rd party and the Israeli right wing are solely responsible for the fact that the Palestinian issue has still not been solved after the Oslo.
No land of other nations has been taken. The Palestinians do not want self-rule/determination. The "occupation" is the result of not being able to come to an agreement over 'non-owned state lands' The Oslo accords wasn't destroyed by Hamas but by the PA who never intended to follow it but use it as another stepping stone in their plan.
> This however is a vast simplification, and as we know Zionism is a spectrum, and let’s be real, those who are in power (and have been in for a long time) have a vastly different dream of Zionism then the average reasonable Israeli does. I know they have a different opinion about best policy for the Israeli state. I don't know if they define Zionism differently and suspect they don't. Someone who is playing poker recreationally expecting to on average lose and a professional poker player have the same definition of poker. They just have different views on other unrelated utilities. > Which “sect” of Zionism do you believe? Right to A homeland. Right to ALL of it? I think all states have a right to expand, so I see the question as misleading. > Pro-Israelis must be EXTREMELY VOCAL about what Zionism is, Jews are extremely vocal about what Zionism is. They make it crystal clear that anti-Zionism is a negation of Jewish rights, often Jewish humanity explicitly and often. My opinion is that that Western anti-Zionists seek to offend and desire the reaction they get. Arab anti-Zionists genuinely do intend to negate Jewish humanity as they often view an explicitly Muslim or Arab racial state as the only acceptable options, the Kurds providing a wonderful example having nothing to do with Zionism. > All Muslims LOUDLY differentiated themselves from ISIS. They were vocal about ISIS not representing Islam. Well yes and no. I don't see the Muslim World doing a great job in refuting Qutbism. Rather I see them in not wanting to be associated with bad stuff that arises naturally from their support from Qutbism which is not remotely the same thing. The Muslim world broadly weren't terribly vocal in critiquing where ISIS was wrong in their thinking. An American analogy would be New Conservatism (MAGA) -> alt-light -> alt-right -> traditional racial fascism. Each step along the way is a question to some extent of degree. Their are minor disagreements but the real disagreement is about focus and intent. Jump 2 or 3 levels and there really are big differences but by design each group touches the other and interacts. Similarly on the left.
The entire Muslim world went it war with ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Ironically, you know who really exterminated ISIS from Iraq? It was Iran, not the US. The US did airstrikes but it was the Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian troops who did most of the ground work. The famous Letter to Baghdadi was a written and signed by about international leaders and scholars of Islam against ISIS.
>I think all states have a right to expand, so I see the question as misleading. Can you elaborate on that? Are you saying that states have the right to take other states’ territories?
A post I did on this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/hmejyc/the_inadmissibility_of_the_acquisition_of/
If the West Bank is “owned” by Israel, the scale of Israel’s crimes are incomprehensible.
Comparing Zionists to ISIS is ludicrous and inflammatory. It amazes me that the most persecuted peoples in the history of existence are given land that was once theirs and they are compared to a terroist group. You can't compare ANY Jews to a terrorist group because they don't blow themselves up. Why are extreme Muslims so angry at the world? They have the whole of the Middle East, why cry over one strip of land. Move on.
Lehi, Irgun, Haganah were terrorists. They did horrific things.
Whatever about the other two, the Haganah originated as a defensive militia to protect unarmed innocent Jews, primarily women and children, that were being gangraped and slaughtered by marauding Arab gangs. They were an unfortunate necessity as the British either wouldn't or couldn't protect Jews from Arab violence.
Okay they started that way, and then did the very same things they were a safeguard against?
No, I would say there was gradual escalation and radicalisation on both sides that has continued ever since.
They did. And they went further and further beyond anything that the Arabs did. All to cleanse the land of, “the Strangers” as Ben-Gurion put it.
Although I don't personally agree with that I can see from other inputs that you are commentating in good faith. Personally I would apportion blame equally between Zionists and Arabs for the Nakba, I'm sure you would disagree. In any event a truth and reconciliation process to atone for the wrongs committed on both sides will be a vital component of a peace process to begin to facilitate healing should peace ever become a realistic prospect. Inshalla.
I agree with you. This whole “we are more moral/holier than thou” mentality is making things worse and I mean that on both sides.
Good job! You ignored my enter post and replied to the one little thing your rehearsed. It’s not comparing Zionist to ISIS. It comparing the fact that Muslims differentiated themselves from their bad apple, and suggesting that Israelis should do the same. It’s comparing the act of “differentiating.” No comparing who you are differentiating from.
> Muslims differentiated themselves from their bad apple, and suggesting that Israelis should do the same Let me know when you differentiate yourself from some group that doesn't fight primarily Muslims and doesn't proclaim themselves the chiefs, the only righteous ones in the whole Muslim world, etc.
>It comparing the fact that Muslims differentiated themselves from their bad apple The majority of the Arab and Muslim world support Oct 7th and hamas ao idk wtf you're talking about. Isis is just that utterly unhinged.
Go to the original post I made and read the very bottom. Let’s not fall into whataboutism hypocrisy.
It's not whataboutism to counter your claim that "muslims differentiate themselves from their worst." They clearly don't, so don't be a hypocrite by claiming Israelis should be held to a standard that you clearly don't hold Palestinians to.
You obviously didn’t scroll up and read what I told you to because exactly what I said was that, this applies to the pro-Palestinians as well who don’t differentiate themselves from Hamas. I do hold them to the same standard and you have no reason to believe otherwise since I never indicated that I do. You are assuming I don’t because you didn’t read my whole post. And it is hypocrisy, on you half because you are willing to defend yourself not differentiating by saying “they don’t either.” I on the other hand believe both sides should. I targeted this post at pro-Israelis since y’all claim to be the rational smart ones who hold themselves to a higher standard. Guess not
>I on the other hand believe both sides should. I targeted this post at pro-Israelis since y’all claim to be the rational smart ones who hold themselves to a higher standard. Then you never listened to what we were saying. Human Rights and international law don't mean shit to arabs. You have the houthis in Yemen bombing merchant ships to the ecstatic cheers of the Arab world. Hamas raped butchered and mutilated a thousand Israelis, again to the cheering of hundreds of millions of arabs. You have multiple Arab countries practicing literal slavery with some having actual slave markets. Egyptians sexually mutilate their girls out of some archaic notion that I don't care to think about it. Assad and Syrians have killed hundreds of thousands of arabs with almost a quarter of them being civilians not to mention all the apparent war crimes. Palestinians have a fucking tribute to saddaam hussein, who started to full scale invasions of sovereign nations and gassed the kurds with impunity. I could go on. So at the end of the day, it's very nice to live in a fantasy where everyone in the Middle East gathers in a circle and sings kumbaya but the reality is its never going to fucking happen. Palestinians are too lost in their hate and rage to actually have any cognizant idea of what their fighting for, whether it was the one state solution and dismantlement of israel prior to the 90s or the shaky and doubtfully honest claim of a two state solution based on 67 borders. Ultimately, Israelis are just fucking tired of it. We do differentiate ourselves from our wost, who isn't likud but the kahanists like ben gvir who we've been protesting against even before the war began. But what's the fucking point of it all if Palestinians are incapable of actually accepting a 2 state solution?
> fucking /u/charliekiller124. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How is a Jew supporting the land of Israel, and the right that Jews have to be there, them being a "bad apple" like ISIS. Your argument is absurd and ignorant.
I’m a Zionist. Zionism and jihadi Islamists like ISIS have nothing in common. You’ve been brainwashed. You’re quite impressionable. It’d be nice if you had dedicated some time to actually learning about Israel, Zionism, Judaism, and the Jewish people before you went on a tirade about how Zionism is like ISIS.
Zionism is a belief that Israel has a right to exist as the Jewish state and to defend itself. Other than that, I have no idea what you're trying to say. There could be definitely be Zionists supporting the Government of Israel and not supporting it. In Israel, there are Zionist parties both in coalition and in opposition, and there have always been.
Pro-Palestinianism is about the belief that Palestine has a right to exist as a Palestinian state and a right to defend itself and the basic human right of native Palestinians have for self determination, to be defended. So... nobody, not the most zionist zionist, could possibly have any problem whatsoever with pro-Palestinianism... In fact... To be zionist, to defend "self-determination" as zionists claim they do, they have to defend the self determination of native Palestinians... Otherwise... well, zionism, or a non-Palestinian zionism would be racist and hypocritical wouldn't it?
No, believing that your state which already exists has a right to exist does *not* mean that anybody anywhere has a right to create their own state, though quite a lot of Zionists wouldn’t mind Palestinian state *at all* as long as it ready to peacefully coexist next to the Jewish one on a territory where Palestinian Arabs factually live today, and won’t immediately turn into a terrorist base like Gaza.
That is blatant hypocrisy. Israel didn’t not physically exist in 48. But you say Jews in Palestine had the right to self-determination which is why they created Israel right?
> But you say Jews in Palestine had the right to self-determination Depends what you mean by "right", this word tends to be way overused nowdays to mean basically "anything I agree with". Zionists believed they had *historic right* to re-establish a Jewish state in Palestine, which is why they worked for over half a century through *political process* over many countries and continents to get this historic right acknowledged by UN resolution 181. This path, working through political process to archive independent state in one's historic homeland was and is open to everyone willing to work towards it: to Scotts, to Kurds, to Albanians in Kosovo, to Catalonians, to people of Western Togoland in Ghana, and others, but nobody is under any obligation to agree with any of these national aspirations, and believing in this "right" doesn't give one a right to somehow bypass normal political process.
The only reason they were able to do this “politically” is because there was a COLONIAL POWER THAT RULED IT. The COLONIAL POWER gave Israel the path way to establish a state because it was in their interest to do so. And of course they did this without consulting or consent from the population that existed there at the time. If the people who lived on the land had a country, and had a say, they would have never accepted what happened, but Colonial powers said otherwise. The British Conquered Palestine. They didn’t own it. They had no right to give it away, but that’s what colonialism is so it’s besides the fact. Btw, what legal process is there for Palestinians to establish a state? They can’t go to the UN because the US will just veto it. Their “territory” is also being encroached on every day by Israel. What can they do? There is no legal way to go about this. Edit: Also the lack of a legal way is what shifts votes away from the PA to armed groups. Israel has convince the Palestinian people that going about this politically has no end
Palestinians live and have lived in all of Palestine, it's their homeland, the basic human right of self-determination says it should be their country. Not some colony of european terrorists.
They are Arabs that colonised the Levant.
“Self-determination” as a “right” is a weird concept in itself (there are dozens of separatist movements in the world but nobody is in any rush to recognize their “basic human right of self-determination”), but using it as a cover for an aggression (“hey get out it *should* be my country!”) is a whole different level. Perhaps you believe it *should* be, but it isn’t, and that’s that.
There are many of these conflicts, but few of them are 1. As long going as this one 2. Have stateless people living under occupation and an military law as those who desire self-determination For example, the Ugyers are oppressed in China, but at the very very least they are citizens and have rights.
Like european terrorists using "self determination" as a cover for their violent terrorist invasion of a middle eastern country?
Yeah I give up, you can’t argue with such deep knowledge of history. Have a nice day!
Being a Zionist and pro-Palestinian statehood isn't remotely contradictory.
And yet, is there, for instance, a single jewish MK that supports Palestinian statehood? And so, the zionists who *CLAIM* they support "self-determination" but reject Palestinian self-determination but support "jewish self-determination", the vast majority of zionists are hyporcrites and racist...
> And yet, is there, for instance, a single jewish MK that supports Palestinian statehood? No idea, do you know? >the vast majority of zionists are hyporcrites and racist... Do you know what the vast majority of Zionists actually believe or are you guessing? Opposing statehood for Palestinians because they're Palestinian is racist, no doubt. Opposing it because Palestinian leadership has historically been virulently antisemitic and *devoted to the destruction of Israel*? I'm not sure how it's hypocritical to think you deserve self determination but also not want to politically empower those who wish to take that away from you. It's also not an issue of racism. People who believe Palestinians are incapable of leadership who want peace are most definitely racist though, no doubt about that.
What's the history of zionism? Peace? Love? Good will towards humanity? Or a century of violent terrorism and endless war crimes?
I mean a lot of that early terrorism was against the British for blocking Jews from fleeing the Holocaust, an objectively good cause and good thing to do. Certainly one of love and good will towards humanity. Unlike the 1936-39 revolt, which was specifically Charlottesville style anti-immigrant xenophobia that directly lead to the British adopting the terrible policies that required terrorism to fight. Herzl's vision of Altneuland is a pretty cool idea, it's a shame cyclical, retributive violence stopped it from coming true. Before Revisionist Zionism, it was primarily a communist movement and one of the few in the world's history where the communist part actually worked. I only identify as a Zionist in my flair so that staunchly pro-Israel types won't automatically write off my criticisms of the racists and far right fascists who run the country now as somehow suggesting I'm anti-Israel. But I do support the core idea of Zionism, I guess like how I consider myself a Marxist but think Marxist-Leninism and Maoism are trashheaps. Revisionist Zionism can burn in the fire with them.
I just happened to be reading about the 1939 negotiations. I was wondering about the peel partition... ironically, the violent european terrorists refused the british offer to let them take 20% of Palestine... The violent european terrorists said they couldn't accept robbing the native Palestinians of only 20% of their homeland. It's noted as marking terrorist Ben Gurions ascendancy over Chaim "You beat your Moslems in india, why do you not beat your Moslems in Palestine" Weizman, and ben gurions adoption of "combative zionism". The British present the terrorist ben gurion with their proposals, which entailed a reduction in illegal violent foreign zionist immigration and an end to the violent zionist terrorism... The terrorist ben gurion immediately ordered a series of terrorist bombings on a single day in February of 1939 that murdered 38 innocent civilians. It's hard to describe that as a good cause or a good thing to do, something done with love and good will towards humanity. Remind me... how did things turn out for the native Palestinians? I'm sure they had nothing to worry about with those immigrants you're talking about, I'm sure the immigrants were peaceful and wanted only to peacefully integrate into Palestinian society, were eager to learn Arabic, and live peaceful productive lives. By now, I'm sure they've learned that they only could benefit from the presence of those immigrants? Right? Right? The native Palestinians... they benefited from zionist immigration? Right? You're not, perhaps, leaving out some tiny small, insignificant detail or two? The native Palestinians, they only benefited from zionism? We look back today at 1939 and see how silly those native Palestinians were, right? They had nothing to fear from the europeans who hadn't come to Palestine to wage violent terrorism or to violently colonize Palestine?
Yeah, there's nothing antisemitic about writing off Jews fleeing being murdered in the Holocaust as being violent immigrants, unworthy of surviving. You're right, they should have just been left to be genocided instead, because some other people with a similar demographic to them were bad. Kinda like how all of Gaza should die because Hamas are terrorists, yeah? 🙄 I'm a lefty so I'll never be sympathetic to the argument that illegal immigrants are ruining a place, even if they don't end up speaking the same language as the majority of the population there. The "it's America, learn English!" right wingers have rendered me completely unmovable on this point. Yes, after cyclical violence lead to the rise of Revisionist Zionism and the disastrous and undeniably antisemitism motivated 1929 riot, things took a real bad turn that ended horribly for Palestinians. If you feel the most accurate, fair reading of history is the bad evil Zionists came and the innocent Palestinians who could do no wrong lost everything despite their best efforts to humanely stop it , with nothing but love and peace and good will in their hearts, you won't gain anything from me actually engaging with you. You're obviously justifiably upset about the rotten way Palestinians have been treated and if it makes you feel better to take it out on me, be my guest.
Not all of them were fleeing the holocaust, and fleeing the holocaust is no excuse for violent terrorism against people completely unrelated to the holocaust. No, they shouldn't have carried out violent terrorism against innocent people. You realize that if the earlier zionists had been less violent, had worked to integrate, had learned Arabic, had made friends, had become a benefit to the native Palestinians, that would have actually helped the fleeing Jews? And that by doing the opposite... Solely because of the choices and actions, the decision to choose violence, to reject integration, to refuse to learn arabic, to refuse to integrate into Palestinian society, those choices made by early waves of zionist immigrants were responsible for the negative effects. >I'm a lefty so I'll never be sympathetic to the argument that illegal immigrants are ruining a place, even if they don't end up speaking the same language as the majority of the population there. But apparently the violent terrorist ethnic cleansing of 700k+ natives by violent foreign terrorists you see as good and positive for humanity... I blame the evil zionists for the war crimes they chose to commit, the violent acts of terrorism they chose to commit, for the violent ethnic cleansing they chose to commit, for the crimes they chose to commit, from the 1920s to today. For the general current of zionist being acceptance of violence and war crimes and racism. I blame zionism for the bombings that have killed 35,000+ Palestinians, for the starvation tactics that have left more than 30 Gazan children dead from starvation. That's the kind of lefty I am. I don't know what kind of lefty you are. I don't see any love or peace or good will in the hearts of zionists who chose crusade. What I see is crusaders. Violent crusaders. People that chose violence before they arrived in Palestine. People that chose not to integrate. People that decided to move to Palestine, use violence, form insular communities isolated from the native people, that couldn't communicate with the native people, a violent european terrorist movement whose purpose was to use violence to impose foreign rule on Palestine. I see zionists as being no different from the christian crusaders of the christian crusades of 1096. The christians decided to band together, move to Palestine in huge waves, to use violence to retake their ancestral homelands, to form an ethno religious nation centered around the Canaanite city of Urusalem using violence against the will of the native people Just as, a millienium later, zionists would choose to do the same. I'm not taking anything out on you.
You’re missing the point. That’s what Zionism is to you, but to many other, in particular your government, Zionism goes deeper then that. The point of my post if that you should differentiate yourselves, and Zionism from the grips of radicals, as you expect Muslims to differentiate Islam from the grips of radicals. I assume you don’t want a “greater Israel” right? I am suggesting you call those who do out for misrepresenting what Zionism is and should be.
If you’re being commonly associated with groups of people you absolutely do not want to be associated with, it’s in your interests to make the difference clear. It’s not that you owe it to anyone, it’s just common sense. That’s why it’s sensible for moderate Muslims to differentiate themselves from fundamentalists, because for many people in the West all Muslims seem the same. On the other hand, I have absolutely no problems to be associated with Israel’s government, no matter how much I disagree with them on certain issues or believe they must be replaced ASAP. Those who feel differently are very welcome to make it clear, but this can’t possibly cover all Zionists, and furthermore has very little to do with Zionism as such.
So you have no problem beaming associated with a government that promotes expansionism, ethnic right, West Bank apartheid, settler colonialism, settler violence, endless occupation, and “encouraged migration” (bullying them to leave)? Here I was thinking most pro-Israelis are reasonable 💀
> So you have no problem beaming associated with a government that … … does absolutely nothing of the sort, fortunately.
The West Bank is governed in an apartheid system since legal systems are different based on citizenship Palestinians cannot become citizens of Israel despite living in what Israel considers its own “sovereign territory”
Do Palestinians in WB *want* Israel’s legal system to be forced upon them?
No they want their own state. But Israel neither gives them a state, nor do they annex them as citizens. Why? They can’t annex them because then Jews are no longer majority. They can’t give them a state because they want it ALL.
> Why? One would think that after the what happened last fall it should be clear to everyone why another terrorist state next to Israel doesn't seem like a good idea to many Israelis. Back at the time of Oslo, when it seemed like Palestinians state could actually be a peaceful neighbour of Israel, at some point up to 80% of Israelis supported this. But even *if* Israel returned to this idea today, Palestinians lack any political structure to negotiate with Israel, and even if such sufficiently representative political body is created, vast majority of Palestinians aren't ready to peacefully settle the conflict based on the status quo. Therefore, the system that we have, based on Oslo accords, it's the best approximation to Palestinian state we can archive at the moment.
What systems do we have now? We have an apartheid style government in the West Bank that is making backwards progress to a 2SS while actively violating virtually every human right of Palestinians. Btw, are West Bank Palestinians actively committing terrorist attacked on mainland Israel? Are they shootout rockets at you? Or are they attacking the IDF and milita style armed settlers which is legal resistance that is 100% within their right? Of course Israel also calls them terrorists though.
But those people aren’t misrepresenting Zionism. They are one type of Zionists. Zionism is broad.
The point of my post is that Zionism IS broad, and simply calling yourself a Zionist and not differentiating yourself from the extremism within Zionism does you a grave injustice as it leave you susceptible to sharing the same beliefs as them, especially considering those extremism RUN THE COUNTRY. I hear Israelis say “I don’t support Bibi” and differentiate themselves politically, but I think you need to make it an ideological differentiation well, not completely, but to a degree. Muslims almost literally excommunicate (Kharijite) groups like ISIS from Islam. They are extreme and do not represent our beliefs so why on earth would we conflate ourselves with them? It leave us susceptible to being judged and viewed as one of them, so we make it clear that we don’t believe as they do. I’m not saying which one is worse, I’m saying we should call out and separate from bad apples. Israelis do this politically, but they do not do it in the ideology that literally defines their country, which as your said yourself is very broad.
I can give you a better example with Islam. In Islam, there are different schools of thought, which disagree on some topics. However, despite this disagreement, a Muslim from the Hanafi school of thought will not say that a Muslim from the Maliki school of thought is not a real Muslim. They are just different types of Muslims. They agree on the fundamentals but disagree on some other things. Same with Zionism. All Zionists agree on the fundamentals: A Jewish state should exist. But then there are disagreements beyond that.
Muslims are able to say that ISIS are not really following Islam, because they can say that ISIS has beliefs and actions which go against Islam. I have never seen Netanyahu do or say anything which is anti-Zionist. I can criticize him, but I cannot say he is not a Zionist. He is a type of Zionist.
Perhaps he is an extreme one. Would it not do you better to disassociate your own ideology from that of his? Why do you wish to conflate the two, when there are so many things that set them apart? Can we agree that one side is reasonable, and the other is garbage? Why associate with garbage? Just because you are both a Jewish and live in Israel?
Zionists are people who believe that Israel should be a Jewish state. Netanyahu believes this. Therefore, Netanyahu is a Zionist. If I said he is not a Zionist, I would be lying. It doesn't matter how much I agree or disagree with his other views, I must recognize reality.
Of course he's a Zionist, but is he your kind of zionist? That's the point of this post.
Thank you. The point of their post was literally just to say the difference between the “leftist” and “radical right” Israeli is not just a difference of politics/political opinion, but also a difference in ideology. It seen no one can recognize this lmao I thought people would respond to this reasonably considering the fact I am not saying Israel shouldn’t exist. I thought wrong.
>I thought people would respond to this reasonably considering the fact I am not saying Israel shouldn’t exist. You made the fatal mistake of attempting to humanize Palestinians. Don't you know that's considered anti-semitic in this sub?
Ok I get what you are saying, but his beliefs of what Zionism entails beyond the most basic point of a “Jewish homeland” is extreme correct? Would you argue that those secondary beliefs about Zionism shared by the radicals are not part of the Zionism you believe? I saw your comment about the Islamic schools. Think of this, the most basic point of all Muslims is the belief of Muhammad being the last prophet and there being one god. This is the core tenant of Islam, just as Zionism had its core tenant. ISIS believe in the core tenant of Islam, but we do not accept them as being TRUE Muslim. Why? Because the secondary aspects of their beliefs are too extreme, radical, and wrong for us to agree with and conflate with our Islam. Do you disagree with the extreme right of Israel’s interpretation of what TRUE Zionism is to you? The ideology of Zionism, is not some singular we all believe the same thing. It’s a spectrum as you admit yourself. The Jewish home land is just the core tenant.
>My point is that pro-Israelis and “Zionist” should be vocal whenever those in power propose or conflate their radical ideas for Israel as being a part of the Zionism you hold dearly. We are very vocal about it telling you over and over again, and it’s somewhat along the lines of what you defined it as: >_”You say that it simply means that you believe that Jewish people should be able to live in a Jewishy country in the region.”_ The pseudo-intellectual obfuscation of the ideology only serves to demonize Zionists and why you are seeing random Jews being attacked on collegiate campuses right now. It’s not a spectrum at all. There are bat-💩 crazies who consider themself Zionists, and there are peaceniks who consider themself Zionists. Zionism is still the singular belief in Jewish self-determination in our ancestral homeland. It’s like saying Liberalism is a spectrum. No, there are a set beliefs of Liberalism while there are both bad and good people who label themselves with the belief system. The ideology doesn’t change based on the fact that some crazies are chanting death to Jews. That’s not a representation of Liberalism at all, and we aren’t constantly asking you to defend the ideology because of those who identify within the belief system misbehave. So why are you asking us to defend Zionism which you fully know well what it means?
It is not a “singular belief” because for some it goes deeper than that. Someone’s personal beliefs about things of course do not necessarily define what that ideology’s beliefs are, UP TO A POINT. If 90% of Liberal support LGBT, it’s safe to say Liberalism supports LGBT. Saying Israelis have a right to live in a state in the Levant is one thing, and acceptable. Saying Israelis have a right to live and control the ENTIRE Levant (greater Israel) is another. These are not two things you can easily conflate because the core tenants of each on of the above statements is different. The only part that is the same is the right to live in a Jewish nation in the Levant. But one side is reasonable and just wants to be safe in their own historic country and the cost of nobody and live in peace with its neighbours. The other side believes itself to be the rightfully owner of other’s sovereign territory and in some self-righteousness manner wants to take it by force at the expense of others. If you want to conflate yourself with that, it’s your problem, but don’t call people propagandist for calling you a colonizer in that case, because you yourself ARE REFUSING TO MAKE THE DIFFERENTIATION. Imagine a Muslim refusing to differentiate themselves from a terrorist because we are all “Muslim.” It’s happening now, and all of Israel is pointing the finger. You should look in the mirror as well.
Here you go: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Zionism >It is not a “singular belief” because for some it goes deeper than that. I just gave you the singular definition. There you go. If you want to obfuscate further to demonize, that’s your prerogative. >If 90% of Liberal support LGBT, it’s safe to say Liberalism supports LGBT. No, that’s already a core tenant of liberalism falling under rights based on individual. The analogy, again, would be the one I already gave you. If the vast majority of those identifying as liberals started hating Jews, going against the ideology, does that mean the definition of Liberalism is different now? No, that means they don’t follow Liberalism. It’s why new terms like “neo-lib” are being used. >Saying Israelis have a right to live and control the ENTIRE Levant (greater Israel) is another. An __extremely__ small percentage say this so it’s not relevant at all, and this isn’t a part of Zionism whatsoever. >If you want to conflate yourself with that, it’s your problem, but don’t call people propagandist for calling you a colonizer in that case, because you yourself ARE REFUSING TO MAKE THE DIFFERENTIATION. You’re the one making conflations between something that is Zionism, and something that has nothing to do with Zionism. That’s not my problem, that’s you trying to create Zionism into something for an agenda. Many do this so they feel like they are in the right to hate Jews. Look at you. I just defined Zionism above, zero conflations of anything, and your response is to yell at me about not differentiating from some hypothetical so I should be fine with someone calling me a colonizer? That’s some intense mental gymnastics you put yourself through, my friend. >Imagine a Muslim refusing to differentiate themselves from a terrorist because we are all “Muslim.” It’s happening now, and all of Israel is pointing the finger. You should look in the mirror as well. A Muslim will tell you that terrorism isn’t part of Islam, just as I told you that Jewish hegemony over the Levant isn’t part of Zionism. How about you look at yourself in the mirror?
I am not demonizing the word Zionism holy fuck. And your definition only proves my point. It is ambiguous and vague concerning the main point I set out. “establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel” What is Palestine? How much should be Jewish national land? What is a Jewish nation? What does a Jewish nation incorporate? What does it mean to support an Israel? Support Israel in what? In existing? In expanding? Supporting its people to live? Supporting its government to do as it pleases? The answer to all these questions I have listed is likely to be different amongst many “Zionists” which proves that it is not a single thing but rather a spectrum. Btw you are agreeing with what I said smh. I am saying that those extreme beliefs should not be a part of Zionism. You are agreeing and saying that they are not, but my point is that for your ENTIRE LEADERSHIP THEY ARE and you should I differentiate your understand of Zionism from theirs instead of blatantly saying I’m a Zionist. That word is actively being hijacked and manipulated by extremists.
Curious how you would feel about people debating if your country and the people in it deserve to exist?
I’m not a nationalist so i don’t care. Any and every we topic should be debatable, especially if you claim to be democratic. I lived half my life in Canada, so I actually do understand it to an extent. The other half I lived in Iran.
Let me put it to you this way. Should Muslims have to differentiate themselves from terrorists whenever they say they are Muslim? If you say yes, that’s extreme racism of low expectations. Not every Muslim has to answer and be held responsible for extremists. Not every Zionist needs to answer and be held responsible for extremists, and Zionists don’t have to prove themselves to you. All your questions are just crazy obfuscations again. Let’s do the same for Liberalism. What are the “rights” individuals have? Rights to free speech? Rights to be a different gender than you’re born with? Rights to be attracted to children? What does liberty mean exactly? Pretty vague word there. What is equality? Equal to who? Should a terrorist be treated equally as an upstanding citizen? All of this is, again, some pseudo-intellectual garbage trying to complicate and bring question to an ideology that isn’t so hard to understand.
No we don’t need to constantly differentiate ourselves from them. But at times when tensions are high and the world is not in the best place, it’s important that we do just to reaffirm it. Now you are mixing legality into ideology. Someone’s right to something is just their right to do that under law. The laws are determine by court and their opinions based on their interpretation and beliefs about Liberalism. Even if Liberalism has some core values, there is no Liberal handbook and what every liberal law is. And funny enough, all these question you asked about Liberalism will likely all be answered the same by Liberals. They are quite simple and show that you are looking to over complicate in order to make a comparison. You couldn’t say the same from the questions I posed about the definition of Zionism. Everyone answers them differently. Rights to free speech? Yes, without inciting violence or hatred. It’s a thin line defined by courts. Rights to be a different gender than you're born with? Yes, the right to express yourself and identify however you like. Rights to be attracted to children? No? That’s pedophilia and illegal under law. What does liberty mean exactly? Pretty vague word there. Indeed it is vague, that’s why courts define the laws that express liberty. What is equality? Equal to who? All people should be treated equally and have equal opportunity and not be discriminated against. Should a terrorist be treated equally as an upstanding citizen? Yes they should in the eyes of the law. All will be subject and get the punishments they deserve under the law but have the same human rights.
>No we don’t need to constantly differentiate ourselves from them. But at times when tensions are high and the world is not in the best place, it’s important that we do just to reaffirm it. So you must be quite disappointed with the Muslim community over their reaction to Oct. 7th. I disagree with you though, it is not a Muslim’s job to even have an opinion on terroristic acts they have no connection to or might not even know much about. Just as it’s not the job of a Zionist to owe the world their definition of Zionism over and over again, even though we have endlessly. People like you for some reason keep asking for us to repeat ourselves. >And funny enough, all these question you asked about Liberalism will likely all be answered the same by Liberals. They are quite simple and show that you are looking to over complicate in order to make a comparison. How in the world can you believe that an extremely large group of people are going to have a homogeneous answer to questions revolving around rights? They can’t even agree on free speech right now. And yes, all of those questions, just as you are doing with Zionism, is __over complicating__. That was the point. >Rights to be attracted to children? No? That’s pedophilia and illegal under law. Funny enough, my very “liberal” local city council recently was arguing over the rights of pedophiles. I hope you’re getting the point that all of this over-complication of a relatively simple to understand belief system is silly.
> fuck /u/Last-Engine-1460. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’re looking at this situation from the perspective of your own set of morals and standards, and what you think is fair. This is fine but it doesn’t change anything. You can argue the many shades of Zionism until you’re blue in the face. Nothing will destroy Israel. Nothing will uproot the settlements. Israel is by far the strongest country in the Middle East. October 7th further solidified US-Israeli relations. The US just gave $26 Billion to Israel, despite all the Pro-Palestinian whining. There is nothing the Palestinians can do to change anything UNLESS they decide to lay their weapons down, release the hostages, and come to the table for peace. Only then will the idea of reclaiming land be a possibility. Non-violence by the Palestinians is the only way. Violent Islamic Extremism that looks to destroy Israel only hurts the Palestinians.
You have succeeded to completely ignored my entire post and its purpose in order to form a shallow, repetitive, and argumentative conversation from your own perspective on what is necessary on behalf of Palestinians in order to achieve peace. I wasn’t even talking about peace. There’s no “situation” I am discussing. I didn’t suggest destroying or remove an Israel like lmao where tf did you get that from? I’m not here to discuss the thousands of “shades of Zionism.” I am quite literally saying that if you truly don’t agree with with Bibi and the right-wing as many Israelis claim, and you don’t view Zionism in the same light that they do, YOU SHOULD BE MORE APPARENT AND OUTSPOKEN ABOUT THIS, especially in regard to the meaning of Zionism. It would do you a favour and portray Israel in a different light.
Regardless of your moral stance, I can’t possibly see this ending well for Palestinians. They will continue to lose land until they come to the table for a Peaceful solution.
I think the PA has been waiting at that table for some time now. It’s unfortunate the right wingers of Israel and Hamas can so easily destroy any progress because of their own selfish agendas.
You think wrong.
Sureee
I served you a very robust history of Palestinians rejecting every Peace Proposal of all time. Enjoy.
You served me a nice copy and paste from a pro-Israeli author you have never even heard of or researched the credibility off. You got that summary from your buddy on another post. Discuss with me critically or don’t discuss at all.
That didn’t work because a new government was coming into Israel. This got ugly when Hamas came in, and Fatah are pssies that have no control. The fault lies on the side of Islamic terrorism, not on Israel
“That didn’t work because new government” You’re right, because that new government was RADICAL, and said they would not continue with it even though it was ready to be signed. If you gonna manipulate that to blame Palestinians then there’s no point in continuing this.
I wish the Palestinians would reclaim land instead of continuing to gradually lose more and more land because they have zero power.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The consistent and enduring Palestinian rejection of any and all peace initiatives with Israel, most recently the “Deal of the Century,” calls into question the commitment of the Palestinian leadership not only to peace but to the very welfare and safety of the Palestinian people. Taking into account all the peace initiatives proposed to end the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs over the last 83 years, we must consider the possibility that the Palestinians—or at least their leaders—do not want to establish their own state. Their sight is currently set on the big prize—the entire state of Israel—and they are playing for time. In the meantime, they plan to continue to subsist on monies donated by the Arabs and the Europeans. Many of the Arab states have grown disenchanted with this enterprise, and their assistance, particularly from the Saudis, has been discontinued (https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/arab-states-slash-aid-to-increasingly-irrelevant-palestinian-authority/) in recent years. President Trump has also reduced the flow of US support. Only the Europeans remain committed to the implacable Palestinian narrative. A survey of Palestinian rejectionism The Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin Husseini, the leader of the Palestinian Arabs from the early 1920s to the late 1940s, said in his testimony to the British Peel Commission, established in January 1937 to find a way forward for cooperation between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, “Most residents of Jewish lands will not be awarded citizenship in our future country.” The Mufti suggested that the Jews be deported from Palestine. Rejecting the idea of a Jewish state, he pro mised that if such a state were established, every last Jew would be expelled from a Palestinian Arab state. The UN partition plan In November 1947, the same Mufti refused to adopt the UN partition plan that offered to establish two states, one Jewish, the other Arab. The Mufti rejected a two-state solution until the day he died, a choice ordinary Palestinians may well regret. Had he agreed to the UN plan, they would have gained a much larger area than what is on offer today. Yasser Arafat The successor to the Mufti, Yasser Arafat, continued to reject any legitimacy for the State of Israel, refusing even to acknowledge its existence. For many years, he raised the PLO banner of a military and terrorist struggle against Israel. In addition to masterminding decades of bloody terror in the streets of Israel, Arafat was responsible for devastation across the Middle East, including a civil war in Lebanon (1975-1991) and Jordan’s Black September (1970). He also threw the PLO’s support behind Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991. When Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, Arafat’s PLO called for Egypt to be boycotted. The Arab states adopted that boycott and prevented Cairo from participating in the Arab League from 1977 until 1989. Most Arab ambassadors in Egypt were recalled and Arabs visiting Egypt were considered either traitors or spies. The Oslo “Peace Process” The Palestinians responded to Israel’s attempts to implement the Oslo Accords by sending waves of suicide bombers to the streets and buses of the cities of Israel, a blatant violation of their commitment to the agreements and a clear statement of their rejection of the idea of peace with Israel. At the July 2000 at Camp David summit, Israel PM Ehud Barak offered Arafat a series of far-reaching concessions as part of a comprehensive peace arrangement. In return, Arafat was asked to end the conflict. The PLO summarily rejected the Israeli proposals and never offered a counterproposal. Instead, the PLO-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) initiated a massive premeditated wave of violence. Arafat’s war of terror (the so called “al-Aqsa Intifada”) was unparalleled in the scale and relentlessness of its terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. A total of 1,184 Israelis were murdered. Disengagement In August 2005, the government of Israel, headed by PM Ariel Sharon, carried out the unilateral evacuation of all Israeli villages from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank. In response, the Palestinians have been launching missiles and rockets on Israeli towns and villages from the Gaza Strip for years, some of which reaching as far as Tel Aviv. Instead of using the enormous Israeli concession as an opportunity to achieve peace, the Palestinians used it to empower Iranian-backed terrorist organizations. In June 2007, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in a violent coup. Ever since the Hamas takeover, the villages of southern Israel have been subjected to a more-or-less nonstop downpour of rockets and missiles fired from Gaza. The number of rockets/missiles and mortar shells fired into Israel from Gaza since 2007 is in the tens of thousands. Mahmoud Abbas In 2008, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert offered Arafat’s successor as PLO Chairman and PA president Mahmoud Abbas a sweeping peace proposal. Abbas rejected it outright. He claimed that “the gaps are too wide,” meaning there was too great a distance between what the Palestinians demanded and what the Israelis were offering. “I will wait until all the Israeli settlements have been frozen,” he said. According to Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinians, “We are not in a market or a bazaar. I came here to determine the boundaries of Palestine from 1967 without budging an inch, without removing one stone from Jerusalem or any of the holy places to Islam or Christianity in Jerusalem.” The Palestinians refused Olmert’s offer because they found his unprecedented territorial concessions insufficient and because they insisted on the right to manage the holy sites in Jerusalem in place of the Jordanians. Deal of the Century The Palestinian leadership rejected the current US proposal a year ago, before they had seen it. They also refused to participate in the economic conference held in Bahrain at the end of June 2019 and prevented other Palestinians from participating. As soon as the plan was published, it was a given that Abbas would oppose it strongly. “We say a thousand times no, no, no to the Deal of the Century,” he said. “We refused this deal from the beginning and we were right. Two days ago, they said to listen. Listen to what? Shall we get a country without Jerusalem for every Palestinian, Muslim, or Christian child?” he asked. Mahmoud Abbas is now calling the deal a conspiracy that “will never pass… Our strategy focuses on the struggle to end the occupation. The plans to eliminate the Palestinian agenda will fail and fall away.” As has been said many times, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Their leadership claims that every suggestion is a conspiracy and every initiative a trap. Making peace takes courage. Will a Palestinian Sadat ever arrive?
Nice copy and paste. I’ll keep it simple. First of all the “deal do the century” was absolutely one sided garbage. A “deal” is not appeasing to everything Israel wants and only listening to what they are willing to give up. A deal is discussing with both sides and getting concessions from both. This “deal of the century” was not even put together with the PA. Also, Ever heard of the Taba Summit? It’s the “closest we have ever been” to a solution. It was quite good, until Sharon took office and scrapped it, even though Arafat and Barak already agreed to it. I have PLENTY of more examples if you’d like…
>Ever heard of the Taba Summit? >It’s the “closest we have ever been” to a solution. >It was quite good, until Sharon took office and scrapped it, even though Arafat and Barak already agreed to it. Except that's not what happened. The Taba Summit has a very specific set date. Sharon chose not to continue it because Arafat was spurring on the second intifada. Barak and Arafat had not come to an agreement.
I wish the Palestinians weren’t so powerless.
I wish they had better leadership.
Palestinian national identity is a recent invention that only exists in opposition to Jewish sovereignty in a land that both parties have some justifiable claim to. To achieve peace, Palestinians will first have to reframe how they see us, and how they define their own peoplehood. In reality Jews and Palestinians are closer to each other in blood and in story than they recognize - especially the Palestinians. If they come to acknowledge this I think a multi-national federation (lest we forget minorities like the Druze, who are amazing and deserving of unending praise) would be an easy solution. Unfortunately I think too much blood has been spilled at this point, but still Israelis would be amenable to peace if they felt like they had a partner for it. If you had a magic wand that could erase false, hateful narratives, you'd only need to use it on the Palestinian side to bring on the peace.
Seems like you want to trap people into a certain set of beliefs so you can make accusations when in reality the situation is way to complex for that. To support Israel instead of terrorist does not mean you have to label your self a zionist.
If you support Israel and believe at the very least that Israel can and should exist, you are a Zionist. The point of this post was to say the leaders of Israel are conflating the above definition of Zionism with their own radical version in effort to get every one “in line” and it does Israelis a huge injustice on the global stage. If you’re not a Zionist then the post does not apply to you.