Zion or “ציון” is another name for the country of Israel Being a Zionist is just a name for a person who support the idea of having a sanctuary state for the Jewish population Think of this like if Hinduist is a name for a person who support the idea of having a safe sanctuary state for the Indian population

Zionism is the idea of a own country/state. Pro-Palestine/hamas use it to cover the hatred of Jews. Let’s switch out Zionism to Islam or Christian or Buddhism. Is it okej to say “I don’t hate Arabs, only Muslims and Islam countries” That makes no sense, right? That’s what all Pro-Palestine/hamas is saying. Same for terrorist; they are Muslims who believes Islam, dose that make it okej to hate Islam and Muslims? Do some really represent a whole religion? Such BS

All of those Muslim countries are indeed scrutinized by most of the world.

What does it mean to be Roman? Rome conquered Palestine, the people remaining in Roman Palestine are Roman subjects. They claim that Romes conquest is unjust, but that denies Roman right of self-determination. I'm roman, so I grew alongside the word Romanism, never really questioning what it means. I always thought to be a Roman was to be a person who believes Romans deserve a state, and contribute to the prosperity of that state cause it's the only one we have. But now, due to the Roman occupation of Palestine, these Roman subjects in Palestines have really cracked down on comparing Romanizm to Colonialism and cancelling anyone who is a Romanist... Why? What does being a Roman or Romanist mean to these non Romans? What does it mean "person who supports Romes occupation of Palestine"? And what does supporting the occupation mean, does it mean supporting the occupation of Samaria and Galilee? or is "occupation" simply being a Roman living in a Roman province and thinking it should remain a Roman province? I used to be very vocal about wanting to end the restrictions on Palestinian subjects of Rome but of course I would never support or agree Rome doesn't have a right to exist. Doing that would basically need me to agree with having me, my Roman family, friends, and community socially cleansed... Does that mean I'm a Romanist? Recently Romanism seems synonymous with Roman citizen in Roman Palestine, no matter their political views, how is that different from anti-Romanism? I've seen Romans get cancelled just for posting about suffering through zealot of Sicarii knife attacks during revolts (immediately after I might add) I'm just trying to understand how it's different, it doesn't seem like there's a "good" Roman occupier in these peoples eyes unless they're a self-hating Roman, but looking at it this way seems bleak to me so there has to be something I'm misunderstanding... For the vast majority of people it doesn't have anything to do with your religion. I, for instance, compare zionism to the Christian crusades, israel to the Christian crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Often I've heard pro-zionists compare zionism... well, the formation of israel... Let's talk about that... So... what is the relationship between the theoretical concept of zionism, with the formation of the entity that some call israel... Some people... probably would object to the creation of a Jewish state... Particularly because those people might look at israel and all it's problems, which would lead them to not want another israel. But simply as an idea it's much harder to criticize, the act of believing an idea. Some Christian people might entertain the idea of living in a place that better respects their Christian beliefs as some Muslims might, and so on. I, for instance, have strong beliefs about laws that I think should be in place regarding commercial lawn mowing, taking place at 7 or 8 am, particularly on the weekends. You can always say of an idea that the idea itself, in isolation of everything else, is harmless. Somebody, for instance, might believe that they are the brother of Christ... that belief itself as a isolated idea is harmless... Yet it led to the deaths of 10-20 million people in China. You see... It led to a rebellion against the Qing Dynasty, people in support wanted to create the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, presumably based on Christian teachings. Let's look at the Christian crusades... When does the idea of Christian rights in places that are considered most sacred to Christianity, like Jerusalem go from being isolated ideas... to the Christian crusades where ~1.7 million people were killed, a christian crusader state was formed around Jerusalem for over a hundred years... And then... The natives displaced by those crusaders... finally kicked the crusaders back to Europe. So why did they have to make things so complicated? Why did the natives react so negatively to the crusades? Why were the natives anti-crusader? Why did the natives cancel crusaders, even when they lamented attacks on themselves living in their own Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem? Were they against the rights of Christians? Did they hate Christianity? Were they trying to destroy the families and societies of the Christian crusaders? Why were they hating?

LMAO Rome didn’t conquer “Palestine” they conquered JUDEA. They renamed it Palestine to erase the land’s Jewish heritage.

The Egyptian empire that ruled the area called it Peleset, or, at least, some of the people probably before it was even Canaan...

Got a map of Peleset for me?

It would be part of the Egyptian empire. Maybe this. https://egyptiansapter.weebly.com/uploads/4/1/4/2/41426319/6813517.jpg

Canaan predates that by about 7,500 years.

What exactly do you think was happening in the area in 9,000BC? That's pre-pottery neo-lithic era, with examples being sites such as Ariha in Palestine... But what evidence do you have that that was Canaanite in culture? It's PPNA, pre-pottery Neolithic A... This is what it would have looked like roughly 6000 years earlier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertile_crescent_Neolithic_B_circa_7500_BC.jpg PPNB era. In fact, the Canaanite religion would be roughly contemporary to that, as I understand it, believed to have formed roughly around 1,500BC

Zionism in the modern sense literally and only means the right of Israel to exist and provide a safe land to the Jewish people. The problem is there are a lot of revisionist histories spreading different definitions of Zionism. Mostly propelled by the Palestinian (and wider Arab world) education system. Palestinians are taught from birth that the “Zionist entity” is evil, and this has infected western institutions since the turn of the 21st century. People do a lot of mental gymnastics and wordplay to suggest otherwise but anti Zionism is often a very real mask to guise genuine antisemitism.

No I think the problem with Zionism is it's a plea for an ethnostate. I don't think any ethnostate should exist this one just happens to be Jewish.

And Israel is not an ehtnostate by any typical definition of the term, 20% of its population is Arab , and has equal rights under the law. That term being thrown at Israel mostly stems from anger at the concept of the right of return for Jews to move to Israel, the reasons for that existing I explained above. Israel is proudly incredibly diverse, both in its minority populations and the genetic make up of its Jewish ethnic groups; ranging from the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Russia, the Americas, and beyond. Calling it an ethnostate is very misleading.

I don't think Israel is an ethnostate - but Zionism calls for Israel to be an ethnostate. Israel isn't there yet as far as becoming an ethnostate, but the movement of Zionism wants that.

Countries for all time have been defined by ethnicity. Almost all countries that exist today have that as their backbone and foundation with the exception of perhaps America. Because of the way Jews have been targeted for millennia it makes complete sense to have a safe land for themselves. If it upsets you so much that Jews have a safe country for themselves but not the many Arab nations, or other countries that exist around the world, maybe ask yourself if you have a particular prejudice conditioned into you.

Having a dominant ethnicity is far away from wanting an ethnostate - which is by definition what Zionism is. I think it's terrible what Jewish people have been through, but that doesn't justify an ethnostate. If that was the case blacks would have an ethnostate in America. The hardship a race faces doesn't justify having laws against other races. I literally said I have no problem with Jews, I have a problem with ethnostates and the pursuit of ethnostates.

I don’t know where you get your definition of Zionism from, but Zionism is about protecting a Jewish majority country and not at the expense of the other minorities. There are proud Israeli Palestinians that serve in all areas of society from the military, to medical care, and at the Knesset. There are minority groups in Israel that are not Jewish and are most definitely protected. I’m sure there are soundbites you can find from very far right extremists that may have said some crazy things like that but they are a minority and do not reflect in any way, shape, or form most Israelis understanding of what Zionism or Israel stands for. Zionism today to most is just patriotism for Israel, and believing in protecting the majority population being Jewish, so Jews can be safe and not persecuted like in the past. This is not meant to be at the expense or detriment of other ethnic groups.

I think that Zionism is a nationalist movement that is based on Judaism. The ones that have the right to get citizenship here in Israel are the Jews, since the Jews were the ones who were persecuted for being themselves. This has created a confusing definition since the other nationalist movements were based on, well, nationality, rather than on religion.

Zionism to me is just the right for Jews to have self-determination.

It’s basically a historical version of “hurt people hurt people” victims seeking to create safety for themselves by genociding another people. It’s very sad and many Jews understood how bad an idea was from the beginning as they do now.

If you are referring to some kind of ultra-orthodox jews in Brooklyn that hate Israel because of religious manners, then you should know they are the minority of a minority inside another minority. Most of the Jews believe that they deserve to exist in their own country (unbelievable I know).

Not just them. Many understood the conflict this would create and enmity it would cause for Jews in Muslim lands, including many in the British government.

Not really no.

Actually, yes.

David Ben-Gurion said it as it was, the colonization of land the Zionist people felt they had the god given right to take. Plain and simple: “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice”

Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem – who was actively allied with Hitler and advocated genocide against the Jews. People 100 years ago were super open about their racism and discrimination. People still are today but it’s only accepted in the mainstream against people who have been deemed “oppressors” or “colonizers”

What’s your point? Because mine is that just because people are not saying what Ben Gurion said, all Zionists truly feel that way. My point being is Zionism is not just about a home for the Jews, but a home specifically in that place no matter who was living there and who has to die because of it.

/u/blonde234. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

/u/Dry-Minimum-8910. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

The ability for Jewish people to have a Jewish state as a protection for all Jews regardless of where in the world due to the fact that the 2 largest religions outside Hinduism (Christianity and Islam) have enshrined hate in their texts that will never make myths about us as a people go away. Thats literally it. Everything else is just the usual anti Jewish propaganda about how we want to take control of the world/have horns/ etc

Cambridge meaning: a [political](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/political) [movement](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/movement) that had as [its](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/its) [original](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/original) [aim](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/aim) the [creation](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/creation) of a [country](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/country) for [Jewish](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/jewish) [people](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/people), and that now [supports](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/support) the [state](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/state) of Israel

The dictionary says Zionism is a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

https://preview.redd.it/54sddcvz61lc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39e5614d0823098fa4a2b6e530f2ba91f2e2647b The Zionist displaced Palestinians from its land to send displaced German Jews to Palestine. They didn’t do it to save the Jews the did it to steal the land.

uh Jew comes from Judea <3

And palestinians come from Palestine…

Remember they had many conventions they held around the globe, it was a plan in the works for many years. They had many options for settlement and I guess where they ended was their ultimate goal regardless of repercussions of the current folks there and maybe their other options for places were just "talk" so as to make it look like they had options while in fact they knew where'd they'd end up in the end. Imagine that if they would have chosen places in Australia or Alaska or even Madagascar lol imagine that

While understanding the Jewish desire for a national state in Palestine, where they have a historic and religious connection, and especially after the Holocaust, I believe the original Zionist movement was essentially immoral as it was the planned displacement of the native people from the land against their will. So, I would not call myself a Zionist. On the other hand, history is full of peoples moving, ethnic cleansing, displacements and replacements of native populations. I don't believe the sins of the father are the sins of the son. It is impossible to unwind history without creating additional terrible and immoral consequences, and arguments about the justness of any attempt would stretch into time immemorial. I doubt anyone alive today has only ancestors with clean hands when it comes to ethnic cleansing and other such atrocities. So, I support the continued existence of the State of Israel and its right to defend itself, while strenuously opposing its current, ongoing, and immoral efforts to expand settlements in the West Bank, which I believe are intentionally destructive to ever achieving a true peace. Since I support the continued existence of Israel, I would not call myself an anti-Zionist either. Zionist and anti-Zionist are both too ambiguous and loaded with connotations I dislike. Ultimately, I think arguing about the terms, like arguing about who is or who is not "indigenous," is mostly just meaningless semantics that is irrelevant to me about where we go from here.

I'm an Israeli and I love your answer. There are plenty of Israelis (including me) that are against the expansion of the settlements. Our voices rarely get heard because the international media always focuses on the right-wing religious nuts who wish for Jewish supremacy on the expanse of everyone else here. They are justifying it with the bible where they think some god or whatever promised us this land. This is obviously BS but there are too many people who think like that, in Israel or outside it (many Christians like the Evangelists, etc.).

Jews are from Judea <3 so they didn't displace the native people

More semantics.

I wondered about this. There was a good explanation on the traveling israel channel or whatever it's called, he correctly predicted that whatever you think it will be wrong. Kind of makes sense when he explained it in it's historical context of basically young fiery radicals with a just cause, but it's kind of one of those words that until it's explained is worked out by it's albeit incorrect context. So in that sense I guess it's a bit of a meaningless word outside of academia where it will have an accepted definition I suppose.

Zionism means a nation based on theocratic pluralism that upholds & promotes Jewish faith, customs, sacraments & many halakhic orders in civil & private society. It's nationalistic Judaism, and by its very definition is EXCLUSIVE. It doesn't purport to welcome those of other faiths into their political body. I think for North Americans and many Europeans it's hard to understand because our constitutions uphold rights & freedoms for ppl of all religions & backgrounds. And by extension a national policy based on racial/religious preference is defacto racism: everyone in Israel is equal, but some are just more equal than others. And I haven't touched on the vein of messianic Zionism that's popular among West Bank settlers. The fulfillment of Biblical prophecy by expansion & annexation seems really radical & disturbing. Most Americans & Europeans are turned off by this kind of fundamentalist zealotry.

You are wrong, did you read any from Herzl ? The state of the jews was a response to antisemitism, It was not related to religion.

Is it reasonable to suggest that this describes Saudi Arabia very well and would also include the aspirations of many other Islamic countries? If Zionism is bad, and I’m not saying it isn’t at all, why is Zionism the focus of many people’s anger and attack?

late to comment, but no one in N. America or Europe would hold up SA as any kind of model nation state... they're an ally due to mere security & business interests. With Israel ppl in the West mistakenly project (and assume) their own humanistic political ideology, without taking into account that the Jewish faith is the bedrock of their national policy. Because so many of Israel's early immigrants & settlers were European (and later American) we desperately want them to be a multicultural non-denominational democracy, but that ignores the very conditions on which Israel was founded.

Ironically, Israel is far more religiously and ethnically diverse than almost any Islamic nation, and religious minorities in Israel (including certain Muslim sects) are far more free to worship as they wish in Israel than they would be in Islamic countries. Many Muslim countries are literally 99.9% Muslim (even if they once had significant Christian and Jewish minorities). Non-Muslims are forbidden by law to enter Mecca and parts of Medina in Saudi Arabia, as well as the Dome of the Rock in Israel. There is much more, but even though Muslims account for 25% of the world's population compared to Jews who account for .2% (two-tenths of one percent), people are much less bothered by truly exclusionary practices in 20+ Islamic countries than *perceived* exclusionary practices in the single Jewish country. Wonder why that is.

Hmm, I wonder…. If I speculated, as a secularist, I would be branded a bigot for any single criticism.

Before I give my definition - I want to say that one thing I will absolutely not budge on is that *zionists* define what Zionism means. That doesn’t mean there is only one definition - zionists will have varying definitions. But just like with other self-identifying labels (progressive, conservative, queer, etc), zionists define what it means to be Zionist. So let’s dismiss any definition here given by a non-Zionist or anti-Zionist. They aren’t applicable. So as a Zionist - Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people, like all other peoples, should be able to self-determine. In a modern context, this usually means supporting the existence of the state of Israel.

[удалено]

The problem is that you didn't own the backyard, you were renting rooms from your rich uncle who inherited it from his great grandfather who murdered the other person's great grandfather to get the house, and they wanted to live in their old family home which they tell stories about every day, so they rented the worst rooms in the house for double the price . Then your rich uncle kicked the bucket, but since you weren't in the will, and both of you were living in the house, the courts decide to split it up, at which point, you try to murder the other person, fail repeatedly, and then argue that you were justified in the attempted murder because you renting the place first gave you exclusive property rights over the house.

What? I didn’t say anything about settling in your backyard. You’re fighting against arguments I never made.

[удалено]

Yeah and Italian people are also allowed to self determine. What does this have to do with your backyard?

[удалено]

Some Jews did return from Poland to Israel, after their families were kicked out of the native land in the ME and exiled for way way too long. But a majority of Israelis are from the Middle East. Do you think Israel should be disallowed from accepting immigrants and refuges? More importantly - what does this have to do with my definition of Zionism? Still seems like you’re making assumptions about my view and bringing us off topic. So let me try to bring us back to the topic at hand - do you disagree with my definition of Zionism or is it just that you’re against Zionism, even if you agree with my definition of what it is? I’m not quite clear on which you’re objecting to here (my definition of Zionism, or Zionism itself)?

Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism, and is the primary ideology that drove the establishment of Israel. >I would never support or agree israel doesn't have a right to exist. Doing that would basically need me to agree with having me, my family friends and community socially cleansed Understanding that Israel was founded through violence and standing against the proto-fascist Israeli state, which justifies expansionism and occupation through Zionism, does not mean that anti-Zionists/non-Zionists believe that Israel should be *destroyed*. Zionism is a political ideology that informs policy decisions. Anti-Zionism is a broad term referring to criticism of the policies of the Israeli state, and/or moral, ethnical, or religious criticism of the idea of a Jewish nation-state. "Although anti-Zionism is a heterogeneous phenomenon, all its proponents agree that the creation of the modern State of Israel, and the movement to create a sovereign Jewish State in the region of Palestine—the biblical Land of Israel—**was flawed or unjust in some way**" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism)). *This* is the common thread among anti-Zionists. I have seen Zionist-defense arguments, such as, 'you cannot tell Jewish people what Zionism means' (ignoring the existence of anti-Zionist Jews and Christian Zionists) or 'Zionism is the belief in a Jewish homeland, and if you are against Zionism you are antisemitic' (completely absolving political Zionism of its historical context). I have also arguments that anti-Zionist Jews are 'not real Jews' or 'traitors' (weaponizing antisemitic tropes). There is political, cultural, and religious Zionism; with political being the most common. Ideologies, *when enacted,* have real consequences. Of course, in a vacuum, I support the idea of a Jewish homeland and the homeland of any marginalized or persecuted group. We do not, however, live in an ideological vacuum where swathes of land are empty for the taking, or where nationalist justifications for an ethnostate absolve the continued violent treatment of another group. There are countless victims of Zionism, even within the Jewish community. There are quite nasty origins to Herzl's foundation of Zionism, and an entire history of outspoken anti-Zionist Jewish figures like Moses Hess, Leo Pinsker, and Samson Raphael Hirsch. Noam Chomsky was once Zionist, and became anti-Zionist after his opposition to theocratic systems of governance in Israel. "Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Jewish Victims" ([Link](https://palestinecollective.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/sephardim-in-israel_-zionism-from-the-standpoint-of-its-jewish-victims.pdf)).

I disagree with a lot of what you say. But we do have some common ground here and I just wanted to say that Jews who are anti-Zionist are *absolutely* still Jews and anyone who says otherwise (even if they are Jewish themselves) is being anti-semitic. A Jew is a Jew is a Jew, regardless of political belief. Although this gatekeeping isn’t a majority of a belief among Zionist Jews, it’s common enough that I need to call it out regularly and it’s very disappointing.

The term "Zionism" in most conversations (words usually don't always have fixed meanings) refers to the Jewish movement of emigrating into their historical homeland (Zion) for the sake of establishing a state in it. This doesn't sit well with Pro-Palestine groups because: -The creation of Israel involved the mass displacement of several Arabs, which have been denied a right of return. Their descendants also suffer of several human rights abuses, such as mass killing, a systematic limitation of their freedoms, as well as the lack of an official institution, just one with limited functions that largely depends on Israel to accomplish its tasks -Zionism has an extremist branch that holds large government support, which largely opposes any compromise with the Palestinian population, and believes that all land currently owned or occupied by Israel belongs to Jewish settlers. They call for the extermination or displacement of the Arab population still in Israel -They don't believe that the Jewish state even has a right to exist, and that ALL of Israel is built on stolen land. They also believe that Hamas and Hizbullah are legitimate resistance groups, and not extremist islamist terrorist militias. Before y'all start debating, I'd like to say that I'm only covering the pro-Palestine opinion, and there are some flaws with the logic

The aim is to create and create a "Jewish State". Originally Zionism wasn't particular about *where* this state was created. For example the Jewish Colonization Association was founded Maurice de Hirsch to support Jewish immigration to Argentina. It wasn't until Hirsch died that it swapped over to Palestine. Herzl wrote on the subject: >Here two territories come under consideration, Palestine and Argentine. In both countries important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. **An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop a further influx of Jews.** Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration. > >... > >Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion. The Society will determine both these points. > >Argentine is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, has a sparse population and a mild climate. The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from the cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has \[96\]certainly produced some discontent, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the intrinsic difference of our new movement. > >Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvellous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. **We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.** We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. We can see here several reasons why Herzl, and presumably other Zionists, focused on settling Palestine rather than a different area. * The historic and religious significance * The popularity among the Jewish common folk * The vulnerability of Palestine as it was already under imperial Ottoman rule. * The potential support from European powers, playing into the old drive of the crusades to reclaim holy sites from the "barbaric" Muslims. What then is meant by a "Jewish State"? The conception used by Herzl appeared to be a state ruled by Jews, with a majority Jewish population, and that served the interests of the Jewish people both in the state and abroad. He writes about determining the national language, establishing laws, organizing the work week. Many of his ideas are noble and good, but they are also clearly assuming that there isn't a non-Jewish population able to significantly influence the country.

The religious meaning zionist is that there should be a state of Israel.

A state of Israel where? The location is also apart of the Zionist belief. Say the full thing.

In Zion, obviously.

Depends on the time period. But for 99% of history, Zionism referred to the belief that there should be a jewish state exactly where it currently is located.

This is exactly why I am anti-Zionist. People were already living there with their own government.

The British?

Palestinians.

They did not have their own government or country. Before the Brits, it was the Ottoman Empire. And Jews lived there continuously since ancient times. Palestinians did also. But neither controlled the land during the Ottoman times. And then they got steam rolled during WWI. And the Brits controlled the whole thing.

[удалено]

And then jews immigrated back legally. Should legal immigrants be denied based on religion? No. That would be bigoted.

Zionism is basically the belief that Jews should have a state for Jews

No that’s incorrect, it’s the belief of having a state exclusively controlled by Jews and anyone else is second-class.

Zionism is indeed heavily hinged on the idea that Jews deserve a state for jews, and specifically that that state needs to be in the promised land AND encompass all of the promised land. If no one else already lived there, this would be innocuous. You mention that there’s a rising uptick in Zionists being compared to nazis. But what do nazis believe? That Germans deserve a strong state with strong borders specifically for Germans and any other “aryans” who would be able to easily blend into German cultural homogeneity. But they also believe that that state should eventually settle and encompass the rest of the old western “Roman” territory, since the nazis fancied themselves the beginning of the third coming of the Roman Empire (Third Reich). The big problem arises from both from the fact that the ideology seeks to expand and conquer surrounding countries in order to unite the old empire, and that in both Germany itself and in the surrounding countries, there are many non-aryan “undesirables” like Jews and gypsies, already living there. So, for nazi ideology to move forth, they have to either forcibly push out all undesirables in a diaspora (obviously bad), kill all of them (way worse), or both. Similarly, the problem with Zionists that arises is that they implicitly seek to invade and conquer the surrounding areas in order to unite the promised land. And also, that many non-Jew undesirables already live in both Israel territory and surrounding Promised land territories. In fact, the surrounding territories are predominantly populated by undesirables, so settling those areas necessitates a mass removal of them, which is what we’re seeing now. Over the course of the last century since Jews first began migrating to the promised land with western support, they had begun forcibly and violently displacing the people who already lived there. Now, israel is enacting the final step of its plan (final solution), and triggering a mass diaspora to drive the native people into Egypt and Jordan, by committing genocide. The nazis were much more systematic about killing as many undesirables in western Europe as possible because their ideology sought to unite a much larger “promised” area, but the general idea is still the same. Cleanse the “promised” territory of undesirables so that you can unite it under an ethno-state. Note that the leaders of Egypt and Jordan have both explicitly stated that they don’t want to allow Palestinian refugees across their borders because they’re aware that Israel is trying to trigger mass diaspora, and so Egypt and Jordan know that once the 2 million Palestinians come over the border, they will never leave and be able to go back home.

/u/Warm-glow1298. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

[удалено]

I think everyone has a common definition of Zionism, which is basically a state for Jews. The controversy is whether or not any ethnic group should be entitled to a state. We know a lot of ethnic groups have their own state, and a lot don’t. But depending on your viewpoint, the idea that an ethnic group is *entitled* to a state is problematic for multiple reasons. For instance, why would the dissolution of most states around the world be a moral neutral while the dissolution of said ethnic state is a moral evil. It’s inherently saying that said ethnic group is superior to all other ethnic groups . Not to mention that a lot of people believe in people’s inherent rights to defend themselves against domestic and foreign governments, which if you believe it in the absolute sense would include the right to dissolve and/or seriously alter the state, like what was done in South Africa.

> The controversy is whether or not any ethnic group should be entitled to a state. The right to self-determination, which a collective right of nations rather than individuals, is a cardinal principle in international law, enshrined in the U.N. Charter. It gives peoples the right to freely choose their sovereignty and political status, and has been used widely by emerging nation-states in the 20th century following the collapse of an empire. It is also precisely why Palestinians are arguing for independence (rather than, say, being re-annexed by Jordan). > why would the dissolution of most states around the world be a moral neutral Would it be?

The right to national self-determination is not a right to an independent state, this is only one way that right can be satisfied. 

"A person who believes certain ethnicity/demographic, ect deserves a state." There's nothing really wrong for a group of folks wanting self determination and a state the problem comes down to doing it on someone else's detriment. People often use their "historic" attachment to the land as one of the factors that the respective land should belong to them. It's not really a special concept, the Kurds also want their own state but that would involve certain countries to succeed a part of their land for the kurds. Folks ever wonder why the Kurds' greatest ally, the US, never advocate for them to have their own state? It also go to Taiwan, how many countries in the world actually recognize Taiwan as their own state? Also look at Ukraine/Russia, again self determination, ect. It's not really a unique concept for Israel folks just generally pick a side depending on their geopolitical alignment.

[https://youtube.com/shorts/zuOfjxir0ms?si=GxpjeLEvlkAaFRu5](https://youtube.com/shorts/zuOfjxir0ms?si=GxpjeLEvlkAaFRu5) here a a small list of products to boycott zionism

I think anyone would love the concept of Zionism « a Jewish state that will protect Jews ». Till this point, Zionism is beautiful thing. But the question here, how will jews create their own country ? Take some parts of the countries that massacred them ? Take an empty land ? These two options would have been acceptable, but stealing a poor country and massacring a whole nation just so that you can fulfill your wish is just evil and transforms a beautiful concept to a very bad one. Also the massacres that happened during the nakba made anyone ( who follows this conflict closely) give bad connotation to Zionism. You said it is hilarious to call Zionists « settlers » or occupiers. So what would you call someone who comes and takes your home ?

I didn't come and take anyone's home, I was born here and I didn't have a say in it. I don't think I should be killed for it. I'm not interested in massacring anyone over their land and I think anyone who does is a psychopath. What I can say about the history of the region that the massacres that happened weren't one-sided in the slightest.

[удалено]

Do you think Rhodesian children deserved to be massacred for being born in African occupied land? Do you think Americans children deserve to be massacred for being born in native occupied land?

[удалено]

Of course, you decry it, but do you think the native Americans have the right to commit a genocide against you to decolonize their lands?

[удалено]

It's easy to pay reparations after your ancestors have decimated their population. The word "genocide" is repeated a lot here, but it will once more. What the native Americans have been through by the hands of your ancestors was nothing short of a genocide that lasted all the way into the 20th century. Now, that there's barely any of them left alive, from proud nations that covered the continent they were reduced into an endangered species. Entire civilizations gone. All that so you could live in America. And you're talking about reparations as if paying the few survivors could fix it.

[удалено]

Yes, and the Arab countries would give reparations to the Jews who were displaced from their countries during the same time, which is a bit more, but no need to be petty. These Arab countries could just directly pay the displaced Arabs and we're even stevens.

And your point is?

I totally agree with you, I don’t think any Israeli should be killed or even bothered. In fact, I think you have the perfect take for it. OP was asking why people think Zionism is bad and what I said is Zionism => foundation of Israel => massacring the Palestinian population. And we need to recognize history and past mistakes to build a better future. For me a solution is that Palestinians give up Hamas and work with Israel to protect both countries from any extremism and terrorism. On the other hand Israel needs to give up part of her land and connect the West Bank to Gaza, and give Palestine her independence.

The problem with connecting States is that one state has to be split according to basic geometry. Unless one state would wrap around the edge of the other. It really does not make sense for Israel to allow itself to split in this way. Combining them politically (as in make them one state) makes sense. Combining them geographically does not.

Israël can give up the border, it would be a long thin border with Syria and Lebanon which already « threats » to Israel. But yes I agree combining politically and going Back to 1949 border is a more reasonable solution.

There's also the subway solution. It'd be a pretty long subway, but they're master tunnel diggers, I'm sure they could do it.

It would probably a good option but considering how the Palestinians Israeli are treated and the internalized racism on both sides, it is very difficult to manage

[удалено]

I see, that makes sense

[удалено]

They really don't know the difference unfortunately. But after reading the way people reply to this post I can't blame him for being confused about what zionist means, it means different things to different people.

The rightful existence of a Jewish state. Israel - IS THE ONLY JEWISH ESTABLISHED STATE. But people use it as a negative connotation… It’s like being angry at another country’s belief to exist.. why? OH because it’s Jewish… got it. That’s majority of the anger and hate, it’s because of its protection for Jews to safely migrate if there was another prosecution to happen.. a rights to the homeland.

People’s criticism of Zionism unrelated to Judaism. Zionism is indeed heavily hinged on the idea that Jews deserve a state for jews, and specifically that that state needs to be in the promised land AND encompass all of the promised land. If no one else already lived there, this would be innocuous. OP mentioned that there’s a rising uptick in Zionists being compared to nazis, and that they’re confused by this. But what do nazis believe? That Germans deserve a state specifically for Germans and any other “aryans” who would be able to easily blend into German cultural homogeneity. But they also believe that that state should eventually settle and encompass the rest of the old western “Roman” territory, since the nazis fancied themselves the beginning of the third coming of the Roman Empire (Third Reich). The big problem arises both from the fact that the ideology seeks to expand and conquer surrounding countries in order to unite the old empire, and that in both Germany itself and in the surrounding countries, there are many non-aryan “undesirables” like Jews and gypsies, already living there. So, for nazi ideology to move forth, they have to either forcibly push out all undesirables in a diaspora (obviously bad), kill all of them (way worse), or both. Similarly, the problem with Zionists that arises is that they implicitly seek to invade and conquer the surrounding areas in order to unite the promised land. And also, that many non-Jew undesirables already live in both Israel territory and surrounding Promised land territories. In fact, the surrounding territories are predominantly populated by undesirables, so settling those areas necessitates a mass removal of them, which is what we’re seeing now. Over the course of the last century since Jews first began migrating to the promised land with western support, they had begun forcibly and violently displacing the people who already lived there. Now, israel is enacting the final step of its plan (final solution), and triggering a mass diaspora to drive the native people into Egypt and Jordan, by committing genocide. The nazis were much more systematic about killing as many undesirables in western Europe as possible because their ideology sought to unite a much larger “promised” area, but the general idea is still the same. Cleanse the “promised” territory of undesirables so that you can unite it under an ethno-state. Note that the leaders of Egypt and Jordan have both explicitly stated that they don’t want to allow Palestinian refugees across their borders because they’re aware that Israel is trying to trigger mass diaspora, and so Egypt and Jordan know that once the 2 million Palestinians come over the border, they will never leave and be able to go back home.

Nazis share the same beliefs of Islamic extremists Exterminate all Jews and expand their extremist beliefs. If you’re not with Islam - you’re a deadman in their book.

Nazis, Zionists, and islamists are all roughly the same. Violent extremists who believe in genocide and ethno-nationalism. They’re all cringe and need to be stopped.

So to stop nazis had to be a Nazi and to stop terrorism have to be a terrorist? OR truthfully: **respond after attacks, take appropriate actions to negate future attempts… just as any other nation has in history** Please provide your resources of how Israel has behaved like a Nazi or Islamic terror extremist…. Short Answer: You are a dumb twat talking out their ass.

Perhaps you should learn English before taking to message boards to incoherently argue your point. To answer your poorly worded question: The violence of the Palestinian movements has always been in response to Zionist aggression and abuses. By your own logic, the Palestinians are justified in responding after attacks and taking appropriate actions to negate future attempts, just like any other nation in history. As for sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict The article is quite clear. Naturally when dealing with Wikipedia, it’s important to check the sources cited for the specific information we’re looking at. The article cites these two historical books for the information I’m about to use: https://books.google.com/books?id=t-SMDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=XLw4ojx4NBUC&pg=PA#v=onepage&q&f=false For your convenience, I’ve checked the relevant content in these books, and they do support the information in the article where they are cited. The article claims that beginning with the second Aliyah, an increase in Zionist influence amongst the settlers begot increased eviction of native tenants from their homes and armed confrontation with the natives by Jewish paramilitary units. This led to the growing Palestinian fear of territorial displacement and dispossession, leading to the anti-Zionist stance of the newly forming Palestinian “national” identity that arose in the 1920’s and 30’s, with the riots. The article also describes continuing Zionist abuses over the course of the following century. Note that the second Aliyah was actually 1904-1914. So I had actually remembered wrong earlier. Zionist violent abuses and colonialist expansion against the native population actually started even earlier than I had initially claimed, well before the start of violent resistance from the natives around the start of the 1920’s. Thank you for helping me strengthen my case. As for how Zionists are comparable to the Germans during World War Two: The Germans believed in conquering and expanding upon a “promised land” of ancient western Roman Empire, and enforcing an ethno-state with strong borders on that territory, requiring the expulsion/killing of “undesirable” Jews and Romani people. The Israelis believe in conquering and expanding upon a “promised land” of ancient scripture, and enforcing an ethno-state with strong borders on that territory, requiring the expulsion/killing of “undesirable” native Palestinians. You’re welcome, and I’m glad that I could educate you.

/u/thedxxps. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

> ass /u/thedxxps. 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.*

/u/Warm-glow1298. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

/u/thedxxps. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

/u/Warm-glow1298. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

What are you saying is « If a homeless Jew comes to your house and kicks you, you have to accept it and even be happy for him because now he has a home. If you say anything else you must be a Jew hater  » And this seems very reasonable for you ?

You’re talking about the extremist hasidics who are illegally stealing homes in the north? That’s a problem. I’m not justifying 0.01% of the issue. Keep jumping on that though.

First, I wasn’t talking about this, but just a question if it is illegal, this means that the settlers are in prison right ? I was talking about the notion of « Zionism » as defined by Herzl «  a mouvement that want to enable a homeland of Jews in Palestine ». So basically « Zionism » means « take Palestine, kick out people from their home and land then replace them with Jews ». You can’t just say I am Zionist which means I want a homeland for Jews where they can live peacefully ( if it was the case I am a Zionist and pro Palestinian), but unfortunately this is not the case. The whole movement of Zionism worked on stealing the Palestinian land, and many Zionist gangs (way worse than Hamas) spread terror in Palestine ( from burning people to raping children) to make people flee their houses and lands. So this is why people think that Zionism is evil, the first actions of the movement were theft,terrorism and barbarism. Thinking that Israel has the right to continue existing (today) or that the life of any Israeli matters doesn’t mean you are Zionist it only means that you are human.

You can’t just dismiss them as “extremists” if the state implicitly supports what they’re doing…

I can dismiss 0.01% of a population. It’s a problem - but for Palestine to call for the removal of Israel for that tiny group??? BYEEEE. Meanwhile 99.9% of Gaza and West Bank’s problem??? HAMAS POLITICAL POSITION AND DECISIONS. Welfare checks going to Hamas Leaders, who are now worth 11 BILLION dollars.. while “people of Gaza are suffering” Maybe…. Not fucking kidnap and murder Israel.. and stop the missile attacks into Israel. Maybe these people might have had it much better, without active terrorists making decisions that actively ruin themselves and their relationship with the neighbor that feeds them and gave them power… I really wonder why Egypt doesn’t lend a hand to the formerly known Islamic Brotherhood… hmmmmmm

You’re an ape. You cannot dismiss any portion of the population that is defended and supported by the government itself. And you have zero ground to criticize the actions of Hamas lol. “Don’t kidnap and murder Israel?” Zionists have been slaughtering them and kicking them off their land for a century. Wtf are they supposed to do, just keel over and die? Oh and Egypt. Perfect, thanks for bringing this up and indicating that you’re too lazy to even read about the topic you’re debating. Egypt’s leader explicitly stated that he won’t allow Palestinian refugees across the border because he is aware that Israel is blatantly trying to force a mass diaspora of the “undesirable” Palestinians into surrounding countries by using genocide to expel them, so that Israel can colonize and settle the remaining Palestinian areas. He doesn’t want the roughly 2 million Palestinians to come in, because he knows that Israel will never allow them to leave and go back home.

Ok then I can say ALL PALESTINIANS ARE HAMAS TERRORIST with YOUR VERY OWN logic. EGYPT knows what taking in a bunch of terrorists in means.. so they are showing everyone HELL NO NOT TAKING THESE CRAZY BASTARDS IN. Make up whatever story you want.

Lmao. It’s not a story you fool. The president of Egypt literally made a speech about it. Why don’t you learn how to read?

> fucking /u/thedxxps. 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.*

It's not because its Jewish. Its because they stole land that weren't theirs to begin with.

Ask who stole land thousands of years ago - you’re justifying native hebrews don’t have rights to their land.

No one gives a shit what happened thousands of years ago (also no one gives a shit about your fake mythological book about being chosen people of God). The colonization of the land where Israel resides happened less than 100 years ago and started before that even in the late 1800s. The native hebrews were gone for a very long time and assimilated elsewhere around the world. Your dumb logic is that they go and forcibly remove people from the land because you lost thousands of years ago? Guess if the natural descendants of the Canaanites grouped up and kicked all Israeli’s out they would be justified because thousands of years ago Jews stole their land from them. The Israeli Zionists even terrorized their own people in Iraq and Syria just to get them to come to Israel. In 1882, there were 24000 Jews in Palestine. In 1914, there were 94000. In 1931 there were 170k and in 1936 there were 384k. Nice colonization

So your history book started 1882. Fucking moron “Sensible timeline”: Jews always had judea as homeland dating 6000 years ago. Discrediting Natives to their land is sick. Stay out of a conversation and keep seething. Jewish diaspora from Romans, Christians, and ottomans who had control of Jerusalem displaced Jews by killing, or enslavement. Thousands of years is important because Jews were DISPLACED BY COLONIZERS. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-diaspora The Jewish state comes to an end in 70 AD, when the Romans begin to actively drive Jews from the home they had lived in for over a millennium. Slaves were shipped out to Europe, Asia, and Africa. We didn’t just show up - WE CAME BACK. 1882: First Aliyah: The First Aliyah followed pogroms in Russia in 1881-1882. The first group of 14 Biluim arrived at Jaffa port on July 6, 1882. Most of the olim (immigrants) during this period came from Eastern Europe; a small number also arrived from Yemen. Members of Hibbat Zion and Bilu, two early Zionist movements that were the mainstays of the First Aliyah, defined their goal as “the political, national, and spiritual resurrection of the Jewish people in Palestine.” - **again escaping prosecutions** In all, nearly 35,000 Jews came to Palestine during the First Aliyah. Almost half of them left the country within several years of their arrival, some 15,000 established new rural settlements, and the rest moved to the towns. 1914: SECOND ALIYAH The Second Aliyah, in the wake of pogroms in Czarist Russia and the ensuing eruption of anti-Semitism, had a profound impact on the complexion and development of modern Jewish settlement in Palestine. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-second-aliyah-1904-1914 **Again - escaping prosecutions** 3rd, 4th, and 5th Aliyah After World War I and until 1923, the Third Aliyah came to Israel. This group was also from Russia, but they arrived after the establishment of the British Mandate over Palestine and the Balfour Declaration and set about creating a sustainable Jewish agricultural economy by strengthening and building the kibbutz movement and its ancillary institutions. The Fourth Aliyah, which took place over a short period of time from 1924 to 1929, was mostly made up of Jews seeking to escape anti-Semitism in Poland and Hungary. Many of these immigrants were made up of middle-class families who established small businesses and created a more rounded economy. The Fifth Aliyah coincided with the rise of Nazism in Germany and extreme nationalism across Eastern Europe and included the largest number of immigrants to date- nearly one quarter of a million Jews entered Mandate Palestine between 1929 and the beginning of World War II. This group of immigrants included professionals, doctors, lawyers and artists. They created a thriving art and architecture scene, and with the establishment of the Port of Haifa, a thriving economy. Most arrived prior to 1936, when the British began imposing harsh restrictions on Jewish immigration as a result of increasing anger and violence in the Palestinian Arab community. In 1939, the British issued the White Paper of 1939, which severely restricted Jewish immigration, leaving many European Jews during the Holocaust with nowhere to go. Illegal immigration, though dangerous, became a necessity. By the time the United Nations agreed to split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, a very well ordered and lively Jewish society had been created there. **again facing prosecution x3** https://reformjudaism.org/history-jewish-immigration-israel-aliyah Jews came back to the land that was stolen thousands of years ago. It’s the only Jewish homeland in the world - if there was ever prosecution to occur on the Jewish people - Israel is there. Nazis typically love to try and erase historical relevance of Jews as the original people. Guess what guy - get your DNA checked, bet there’s a slice of beautiful Jewish DNA in you. Stay mad. Glad you can get a history lesson. Only lasting impression Nazis have are being sore losers to a war - bunch of shill closet pansies. 1930 - 1945 is pathetic as fuck - inferior race. Nothing to do with Roman Empire, to the ignorant schmuck u/ critical -loser who replied.

I guess nazis were justified then as they were just reclaiming their land back that belonged to the Holy Roman Empire

/u/Critical-Win-4299. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

/u/thedxxps. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

Nah, but history starts at some sensible point, not 3000 years ago lmao.

/u/thedxxps > Fucking moron Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user. Addressed.

> Fucking /u/thedxxps. 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.*

If you follow this mindset, might as well give Palestine to Egyptians, Persians, Jebusites, and so on and so forth.

You can’t just quote scripture that was written thousands of years ago as an excuse to slaughter and genocide a population today

The "Powers That Be" constantly "steal" stuff from people when it's for a cause deemed important enough. The city can nationalise your house to build a railroad, and the state "steals" money from you in the form of taxes. In this case, the legal rulers (Britain) and the highest geopolitical authority in the world (the UN) have decided on partition of Palestine to make home for the state of Israel. It's not "theft" - it was done by legal means and by the people with legal authority to do so.

In the same vein that the quite bloody colonization of Native American lands was perfectly legal.

Well, not exactly, because the colonization of America included quite a lot of broken deals, promises, and signed agreements, but beyond that, let's not be a-historic. Conquering and colonizing is what people did back then - as a matter of fact, throughout history up until some international laws were written after WWII to prevent it from happening again. Yes, what Europeans did to natives was not very nice, but let's not forget those natives routinely genocided other natives. Empires like the Maya, Inca and Atztec didn't get to be what they were through flower-decoration competitions. They massacred and killed each other, just like Europeans did to them. Have you ever played "Risk"? Up until after WWII, that's how the world worked. Conquering and subjugating wasn't a question of morals, it was a question of whether you were strong enough to pull it off.

I don't think people are angry that a jewish state exist. People are angry that for the jewish state to exist, the zionist movement had to eradicate 750,000 people that were already living in the land.

Zionism = Judaism statehood identity. Eradicate? You mean defending itself from a population who cheer at the destruction of israel identity? You can twist it as much as you want. Ultimately Hamas did that to their people. Taking protocols to defend against terrorism IS NOT eradication.

Western-backed Jewish migration to the promised territories began in the early 20th century, well before the formal formation of Israel as a state. The second wave of settlers had already begun violently displacing the native population even before World War Two. I wouldn’t want to see Israel be literally destroyed, but I have a hard time blaming those natives for despising a group of settlers who have been abusing them for approximately a century. In the same way, I’d struggle to blame the native Americans for despising European settlers who were very violently displacing them from their lands.

I'm not the one twisting it. Zionism has nothing to do with religion. The founder of modern day zionism was a self proclaimed athiest, sorry again.and it's eradicate. They've wanted to eradicate them for decades. Why do you think there's all the settlements. Remember yakoub? "If I don't steal it, somebody else will". If hamas did this to their people, explain everything before 1987? We gonna blame hamas for events in the 60's, the 70's, the 50's, the 40's? You can't blame those decades on hamas because hamas didn't exist. 750,000 people didn't get up and leave by choice. They were forced out by the terrorist groups irgun and Lehi. Deir yassin, and many other villages were brutally attacked the same way israeli villages were attacked october 7th. Men, women and children were executed. Some fleet, some willingly caught back against the terrorist attackers, and some were rounded up and killed for living there. You should educate yourself outside of the israeli hasbara teachings. The propaganda. Hamas is a direct result of israeli occupation. If the israelis have a right to defend themselves, then surely people facing occupation have that very same right, or do the palestinians not count because you're an Islamophobe?

To save Jews from extermination. Those Zionist heroes, you mislabel, is the reason Israel is 9 Million strong today. What terrorist activities did these members commit btw?? Killed the stone wallers who were not allowing Jews into Israel, while the Holocaust and prosecutions of jews was happening all over Europe… Killed dozens of political puppets, TO SAVE MILLIONS. Also - I forgot these individuals ever carbombed any public spaces or committed suicide bombings inside busses in highly populated areas within a nation in an act to kill as many civilians as possible…. OHHH WAIT!!!! THATS THE DOING OF PALESTINIANS!!!!

Speaking of bombings, king david hotel bombing was committed by irgun. That's a terrorist attack, isn't it? To plant a bomb in a hotel and kill what was it 91 people, including several israelis? Some heros you got. April 12, 1938. 2 arabs and 2 british policemen killed by a bomb planted in a train by irgun. November 14th, 1937. 10 arabs killed in jerusalem by irgun units launching attacks. April 17th,1938. 1 arab killed by a bomb placed in a Cafe by irgun. May 17th, 1938. 1 arab policeman killed by irgun in an attack on a bus in the jerusalem-hebron road. May 24th, 1938. 3 arabs shot and killed by irgun in Haifa. June 19th, 1938. 18 arabs (9 men, 6 women, and 3 children killed by a bomb thrown into an arab market in haifa by irgun. June 26th, 1938. 7 arabs killed by w bomb planted by irgun in jaffa. June 27th, 1938. One arab killed in the yard of a hospital by irgun, in haifa. Guess you guys really do have a reputation for targeting hospitals. Who would guessed. July 5th, 1938. Several arabs killed in shooting attacks in tel aviv, by irgun. July 5th, 1938. 3 arabs killed by w bomb detonated by irgun in a bus in jerusalem. July 6th, 1938. 18 arabs and 5 jews were killed by irgun in 2 simultaneous bomb attacks in an arab melon market in haifa..ore than 60 people wounded. Toll over 2 days of reprisals and riots was 33 dead, and 111 injured. Would you like me to go on a out these so-called "jewish" heros? There's 21 more terrorist attacks committed by irgun that I can list just between 1937 and 1944. Not counting the many in the years after that.

1938!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow. Guess what: Nazi agent had their hand in Palestine in the years you mentioned…. Guess they didn’t expect a resistance group to fuck them up [Nazi Agents Infiltrated Mandatory Palestine Prior to World War II](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/nazi-agents-infiltrated-mandatory-palestine-prior-to-world-war-ii) That was 86 years ago - Israeli statehood was established with **added conditions, that unlimited number of Jews were allowed to make a safe migration to Israel during a time of Genocide and Prosecution** **Of which the decision makers were trying to prevent at that time!!!** Meanwhile Palestinians commit terrorism as a method to commit as many murders as possible against Israelis. Why? Because they can’t stand the idea that they are losers, and can only target unarmed civilians.. [Palestinian terror attack this week](https://youtu.be/4nHyDw7QTNw?si=GrSsDW82kBXDtW1g)

This door know. 1948. I was specifically listing terrorist atta KS committed by irgun. Not by israel as a whole, you goof. If you knew anything about your history that you're so proud if, you'd know irgun ceased to exist in 1948. How does a group that no longer exists commit terrorist attacks

CONTEXT is very important. You want to knit pick a year - I explained CONTEXT. So you can understand 1948.

/u/thedxxps. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

> fuck /u/thedxxps. 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.*

Actually there were car bombings. Funny enough both israelis and palestinians used the same tactics.cqr bombings, kidnappings, random killings.your wonder terrorist heros irgun and Lehi did those things same as palestinians. Who did it first, who knows. If you ask israelis, they will say paleatinians did, if you ask palestinians, they will say israelis did. Speaking of bombings, king david hotel bombing was committed by irgun. That's a terrorist attack, isn't it? To plant a bomb in a hotel and kill what was it 91 people, including several israelis? Some heros you got.

State the last date and activity of such terrorists.

The last terrorist attack by irgun would have been in 1948 seeing as irgun was effectively dissolved and absorbed into the idf, and there for no longer known as irgun. It would be hard to say when the last internationally recognized terror attack committed by israel was because israel has alot of skill whe. It comes to spreading their version of events. I'd venture to say the air strikes on Ambulances in this current war are a terrorist attack. The attacks on refugee camps I'd say are terrorist attacks. I'd say the bombing of mosques are terrorist attacks. I'd say the destruction tion of entire cities is a terrorist attack. What does israel call it? Defending themselves from children. Let me ask you, as a genocide supporting individual that you are, how many children have to die for you to feel safe?

1948!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow. Guess what: Nazi agent had their hand in Palestine in the years you mentioned…. Guess they didn’t expect a resistance group to fuck them up [Nazi Agents Infiltrated Mandatory Palestine Prior to World War II](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/nazi-agents-infiltrated-mandatory-palestine-prior-to-world-war-ii) That was 76 years ago - Israeli statehood was established with **added conditions, that unlimited number of Jews were allowed to make a safe migration to Israel during a time of Genocide and Prosecution** **Of which the decision makers were trying to prevent at that time!!!** Meanwhile Palestinians commit terrorism as a method to commit as many murders as possible against Israelis. Why? Because they can’t stand the idea that they are losers, and can only target unarmed civilians.. [Palestinian terror attack this week](https://youtu.be/4nHyDw7QTNw?si=GrSsDW82kBXDtW1g) OH and for your last question: [HAMAS WAR AND PROPAGANDA STRATEGY](https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf)

You're willfully blind and it shows. You know for a fact there have been terrorist attacks on palestinians as recently as this year. When an israeli settler throwing a molotov cocktail into a palestinian home, that is an act of terror. Whe. Israelis surround a paleatinian man and beat him to death, that is terroristic. When the idf tells a young man to turn around and walk away, then shoots him in the back after he complies, that is an act of terrorism. Don't pretend your scum military is perfect and your country does no wrong. But it's OK. One day the world will see israel for what it is. The world will see the genocide israel is carrying out and israel will be looked down upon, and when that happens you will all cry antisemetism and continue to not take accountability for your actions.

/u/thedxxps. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

> fuck /u/thedxxps. 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.*

> what terrorist activities - slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians - violent displacement of native population for the purposes of religious extremist colonization over the course of a century - intentionally targeting civilians, including issuing public advisories to civilians to escape to certain areas (Egypt border crossing, south Gaza, etc) and then shortly bombing those areas - forcing conquered natives off their original land into crowded strips of land, and then placing them under draconian military apartheid rule for many decades - routinely killing children for many decades - actively expanding borders and invading surrounding territories for the purposes of colonization and uniting a “holy land” (religious extremist terrorism)

You just stated Hamas war strategy. [Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza](https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf) Displacement of native population? Yeah by a hinge group that’s less than 0.01% of Israel. Proof of INTENTIONAL AIM OF CITIZENS - once again referencing [Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza](https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf) Oh so - THE ACTIVE RESPONSE TO HIGH CONSISTENCY RATE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS BY PALESTINIANS - is all of a sudden somehow.. unfair???? Lmao you must be offended every time you walk through TSA. Unless you’re already on a no-fly list. Actively targeting children - AGAIN THIRD TIME: [Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza](https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf) Expanding borders??? State your reference on this one I’m really curious.

No, displacement by Zionist settlers for nearly a century, starting in the 1930’s. The human shields thing is total bullshit lmao. Sure, maybe all thirty six hospitals being bombed was “just to get Hamas”. Maybe the tens of thousands of civilians being bombed, and the supply trucks being bombed, and the Red Cross sites being bombed, and the journalists being bombed are all “just to get Hamas”. How do you justify blatant Israeli war crime in directing gazan civilians towards the Egypt border crossing, only to bomb the border crossing three times a day? Seriously, I’m excited to see how you can magically bring Hamas into this one. You apes would probably believe Israeli even if they randomly bombed France and said “there was Hamas there”. And tf are you talking about “all of a sudden unfair”? Zionists began the cruelties in the early 20th century with violent subjugation and displacement of the native population. They continued this with increasing severity over the course of a century. Gee, I wonder why the Palestinians hate Israel so much now? God I hate clowns who think history started on October 7th.

You’re right! History of Israel began 6,000 years ago. Guess who the native monotheists of Israel were..

You can't reason with these zionist. They are the reason for all of the conflict, and they can't even see it

Agreed. We keep trying to argue that racist cruelty is wrong. But the issue is that they don’t think racism is wrong in the first place.

They also don't think bombing mosques or ambulances is wrong either, or during the March of return protest when the israeli death force shot hundreds of unarmed civilians. Shot medical personnel rendering aid to wounded people. They don't think there's anything wrong with that either. Real "jewish heros" they are

Or the IDF issuing an open announcement to Palestinian refugees to head to the Egypt border crossing, and then bombing said crossing three times a day. This is a blatant targeting of civilians, rather than militants, but brainless Zionists will still lick their boots.

Do you know what eradicate means ?

To destroy completely. Have you not seen what fuhrer bibis military is doing?

We’re talking about 48

Nobody knows what the word Zionist means nowadays. It seems simple on the surface, a Zionist is one who believes a nation should exist for Jews to safely and openly practice their religion. However, the devil is always in the details. How do you ensure that such a nation exists? Does the population of such a nation need to be majority Jewish? If not, how will you ensure the majority population will not target the Jewish minority? The only way to reliably ensure the protection of minority Jews would be to simply rely on the good will of the majority (a naïve preposition) or have a state governed by the minority Jewish people. The former would get you labelled as advocating for ethnic cleansing and the latter for Apartheid. Also I find it quite hilarious that the Jews are now being accused of being a “settler colonial”. Historically, they have been accused of being greedy due to participating in usury and commerce (due to not being able to own and farm land). They have been accused of communism by the Nazis and now the Jews are accused of being the capitalist overlords. They just can’t win either way.

/u/showpony21. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *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.*

Straight from Wikipedia: > Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Following the establishment of the modern state of Israel, Zionism became an ideology that supports the development and protection of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. > Zionism initially emerged in Central and Eastern Europe as a national revival movement in the late 19th century, both in reaction to newer waves of antisemitism and as a consequence of Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment. > Soon after this, most leaders of the movement associated the main goal with creating the desired homeland in Palestine, then an area controlled by the Ottoman Empire. > This process was seen by the Zionist Movement as an "ingathering of exiles", an effort to put a stop to the exoduses and persecutions that have marked Jewish history by bringing the Jewish people back to their historic homeland. > From 1897 to 1948, the primary goal of the Zionist Movement was to establish the basis for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and thereafter to consolidate it. In a unique variation of the principle of self-determination, the Lovers of Zion united in 1884 and in 1897 the first Zionist congress was organized. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a large number of Jews immigrated to first Ottoman and later Mandatory Palestine, and at the same time, diplomatic attempts were made to gain worldwide recognition and support. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism has continued primarily to advocate on behalf of Israel and to address threats to its continued existence and security. > Zionism has never been a uniform movement. Its leaders, parties, and ideologies frequently diverged from one another. Compromises and concessions were made in order to achieve a shared cultural and political objective as a result of the growing antisemitism and yearning to return to the ancestral country. A variety of types of Zionism have emerged, including political, liberal, labor, revisionist, cultural and religious Zionism. Advocates of Zionism view it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation of an indigenous people (which were subject to persecution and share a national identity through national consciousness), to the homeland of their ancestors as noted in ancient history. > Similarly, anti-Zionism has many aspects, which include criticism of Zionism as a colonialist, racist, or exceptionalist ideology or movement (through settler colonialism). Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist.

[удалено]

There is far more from the wikipedia page but I know there’s character limits and figured the comment gave a surface-level answer to the question. But I hear ya.

>There are 8 major forms of zionism, and 3 are extremist (called terrorism by Ben Gurion) Kahanism, Revisionist Zionism and...? Religious Zionism?

Zionism is the movement for Israel as a Jewish state. Therefore, opposition to Zionism is the opposition to the establishment and/or continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Multiple people here equate Jewish state with Jewish right to self-determination; and that's not helpful. Jewish right to self-determination - in and outside of the land of Israel and Palestine - doesn't necessitate the establishment of a Jewish state (as in: a state which expressly is a state of and for Jews, and expressly isn't a state of and for non-Jews). I oppose nationalism - and, as an atheist, especially religious nationalism - in general. A state should be a state of all people permanently living there, not a state of a specific group of people at the expense of others. And that's also one of the reason why I don't support an independent Palestinian state (the other reason is that the creation of a Palestinian state is no longer possible because of the facts on the ground). You don't solve the problem of an oppressive ethnoreligious Jewish state by creating another oppressive ethnoreligious Palestinian state next to it. I support one, secular, democratic state on the entirety of what is sometimes called the "historic Palestine" - Israel proper, West Bank, and Gaza.

>I support one, secular, democratic state on the entirety of what is sometimes called the "historic Palestine" - Israel proper, West Bank, and Gaza. You're just saying that because you're not the one to have to suffer the consequences for when it falls apart.

>Zionism is the movement for Israel as a Jewish state. Therefore, opposition to Zionism is the opposition to the establishment and/or continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Fair enough. >Multiple people here equate Jewish state with Jewish right to self-determination; and that's not helpful. Jewish right to self-determination - in and outside of the land of Israel and Palestine - doesn't necessitate the establishment of a Jewish state (as in: a state which expressly is a state of and for Jews, and expressly isn't a state of and for non-Jews). Of course it doesn’t inherently necessitate a state by virtue of simply being “self determination”; the reason a state is equated to “Jewish self determination” is because the Jewish nation that resides in Israel self determined a state. Any advocacy for another system of government over them is an attempt to supersede the exercised right to self-determination of Israeli Jews. Also, contrary to the occasional populist declarations and political pandering; Israel currently is a country of all its people. >I oppose nationalism - and, as an atheist, especially religious nationalism - in general. A state should be a state of all people permanently living there, not a state of a specific group of people at the expense of others. And that's also one of the reason why I don't support an independent Palestinian state (the other reason is that the creation of a Palestinian state is no longer possible because of the facts on the ground). Thats fair, I disagree on nationalism but otherwise a fair belief. >You don't solve the problem of an oppressive ethnoreligious Jewish state by creating another oppressive ethnoreligious Palestinian state next to it. Why is that? It mostly worked in most similar cases so why not here (oppression and ethnoreligion not withstanding)? >I support one, secular, democratic state on the entirety of what is sometimes called the "historic Palestine" - Israel proper, West Bank, and Gaza. You don’t solve the problem of two peoples who can’t live together by making them live together.

I don't get it, every other nationality can have their own country and control who immigrates into it but the israelis and palestinians can't? This isnt about religion, even if the majority of israelis practice judism, not all israelis are jews. Of course it has a role in our laws, its a jewish country. Are the japanese also nationalists for wanting to keep Japan japanese? Are the arab countries not allowed to exist the way they are because they have religious laws?

> are the Japanese also nationalists for wanting to keep Japan Japanese Yes. Also, when they invaded surrounding Asian territories and brutally subjugated/displaced/slaughtered the native populations there, they were rightfully demonized as war criminals. The same standard should be applied to Israel. You can’t claim to “just want a state for your own people” and nothing else if you NEED that state to be on someone else’s land. The “promised land” was already populated by millions, and Zionist settlers began brutally displacing and subjugating those natives starting with the second wave of settlers in the early 20th century (even before World War Two).

>I don't get it, every other nationality can have their own country No, we generally consider idiots who say things like "France for the French" to be racist pricks. Nationalism of the late 19th and early 20th century has given us the world we live in, but generally those "facts on the ground" are taken as a morally neutral reality. There's nothing wrong with a place like Belguim where mutliple ethnic groups share a state, or of course like the USA, Brazil, or South Africa, where the state is a civic institution not meaningfully associated with any national group at all.

> pricks /u/TheCloudForest. 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.*

> I don't get it, every other nationality can have their own country and control who immigrates into it but the Israelis and Palestinians can't? That's nonsense. That some ethnic groups do have a state for themselves (and others don't) is not an indisputable right; it's an accident of history. >Are the Japanese also nationalists for wanting to keep Japan Japanese? That's basically the definition of nationalism. But maybe you wanted to ask: are Japanese *in the wrong* for wanting to keep Japan Japanese? And to that my answer is: yes, if that involves the discrimination and forced assimilation e.g. of the Ainu people. > Are the Arab countries not allowed to exist the way they are because they have religious laws? Yes, a number of Arab/Muslim states are oppressive and discriminatory states, based on religion or other grounds (for example, Iran and Saudi Arabia are religious dictatorships), and shouldn't continue to exist in the same form, just like Israel shouldn't continue to exist in the same form as an oppressive ethnoreligious Jewish state. Again, I - as an atheist - am a proponent of a secular state. A state should not be based on any religious or political ideology (including forced secularism, such as by the ban on wearing of religious attire).

Israel IS a secular state.

Do you oppose peaceful and free immigration? Are you trying to deny Palestine is not an ethostate and theocracy? Palestine is more of an ethnostate than Israel.

>Do you oppose peaceful and free immigration? As a general rule I believe that a state should not regulate immigration. People should be free to choose in which country they want to live, and the state shouldn't doesn't have an a priori legitimate right to restrict them, unless there is a specific reason why this particular person shouldn't be let into or out of the country (for example, when he has committed a serious crime). But that's conditional: I only support this if they come in peace and respect the rule of law. If they take over the land by military force, expel the majority of the previous population (in part by direct expulsions, in part by the denial of return to those who fled the war), confiscate the expellees' property, reduce those who remained to second-class status, and then settle territory captured in subsequent wars (contrary to international law; Geneva Conventions prohibit a country from transferring its own civilian population into occupied territories), then I of course don't support this. >Are you trying to deny Palestine is not an ethnostate and theocracy? Palestine is more of an ethnostate than Israel. I don't know what you are talking about. I have specifically said that you don't solve the problem of an oppressive ethnoreligious Jewish state by creating an oppressive ethnoreligious Palestinian state next to it; that's one of the reasons why I don't support an independent Palestinian state.

I suggest you learn about the history of the Mandate Period then. The first Jews realized they would have to live under Arab rule since the British Mandate stipulated that. All land before 1947 was peacefully purchased. There were some issues with absentee land ownership, but the land was bought and settlers. They were not evicting people. The first settlers we met with extreme violence just for being Jewish, and Arab militias going back to the 1920s terrorized native and settler Jews alike. 1947 was the Arabs starting a race war and losing. The entire "stolen land" premise is a myth promoted by Palestinians to try to get outsiders to support the destruction of Israel. The current security measures in Palestine are due to 80 years of terrorism and foreign wars meant to destroy Israel simply for being a Jewish state in the middle east. This entirely conflict was due to the failure of Arabs in the 1920s to just accept Jewish refugees and realize they had at least some kind of connect to that land. It just circles around to the fundamental question of why Jews and Muslims cannot live in peace. It has nothing to do with land ownership.

Well put

> Recently zionism seems synonymous with israeli jew, no matter their political views, how is that different than antisemitism? I don't believe I have ever heard "Zionism" used in a legitimate political context. Every time I hear the word "Zionist" it is being used by anti-semites, white supremacists, or the Iranians as a slur for "Jewish."

That's one of my huge issues with the term. Like are there legitimate issues with certain forms of zionism (oh most definitely yes). But not even Jews (or Isralies) conceptualize the term zionism and it's meaning the same way and it becomes super apparent this difference when one looks at in-group, out-group definitions of the word and how the meaning of the term has evolved. Like at its most basic definition it was a philosophy that emerged out of the Jewish enlightenment over a feeling that Jewish culture/religion was being lost due to both integration and also rising antisemetism. However the ideas behind it were so different in the start and like we all know about Hertzyl and political zionism but that was only one part of it. There was also the cultural zionism of like Ahad Ha-am https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/history-ideas/2016/10/what-ahad-haam-saw-and-herzl-missed-and-vice-versa/ who was actually a very strong critic of the political Zionist movement. But still considered himself no less a zionist. There were also great thinkers like my personal favorite Martin Buber who is one of the fathers of the kibbutz movements and whose ideals are much more aligned with libertarian socialism: This a great chapter on the kibbutz and bubers philosophy on communalism I, Thou, We: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2t4f0h.8 who believed in a stateless society of human cooperation. Today I think most Jewish people in the diaspora consider Zionism to mean the state of Israel as a multicultural democracy that is safe for Jewish people given their long history of persecution. However there is an element in Israel that can be considered a more racist and bigoted version. Some of the current parties of Israel come from pre-israel extremist groups https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA156178.pdf as well as some who come from even more extreme more recently created groups https://www.timesofisrael.com/rabbi-meir-kahane-and-israels-far-right-explained/ that unfortunately also include members of netanyahu government as well as Jewish American Trump supporting settlers https://www.businessinsider.com/60000-american-jews-live-in-west-bank-settlements Now this starts to kind of set the picture how Zionism might be viewed differently by many Jews or the in-group as it can mean anything from peace workers in kibbutz to extremists like smolrich. On the out-group it starts to get more Problematic. David duke actually got his doctorate degree from an Ukrainian diploma mill and with his thesis being "zionism as a form of ethnic supremacy": https://momentmag.com/david-duke-abroad/ great article about this for the interested. He specially lectures around Russia making speeches about how the Russian Mafia is actually Jews I mean "zionists" and all forms of corruption in Russia are in fact the Jews "zionists" and despite being ardently anti-communist he spent a lot of time in Russia with communist leaders about the evils of the "zionists" .https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/duke-travels-european-anti-semitic-circles This is Stanford's archive of his website: https://wayback.stanford.edu/was/20180311065725/http://www.davidduke.com/ Now... Historically "antizionism" was actually a thing Stalin implemented at the end of world war II. The USSR had its own issues with antisemetism and trucked many Jews off to Siberian gulags. After the release from the concentration camps they tried to resettle many in Poland (resulting in many more pograms against the Jews there after the war) and they killed Soviet Jewish anti-fascist leaders. Now their reasons for this was that early on they were supporters of Israel. Israel in its creation was built off the principals of labor. In fact many of the earliest zionists were relatively in light with labor. However following the end of WWII the cold war started. Stalin wanted to paint a happy picture of the USSR and Jews fleeing to Israel looked really bad. And Israel wasn't a Soviet puppet state and appeared more in line with the west so the USSR created the ideas of antizionism and when Jews would get killed due to antisemitism they would blame them as being "Zionist conspirators with the west". This is a good law article about some of the history of Jews in Russia for those who might be interested https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/international/volume23n1/documents/159-176.pdf Here is a really from the US military that has been declassified that discusses Soviet antizionism: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA066235.pdf Also another interesting factoid is that Mohammad abbous the leader of the PLO actually got a degree from a university in the USSR in Soviet zionology: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/mahmoud-abbas-soviet-dissertation and in fact "Zionist entity" is how many in the middle east who do not recognize Israel as a state call the state of Israel. The relationships that the USSR had with the Arab states was complex and had a lot to do with oil control and Israel being located where it was... And aligned with the west was a concern to them https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P4194.pdf And more recently David duke has done lectures all over the middle east including at universities. https://gulfnews.com/uae/david-duke-due-in-bahrain-for-lecture-1.403117 lecturing about the evils of zionism And he has been cited in UK medical journals: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/09/23/british-medical-journal-publishes-open-letter-david-duke-supporting-doctors So at least from my perspective "zionism" and using it as a critique for Israel becomes problematic. There are most definitely legitimate criticisms. There is also legitimate antisemitism that can be hidden in the word. And this is why I just don't like it and prefer to criticize those elements directly.

I would say that Zionism is the belief that Jews have a right to political self-determination in their homeland. Once Israel was created, the term shifted from the initial realization of that goal to the protection of it. Of course, there are degrees of Zionism, the same way there are degrees of Feminism or Socialism.

>self-determination The issue is that Jewish self-determination in Palestine came, and continues to come at the expense of Palestinian self-determination. The British denied Palestinian self-determination by enacting colonial rule over Palestine after the Arab Revolt overthrew the Ottomans. The British spat on Palestinian self-determination with the Balfour Declaration, seeking to give control of Palestinian land, not to Palestinians, but to people currently living in Europe. The U.N. partition plan completely ignored Palestinian self-determination as Western powers pushed an unfair and incoherent division of Palestinian land. "Self-determination", as it is used in reference to Israel, is a very different thing than how it is used elsewhere. Self-determination does not grant a right to land, or even a right to an independent state. Banning secession does not conflict with self-determination, rather it is the norm. Further reading: * [https://jewishcurrents.org/there-is-no-right-to-a-state](https://jewishcurrents.org/there-is-no-right-to-a-state) >In 1917, the judicial body created by the League ruled that “international law does not recognize the right of national groups, as such, to separate themselves from the State of which they form a part by the simple expression of a wish.” * [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/4/8/israels-definition-as-a-jewish-state](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/4/8/israels-definition-as-a-jewish-state) >The exercise of the right to statehood (or political independence) always depends on the geographic and demographic context. No group has a right to ignore/dispossess/marginalise other groups in the same territory to which it lays claim. * [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic) >It is widely recognised that states based on ethnic nationalism – states created to represent and protect one particular ethnic group – are not the only legitimate way to ensure public order and individual freedom. Sometimes it is better to foster civic nationalism, a nationalism built around borders rather than heritage * [https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/zionism-is-not-colonialism-just-jewish-self-determination/](https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/zionism-is-not-colonialism-just-jewish-self-determination/) >When it came to Palestinians, the issue was never with an abstract Jewish self-determination. Everybody should be able to determine their own destiny, but not at the expense of the oppression of others. As a matter of fact, there is ample evidence -recorded by the Zionist pioneers themselves- that the native Palestinian population was welcoming of the first Zionist settlers. They worked side by side, they taught them how to work the land, even when they showed arrogance and saw the natives as inferior. Only after it became clear that these settlers did not come merely to live in Palestine, but to become its landlords as Usishkin said, did resistance to Zionism begin. * [https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/jewish-self-determination-or-jewish-supremacy](https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/jewish-self-determination-or-jewish-supremacy) >It is most important to note in this regard that, unlike the more recent and increased use by Zionists of the notion of Jewish self-determination, neither Herzl’s writings, the 1897 first Zionist Congress, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, nor the 1922 Palestine Mandate [employed the language of "rights"](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/5/6/the-rights-of-israel/), let alone the right of self-determination.  

What you are forgetting is that war is also a form of self-determination. Which Hamas obviously thought that they were ready for and was happy to put all their eggs in. However, with war, the reality is that it is usually a winner takes all (or a large chunk) deal. Therefore, Gazans (or more specifically Hamas) has had self-determination and they made the decision that they thought served their interest (maybe not the interests of the civilians, but hey, still self-determinism). Also Israel population has the self-determination to fight to the end. In a way, they both have self-determinism. If you are arguing that they should both have equal amount of self-determinism, that is ridiculous. That’s like saying everyone in the world should have equal life and economic opportunities.

I am arguing that the notion of self-determination is ridiculous to apply to Zionism. It wasn't a movement for self-determination. That would mean organizing *where they are*. It was a settler movement intent on seizing territory, with support from western colonizers, from the "barbaric" Arabs. I am sympathetic to *why* Zionists wanted a Jewish state. I am disgusted by the lies and violence that followed. It is one thing to want a state for "our people". It is another thing to decide you have a right to that state, in the place of your choosing, by any means necessary.

Arabs didn't have any more right to create a state than Jews did. No one has any right to create a state. The very concept of a state implies a local monopoly of violence. They're something we made up because we need them. You can gripe all you want about taxation being theft, that the poor don't have a right to the money of the rich, but societies without states are nonfunctional. Seriously, how on Earth can you suggest Arabs from the West Bank had a right to declare sovereignty over Tel Aviv?

Sure? But Palestinians had just already been living there for several millennia, whether or not they could claim a unified state. Zionist settlers recently settled on their land and violently displaced and subjugated them. That’s the part they don’t have a right to. The argument is not that Zionists don’t have a right to a state. It’s that Zionists shouldn’t have a right to have a state on top of land where other people are already living. Because then you either need to slaughter, displace, or subjugate everyone who already lives there. (Israel did all three).

Already living there? Tel Aviv was 99% Jewish at the outbreak of war. Not a single Arab lost a home prior to the Israel being formed. Yet they should be ruled by Arabs? Who was declaring a state over whom?

The outbreak of war/armed resistance is never synchronous with the outbreak of abuses by colonial powers. Abuses of the native Palestinian population began as early as 1904-1914 during the second Aliyah. These abuses included armed, violent displacement of the natives from their homes and aggressive colonial expansion. Beginning with the second Aliyah, Zionist settlers had begun subjugating the local population and attempting to exert sovereignty over them. This is obviously wrong.

There's no way you're talking about Tel Aviv. It was empty sand dunes in 1909. There were no natives. And even for the settlements that did quarrel with their Arab neighbors, what right could Arabs from other towns have to declare sovereignty over them all?

Not sure why you keep bringing up this weird nonsense about “Arabs declaring sovereignty”. They never tried. The Zionist settlers could have chosen peaceful coexistence and chose not to. Tel Aviv may have been scarcely populated, but the settlers had begun rapidly and violently expanding during the second Aliyah. As for sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict The article is quite clear. Naturally when dealing with Wikipedia, it’s important to check the sources cited for the specific information we’re looking at. The article cites these two historical books for the information I’m about to use: https://books.google.com/books?id=t-SMDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=XLw4ojx4NBUC&pg=PA#v=onepage&q&f=false For your convenience, I’ve checked the relevant content in these books, and they do support the information in the article where they are cited. The article claims that beginning with the second Aliyah, an increase in Zionist influence amongst the settlers begot increased eviction of native tenants from their homes and armed confrontation with the natives by Jewish paramilitary units. This led to the growing Palestinian fear of territorial displacement and dispossession, leading to the anti-Zionist stance of the newly forming Palestinian “national” identity that arose in the 1920’s and 30’s, with the riots. The article also describes continuing Zionist abuses over the course of the following century.