So many people seem legitimately confused by what zionism is. At its core it is simply the legitimacy of the Israeli state. Only the most radical versions contain the violent expansionist ideals. But there’s a reason the only people ranting about it in such an unqualified way this time last year were white supremacists. Because without qualification, the implication is dismantlement of the Israeli state, which would do absolutely nothing to stop the cycle of violence. It is difficult to imagine that this is a good faith argument from anyone who is seriously engaged with fundamental geopolitics.
Unfortunately I fear that this is a perfect example of linguistic subterfuge, where serious bad actors have injected this language into otherwise well meaning causes, and I would implore those who seriously seek justice for Palestine to avoid this particular vocabulary.
At its core it is simply the legitimacy of the Israeli state.
You make it far too complicated. The legitimacy of the state of Israel is exactly what’s being debated. Many would argue the Zionists had no right to move to Palestine and even less right to steal Palestinian land to create their state. To this day Israeli settlers are still stealing more and more Palestinian land, and the Israeli government seems to be rather supportive of their activities.
Only the most radical versions contain the violent expansionist ideals.
Zionism led to the creation of the state of Israel and it was violent right from the start.
Unfortunately I fear that this is a perfect example of linguistic subterfuge
It really is not. You don’t have to agree with any of it, but the legitimacy of the state of Israel is not widely accepted in the region, they are seen as a sort of colonial power that have no right to be there and should be dismantled.
Everyone seems to like to argue that people who dislike Israel object simply to Israel’s right to exist. What we object to is the fact that they are filming themselves killing women and children.
If a state needs to be allowed to commit genocide in order to exist, it should not be allowed to exist. If it does not need to commit genocide to continue to exist, then why does it do so?
I’m not sure which part of my comment you believe suggests Israel is acting appropriately in Gaza. I am directly addressing this recent trend of merging the real and valid criticism of Israel, with some unfortunately loaded language which supporters of Israeli violence exploit to minimize said criticism.
It’s absolutely insane that merely saying “hey, your criticism is valid enough that you don’t need to merge your language with neo nazis” is even the slightest bit controversial.
So many people seem legitimately confused by what zionism is. At its core it is simply the legitimacy of the Israeli state. Only the most radical versions contain the violent expansionist ideals. But there’s a reason the only people ranting about it in such an unqualified way this time last year were white supremacists. Because without qualification, the implication is dismantlement of the Israeli state, which would do absolutely nothing to stop the cycle of violence. It is difficult to imagine that this is a good faith argument from anyone who is seriously engaged with fundamental geopolitics.
Unfortunately I fear that this is a perfect example of linguistic subterfuge, where serious bad actors have injected this language into otherwise well meaning causes, and I would implore those who seriously seek justice for Palestine to avoid this particular vocabulary.
You make it far too complicated. The legitimacy of the state of Israel is exactly what’s being debated. Many would argue the Zionists had no right to move to Palestine and even less right to steal Palestinian land to create their state. To this day Israeli settlers are still stealing more and more Palestinian land, and the Israeli government seems to be rather supportive of their activities.
Zionism led to the creation of the state of Israel and it was violent right from the start.
It really is not. You don’t have to agree with any of it, but the legitimacy of the state of Israel is not widely accepted in the region, they are seen as a sort of colonial power that have no right to be there and should be dismantled.
So paint your picture for me how you believe Israel is dismantled peacefully.
I don’t see that happening and I wouldn’t be in favor of it. Personally I think a 2-state-solution is the only feasible solution.
Everyone seems to like to argue that people who dislike Israel object simply to Israel’s right to exist. What we object to is the fact that they are filming themselves killing women and children.
If a state needs to be allowed to commit genocide in order to exist, it should not be allowed to exist. If it does not need to commit genocide to continue to exist, then why does it do so?
I’m not sure which part of my comment you believe suggests Israel is acting appropriately in Gaza. I am directly addressing this recent trend of merging the real and valid criticism of Israel, with some unfortunately loaded language which supporters of Israeli violence exploit to minimize said criticism.
It’s absolutely insane that merely saying “hey, your criticism is valid enough that you don’t need to merge your language with neo nazis” is even the slightest bit controversial.
The white supremacists were saying “Gaza will be a parking lot.” How did most of Lemmy become “white supremacists” to you?
You think that leftists only started talking about Zionism a year ago?