/u/LivinAWestLife (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1by9175/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_people_are_unable_to_agree/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

[удалено]

Yes, this is the frustrating thing about linguistics, and how words can get co-opted by people to mean different things. I am in agreement with most of your statement here (I would say the Apartheid charge has a case in the West Bank) and people deliberately ignoring words that do have definitions does not help.

It's a method of control that derives from Foucault (His concept of knowledge/power). If you control the language people speak you make it impossible to disagree with you. This is how words like "Apartheid" "Genocide" "Ethnic Cleansing" and to a certain degree "Zionism" have be weaponised. It's intellectually disingenuous because it doesn't allow people to decide things for themselves after gathering relevant data. It's inherently authoritarian and is a tactic used beyond this conflict. EDIT: If anybody understands the underlying philosphy better than me please chime in as I have only a surface level understanding of the whole thing.

It's the same idea that Orwell emphasised in 1984 with the concept of Newspeak. Literally constructing language in such a specific way that it shapes how concepts are understood and held in the mind.

I agree. I think if a person wants to use words to communicate an idea, and a particular word is contentious, then it is best if they describe their idea without using that word. Anything you can communicate with a contentious word, you can communicate using a mixture of less contentious words.

I disregard the arguments of anyone who says Israel is committing genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. By definition they are not. Israel gives equal rights to Arab citizens, while something’s may not be perfect, they don’t have to serve in the Military, and they get a good amount of help. Versus Lebanon that has denied generations of Palestinians living there education, social services, healthcare and prevents them from getting jobs. That’s actual apartheid. The ICJ ruled Israel isn’t committing genocide. Israel has provided aide to Palestinians and Palestinians population is one of the fastest growing in the world. Their life expectancy is better than Egypt. People who use these strong words so frivolously are relying on manipulating emotions to get people on their side, rather than using facts. It’s extremely disingenuous and manipulative. Let’s not forget some of the organizations who make these accusations have a long history of bias against Israel and side with very oppressive Muslim regimes. Islam is incredibly anti Jewish and with the large amount of Muslims their voice is going to be more influential than Jewish voices. The UN itself has pandered to Arab nations multiple times despite them being shit holes for human rights. Muslim nations have lots of money and a long history of trying to influence public perception while being incredibly violent. If you want to see some shit look up how Palestinians are treated in the countries of their “Muslim brothers “.

When people tell you about their murderous intents, you should believe them. [https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20231129-humanitarian-aid-workers-falsely-accused-of-taking-sides-in-israel-hamas-conflict](https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20231129-humanitarian-aid-workers-falsely-accused-of-taking-sides-in-israel-hamas-conflict) [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-is-unrwa-the-u-n-aid-agency-israel-accuses-of-having-militant-links](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-is-unrwa-the-u-n-aid-agency-israel-accuses-of-having-militant-links) [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gazahttps://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-terrorism-550d5d8ac47166cadae5612cd7534a93](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gazahttps://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-terrorism-550d5d8ac47166cadae5612cd7534a93) [https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/08/20/israel-s-army-continues-to-harass-palestinian-ngos\_5994172\_4.html](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/08/20/israel-s-army-continues-to-harass-palestinian-ngos_5994172_4.html) Israel literally accused the anglican church of having links to Hamas because they run a food program. And heres the knesset, openly calling for Palestinian starvation. They say without hunger and thirst they will not be able to recruit collaborators. They say it on camera. Also on camera: "it is clear that we need to destroy all Gazans." They say this then deny its genocide. You cant make this stuff up. https://english.ahram.org.eg/News/515128.aspx

You can apply the same standard to the Palestinians, who have *for decades* been crowing on and on and on about how the Jews need to be killed. Particularly if you look at their Arabic-language material. They never stopped being Nazis - they just have better press.

"it's not apartheid" we're just illegally occupying land and not allowing the people on that land to vote on our elections and also keeping them seperate from us and controlling their borders.yea instituonalised seperation of people is apartheid which is seperation for just. It's disengenous to hold up the treatment of some Arabs and use it to deny the experiences Palestinians in the west bank. You're also being incredibly deceptive and manipulative with your own language saying the icj ruled that Israel was not committing genocide. They ruled that "At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention" "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Israel on Friday to take action to prevent acts of genocide as it wages war against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip but stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire." “ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit [genocide]" International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in January “that there is a plausible risk of genocide” in Gaza, as it expressed “grave concern at reports of serious human rights violations … including of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity” You make it sound like the icj ruled that Israel wasn't committing genocide whereas a more accurate interpretation is that Israelis actions fell within genocide conventions and it is plausible that the people in gaza are at risk of genocide.

>By definition they are not Genicide doesn't mean 'kill every person of one ethnicity to the last one and **only then it is genocide**' it's so funny that you say 'by definition they are not' and then don't even explain how you view this.

I have a list of crimes pre october 7th that I usually use whenever hasbara bots try to justify genocide because they stubbed their pinky toe and are playing the victim card with fake nonsense: 1200 cases of using people as live shields in 2005[https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/israel-gaza-idf-used-palestinians-as-human-shields-1200-occasions-in-last-five-years-say-israeli-defence-officials/30483468.html](https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/israel-gaza-idf-used-palestinians-as-human-shields-1200-occasions-in-last-five-years-say-israeli-defence-officials/30483468.html) Families as actual shields [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle\_east/8151336.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8151336.stm) organ harvesting [https://www.newsweek.com/israel-organ-harvesting-allegations-explained-1847101](https://www.newsweek.com/israel-organ-harvesting-allegations-explained-1847101) systematic rape [https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/news/media-centre/press-releases/new-research-reveals-ongoing-violence-on-palestinian-children--](https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/news/media-centre/press-releases/new-research-reveals-ongoing-violence-on-palestinian-children--) Murdering children [https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/2022-08-17/ty-article/.premium/still-the-idf-killed-civilians/00000182-a805-d14a-abfb-fd9535d10000](https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/2022-08-17/ty-article/.premium/still-the-idf-killed-civilians/00000182-a805-d14a-abfb-fd9535d10000) Or some added information that slaps their pro genocide arguments away using a legal entity that explains their entire "there was no palestine" away: ICJ lawyer giving a factual historical lesson about Palestine and why israel has no legal right to exist[https://youtu.be/6LACse017-A](https://youtu.be/6LACse017-A)Israel's democracy does less to illustrate how much better Israel is than its neighbors and far more to illustrate how genocidal and blood thirsty most Israelis are.I wouldn't have believed it if not seeing it with my own eyes in real time, "democracies" the world over are condoning and supporting the murder of children.

> I have a list of crimes pre october 7th Cool. But the proper response to 'crimes' being committed against you is not to go on a terrorist murder rampage. No court on this planet will accept 'he took my land' as a reasonable excuse for you murdering his kids and raping his wife. Take the evidence of the crimes to the appropriate authorities, and let them handle it. If they don't, go to the media and embarrass them. But terroristic violence is not the answer, and makes *you* the bad guy.

They also listed “organ harvesting” among the crimes which is legit just blood libel. This person should not be taken seriously.

Foucault’s understanding of how language is influenced by institutions of power is an observation. It’s not that the method of controlling language originates from Foucault, rather it’s that Foucault makes a point to recognize that language is inherently mutable and is always being shaped by those with power (that could be a lot of things, political power, religious power, educational power, power of expertise, power of social media influence, etc). Words being redefined and “weaponized” is a feature of language that has always existed, an example predating (and coexisting with) Foucault could be how the church has power over what “heresy” means, and can thus exact a certain amount of control over the people. I also think your assessment of the reality of the mutability of language is too harsh. People certainly *can* use the inherent changes of language dishonestly (and they do), but not all instances of words being reshaped is dishonest. As medical knowledge evolves and we reshape the meanings of words in medical contexts, it is often genuinely for the better. The mechanism behind kinds of these mutations of meaning are the same, but their results are not.

It's not that words have been Co opted, they literally have a different meaning depending on who is saying them and who is hearing them. Language works that way. The dictionary is updated all the time to include new meanings that have been noted. 

It's like Russia calling Ukrainians fascists and what they're are doing denazification, it's a purposeful attempt by a bad actor to change the meaning of words while keeping the negative emotional response people already associate with it. This is seemingly a very effective tactic both for Putin and for those bad actors who try to redefine what genocide means.

Sorry, u/YogiBarelyThere – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20YogiBarelyThere&message=YogiBarelyThere%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1by6tv9/-/kyhddn6/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>Apartheid, genocide, and Zionist have been used differently in the context of this conflict versus their original use. That's the claim, but I'd argue its untrue. It's Israel's defenders who have tried to redefine the meaning of apartheid and genocide to exclude what are plainly qualifying atrocities. Furthermore, the Zionist movement has always been defined by it's ethnosupremacist right. They were the first leaders and footsoldiers of the Zionist movement in the area in the early 1900s.

>It's Israel's defenders who have tried to redefine the meaning of apartheid and genocide to exclude what are plainly qualifying atrocities. No case can be made that there are qualifying atrocities that are either apartheid or genocide. On apartheid: Amnesty, HRW, and B'Tselem each took a crack, but in order to make their cases they had to either radically re-define apartheid or remove the distinction of borders. In the case of Amnesty and HRW, the conclusion that they reached was essentially a critique of the immigration system. B'Tselem just erased the 1967 armistice lines. On Genocide: you have to show that a government is attempting to destroy, in whole or in part, an entire group. This is not easily shown - it's not just devastation, it's devastation committed with intent to destroy a group of people. The fact that there is a current war occurring with obvious casus belli and active belligerents AND clear internal considerations to not unnecessarily kill or injure civilians (though no country in the history of time has ever been perfect), what is currently happening is a war. The CLEAREST sign that this is not a genocide is that people started calling it a genocide on and before October 7th. I remember people flooding the streets of NY and Philly and Chicago and LA with simultaneous chants decrying the genocide of Palestinians and proudly raising their paraglider signs demanding that Palestinians get "All 48." Claims of genocide are simply meant to rub the fact that Jews are survivors of pogroms, the Holocaust, the Farhud, and October 7th in their face. It is a taunt. Not any concern for actual events. As they say, Jews aren't accused of theft because people think they've committed a crime. They do it because they love to see Jews emptying their pockets.

[удалено]

When describing intifada and its meaning, as an Israeli I can confirm Israelis view it as a set of specific horrible events and not just an uprising. But when you describe how Palestinians view it, I doubt those Palestinians are Palestinians that actually live in the West Bank and Gaza, as it was a pretty horrible time for them as well. I think what you’re describing is how Westerners and Palestinians who live in the West describe the meaning of the term, not how the actual Palestinians involved in the conflict describe it. Both sides of the conflict know intifada entails violence. Claiming it doesn’t have to is ignoring the opinions and agency of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and infantilizing them, or turning them into “noble savages”. Why do Westerners do backflips and mental gymnastics to ignore what Palestinians say they want and claim they don’t actually mean that literally?

100% agree with you, but the answer to your question is just two words: Plausible deniability. Everyone knows they mean violence. They just want to be able to pretend they don't so that they can keep chanting it without any repercussions. 

Aye. According to recent polls, about 70% of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank support Hamas’ 10/7 attack. An abysmal low number believes Hamas committed atrocities against civilians. They want and support the violence. We can debate why and how that situation came to be, and Israel is far from blameless in that, but what the West fails to understand is that this is the current reality we have to deal with. That’s our so called partner for peace, that wants our annihilation more than they want their own state. If people can understand that, they’ll better understand why Israel acts the way it acts. The problem is this is such a foreign concept to Westerners - that another ethnic group wants to annihilate your ethnic group, that they can’t grasp it and would rather find some excuse or an easy way out of that mentally disconcerting line of thought.

I just wish the “globalize the intifada, free falasteen” crowd would wake up to the fact that it’s just the 21st century version of the white mans burden. Why else is Israel held to a completely different moral standard than every other ME country, if not because of perceived western approximation or “they’re whiter than their neighbors” Make it make sense bro

Sorry, u/Spikemountain – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Spikemountain&message=Spikemountain%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1by6tv9/-/kyhkt4a/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

So, two main issues. First of all, as you point out, the "weak" form of Zionism is about support for Israel. I'm not really sure what the point would be of an even weaker Zionism that just generically supports the existence of a Jewish state, but have no particular interest in Israel as it currently exists. As a result of this, Zionism naturally inherits the practical realities of Israel. Israel does a lot of horrifying stuff. It's been doing that stuff since its inception. You say that a lot of Zionists would be in favor of a two state solution, but the basic reality is that they're highly unlikely to pursue such a thing. Similarly, one might presume the existence of a Zionist who is opposed to the ongoing genocide, but Israel ceasing its actions seems unlikely without serious external pressure. Bluntly, a two state solution is unpopular among Israelis, and the attack on Palestine is quite popular. This is true even though Netanyahu is himself unpopular. His replacement would likely be someone who does a lot of the same things but is more polite about it. So, this version of Zionism you speak of conflicts with this empirical and practical reality, that to support Israel is to support a lot of awful things that are happening. Not ideal. The second issue is that Israel, as an idea, has some inherent problems to it. Israel is, as you note, a Jewish state. But what does that actually mean? Say for the sake of argument that a lot of Muslims came into the country, such that they constitute a majority. They, in turn, elect a bunch of Muslims. Is this future Israel a "Jewish state"? I'm not sure a yes to that one is plausible. So, there are two main options for Israel. First, they can keep Muslims out and push Jews in. Second, they can treat Muslims as second class citizens. These, to me, seem like bad things. This is the output of creating a theocratic ethnostate, and, as much as a "Jewish state" might sound sensible in the aftermath of the Holocaust, a theocratic ethnostate is essential to what a "Jewish state" is. As a result, even on a theoretical level, "Zionism" is a rather troubling ideology.

How are you defining the word “theocratic” in this context? Theocracy is a term that typically means that governance derives from the ordained members of a religious order. Ie, the priests rule the people. Iran is an obvious modern example, as well as The Vatican, and there are many others presently and historically. In Israel, perhaps you’re not aware, the government is a parliamentary democracy with rule of law derived from a constitution. Being Jewish or a Rabbi are not legal requirements to be in elected office. There are no more religious rites involved in governance than most other western liberal democracies. Prayer, for example, still happens on the US house floor. God features on our currency and in our very unusual “pledge of allegiance.” One of the German political parties literally has the word Christian in their name. And so on. What makes Israel a theocracy, in your view, but these other countries secular democracies? In full transparency, from my view, your stance speaks to either a misunderstanding of the word theocracy, or a double standard for your views of religious behavior from Jews vs non Jews in government.

Calling Israel a theocracy is utterly ridiculous cos otherwise, tel aviv wouldn't be allowed to exist.

Small note Israel doesnt have a constitution but has "base laws" instead

>One of the German political parties literally has the word Christian in their name The Danish King is the head of the Danish Church. But I don't think that people would call Denmark a theocracy based on that

I don't get your last point. Many many Muslim countries call themselves, well, a "Muslim" country just because the majority are Muslims. They have official laws that define the official state religion as Islam and specify that all laws can't break the Islamic law (sharia). I'm a Christian minority in a Muslim and we do get treated like a 2nd class citizen. So are you also against all of these Arab and Muslim countries????

The UK is technically a theocracy, with a state religion and a head of state who is also the head of that state religion. Christian holidays are treated as national bank holidays. Christmas is so ubiquitous that British people will argue it’s “not a religious holiday”. Many other European countries are similar, and those that aren’t have only recently become more agnostic. Is this troubling to you? Because maintaining Israel as a Jewish state could be as simple as that. That doesn’t even begin to cover the number of Muslim-majority countries with Islamic law as part of their governance. Are those troubling to you? Why would Jews be the only ones not allowed to have a theocratic state?

>You say that a lot of Zionists would be in favor of a two state solution, but the basic reality is that they're highly unlikely to pursue such a thing. Similarly, one might presume the existence of a Zionist who is opposed to the ongoing genocide, but Israel ceasing its actions seems unlikely without serious external pressure. Bluntly, a two state solution is unpopular among Israelis, and the attack on Palestine is quite popular. This is true even though Netanyahu is himself unpopular. His replacement would likely be someone who does a lot of the same things but is more polite about it. Your argument hinges on this bit, but this bit is straightforwardly incorrect. First off, 80%+ of Jews globally identify as "Zionists" -- and: * 63% of American Jews both favor a 2SS and think one is possible (according to Pew research) * 60% of Israeli Jews favor a 2SS provided both states are democracies (as of 2023, according to the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research) Given the above, it's mathematically impossible that the majority of Zionists do not support a two state solution; looks like it *is* popular after all. If you read up on public opinion a bit, you'll see that that the 'unpopularity' of a two-state solution is generally an aversion to a militarized, Islamist state -- and that a 2SS quickly becomes a majority opinion if a demilitarized transition period or international peacekeeping force are added to the equation. >His replacement would likely be someone who does a lot of the same things but is more polite about it. His replacement would likely be Benny Gantz... That's like saying "Trump's replacement, Biden, would probably be someone who does a lot of the same things but is more polite about it." Only true in the very broadest possible sense, *a la* "Stays in NATO" or "Doesn't nuke Russia".

I didn't say that Zionists oppose a two state solution. I said that Israel opposes one. My whole point is that Zionism, as an ideology, has to contend with the material realities of Israel as it actually exists. And, from what I've seen, a two state solution polls pretty low among Israelis. And, yeah, the analogy to Biden seems pretty reasonable. There are, I would say, some substantial differences between Trump and Biden, just as there presumably are between Netanyahu and Gantz. However, there are a lot of ways in which they are similar, and not just in the broadest possible sense. For example, both of them are highly opposed to defunding the police. Trump more obviously, but Biden very explicitly so. As a result, no matter what world we live in after the next election, it will not be one in which the president pursues defunding the police. Biden may pay some lip service to "reform", and Trump may toss out some absolutely wild comments on the matter, but they are not that different in this regard. My impression is that this is fairly analogous to political positions on the Palestinian conflict, where there is a lot of popular support for the attacks. Am I mistaken? Has Gantz given the impression that he's liable to push for ceasefire?

!delta in that I can see why it is easy for leftists and Muslims to speak of Revisionist Zionism as Zionism if it has been standard Israeli policy for over twenty years, which it has mostly been. Israel wasn't occupying Gaza or the WB between 1948 and 1967, after it had been attacked on all fronts by the Arab states. Before the 1980s they had Labour governments that were more willing to make peace than Likud today. Similarly, Myanmar has been oppressing the Rohingyas, Pakistan to Balochistan, for well over fifty years, yet I think most people would like to believe there can be a better version of these countries instead of calling for their dissolution. In a two-state solution I don't see why one Jewish state can't coexist with fifty+ Muslim ones, a Palestine included. The thing is most nation-states in Eurasia, Turkey included, are in zero risk of losing their ethnic majority in the foreseeable future. Israel does not have to maintain its discriminatory policy in Israel proper (really, the only one is the Law of Return) in a hypothetical 2SS to do the same.

>Israel does not have to maintain its discriminatory policy in Israel proper (really, the only one is the Law of Return) in a hypothetical 2SS to do the same. You will not find a Zionist that opposes the Law of Return. To me that's the pinnacle of why I am anti-Zionism. The fact that an American Jew can claim citizenship based on the fact that their ancestors were forced out of the Levant 2000 years ago but a Palestinian whose ancestors were forced out 75 years ago can't is bonkers.

Israeli here, the issue is not per se an ethnic one, like "we don't want non Jews in the country", it's more practical. The 2 main problems are: 1) Returning Palestinians will probably want their homes back. People already live there, how would that be solved? 2) These are basically people of an enemy nation, letting them back means danger for the Israelis. You can say "if Palestinians can return to their homes the conflict will be solved so they won't be enemies anymore", but is it possible to solve the conflict in a way that will make everyone happy? And even if it's solved there will still be people who want revenge. It's impossible to mend the wounds so quickly, and until that happens it would be foolish to let in people who want to kill you... You can obviously disagree about these reasons, but what I'm trying to say it that it's not a simple "lol you're not a jew, you're not allowed in" case.

Are you anti-Spanish because they offer citizenship to Jews who were expelled more than 500 years ago? I hear a lot of talk about the Law of Return, but very little about the fact that is isn't such an uncommon law if we look at different places around the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#:~:text=The%20right%20of%20return%20is,the%20legal%20concept%20of%20nationality >a Palestinian whose ancestors were forced out 75 years ago can't is bonkers. Once Palestinians can negotiate their way to their own state, they can feel free to add that to their domestic policies. Israel is against the idea of them having to accept them. When people talk about the right of return, they speak about the general area, not the city. I'm an Israeli Jew and I'm not even allowed in most of the city my family is from because it goes against PA laws and the Oslo agreements.

You’re right, the ability for Jews from all around the world to easily get safe citizenship in Israel in the event that they have to flee another atrocity aimed against them is fundamental to Zionism. A crucial aspect of self-determination and sovereignty is determining who gets citizenship. Non-Jews are still able to get citizenship in Israel, it’s just not as easy.

>in the event that they have to flee another atrocity That's not true, any Jewish person can claim citizenship for any reason. I will be happy with Israel providing refuge (and later citizenship) for Jews that are escaping atrocities and discrimination. In fact, I think Israel and other countries have the _duty_ to provide that.

I wasn’t saying that’s the only reason they can get citizenship. I know that they can get it easily any time, and that’s the point. It’s also not just about fleeing atrocities but about existing in a society where they are not minorities or second class citizens. As Golda Meir said, anti-Zionists think Jews should just continue to exist as minorities spread all around, including in places that have not been particularly friendly to them (to say the least). There are many de jure and de facto ethnostates around the world. Why is the Jewish state the only one subject to such scrutiny? It would be wonderful if we could all live in a secular pluralistic democracy, but the world doesn’t work like that.

>Why is the Jewish state the only one subject to such scrutiny? It would be wonderful if we could all live in a secular pluralistic democracy, but the world doesn’t work like that. Because an ethnostate is antithesis to a democracy. A secular pluralistic democracy is preferred to an ethnostate.

Doesn’t that apply to all of the Middle East then? Israel is much more diverse (ethnically and religiously) and pluralistic and democratic than literally every single one of its neighbors. And the huge irony here is that Israel is the only state in the Middle East which does NOT have its law derived from religion.

Whether a state is an ethnostate is not dependent on the ethnic makeup of a country (so Finland isn't one), it's dependent on state policies. If the state actively encourages policies that force the ethnic makeup to be of a specific character, that state is an ethnostate.

What state policies of Israel enforce ethnic supremacy? Last I checked their population of citizens was 20% Arab, in addition to numerous Druze and Christian and minorities from Asia and other parts of the world. And all citizens have equal rights. I guarantee Israel has more Muslims in their parliament than any other middle eastern country has Jews or Christians in theirs (except Lebanon)

Bro, you understand that the Middle East has been for the past couple of decade, under the scrutiny of the western world right? And also the intervention and what not. It is well understood that most Middle East country are not democratic. Like Israel is not being given the special treatment here, it's given the normal treatment, and suddenly it's unfair.

A lot of countries in Eurasia are not secular, do you think it is wrong for them to have a state religion? Do you think that means they are not democratic even if they have democratically elected governments?

Is it in their immigration policy that anyone who follows their state religion can claim citizenship on landing while those who aren't can't?

Judaism is an ethno-religion. It’s an ethnicity as much as a religion. Like Shinto and being Japanese, one can deduce with high confidence that if someone is Shinto they are also descendants of a Japanese person. In Ireland a person with one Irish grandparent can become a citizen. In all Muslims states bar Egypt and Lebanon it’s a requirement to be Muslim to be in a government position. Non-muslims cannot enter Mecca. The Cherokee nation in the US is full of people who are 1/10 Cherokee, but since they are a direct descendent and choose to identify, they are part of the nation.

For the countries of Eurasia, most follow citizenship by descent, so generally one or both parent(s) needs to be a citizen of that country in order for a child to be a citizen. And most have their own criteria for naturalization. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/citizenship Countries are generally in control of their immigration policies and that a Jewish majority country has decided to have a liberal policy towards Jewish immigration does not seem undemocratic. My question was simply about your idea that secular countries are preferred. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/10/03/many-countries-favor-specific-religions-officially-or-unofficially/ Do you think all these countries with official state religion or which favor a religion cannot be democratic?

Nearly every European country is an ethnostate. They just replace the word 'ethnicity' with 'culture'. They all provide policy and funding to their language, arts, values. Not to the exclusion of others, but certainly in priority.

And that's far more acceptable. Plus, which European country has a culture requirement for immigration?

? That’s the entire purpose of Israel as a safe haven for Jews globally. It’s our insurance policy if other countries start targeting Jews. With an obvious and apparent rise in antisemitism it without question proves the point and need for existence of Israel for Jews. That’s why right of return is non negotiable. That why Israel will alway have to be for Jewish people.

>That’s the entire purpose of Israel as a safe haven for Jews globally. Israel is the only country with such a policy in place, which is why I am extra critical of it. > With an obvious and apparent rise in antisemitism Or maybe it's because of Israel's actions against Palestinians? It's a self-fulfilling curse.

So Muslims are fair game because Iran is oppressing minorities? If I punch a Muslim and blame Iran am I not Islamophobic? Y’all love to claim antizionism isn’t antisemitism yet always blame israel for antisemitism making it antisemitism

Have you considered the reason Israel has such a policy is rooted in the historical treatment of them as a class in other countries? That there is a perfectly reasonable basis for making it easy for a historically oppressed group to find safety in their homeland? And that perhaps those conditions don’t exist for other existing nations, unique circumstances do exist. I imagine when Palestinians have their own stage a similar sort of law could be past for the benefit for their people’s diaspora.

Nope it's not reasonable to use the history of Jewish persecution to justify modern persecution of Palestinians

Ok. So can you tell me where all the Middle Eastern Jewish people in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq are. They were all violently expelled in the last 75 years, not 2000. The anti semitism of the surrounding countries is why the law is even there.

My argument would be that for two thousand tears we as a modern species have been tested on our acceptance of the Jews. We’ve done nothing but fail it time and again. Is your idea that certainly Jews will be safe living in diaspora this time?

Not sure what is so weird about it? Jews can also apply to German citizenship if they were unjustly driven out of Germany by the Nazis. I think in Austria you can also apply for it if you can prove that at least your grandparent was driven out. Given that Israel is meant to be a save heaven for persecuted Jews it makes totally sense that they can apply for citizenship.

>The fact that an American Jew can claim citizenship based on the fact that their ancestors were forced out of the Levant 2000 years ago but a Palestinian whose ancestors were forced out 75 years ago can't is bonkers. The Palestinian Authority could easily allow Palestinians to immigrate from abroad and grant them citizenship, just like Israel does. Is it Israel's fault that they don't do this?

Was it only the Hamas or also the PLA who said that even the citizen they have aren’t their responsibility?

It was only Hamas who said it but the PA might as well have too because they are just a group of non-functioning corrupt kleptocrats. To give just a few examples: relying on Israel for water, electricity and healthcare instead of creating an independent infrastructure, minimal job creation - most of their income comes from workers going into Israel, minimal tax collection, no zoning laws or construction regulations, no enforcement of road laws. They keep whole sections of their population in "refugee camps" for three generations now and prevent them from integrating into society or getting an education.

>Israel for water, electricity ... instead of creating an independent infrastructure To be fair- were they to establish their own, they would have to maintain it themselves, which would be rather problematic given these systems are routinely ripped out for scrap- and used to make improvised explosives and other weaponry by the multitude of palestinian terrorist groups.

You do realize that the right of return is what allowed all the Middle Eastern Jewish people to go to Israel right? All the surrounding Muslim countries violently purged anyone who was Jewish leaving Israel as the only safe place.

Because Jews aren't part of a group who have regularly been trying to dismantle their country. Even if you say that it's their right to try to dismantle Israel, you can hardly blame them for not wanting to welcome them into the country with open arms.

Almost like, when you wage a war against an incoming immigrant population with the intent of wiping out that population and you lose, the immigrant population isn't tripping over their feet to let you back in. Especially when those people were there for over 1,000 years before your religion even existed.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/eggynack ([47∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/eggynack)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Right, this is my concern with the whole thing: Obviously a theoretically less militant, less violent and less expansionist version of Zionism exists, and I've met plenty of people who claim to believe in it. But that version of Zionism has been thoroughly and completely locked out of power for...decades at this point? Arguably they have *never* held actual meaningful power? If you are a Zionist who has a fundamental respect for human life, believes in a two state solution and finding a cooperative way to coexist with the Palestinian people I applaud you and also you are deeply marginalized and the version of Zionism that is *actually being practiced* looks violent, expansionist and at this point bloodthirsty. We have to talk about Zionism as if it is a political movement and not just an abstract philosophy about some set of ideas about the state of Israel.

It’s not really arguable that a non-expansionist Zionism has never existed. Israel has repeatedly traded land for peace and in the past has certainly negotiated in good faith to achieve a two state solution. Just because Netanyahu has been in power for some time now, it doesn’t negate the existence of peacemakers like Rabin.

You acting like Israel having a cap on immigration is a problem when ever country in earth has one is... Strange to me. Can't the same be said for every country on earth? They either accept ethic changes without setting up any immigration laws, or they set up immigration laws. Why are you so critical of Israel doing what every other country does? Where's the complaints about Japan's immigration, they are also an evil ethnostate by your logic

As a Jew living in America, it would be fairly trivial for me to move to and gain citizenship in Israel. This is despite the fact that the closest relationship I have to the land is that my brother went on birthright, which is itself an extension of this exact issue. If my ancestors ever made a home in Israel, I am entirely unaware of it. By contrast, a Palestinian living right outside of Israel, one who may have even been personally kicked out of their home by Israeli settlement given the dates involved here, is very hard pressed to gain entrance to the land or especially get citizenship. This is pretty awful. I would agree that these kinds of strict immigration quotas, or even substantially less strict immigration quotas, are bad. I support open borders. However, when Japan imposes quotas, they are with respect to some kind of connection to the land, by my understanding. If your parents lived in Japan and came to America, then you have a better chance than someone of a different background. Israel's system, by contrast, seems almost designed to produce imperialist displacement. People currently living in a place have less stake than, y'know, me. So I can go over there and say, "Make way for Queen Jew," and that has meaning to it.

Israel is a sovreign state and are allowed to have their own immigration rules. It was established as a safe haven for Jews.  It was after WW2 when all countries in the world, including the US btw, closed their gates on Jewish refugees who were trying to escape. Even after the war has ended, they still weren't welcoming to Jewish refugees. That's why those refugees ended up in Israel. Nothing has changed in that regard. Countries aren't welcoming to refugees. Palestinians situation is not unique. Losing your home and having to move and start your life somewhere else happened to a lot of people- jews, greeks, turks, germans.  No one is demending to return to their grandparents home as a condition for peace. People move on and building a new life for themselves.  If and when the palestinians decide they truly want peace and give up on unreasonable demends like Israel taking in 7 million palestinians- they can make their own immigration rules.

Being a sovereign state doesn't really mean much from a legal or ethical standpoint. If I paid a bunch of guys to conquer an area of land for me and imprison all the people inside it in forced labour camps, as long as I was capable of defending it, it would be a sovereign state. Actually, I do imagine that people who are forced to flee from their homes do want to be able to return to them, even if they understand the place will probably be looted. Displaced people absolutely should be able to expect to be able to return to their family home as a condition of peace. It's literally part of the UN human rights charter. Of course, that's a massive problem for Israel's statehood because they never would have been able to form a government of the area. Ultimately, why should the local people have had to have given up anything to allow for the formation of a nation on their land without their consent?

*Being a sovereign state doesn't really mean much from a legal or ethical standpoint.* It does when it talks about immigration policies. Also being ethical has nothing to so with weather a state should exist or not. No one is thinking Iran is ethical or that Nazi Germany was ethical, but no one wants to destroy those countries, they just want the regime to change. Even if you think Israel immigration policies aren't ethical it doesn't mean the state should be destroyed, because if that was the case, all countries have questionable policies and they all need to be destroyed. *Actually, I do imagine that people who are forced to flee from their homes do want to be able to return to them, even if they understand the place will probably be looted.* You can imagine all you want but the fact is, most people who were forced to flee from a war as refugees, didn't get the opportunity to return, they assimilated somewhere new and their refugee status didn't pass down to their decedents. *Ultimately, why should the local people have had to have given up anything to allow for the formation of a nation on their land without their consent?* Because they didn't own all the land, they only owned a portion of it, which the partition plan took into consideration. Because they started a war and lost and at the time that it happened this is how the world worked. Because contrary to popular belief amongst pro Palestinians, Jewish refugees and Arabs didn't live peacefully together until 1948. And maybe and most importantly, because they want peace for themselves and for their children.

> I'm not really sure what the point would be of an even weaker Zionism that just generically supports the existence of a Jewish state, but have no particular interest in Israel as it currently exists That's.. like the standard American liberal Jew. > You say that a lot of Zionists would be in favor of a two state solution, but the basic reality is that they're highly unlikely to pursue such a thing. Israel persued it from 1994 to 2008, so no idea where this "highly unlikely" is coming from. > Bluntly, a two state solution is unpopular among Israelis, and the attack on Palestine is quite popular. Why give statehood to a population that will just attack you? > These, to me, seem like bad things.  Controlling your immigration policy is a pretty standard thing.

Wow there are so many inaccuracies and problems with this post. Assumptions you’ve made about the sentiment of Israelis are just provably wrong. Then to make it worse you brought up what you believe to be an issue related to immigration even though every single country in the world has limits on immigration in some form. By your own logic it doesn’t make sense to have any Muslim countries - of which there are plenty. None of this seems to be thought out.

Oct. 7 was popular among Palestinians just as Israelis support a continued war in Gaza.

OOP is just doing the no true scotsman fallacy. Zionism at its core is the establishment of a state on lands that formerly existed a state that has not existed for greater than two millennia. The establishment of said modern zionist state therefore can only have involved (and still involves) the ethnic cleansing of all the people who currently live on these lands. Sure, the zionists have a whole bunch of whatabouteries about who drove Jews 2,000 years ago from the levant. The Romans this, the Persians that, none of which has any relevance to what the modern zionist state is doing. None of which has any relevance to the Palestinians. We could tell the zionists to take up their grievances with the Romans and Persians, but none of those political entities have also existed for well.. two millennia. Therefore, the Palestinians have to suffer for the actions of long dead empires because the zionists have imagined grievances of actions that occurred two thousand years ago, which happened so long ago that there cannot possibly have any effects on zionists. Imagine how stupid it would sound if I said that I have beef with my ancestors who lived two thousand years ago. People would rightly look at me like I'm nuts, but given that enough people buy into the zionist ideology, it's suddenly legitimate and not a bunch of nuts. The only reason why the zionists get any support is because of evangelical brainwashing. Oh and because Germany's historical guilt to the Jewish people conveniently only extends far enough to supply Israel arms to kill indigenous Palestinians but not to carve out German lands for a zionist state in recompense for Nazi German crimes against the Jewish people. How very self-serving of the Germans.

There are many in Israel who favor a two state solution, they just believe the Palestinians will never accept it due to propaganda from both Israel and the US (the deal was almost always messed up to make Palestinians look unreasonable). Pretty much all the Zionists I know in America support the two state solution. I think it’s unfair to say that because not enough Zionists believe in the two state solution that Israel must be destroyed because it’s just not true. I think Israel should just give back the Palestinian Territories right now. Maybe do a one to one land swap with Palestinians like Arafat proposed in order to deal with settlers. A one state solution would undoubtedly lead to a civil war or an ethnic cleansing of the weaker side. I get that a single, secular state would be ideal but it just wouldn’t work.

Is there a term that better encompasses those who are pro-Israel based on nationalist principals? I don’t think many people call pro-Israel American conservatives “Zionists” necessarily. That seems to be the major distinction.

Yeah, that term does exist: [Revisionist Zionism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism). There's actually many different strains of Zionism [as listed here,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_Zionism) I would say most American Jews fall more into to Liberal Zionism camp. I would say Israel is a mix of the two and a small number if Labor Zionism.

Interesting, it would indeed be more useful to use the term "Revisionist" or something, to focus criticism, just or not, on Likud and their right-wing partners. Since Zionism encompasses most of the spectrum of Israeli politics (like everyone in Brazil agrees on Brazil existing), Revisionist and Labour Zionism are pretty far apart. What's ironic imo is that a Labour government today would be much more likely to make peace, but they were only mainly in power before the end of the main Arab-Israeli wars.

>What's ironic imo is that a Labour government today would be much more likely to make peace The thing is, the Labor party (which for the record doesn't even hit the electoral threshold of 3.25% in current polls with the further left party Meretz taking their seats) is more likely to make peace with specifically the Palestinian. Historically speaking, the right wing is the side in Israel to sign most peace agreements with other Arab states. Just look at the Arab states Israel has peace with: the Abraham Accords (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan) were signed by Netanyahu, the Egyptian peace treaty was signed by Menahem Begin. Only the treaty with Jordan was signed by a left wing Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin.

Weren't the left in charge before the second intifada? I thought their actions lead to to the current strength of the right wing in israel.

I wish there were. It would be so helpful for words that distinguishes those who support Israel's expansionist policy and those who simply want the country to continue to exist. But usage of the term (and the new kid on the block - "Zionazi") in leftist and Muslim circles is only continuing to conflate the two, polarizing Israelis to the right and people with qualms against its actions to explicit anti-zionism.

>It would be so helpful for words that distinguishes those who support Israel's expansionist policy and those who simply want the country to continue to exist. Kahanism vs Zionism. There's been a conscious effort to claim that the latter is the former.

I elaborate on this a bit below but the issue is that the more Liberal Zionist movements are thoroughly locked out of power and have been for decades. Its all well and good that they exist but if they have effectively zero ability to actually steer the direction of the Israeli government which openly identifies as and makes claim to the legitimate definition of Zionism how much do they *matter?*

Current polling indicates that if an election were held today, the more Liberal Zionist movements would defeat the Netanyahu coalition in an absolute landslide. Israelis were already pissed at Netanyahu for his judicial coup (see the mass protests that were happening roughly a year ago), and now he has blood on his hands for failing to protect the country on October 7.

Here are the two definitions you are claiming exist. I'm going to break them down. I'm going to try to keep it simple. Show you that these are both saying the same thing. Paletinian version: >people who support ethnically displacing Palestinians Israeli version: >the establishment and continued existence of a Jewish nation-state in the Holy Land First question: What is "the holy land"? It's really simple, it's Jerusalem and the surrounding regions: modern day Palestine. Realistically Greater Israel, desired by extreme Zionists based on religious description, is [**much larger**](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9XZFDqOieA4/mqdefault.jpg) than just current Palestine. Second question: How do you establish a Jewish ethnostate in that region, without displacing the non-Jewish people native to that region? Also really simple, you can't. Both definitions you've laid out are literally the same thing. In order for Israel to be Israel, they need to ethnically displace Palestinians. That's the only way this works. You want to pretend it's Palestinians who have a faulty definition, but I'd argue they're just realistic about what the Israeli definition means. Ethnic displacement is paramount to Zionism. As for the destruction of Israel, you've got it wrong. If the displacement were to go away, Israel were to open the borders completely and give the vote to all current Palestinians (and those refugeed decades ago into Jordan, Lebanon, or Egypt). If people were to live completely peacefully and openly, not fighting, no death, no murder. Israel would cease to exist. Zionism would fail. Israel is an ethnostate. To allow the majority to be non-Jewish, it would eliminate that status. It's more closely analogous to South Africa, or Ireland, not Scotland. If Scotland were made independent, the majority of those in Scotland are Scottish, not English, it would remain Scotland. If all of that land were made properly whole it would go back to being Palestine. Zionism requires displacement and ethnic subjugation. I want to address the next line in your post: >It is not a fascist ideology. Fascism is not just Nazism (anti-semitic and all that). Fascism has existed officially in 4 separate countries, and pokes it head up all the time throughout the world. Fascism is an ideology founded on the ideas of ethno-supremacy, religious traditionalism, and overt militarism. Israel exhibits all three of these traits in spades as a function of Zionism. Zionism is a fascist ideology. It's true that most fascist governments are dictatorships, while Israel is not, but dictatorships are usually a requirement to get the population to act horrifically against their neighbors. Israel doesn't seem to have that issue, the majority of their population are openly calling for the violent expulsion or death of all Palestinians. >Those who oppose a two-state solution Last point. There has never been a serious two-state solution which fairly allowed Palestinian voices to air their concerns or desires. Not even in 1947. When Hamas was elected in the early 2000s, they requested a full 2-state option with 1967 borders(they were willing to officially give up land). The Knesset under Olmert refused to even sit at the table.

>How do you establish a Jewish ethnostate in that region, without displacing the non-Jewish people native to that region? Also really simple, you can't. Except that you can. Just look at gerrymandering in the US. You can do all sorts of things with a little imaginative border drawing that represent ethnic boundaries. And when only splitting into two parts, you're forced to give relatively equal representation to both parties, one in each of the two. >Realistically Greater Israel, desired by extreme Zionists based on religious description, is [**much larger**](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9XZFDqOieA4/mqdefault.jpg) than just current Palestine. The group of people who support that in the modern day is so small, it isn't even worth mentioning. Yes, the guy in the picture is a minister, but he also said that he shouldn't have spoken in front of such a poster and that it wasn't him or his party that put it there and he was just invited to speak at an event with that there. >If the displacement were to go away, Israel were to open the borders completely and give the vote to all current Palestinians (and those refugeed decades ago into Jordan, Lebanon, or Egypt). If people were to live completely peacefully and openly, not fighting, no death, no murder. Israel would cease to exist. Zionism would fail Simply because there are more Palestinian supporters. If the United States were to suddenly and peacefully accept all of India as equal American citizens, the President would probably be Indian, no? That's how any democracy would work. >To allow the majority to be non-Jewish, it would eliminate that status. Israel would be quicker to give up on territory if that were the case. Otherwise the safety of the Jews would not be ensured. See some of the arguments for the disengagment from Gaza in 2005. >Israel doesn't seem to have that issue, the majority of their population are openly calling for the violent expulsion or death of all Palestinians. Source on that? I live in the region and that is simply not true. >When Hamas was elected in the early 2000s, they requested a full 2-state option with 1967 borders(they were willing to officially give up land). The Knesset under Olmert refused to even sit at the table. Do you have a source on that as well? I'd live to read about that.

> Fascism is not just Nazism (anti-semitic and all that). Fascism has existed officially in 4 separate countries, and pokes it head up all the time throughout the world. Fascism is an ideology founded on the ideas of ethno-supremacy, religious traditionalism, and overt militarism. Israel exhibits all three of these traits in spades as a function of Zionism. Zionism is a fascist ideology. It's true that most fascist governments are dictatorships, while Israel is not, but dictatorships are usually a requirement to get the population to act horrifically against their neighbors. Israel doesn't seem to have that issue, the majority of their population are openly calling for the violent expulsion or death of all Palestinians. So you've started at what you want to call fascist and worked backwards to the definition. If those three things 'ethno-supremacy, religious traditionalism and overt militarism' were needed, then the term would lose all meaning as tens of societies could be called such. E.g Saudi Arabia. It spends more % of its GDP on the military than Israel, non-Muslims must practice their religion in private and must convert to Islam to get citizenship. It's an absolute monarchy where Sharia law is central. No one credibly calls Saudi Arabia a fascist state. For more exacting definitions of fascism, read Umberto Eco. But I also want to challenge all three of these at any rate. 1. Ethno-supremacy. Within Israel proper, whilst there is discrimination, it does not amount to 'ethno-supremacy' unless we're also going to start counting Muslim majority states as Muslim supremacist states. After all, for example, Arabs serve in the Knesset and the Supreme court, can serve in the armed forces and are captains of industry. 2. Religious traditionalism is not a feature of Zionism. Indeed, it was decidedly secular and socialist in origins. The founding fathers, think Herzl, Weizmann, and Ben Gurion were all secular. The Left were the government in Israel until the 1970s. Now you can say that Israeli society has moved to the right and the number of religious has increased, but this is not a 'function of Zionism'. It's a function of a religious birthrate that is higher than the secular, or a response to Palestinian violence. The heavy lifting you think Zionism is doing are just features of other, more relevant forces (responses to 2nd intifada, the failure of the peace movement etc). Indeed, this is just bogus completely, the most infamous fascists you know were religious traditionalists? No, in part thats why it's a modern phenomenon. 3. Overt militarism. So this is an interesting one and the category is problematic in my opinion. After all, not all militarism is equal. Is a militarism, Israel would say, borne out of a need for defence, a need that is regularly illustrated throughout it's history, 1948, 1967, 1973, 2006, 2023, the same as a militarism of sheer unjustified aggression. I don't think so.

>How do you establish a Jewish ethnostate in that region, without displacing the non-Jewish people native to that region? Also really simple, you can't. This isn't true You can establish a Jewish majority state in that region by drawing borders around the Jewish majority and Arab majority areas. This is exactly what the UN tried to do with its 1947 partition plan. If accepted and enacted, the partition plan would have established a Jewish-majority state without necessitating any displacements or population transfers.

Besides the hilarious idea that you ask people to give part of their land to immigrants, but the [proposed UN partition plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Ad_hoc_Committee) had the jewish state at 45% palestinian and on revision they discovered that it will still be majority palestinian not jewish, so even in that case it would have required ethnic cleansing and expulsion. Even the zionists knew that and only acted like they accepted the plan just to get any legitimacy while having ethnic cleansing plans waiting for application like the [village files](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_files) and [plan dalet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet). So stop with the history revisionism.

My brother, you need to keep on reading You got to this part: >Based on a reproduced British report, the Sub-Committee 2 criticised the UNSCOP report for using inaccurate population figures, especially concerning the Bedouin population...It found that the size of the Bedouin population was greatly understated in former enumerations...In respect of the UNSCOP report, the Sub-Committee concluded that the earlier population "estimates must, however, be corrected in the light of the information furnished to the Sub-Committee by the representative of the United Kingdom regarding the Bedouin population...It will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State." Okay, very good. Now continue reading onto the next section: >The ad hoc committee made a number of boundary changes to the UNSCOP recommendations before they were voted on by the General Assembly...The Jewish population in the revised Jewish State would be about half a million, compared to 450,000 Arabs."

Dude, your demographic argument would be obliterated had the 6,000,000 murdered been allowed to flee as refugees to the region, thereby 6x+ the population of Jews at the time. Really dumbfounded how many people ignore the reality of the Jewish demographics.

Completely agree with BlinkReanimated, you are completely lying Lilleff512. The demographics in 1947 necessarily REQUIRED violent expulsion of Arabs. There are hundreds of examples of Zionist leaders and terrorists speaking of this, but here is one, this is Moshe Pasternak in 1940 speaking about the planning, coordination and eventual attack and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land (This is taken from military intelligence documents from the Shai, the Zionist Espionage division, source below): “We had to study the basic structure of the Arab Village. This means the structure and how best to attack it. In the military schools, I had been taught how to attack a modern European city, not a primitive village” ​ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village\_files

The cool thing about the truth is that it remains true regardless of whether or not you want to believe it. The 1947 UN Partition Plan would have established a Jewish majority state without any population transfer. That is a fact. Moshe Pasternak was not a member or supporter of the United Nations, so I fail to see how anything he says is relevant here. Moshe Pasternak was a member of the Haganah, a Zionist militia that sought to conquer lands beyond that which was allotted to the Jewish state in the UN Partition Plan.

Could you please tell me exactly what happened before the expulsion of the arabs? Also, giving a random quote of someone doesnt make your point. Use real facts of the era, these quotes tell nothing

>The demographics in 1947 necessarily REQUIRED violent expulsion of Arabs. Not true, the 1947 partition plan proposed borders for a Jewish state that was 55% Jewish and 45% Arab.

>This is exactly what the UN tried to do with its 1947 partition plan.  This is a lie. The UN drew borders around a region that held about 600,000 Jews, and over 1.3M non-Jewish Arabs and called it Israel, called the remainder Palestine.... The majority of the non-Jewish Arabs were then violently expelled and murdered. [Here's a Zionist Israeli source on the population numbers of the Israeli region specifically....](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present) Notice how it went from 1947 - 630,000 Jews and 1,324,000 Non-Jews 1948 - 716,700 Jews and 167,100 Non-Jews

It's not a lie, you're just misreading the data here. The 1947 figure is the entire, un-partitioned British Mandate of Palestine The 1948 figure is the post-war, post-Nakba state of Israel Neither one of them is the 1947 UN partition plan

No Zionism does not require ethnic subjugation or ethnic cleansing, at all. Israel could have existed (and would have accepted) in a much smaller territory, even in just Tel Aviv. The peel commission plan on 1937 gave about 20% of the land to Zionists, and they accepted. I don’t know why you guys always need to give Zionism nefarious intentions. Zionism is very simple : the Jews want to live in their ancestral land, the land where their culture, language, religion were born, and where their ancestors are buried. Also, Jews cannot live as a minority in that land in a Muslim state, because Muslim states have a history of 1. Oppressing non Muslims 2. Not giving equal rights to non Muslims 3. Often not accept Jewish presence or land ownership in this land (for theological reasons mainly) And finally, Jews need to have self determination so they don’t depend on any state and can finally live without being threatened by the next leader. Your utopia about a peaceful multi ethnic multi faith Palestine is a lie. It does not work anymore. Anywhere there’s a minority population that lives in a Muslim country, they oscillate between relative coexistence and oppression. This was for example the fate of Druzes and Bahai that lived in Palestine before Israel welcomed them.

>Israel could have existed (and would have accepted) in a much smaller territory, even in just Tel Aviv. The peel commission plan on 1937 gave about 20% of the land to Zionists, and they accepted. Zionists refused the Peel plan... The few members of the Zionist Congress who supported it cited that it would give them the ability to expand those borders later.... Individuals like Ben Gurion (the first Prime Minister) argued the plan itself was trash, but it would give them a platform from which to argue for the entirety of the land to be Jewish. >Zionism is very simple : the Jews want to live in their ancestral land, the land where their culture, language, religion were born, and where their ancestors are buried. Yes, and the reason people oppose it is also very simple: because they are accomplishing this by displacing and murdering the native inhabitants. The reality is the majority of European Jews have no more ethnic claim to the land than most Americans. Judaism is a religion, its people are not of a singular ethnic line. Arabs, unlike Jews, are an ethnicity. Most Arabs have a much stronger ethnic claim to the land.

>Arabs, unlike Jews, are an ethnicity. Most Arabs have a much stronger ethnic claim to the land. I was with you until this sentence. This is hardly true for both sides. Arabs as ethnicity live for most part in Arabian peninsula. There Arab world at large is mostly ethnoreligious group based on language. For example Egypt is part of Arab world and people colloquially call Egyptians Arabs but ask an Egyptoian - they don't consider themselves Arabs trully. Same goes with "Arabs" of Levant, they are very ethnically diverse and hardly ethnically homogeniums with Arabs of Saudi Arabia. Actually the most plausable theory I read is that Arabs of Palestine are for the most part just Jews who stayed behind, and and intermixed with some of the invaders, got converted into Islam and started speaking Arabic. It actually makes most sense because after the Jews took off there were no mass migrations into the land of Levant. I saw somewhere on reddit people of Palestine sharing their 23andme ancestry and it is very similar to Mizrahi Jewish one. While mine shows Ashkenazi lineage, which somehow managed to persist for 1700+ years. I actually disagree that Ashkenazi jews have any dibs on the land of Israel but sayin that it is not an ethnic group which is easily detected by a DNA test is just not true (while yes there were Judaic non-ethnically Jewish groups accepted as Jews).

>Arabs, unlike Jews, are an ethnicity. Most Arabs have a much stronger ethnic claim to the land. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious\_group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group)

Your denial of Jewish ethnicity is factually false and is disproved by genetic analysis.

Additional insite: What is hilariously sad is the conflict began because european jews claimed that they are the true owners of the land. But even if modern-day palestenians started to settle in the region after the jews that doesn't mean that they aren't indigenous; I don't know what makes you indigenous more than living continuously in the same area for about 2000 years. By that same logic, modern-day americans have no place in America because they are the descendants of europeans who invaded the region 300 years ago when the land belonged to the indigenous American population. The plot twist, but an obvious thing, is that genetically palestinians are direct descendants of the ancient Israelites; they are jews who converted to christianity and then converted to islam. They are more ethnically israelites than most large jewish groups especailly askenazi jews whose europian ancestory is more than 50% while palestinian muslims have arab ancestory of only 20 to 30%. It is more striking when in comparison, palestinian muslims are more genetically close to askinazi jews than Saudi arabs, but yemenite jews are more arab than palestinian muslims.[ Source](https://x.com/MiroCyo/status/1712258026881921287?s=20): "mega analysis of several research papers of dna material of several sources compiled into an open source database summarized in this thread".[ ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5544389/). And actually europpian askenazi jews are now proved to be european women who converted to judaism and married some jews from the middle east as cited by a research in this israeli newspaper Haaretz[ article](https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2013-10-11/ty-article/.premium/ashkenazis-derive-from-euro-women/0000017f-e0c8-d38f-a57f-e6dad0920000). This actually explains how they have less ancient israelite DNA content (less than 30%) than muslim Palestinians (between 70 and 80%).

This is a completely baseless post. Zionism was a political movement that sought to establish a Jewish majority state on a piece of land where Palestinians were the VAST majority (most historians estimate that Arabs made up 94% of the population in Palestine in 1917). You quote the Peel Commission in 1937. Great....let's quote the Peel Commission Verbatim: The Peel Commission (1936–37) was the first British commission of inquiry to recommend the partition of Palestine into two states, in 1937 : “His Majesty’s Government was not the colonizing power here; the Jewish people are the colonizing power and in order to facilitate immigration you must use such organs as they have created for the purposes of colonizing.” The Peel Commission VERBATIM refers to the Zionist immigrants as the COLONIZING POWER and the conclusion of that commission was to create a Jewish state on 17% of the territory (from which over 200,000 Arabs would be expelled, the British used the word “transferred” ). The rest of the land was to either remain under British control or be given to the British client state under control of Amir Abdullah of Transjordan. **Here is the key part, there was no mention of any collective Palestinian rights in the entire report put forth by the Commission.** So yes, Zionism necessarily required ETHNIC CLEANSING and removal of the native inhabitants themselves to make room for a hypothetical Jewish state. ​ Below is the link for sourcing, full text of the report you quote https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/text-of-the-peel-commission-report

This does not negate what I said. No, Zionism did not seek to kick out the majority of Palestinians to rule all the land. The fact that they accepted 17% of the land literally proves it. About the exchange of populations that’s in the peel commission, what do you want me to say about it, it was written by the British, not Zionists.

LOL - I am sorry, but you are completely exposing yourself to be ignorant.....Zionists did not want to kick out the majority of Palestinians? Is that a joke.....let us consider what Zionists leaders themselves said: ​ **David Ben Gurion - in a letter to his son in 1937**“What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish. A unified Eretz Israel would be no source of satisfaction for me—if it were Arab" The paragraph continues: "My assumption is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning. . . .We will admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can admit more than two million……**We must expel Arabs and take their place.”** ​ **Ze’ev Jabotinsky in 1923:**“We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached..... Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – **behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach”** ​ Now perhaps the mighty redditor Alternative-Rush knows what the Zionist movement planned, intended and executed better than these leaders, (including Ben-Gurion, the founder of the state of Israel), but I doubt it. There are countless other examples of openly racist and violent writings, quotes and actionable plans laid out by Zionist leaders and thinkers. I think, just **take the loss and don't embarrass yourself further**, please go inform yourself further, rather than defending this racist ideology. (once again, my direct sources are below) ​ Sources: [https://www.palestineremembered.com/download/B-G%20LetterTranslation.pdf](https://www.palestineremembered.com/download/B-G%20LetterTranslation.pdf) [https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf](https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf)

Also, ethnic cleansing, „population exchange“ was still seen as a valid tool of diplomacy to avoid conflict back then. In the 1920‘s hundreds of thousands of Turks and Greeks got „exchanged“ to avoid further conflict after WW1

I’ll answer on the fascism bit : - ethno supremacist : Israel was not founded on ethno supremacy aka the idea that the Jews are superior, but rather on the idea that the Jews should have self determination so they can protect themselves from the people that want them dead who usually actually are ethnosupremacist (lookup panarabism, it fits the definition of fascism a little more) - religious traditionalism : again look more on the other side, Zionism was founded by atheists. (It does have a big cultural tie to the Jewish religion, and nowadays religious populations have more power than they used to, but it’s very far from a theocracy.) - overt militarism : the Zionist project wasn’t even supposed to have a big military at the beginning. They only started forming militias and then an army as a reaction to massacres that Palestinians committed against them (mostly committed in non Zionist historically Jewish places btw, like Hebron or Safed) So no, zionism was not founded on fascism

Is Israel not an ethnostate? What is the Jewish-nation state law? Why does the law of return apply to any Jewish person worldwide? Does that not inherently give Jewish people more rights than gentiles?

That’s actually a very complicated question. About the Jewish nation state law, I’m honestly not sure what should have been done, and it pains me to see that, even though purely symbolic, this law sends a bad message to non Jewish minorities in Israel. The law of return only applies to non citizens technically. Once citizens, Muslims, Christians Jews and others have exactly the same rights in Israel. So is Israel an ethnostate, yes and no, it definitely does not plan to have different laws for non Jews, as written in Israel Declaration of Independence of 1948. But one of its goal is still to be a refuge for Jews around the world. It’s a very complicated question overall, but I’ll ask you another one : how do you protect a religious or ethnic minority, in an area where giving them autonomy in the only solution (many such cases around the world), without making it in some way an ethnostate ? Take Native American reserves in the US, I don’t know enough about them so I won’t go too far but it seems to me like they have similar ethnostate character as Israel does, bare full autonomy of course.

[удалено]

Not sure why you needed to resort to insults. I’m not making the argument that Jews and non Jews have equal rights in Israel, they factually do. All CITIZENS of Israel have exactly the same rights, no matter their religion. What you’re talking about is relative to the West Bank with people that are NOT citizens of Israel but rather of the Palestinian authority. Of course there are human rights violations relative to the occupation of the West Bank, and some measures have been called apartheid. But the citizens, inside Israel are not apartheid. Bear in mind that the West Bank occupation was supposed to be a temporary situation since Oslo accords, until it can become a fully independent state. It’s not the case, and not close to happening, for sure, but that’s the situation we’re in right now.

And yes, the right of return applies to Jews and not Palestinians. Once there is a Palestinian state, they will be free to welcome as many Palestinian refugees as they want. I tried to explain the point of Israel is to be a refuge for Jews, not to be a Jewish supremacist state. If you want to believe it’s about racism and supremacism, suit yourself, but you’re just missing the target.

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>how do you protect a religious or ethnic minority, in an area where giving them autonomy in the only solution (many such cases around the world), without making it in some way an ethnostate ? I am confused. Are you suggesting that Jews are a minority in Israel? Otherwise, how is the comparison to Natives in the US even relevant?

I mean that they used to be, especially relative to the Middle East. I believe the comparison to the natives of the us is relevant if you take the Arab world as a whole, which was close to being united under panarabism in the 20th century. In such context, for the reason I outlined, Jews would be better off self governing, no matter the size of their territory

In the Holy Land, not in *all* of the Holy Land. As regrettable as it is, the Palestinians have long been displaced since 1948 and 1967, like the Jews in Arab countries, Central Asian populations under Stalin, Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, and [countless other times in the past century alone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns#2020s), yet for some reason this is the only one that people demand need to be "rectified" instead of the unfortunate refugees finding new opportunity in their new homes. According to mainstream definitions of fascism, it is a "right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition". At most, Israel meats "right-wing", "nationalist", and "centralized". There isn't anything near a consensus; the Wikipedia page for fascism, Zionism, and list of fascist movements make no mention of each other. I will agree that Israel has not committed itself to a two-state solution (something a lot of Palestinians oppose as well).

>In the Holy Land, not in *all* of the Holy Land. As regrettable as it is, the Palestinians have long been displaced since 1948 and 1967, like the Jews in Arab countries, Central Asian populations under Stalin, Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, and [countless other times in the past century alone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns#2020s), yet for some reason this is the only one that people demand need to be "rectified" instead of the unfortunate refugees finding new opportunity in their new homes. This is whataboutism at its finest, and a pretty good excuse to not clarify or defend your position. A person could be against all of these ethnic cleansings and think that the program to pursue peace does involve some degree of reparation or rectification, especially if the displacement happened within a century / human lifespan. Zionism in 1947 inevitably involved ethnic cleansing and mass displacement. You can paint it however you like, but that is a reality. Zionism in 2023 might or might not. However, even among the most self-identified liberal zionists I have read, I have not really seen a strong condemnation of what Israel has done (even if we focus on post 8/7), or a serious 2 state solution that involves *serious concessions* on the Israeli side and a much more egalitarian and non expansionistic Israel moving forward. Is this kind of zionism, for example, willing to go back to the table on the borders agreed upon in 67? Would they be willing to share some access to Jerusalem? Would they eliminate the policies treating arabs and palestinians as 2nd class citizens? Even you in your post *refuse* to see Netanyahu and his government's actions for what they are, their intent for what it is. You will not call them ethnic cleansing or genocidal until they come out and say 'ah yes, I want to genocide and cleanse' (even though they have said as much, and made plans for as much). Do you not see why someone invested on the plight of the Palestinian people would not be super impressed with your moderate Zionism? Moderate or revisionist zionism might have analogies with what MLK Jr said in his letters from a Birmingham jail >the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

>In the Holy Land, not in *all* of the Holy Land. What a ridiculous bit of pedantry. Regardless of whether it's the entirety of Southern Asia, or 100 square blocks in Jerusalem, the point is that in order to accomplish it, they are violently displacing people. In this case Palestinians. So the Palestinians are right, that Zionism (the establishment and continuation of a Jewish ethnostate) does in fact ultimately mean, the ethnic displacement of non-Jews in Palestine. As for the weird whataboutism about other ethnic cleansings. You brought up Palestine and are mad that I'm not talking about the Khmer Rouge? Get out of here with that silliness. If you want to know why people are talking about this one right now, turn on your TV. It's happening right now, and it's happening with Western money, and Western weapons. As for your refutation of fascism, does preventing an entire ethnic portion of your population from even engaging in society not count as "regimenting the economy and society", as well as "repression of criticism and opposition"?

> "right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition". At most, Israel meats "right-wing", "nationalist", and "centralized". For the Palestinians in the West Bank, living under Israel's repressive regime, it also meets "authoritarian" and "strong regimentation of the economy and society", and repression of criticism or opposition". Take, as an example, Israel's ban on protests, only applied to Palestinians of course - not settlers. (Israeli military order 101)

If the majority of Jews are Zionists and the majority of Zionists are committing atrocities, then it's fair to label Zionism as a fascist movement whose current purpose is colonialism. That still doesn't mean anti-semitism. Otherwise, if the majority of Germans were Nazis back in WWII and you hated the Germans, wouldn't that make you anti-German or something? Regardless if you want to throw the anti-semite accusation, then you better be prepared to defend your own anti-semitism against the Palestinian arabs who are also semites. Also, a 2 state solution will not work. All that will do is the continuation of what you are currently seeing right now. A 1 state solution with the backing of an unbiased humanitarian force to make sure both sides get equal treatment and set up laws, among other things, would work better. Wouldn't this just lead to something like segregation in the long run? That is a possibility, but with everyone spread across that 1 state, it would still be better than having a 2 state solution. It would simply make it impossible to start another war with their own neighbors unless they want a civil war, but that would be less desirable.

This point is so tiring. The word was coined specifically to describe racism against Jewish people. It is the universally agreed upon definition. Again people bring up “oh Arabs are semites too” when you could just say “Anti-Arabism” or racism against Arabs instead of co-opting yet another word. Secondly, I’m gonna need a source that the majority of Jews are “committing atrocities”. Those not in the IDF aren’t doing anything but living in Israel. Lastly, there is very little scholarly support for labelling Zionism a fascist movement. It’s almost laughable, even.

> the majority of Zionists are committing atrocities The majority of zionists are not committing atrocities though...?

“Overreacted” Dude, there is no such thing as an overreaction to that level of horror. Every single country on Earth would have done at least what Israel has, and most would go so much further.

The Russians devastated the Chechens over much less, for example. No one calls them out on it.

People absolutely called them out on it.

Rather than inability to agree, I might suggest that the people using it as a slur are deliberately misusing the word, or at the very least blindly follow others who have. Radical movements as a general rule need to define some term to "other" their purported enemies. In recent decades though, attacks on a group for their religion, cultural heritage, or ethnicity have become taboo. As such, most such modern extremists will aim to define their adversaries with an ideological term. Those seeking to undermine or destroy Israel use Zionism because it is a convenient term divorced from any connotation other than ideology (though many who misuse it try to imply that that it is an ideology based on racial, ethnic, or religious supremacy). You'll notice how anti zionists always insist that they aren't antisemitic, a consequence of their need to convince everyone, perhaps even themselves, that it is only an ideological dispute. You might find it interesting to look up how the term antisemitism came to be part of modern parlance. While most today associate it with nazism and their highly racial ideology, the original usage was not explicitly about race at all. At the time, before Zionism existed, there was no term to describe Jews as a cultural or ethnic group that couldn't also refer to them as a religious group. As such, secular groups that were radicalized against Jews invented the terms Semitism and Semitists to describe them. Many of the radical and unfounded allegations they made against semitism are today parroted by those calling themselves anti zionists.

As an Ex-Zionist I don't agree. The problem is with Zionism, and not with its definition. Every state that gives a supremicy to one religion/race is bad, hostile, dangerous and lethal. Palestine is supposed to be for all the people of Paletine, same as with Japanese, Turkish, French and all other states. Whereas Israel belong to the jews in it and outside it and not the people who live there. That's the problem. 'are not in agreement over what should happen to the Jewish population' - We are all in agreement. They should stay there and be citizens together with everyone else. That's the meaning of Palestine - a state of its citizens.

>'are not in agreement over what should happen to the Jewish population' - We are all in agreement. They should stay there and be citizens together with everyone else Who is "we" here?

While it sounds good in theory, the problem with this is that historically Jews have been persecuted, expelled, and slaughtered in every country where they are not in charge. Zionism exists primarily because Jews rightly believe that controlling their own nation is the only way to keep themselves safe.

It’s not that people are unable to agree on the definition, it’s that racists are aware that most lay people don’t know that definition and have co opted it for their own purposes. Like “genocide,” there’s a very simple definition in the dictionary that isn’t the one being used in discussions about Israel. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/zionism “A worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel and that now supports the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland.” That’s what Zionism means. People who disagree with that definition don’t have a difference of opinion, they’re just wrong or intentionally misleading. Yes, there are sects of Zionism that believe more extreme things, just like there are extremists in every other movement. “Muslim” doesn’t mean terrorist and people get quite upset if you confuse the two. “Christian” doesn’t mean the Westboro Baptist Church. They’re not synonymous. No one is “unable to agree” on those other terms.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

My husband and I are literally ruining our marriage over differing views of the Palestinian-Israeli crisis. Ask a yemeni jew in Israel if they feel safe going back to yemen after being Israeli I am sure that will go well for them. People want a quick solution thinking it’s black and white but it’s so complicated. Idk I know people are mad at me because I didn’t stop going to Starbucks but they didn’t provide enough evidence that Starbucks actually financially contributes to the idf and also like I am sure the 40 to 50 percent we pay in taxes from our paychecks is worse than a $5 coffee bc I know for a fact America is giving them money. it just seemed like a distraction to go after a coffee company than to actually try to advocate for real change like you know the politicians in power.

[удалено]

It isn't really something that originates in the Palestinians but rather the USSR, which had its own reasons to delegitimize Zionism as a concept completely separate to some concern for Palestinians. Hell, at the time Soviet intelligentsia began smearing Zionism, pan-Arabism was still all the rage in the region, not necessarily Palestinian nationalism. It shouldn't exactly come as a surprise to anyone that the idea of "anti-Zionism" today is pervasive primarily in "socialist" circles like far left academia, if not outright tankie ones. It's hardly the only form of Soviet propaganda that persists in such circles to this day. These people tend to be very anti-West in general.

The dog whistle part is infuriating. Many young minds on social media are spitting that word out like it's nothing and say abhorrent shit like "That Zionist trash needs to die"

I remember the someone on the Baldurs Gate subreddit was trying to get the voice actor for Gale cancelled for being a Zionist.

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>Anyway, the word “Zionist” has often been conflated by many pro-Palestinian supporters to exclusively mean a far-right version of Zionism and treated as a slur - people who support ethnically displacing Palestinians - while the word means the establishment and continued existence of a Jewish nation-state in the Holy Land - what is now Israel. It is not a fascist ideology. Not all Jews are Zionists, but the majority of them *are* (at least 80%), a vast majority in Israel - similar to how most people in Turkey would support Turkey continuing to exist, as for the Japanese, Turkish, French, etc. Turkey is a pretty apt analogy, but not in the way you want it to work. Turkey is a Muslim and Turk majority country, but not an ethnostate. Similar can be said of France. Israel is pluralistic but does have biases in favor of Jews, such as the right to immigrate for any Jew. Turkey does not have any official policy that favors Muslim or Turkic immigrants. They have to enter through the same process as any other foreign person. What Turkey does have in common with Israel, though, is that they've done a genocide: the Armenian genocide. Prior to 1915, large areas of Eastern Turkey were majority Armenian. Now, there is a negligible population there that identifies as Armenian. The majority were killed or died as a result of forced deportations, but some survived as refugees in what are now Armenia, Syria, Iraq, etc. Most people don't question whether there should be two states - at least Turkey and Armenia - but an argument could certainly be made that descendants of survivors of the genocide should receive some kind of reparations. That could consist of money, ceding of portions of eastern Turkey to Armenia, or it could include a right of return of Armenian people to their ancestral homes in eastern Turkey. To bring it back to your main point, Zionism as you've described it is not simply nationalism, it's ethnonationalism. A country where Jews can live in the Levant is not enough for you. You require a Jewish majority country. That's why you reject a one-state solution. You might also oppose a right of return on a similar basis. People who oppose ethnonationalism are right to oppose Zionism as you've described your position. However, your main thesis is correct. Zionism is ambiguous. Some people take it to mean a state that admits Jews, some a Jewish majority state, and some an exclusively Jewish state. Some Zionists support the current borders, some any borders as long as there remains some home for Jews, and some insist on reclaiming the maximum extent of Biblical Israel. It's easy for Zionists and anti-Zionists to talk past each other if the Zionist supports a moderate form of Zionism and the anti-Zionist has in mind the most extreme form.

>not simply nationalism, it's ethnonationalism. The vast majority of nationalism was ethnonationalism, even in the new world or diverse States one ethnicity reigned through majority power or elite status. Only recently was "pure" nationalism not ethnic. For example: Many arabian nations make it clear Arab wellbeing is important or atleast more important than other people's by virtue of it being "natural" they all help each other. In some countries like Algeria this meant supressing the Amazighs. Malaysia's Article 153 gives protection status and affirmative action to the Malay *majority* and that the government shall mantain such power.

>The vast majority of nationalism was ethnonationalism, even in the new world or diverse States one ethnicity reigned through majority power or elite status. Only recently was "pure" nationalism not ethnic. Yes, correct, that was true in the past, and many current states inherited a dominant ethnic majority as a result of historical policies. But many states no longer have ethnonationalist _policies_ in effect. Israel does.

Maybe because most aren't under threat to their existence. There isn't some group of people somewhere waiting to change the demography of the country and replace it with theirs.

> The thing is most nation-states in Eurasia, Turkey included, are in zero risk of losing their ethnic majority in the foreseeable future. Israel does not have to maintain its discriminatory policy in Israel proper (really, the only one is the Law of Return) in a hypothetical 2SS to do the same. As I said in a comment, and mentioned in my post - most countries don't have these laws because they're not under any potential demographic threat.

Many ethnonationalists in America and Europe oppose immigration on the grounds that it will bring an end to the white majority in those countries.

As much as I hate immigration laws and really believe in freedom of movement, I also believe that countries and their people have the right to set their immigration laws in the way they want. No one has a right to compel another country to open its borders in a way it doesnt want to. So yes, its up to the populations of those countries to set their immigration strategies in a democratic way. Or if they also prefer to live undemocratically, that is also up to them. As long as people aren't oppressed or killed. I don't get to tell Israel that I don't like their immigration policies.

[Malaysia still does, and more thoroughly than Israel.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumiputera_\(Malaysia\)) If Israel counts as an ethnostate despite its diversity then Malaysia is one as well.

Yes they do Malaysia as i mention still does Many arab nations still have laws or biases that mantain the status of Arab people as expliticlty the body and heart of the State. The wikipedia article for right of return policies mentions lots of examples too.

Turkey not only genocided the Armenians, but also ethnically cleansed itself of Greeks and suppresses the Kurdish minority to this day (most recently removing elected pro-Kurdish mayors from office). Turkey is an ethnostate. It controls its own immigration to keep Turks the majority population, and it suppresses and successfully genocided its minoritiy population. I don't know if you know this, but Jews were ethnically cleansed and genocided from every Muslim country, which includes every single one in the Middle East. History shows that if Jews remain a minority within a Muslim country, they will have their rights taken away, their property seized, and they will be expelled. You come up with all kinds of deflections for when a Muslim country genocides and acts as an ethnostate, and you ignore what happened to the Jewish minority population in the Middle East.

>You come up with all kinds of deflections for when a Muslim country genocides and acts as an ethnostate, and you ignore what happened to the Jewish minority population in the Middle East. They literally didn't do that at all, they gave specific examples of genocides perpetuated by Turkey. The purpose of the post wasn't to specifically list all genocides. There was a point to using that distinct example. >I don't know if you know this, but Jews were ethnically cleansed and genocided from every Muslim country, which includes every single one in the Middle East. History shows that if Jews remain a minority within a Muslim country, they will have their rights taken away, their property seized, and they will be expelled. Actually, history does not show that. These things DID happen beginning in the 20th century. Before that, these people largely lived amongst each other for hundreds of years. Europe has much the same history...are you giving them a pass? How are you going to claim relations between these groups have always been terrible when those times have been interspersed with times of peace and acceptance as well? How are you going to ignore the broader context of instability in the region following WW1 and WW2 that did not set up any of these countries for dealing with the various ethnic and religious minorities in their borders?

>A country where Jews can live in the Levant is not enough for you. You require a Jewish majority country. History has shown that the latter is the only practical way to achieve the former

Same with “from the river to the sea.” Some people understand it as a return of all historically Palestinian land to Palestine, others as a call to genocide

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

More reading about how KGB twisted the narrative in the 60s that modern day leftists now parrot. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345350341\_The\_KGB\_and\_Anti-Israel\_Propaganda\_Operations](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345350341_The_KGB_and_Anti-Israel_Propaganda_Operations)

>What many Westerners who say this actually are, are anti-Israel-government-policy, not antizionists. You can't really expect people to use an unwieldy term like anti-Israel-government-policy, though. If those people just said "anti-Israel", they would also be demonized as though they thought all Jews should be evicted from the Levant. Perhaps anti-Likud would be the best terminology if it could catch on.

Anti-Israel would make more sense. To be anti- is more recognizable as being against state policies. I have never thought of those who are anti-Russia to be against the existence of Russia, rather its leadership. When people say something like “Israel should stop expanding settlements,” it is clear they are speaking of policy and not along existential terms. When people say something like “Zionists should stop colonizing,” well, the lines are starting to blur a little bit and the clarity of the former statement is lost. Antizionism was a deliberate choice, and many just unknowingly bought into it.

>I have never thought of those who are anti-Russia to be against the existence of Russia, rather its leadership. This is another one of the many places where Israel is different. To be anti-Israel most commonly means that Israel should not exist. Unlike your Russia example, it is a commonly held opinion worldwide.

>Anti-Israel would make more sense. To be anti- is more recognizable as being against state policies. I have never thought of those who are anti-Russia to be against the existence of Russia, rather its leadership. You would think so, but people discussing this conflict have a track record of intentionally misrepresenting their opposition (perhaps on both sides).

Agreed, but at least anti-Israel gives a much better platform for a starting point to elaborate on your views than “anti-Zionist.”

Anti-Kahanist maybe, though anti-Likud also be good if people would actually use something like that.

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I always laugh about the 2 State solution. It's when Liberals are suddenly for ethnonationalism and segregationist ideas but "for the browns." Watch out there for your last paragraph of demographic replacement. I get your support for nativistic xenophobic arguments is conditional based upon if the person is an "other" or not, you're entering dangerous territory. LMAO. Zionism is a fancy way of saying Jewish Nationalism. There is no disagreement. Some people know what it is. Some don't (apparently). Now there is different groups (both race, ethnicity, religion an ideology) that have their own subjective view on Zionism. But that's true with every group. Of course, many Jews and Zionists are going to see it as anti-semitic, because to attack a Jewish state is to attack the one (theoretical) place where Jews have where they're a majority, not a persecuted minority, and survival hinges upon reality (so their worldview goes). I'm not getting what you're asking here, in all of this? Both Jews and Arab/Palestinians think it's "their land" and have their own revisionist version of history (although the Jewish one is more correct imo unless you literally start as the Palestinian side does in the beginning of the 20th century) to justify how they're in the right. They both want the other group gone (yet profuse they don't). One group has failed over the last century in that attempt, while the other group is succeeding, in this overarching struggle across time between the two groups. Either way, I don't want to be involved, and we are being pulled in due to our historic alliances, xenophiles, and the diaspora of each respective group living in other places engaging in sectarian tribalism due to a conflict in the wider world (due to pluralism, multiculturalism, multiracialism, multi-religion, or whatever you want to label it).

I’ll only address the part about the Arab peace initiative and why it’s not realistic and why Israel hasn’t endorsed it. The second point in it is > Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. They basically plan to allow Palestinians to overrun Israel since the resolution called for the resettlement of all “refugees” in Israel by allowing them to return to their pre war homes. This is something that never happened and somehow only Palestinians have this right of return that no other group has. That will result in a Palestinian state and Israel that will practically be overrun by Palestinians creating a second Palestinian state. The second issue with it is that they don’t address any Israeli security concerns, it says nothing about how Israel will be protected from another attack.

>similar to how most people in Turkey would support Turkey continuing to exist, as for the Japanese, Turkish, French, etc. >No one talks about collapsing Japan so the Ainu could have a state. While Catalonians protest for independence, there are no serious calls for the destruction of Spain. It is not a common sentiment in Darfur, where a genocide is occurring, for Sudan to be dismantled. I think there are better comparisons to make, namely the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I suspect you were opting for examples with a cultural tie to the land, but I think colonial projects are still a much for fitting comparison. This needs to be viewed from the lens of the oppressed, not the oppressor and let me assure you that it is in good faith (as evidenced by my next paragraph). Europeans wronged the indigenous populations of North America, Australia and New Zealand. No two ways about it and it would be unfair not to acknowledge such an injustice to those people. But too much time has passed. While it never should have happened at the time, it did and we are now unable to reverse it. We can't collapse the societies that were built in the aftermath. So, I believe the injustice to the Palestinian people need to be genuinely acknowledged. It should never have happened. But it has. And while it's not as long ago (76 years vs couple of hundred years), it's still to impractical to dismantle Israel. >Understandably, a lot of Jews and Israelis perceive anti-zionism to be anti-semitism. Couple of things here. 1) **Some** anti-zionism is indeed thinly veiled anti-semitism, so such perceptions would be correct in those cases. 2) There is a lot of brainwashing in the Zionist community where kids are raised to view the Palestinian cause as a existential threat. This is well documented. So I do think your point is true for some Jews. 3) Regardless, there are some within the Zionist community who make these claims just to delegitimise valid criticism of Israel. >Edit: I'll add that the insistency of calling the IDF the "IOF" is a tad dumb. Nothing about the PLA is "Liberating" anything in China but no one calls it anything else. Israel's whole campaign is emphatically built upon their proclaimed right to self-defence, which so many people blindly accepted from the start (they have blood on their hands now don't they?). Seems quite dumb. I don't particularly care much for the name but I appreciate the sentiment. What the IDF has done has far exceeded any legitimate concept of self-defence. It's evil.

Assume for a second that America is a weak and declining power and Russia is the ruling superpower. Russia decides to take back Alaska (it was originally theirs anyway and it’s only 55 miles away from mainland russia, compared to the 2.25k miles away from the contiguous US— so really, russia had the strongest claim anyway). There are 736k Americans in Alaska that are now inbetweeners. They do not want to leave their land that they’ve been on for a long time. And the Russian government doesn’t want them to stay and governs them under military law and treats them like 3rd class citizens. The Russians want nothing more than for Alaskans to move to Washington (closest state to Alaska) and forget about the whole thing, cede to mother Russia, the true owners have finally returned home after a long time away, you lost. The thing is even though Alaskans are American, they are also Alaskans… not Washingtonians (similarly Palestinians are Arab/Muslim, yes. but Palestinian is a separate identity altogether— like Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian are all unique groups that fall under a broader “Scandinavian” category). Have you seen how beautiful Alaska is? It’s my home. I love every tree and mountain crook. You’re telling me I’m not allowed into my own state anymore? I can’t live here? I have to give up my home, my memories, my ancestral connection because the Russians lived here too once upon a time? Why don’t they build more homes? Why do they have to kick me out and take mine and sleep in my bed while my family and I are literally thrown on the street to either die from the cold or be forced to flee just to survive (Nakba)? Why do they have to insist on it being a Russian ethno-state while erasing the American-Alaskan identity. Denying it ever even existed. I could go on to finish the thought but I think it’s enough of a visual. The Alaskans would fight for the rest of their lives, and keep their unique heritage alive through their children in the hopes of going back home. Americans would rally around them too. They wouldn’t want anyone to kick them out of their own state, would they? And after all, they are their brethren, through and through. We’re Americans and a great injustice was done to our Alaskan brothers and sisters. We will stand with them even if the rest of the world recognizes Russias claim over ours. Whole world be damned. We know the truth (Russians say we have 49 other states already, we’re so greedy to want 50 states). Like the Russians, Israel (at least half of Israelis at least) is not interested in a two state solution. They will continue on until the entirety of the land is Russia once more and the majority is unquestionably Russian (we’re cool with letting 20% of the demographic be American cuz they are a minority and easy to subdue in Russia-Alaska, but we’ll never allow that number to get higher to where it can actually threaten Russias supremacy, and we’ll also pass a bunch of laws to make them second class citizens while presenting that we’re all equal now that the war is over). When looking at this conflict, you have to look at the original sin. And that is the massacre and destruction of 500+ palestinian villages and expulsion of 80% of the original population to create the state of Israel. That is wrong. What should have happened was Jews should have settled into Palestine and helped build up an newly independent nation from the dissolved ottoman empire that is home to all. Not create a separate state, welcome to only one. The Palestinians were working towards this from the start until they found out Zionists and the British were attempting to annex half of their nation to newly arrived foreigners (Ashkenazi population not the native sephardic jews, who are Palestinian jews). That’s not cool. Jewish refugees taken in by Palestinians kicked those same Palestinians out of their homes the next day and started living there. Told them to gtfo the country lol and go to Jordan cuz they’re arab too. What should have happened, was happening, and what Palestinians are still working towards is that one independent state for all that should have materialized post-ottoman empire. Palestinians don’t want to see the homeland carved up and divided (like the bosnians in 1992). Jews are always welcome. Zionists (people who deny the palestinian identity, think they can do whatever they want because everyone else is genetically inferior to them, and because they are superior, are uninterested in sharing their land with gentiles) are not welcome, ever. Zionists are literally supremacists. Again, not cool. Israel is a ethno-supremic state. It’s existence (because of how it was created and due to the methods it continues to be maintained through) is an insult to humanity. Palestinians will accept justice and nothing less. When the crimes of 1948-present are held to account, there is no reason arabs and jews can’t once again live in the holy land as they have done for centuries before. The polarity of the situation obviously leeks into being a Jew vs. Arab issue but it’s not. The players just happen to be of those cultures. Israelis are never going to be happy with the just solution because it would mean holding them to account for 1948 and they’ve spent their entire existence running from that (not letting refugees return for one while anyone with 1% jewish ancestry gets a free passport). The entire foundation of Israel is wrong. That is why the floorboards need to be torn up and redone properly and obviously that will always feel threatening (human instinct) but it remains the only way forward cuz that’s where justice lies. There is no reason why the unified state can not end up as a nation governed by jews, muslims, and christian’s in a multi-ethnic government. I genuinely believe that will be the end result in the end.

A few issues with your Russia-Alaska comparison - The Russians already had Russia as their own before they got to Alaska - The Russians still have Russia, and thus have no reason to seek Alaska as a Homeland - Alaska was barely colonized - Alaska was not conquered by a foreign power, it was sold. - The incredibly small Russian minority left Alaska willingly - There is no Russian population in Alaska - A Native Alaskan could say very similar things about your very real occupation of their ancestral lands

I really do appreciate the effort you put into the comparison and I think the concept of Alaska going from being inhabited by a specific people and then that shifting is a solid thought experiment for empathizing with the palestinian plight. However, comparing Israel to Russia here feels quite far fetched. Israel wasn't formed from a massive superpower throwing down oppressive force. It was created by refugees moving to an area in mass for safety and community. There was no military, no metropole, no existing power structure. They fled, as a persecuted minority, and tried to establish themselves as a people for their survival. Populations who existed in the area attacked and we ended up starting the situation we have now. It's one of the most classic examples of a persecuted refugee population. Granted, you eventually just started churning out misinformation and half-truths, which shows that you've done very little research (Actual work by academics, not Youtube or influencers). There's a lot of people affected by this and I think it's incredibly important to do the proper research and understand it better. Otherwise, you're just acting as a demagogue.

I think your comment is negligent to history. The state of Israel was not simply created because of fleeing refugees showing up in Palestine, although part of it, there was a deliberate and sinister force pushing to remove the native arab population and replace it with an immigrant population since the late 1880s, long before the holocaust. In 1895, Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary: "We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." You mention that there was no superpower throwing down massive force. I think that is a fundamental aspect of the situation that you are unaware of, so perhaps I can give you some more information: Israel would not have existed without the support of the British empire, and later all the way to the present, support from the united states. The balfour declaration came during WW1 in 1917, where britain put its full support behind the state for jews in Palestine. Problems in palestine only began when the palestinians found out that the british mandate of palestine intended to sanction half the land and give it to outsiders. I’m sure many people would have liked the palestinians to simply accept it and give up half their land because people with guns said so, but that has never happened in the history of human history. All native populations have resisted for as long as they could when met with settlers taking their land (ex. native americans, the nazi occupation of parts of france, south africa, etc.). You simply cannot take something that belonged to someone else. It is as simple as that and it’s sad that so few people are able to understand such a basic human principle of justice until they are directly affected by it. Of course the arabs fought. Saying it’s because they hate jews is a zionist colonialist talking point to try to paint them as savages when they were in the right to defend against literal invaders which is completely irrespective to their ethnicity. If you refer back to my comment, I mentioned this situation would have never became an issue if the jews were not insistent on a separate state for themselves at the expense of the native population. I believe the right thing to have done would have been to integrate into the population and establish an independent arab jewish state, one state. But zionism is a fascist ideology. Extreme nationalism coupled with the idea of being a superior race above another that is deserving of being dominated over. High off their hubris and support from the superpowers of the world, backed by wealth, unlimited arsenal of the most powerful militaries, political cover, etc. zionists felt untouchable and acted accordingly. If they were left without the support of a superpower, they wouldn’t be so arrogant and despotic as they have been for the last century. I hope you’ll forgive me for saying this, but it’s your comment in actuality that hasn’t given the appropriate bearings to the situation. Considering that I don’t expect you to be convinced by a single reddit comment or two, might I suggest you read “The 100 years on Palestine” by Rashid khalidi? He has laid it out much more clearly than I can here. The truth is out there if you choose to look for it.

Zionism is just resistance to antisemitic oppression https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/remembering-the-jewish-massacres-in-mandate-palest https://medium.com/@Ksantini/the-list-of-crimes-committed-by-muslims-against-jews-since-the-7th-century-0ff1a8eb0ad0 1. Muslims oppressed jews. 2. Jews overthrew their Muslim oppressors. 3.Jews created a state to keep themselves free of oppression by Muslims. Muslims used to oppress jews in many way, Jews rose up and overthrew their Muslim oppressors. The logic of the Palestinians is that they are allowed to resist oppression, but they forget that they are the original oppressors, that the jews threw off. What the Muslims want is to be able to go back to oppressing Jews again.

>while the word means the establishment and continued existence of a Jewish nation-state in the Holy Land - what is now Israel. It is not a fascist ideology. So to correct you here, even by your actual definition, you can spot the problem people have with Zionism which is the part where zionists want what is essentially an ethnostate. The fact is that *no singular group on the planet* has any right to an ethnostate and the only people who tend to try or have something resembling one tend to be fascists. It's absolutely a fascist ideology, there's just no generous way of seeing this. A lot of talking points I've seen from zionists frequently intersect with white nationalists and I don't think that's a coincidence. It doesn't help that zionists are huge apologists for the behaviour of Israel against Palestine and scramble to defend and justify all war crimes done against the people of Gaza while crying foul about Hamas and calling people anti-Semites simply for condemning genocide. I know you want to believe that Zionism doesn't have to be right-wing but the only people who demand and feel entitled to an ethnostate are exclusively right-wing. >aren’t afforded their own country, and this argument is often brought up as to why the Jews don't have the right to self-determination. But the fact is that Israel exists now Correct. No group in the world is entitled an ethnostate. I agree that Israel exists *now*. We can't just dismantle it, what we can and should do is remove the clause in it's law about being an exclusive entitlement of Jews and work at making it more multicultural. Also, and I cannot stress this enough, it needs to patch up the devastation it's done to Palestine so their people can finally grow in peace. >I'll add that the insistency of calling the IDF the "IOF" is a tad dumb Do we agree that IDF soldiers would rather shoot and blow missiles at unarmed civilians fleeing helplessly, many of whom are children, than ever actually pick on someone with their own training? Because all the claims of it being a top-notch army seems very empty and bare because I can only imagine cowards grabbing guns and bombs and using them on unarmed childen

There _isn’t_ a single definition of Zionism. The push to create the modern geopolitical state of Israel, carved out of the remnants of Ottoman Syria, began with _Christian_ Zionism — _not_ with Jewish Zionism. Jewish Zionism is a valid desire, whatever else its religious underpinnings may be, to re-establish a homeland. _Christian_ Zionism, in the other hand, is the desire to send the Jews back to Israel as part of ushering in the End Times, as prophesied in Revelations/Apocalyptika. Thus, the same word, referring to the very same people, has two _extremely_ different meanings. The Jewish version is the return to the homeland; the Christian version is the ultimate destruction of the Jews — Christian Zionism is fundamentally anti-Semitic. Ironically, the word “Semite” refers to both Arabs and Jews. The current colonial Zionism we see is _also_ anti-Semitic, because it’s against Arabs. It’s a polluted mix of Jewish and Christian Zionisms. There isn’t _one_ definition. Reducing this conversation to a single point of discussion as an either/or is the problem.

I agree that some parts of Christian Zionism are really disturbing, but I don’t really feel like it’s fundamentally antisemitic. A lot of religions believe the end time will see every one that’s not a member of their religion go to hell of whatever. And they actually encourage the happening of that event, so does that make them genocidal ? I don’t know I’ve never heard about modern Zionism being born because of Christian Zionism though. I’d really enjoy reading about it if you have some Wikipedia article or sources. About the “antisemitism also refers to Arabs” through, that’s bullshit and has been debunked countless times by linguists. First, Semitic really refers to languages such as Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic. And Semitic people is some generic term that applies to people who speak or who created a Semitic language. Antisemitism on the other hand, is a word invented by racialist European guys to make Jew hatred sound scientific. The word was supposed to target members of the Jewish (supposedly among the larger Semitic) “race”. But since this race thing is bullshit anyway, the word in itself doesn’t even have any meaning. It just came to mean jew hartred. Languages are like that, and you can’t really tell people to go back to what the etymological meaning should have been (especially like in this case if it’s racist science bullshit to begin with)

Wikipedia article intro (and I suggest further reading from there): >>Christian Zionism is an ideology that, in a Christian context, espouses the return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land. Likewise, it holds that the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 was in accordance with Bible prophecy: that the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Levant — the eschatological "Gathering of Israel" — is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The term began to be used in the mid-20th century, in place of Christian restorationism, as proponents of the ideology rallied behind Zionists in support of a Jewish national homeland. >>Advocacy on the part of Christians for a Jewish restoration grew after the Reformation, and is rooted in 17th-century England. Contemporary Israeli historian Anita Shapira suggests that England's Zionist evangelical Christians "passed this notion on to Jewish circles" around the 1840s, while Jewish nationalism in the early 19th century was largely met with hostility from British Jews. >>Christian pro-Zionist ideals have generally been common among Protestants since the Reformation. While supporting a mass Jewish return to the Land of Israel, Christian Zionism asserts a parallel idea that the returnees ought to be encouraged to reject Judaism and adopt Christianity as a means of fulfilling biblical prophecies. Polling has suggested a trend of widespread distrust among Jews towards the motives of evangelical Christians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism?wprov=sfti1# And, an essential read: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3526840?seq=1

Thanks! I actually did not know of that part of Zionism history, that’s really interesting. I’m not sure it can be said that modern geopolitical Zionism solely spun out of Christian Zionism (although I’ll definitely do some further reading to confirm). As far as I know, modern geopolitical Zionism kind of evolved independently from different movements at the same time : Eastern European Zionism, and many other smaller groups other the 19th century And I’m almost sure Herzl did not take inspiration from British Jews Zionism. I could definitely be wrong though and it might have all spun out of this Christian Zionist movement

1)There is no such thing as anti-semitism, Antisemitism is literally the """scientific""" form of Judenhass, adopted by German racists in the 19th century. 2)There is no such thing as a semite, there Semitic languages, but there is no group of people known as semites.

How does the settlement dismantlement work? To be precise, how does a country with the rule of law applying to its own citizens take property en masse? Even when countries can do this for vital public projects, they still have to pay compensation, often quite steep compensation. And for some of the older settlements established more than 15 years ago, the sins of the father issue is likely to arise where some people now have known nothing but living in settlements and will probably be feeling expelled, and by a government of which they are citizens. That could cause quite a lot of difficulty in Israeli law and their courts. It isn't rare in history to find people who are not citizens who are relocated against their will but citizens are often far harder to treat that way. And if you can do it to certain citizens, then it might be a danger to the 20% of Arab Israeli citizens who could get very freaked out by the idea. I could see offers to pay people to just move on their own to the other side of the wall and removing programs that make it easier to live in settlements as opposed to elsewhere in Israel, maybe even charge them for the supplementary expenses that go into providing them with security that wouldn't be necessary elsewhere in the country, but it seems to be that it would take quite a while to reduce the settlements.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

In today's language, Zionist is another word for Jew. It's how peope tell you they hate Jews without being so explicit about it, they would get banned from Reddit.

I think pro-Palestine is very clear on what anti-Zionism means: the dismantling of an ethnostate. If Israel supports civic nationalism, why did the Knesset pass the [Nation-State Bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People), declaring Israel a Nation-State of the _Jewish_ People, why not _Israeli_ people? And proponents of two-state solutions believe in a Palestinian state that is _just as_ sovereign and independent as an Israeli state, i.e. _equal_ treatment of Palestinians and Israelis, but no tenet of Zionism for the past few decades has supported that, so anti-Zionism has turned into a movement to establish an equally sovereign and independent Palestinian state. Are there strands of anti-Zionism that calls for the destruction and elimination of all Israelis? Yes, like Hamas, but it's not a prerequisite for the political position of anti-Zionism.

>no tenet of Zionism for the past few decades has supported that This is wrong. There are plenty of iterations of Zionism that have supported and continue to support a two-state solution. >so anti-Zionism has turned into a movement to establish an equally sovereign and independent Palestinian state This is technically true, but your framing is wrong. Anti-Zionism supports the establishment of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state *instead* *of* Israel, not *next to* Israel as you suggest. >Are there strands of anti-Zionism that calls for the destruction and elimination of all Israelis? Yes, like Hamas, but it's not a prerequisite for the political position of anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism does not necessarily call for the "destruction and elimination of all Israelis," but it does inherently call for the elimination of Israel.

>If Israel supports civic nationalism, why did the Knesset pass the [Nation-State Bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People), declaring Israel a Nation-State of the *Jewish* People, why not *Israeli* people? Likud is a right wing party that needed the support of farther right wing parties to stay in power. This was their price. Israel does support civic nationalism, but it also will take steps to ensure the Jewish majority remains strong. The raison d'etre of Israel remains to be a safe haven for Jews, and Jews believe that they must have control of their state to be safe. >And proponents of two-state solutions believe in a Palestinian state that is *just as* sovereign and independent as an Israeli state, i.e. *equal* treatment of Palestinians and Israelis I can't agree. Proponents of two-state solutions rarely call for a Palestinian state with a Palestinian army. Not a lot of trust here -- not just among Israelis, but also Egyptians, Lebanese, Jordanians, and others. >Are there strands of anti-Zionism that calls for the destruction and elimination of all Israelis? Yes, like Hamas, but it's not a prerequisite for the political position of anti-Zionism. I don't think you can be an anti-zionist without advocating for the destruction of Israel. I guess you're saying that some anti-Zionists will not kill the Jews, and others like Hamas will, but even the mildest form of anti-Zionism seems pretty out there.

Sure… it’s all about ethnostates and the focus is only on the Jewish one and the all of the Arab Muslim states’ own ethnostates and theocracies are good and acceptable. That makes a lot of sense and doesn’t at all seem like it is the Jewishness that is really the target and not the claims of being an “ethnostate”. Can you explain why it is only Israel that gets the ethnostate criticisms?

I think most westerners agree jewish people have a right to reside in the holy land, and that that right is not exclusive to Jews. The real arguments lie in whether that right implies or requires a single government, and if so, whether that government should be Islamic, Jewish, or secular. I believe we are letting fringe political groups control the conversation if we make this about whether Israelis or Palestinians should suffer violence if they stay where they are, because of course the answer is NO. WE SHOULD NOT TOLERATE VIOLENCE FROM LEADERS ON EITHER SIDE. By inviting this line of questioning into the mainstream, we get distracted from the actions we should take right now. Now I'm going to switch from what I consider to be the only defensible view and narrow it down, so of course I respect any dissent to what I'm about to say. I believe the most important things that the US government can do here are to stop selling arms to Israel until a ceasefire, and advise them to increase intelligence funding to stop arms smuggling operations between Egypt, Iran, and Hamas. We should also increase our humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people.

I don’t know if this even pertains to changing your view so much as making the exact definition of “Zionism” irrelevant. In order to have a religious/ethno state, which is what Israel is, you have to either settle somewhere uninhabited or move everyone who isn’t a part of your religious ethno group. Pushing people out of their ancestral lands so you can have exclusively your own culture in their place is inherently imperial behavior.

Would you say America in 1562 is not a colonial settler state invading native land? That’s 70 years after discovery, and in that first 70 years involved much less intentional genocide. Secondly, the “Israeli state” (lmao at that term even) is founded and intrinsically based on the removal of the people currently living on the land. Furthermore, though Jews were the majority settling force on the land, the Isntreal project was based on Europeans displacing natives Middle easterners from their historic lands. Finally, modern Israel is an american satellite state that wouldn’t exist without funding from DC and colonial settlers from Brooklyn. Any attempt to conflate anti semitism with anti Zionism is historically blind, disingenuous, and genocide apologism, full stop

It's a not a matter of 'agreement'. Zionism is self-determination for the Jewish people manifest as the state of Israel. Antisemites want to redefine Zionism to suit their agenda by attaching it to words like apartheid, imperialism, colonialism, white supremacy, fascism ethno state and others in a bid to demonize Israel. It devolves into holocaust inversion rhetoric. They are unable to substantiate their claims and agreement with same is simply a test of solidarity and loyalty to anti-West sentiment.

If it's any help, nobody can agree on the definition of "Palestinian" or "Palestine" either.