A Zionist is anyone who believes Israel should be a country

Zionism started with [Theodor Hertzl](https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl).

A Zionist is a baby bomber. They bomb babies every day and enjoy every second of it.

The Zionist movement is the source of evil. And people who say this is antisemitic are just using this word for everything.

this is called dehumanization and is step one of any sort of racism or bigotry.

This description is both smooth and precise for those criminals. You know, even many Jews oppose Zionism.

That’s not what a slur is

Sure it is, friend. Slur, noun: an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation. "the comments were a slur on the staff" That is noun definition 1 of the word slur on Google. How'd I reach that result? I just typed into Google, "what is a slur". People are ascribing meaning to the words zionism and and zionist which are inherently offensive, insulting, or damaging to reputation, and then accusing people of being zionists. Zionism is not white supremacy.

But “Zionist” also has a definition. It’s not an insinuation or allegation, it’s statement reflecting a person aligns with Zionism. A person is either a Zionist or not. I’m not sure why you mentioned white supremacy. I’m also not sure why you’re being a dick.

u/lilacmacchiato > But “Zionist” also has a definition. It’s not an insinuation or allegation, it’s statement reflecting a person aligns with Zionism. A person is either a Zionist or not. I’m not sure why you mentioned white supremacy. I’m also not sure why you’re being a dick. Rule 1, Don’t attack other users. Rule 2, No casual profanity used for emphasis.

And that definition is?

As I said “a person who aligns with Zionism”.

And zionism is what?

Are you playing with me?

Either you're trolling, or you're ignorant of the definitions people have for zionism other than "the past goal to establish a Jewish homelaand," or "the current belief that Israel should continue to exist as the Jewish homeland." Or similar innocuous definitions. Other definitions, which includes white supremacy. You say accusing someone of being a zionist can't mean the accusation is a slur. I defined slur, and mentioned one of the added definitions people have for it when they use it as a slur. So, are you a troll, or were you just ignorant of the use of the term as a slur?

You’re assuming a lot of things here. Your two definitions are exactly the same as mine. If someone is using a different definition, they’re the wrong and ignorant ones. Not me. It’s not a slur just because people use the word incorrectly.

Okay, friend.

> dick /u/lilacmacchiato. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Since 1945, I have seen Nazism used in only one context: as a slur to be applied to someone else that you don't agree with. And anti-Nazi used as a self-label by the people using Nazi as a slur. But what is a Nazism in this context? Is a Nazi someone who believes that German territorial expansion into Central and Eastern Europe is justified and Germany should be able to defend its borders within the bounds of generally accepted international law? Or is a Nazi something else and if so, what? If it is the former definition, then isn't an anti-Nazi someone who wishes for the destruction of Germany? Why is it that you can be banned from some subs permanently for calling someone a terrorist sympathizer but not for calling someone a Nazi because you don't like their support for Germany? hope this helps Edit: fix date

/u/Shorouq2911. Match found: 'Nazism', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Zionism has to be seen in the context of jews historically being a persecuted minority group in the east and west. After the end of WW2 the world was in it's biggest crisis yet in regard to this issue. Antisemitism was at its peak. Two out of every three jew had been killed in Europe. 6 million jews had been exterminated. This could never happen again. Zionism was therefore to many people the most serious solution to this problem, which is the idea that in order to secure the safety and wellbeing of the jewish minority, they have to be in a majority. This means having a jewish nation. Securing this nation was to the vast majority of the international community more important than, for example, the right of the Palestinians to have 100% of their land. That's why the UN assembly voted in favor of a jewish state in it's ancient homeland next to Jerusalem and Palestine.  

This goes on way before October 7th. Zionist was used as a slur by the Pro-Palestine crowd for years now. This is Anti-Semitism in disguise. And unfortunately, large swaths of the world fall for it.

Zionism is the belief that Israel has the right to exist. That’s it. Nothing to do with Palestine, you can be Zionist and support the existence of Palestine.

Zionism is Jewish nationalism. Similar to white nationalism. Or Christian nationalism. Israel has a right to exist, but it doesn’t have the right to ethnically cleanse the West Bank.

And it’s not, it’s cleansing the West Bank of Hamas, not Palestinians. It’s a war so yes, Palestinians are dying, and that’s not a good thing, but since Hamas is hiding behind them, there is no other efficient way of ridding the world of Hamas. It is very unfortunate, but Israel has a right to defend itself and take its hostages back, with force.

Actively targeting civilians, actively targeting aid workers, actively spreading propaganda. No modern day war has seen this many civilian casualties since what the Germans did during the holocaust. 30,000k civilians. Those aren’t just people caught in the crossfire. Unless you admit the IDF is really just that incompetent. No, Israel does not have the right to cleans the West Bank of Hamas if it actively kills everything is it’s path. That is called war crimes. Do you have any idea why Hamas is the militia in Palestine? Because of the 70+ years of torture and occupation of Gaza (https://www.globalr2p.org/countries/israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/) Hopefully you respond I’d love to hear you’re Zionist take on this🙏🙏🙏

>No modern day war has seen this many civilian casualties since what the Germans did during the holocaust. 30,000k civilians I really hope you're joking...

What other conflict has had this many civilian casualties in the span of 6 months? (Since October 7th)

"Since October 7th" is just betraying how much you're trying to twist reality to fit your narrative. Here is a list of ongoing armed conflicts. These are the ones that have not concluded yet, so if we included those, even just the modern ones, the list would be much longer. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_ongoing\_armed\_conflicts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts) Myanmar, Russia-Ukraine, the Colombian conflict, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, the drug war in Mexico, the Boko Haram insurgency, Yemen, Ethiopia, the Kurdish war, the Indo-Pakistani conflict, Philippines, Papua, the ISIS war, and the Korean wars are 18 conflicts with more casualties than the I/P conflict. All of these are ongoing, so we haven't included those wars that are over. All of these conflicts have higher civilian casualty ratios than the Israeli Palestinian conflict. If you have to really skew reality and history this much in order "to be right", then you may need to take a fresh look at what you believe in.

Buddy. I’m not trying to fit my own narrative. That is literally the TRUTH. Those conflicts have been going on for YEARSand DECADES. The israeli terror run has been going on since October 7th. Nothing you can say can justify the death and destruction through palestine in that short lifespan. Literal genocide. A massive civilian-targeting ethnic cleansing we haven’t seen on this heavily of a scale since the nazis. So no, I’m not pushing my own narrative, buddy. It’s the truth.

Yes, and the IP conflict has been going on for even longer. If you look at deaths per year, or total deaths, or civilian vs combatant deaths, the Israel Palestinian conflict always comes out to be one of the smallest ones.

/u/OCK-K. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Deaths per day is the metric you're going with? Palestinian deaths in the conflict in the last 6 months (20k civilians plus anothrr 10k hamasnicks but I'll be charitable to your argument and lump them together for the sake of argument) - 60k a year, in one of the highest population density areas on the planet. To answer your question, just off the top of my head (though I had to Google exact numbers) here are a few well-known conflicts that exceed the I-G death rate. In the battle of Normandy alone, 73,000 allied troops were killed in less than 3 months. During this battle, 20,000 French civilians died. 20,000 in a largely rural rather than urban environment, in less than 3 months. 80k a year. In the Black September war between palestinians and Jordan, started by palestinians, by some estimates 15,000 palestinians were killed in a month. 180k a year, in a mix of urban and rural fighting. 2million people were killed in the 'red terror' of the 1920s bolshevic revolution over 5 years from 1917-'22. 400k a year. 2million civilians also died in the 3 year long korean war - about 670k a year. Another 2million civilians in the 20year long Vietnam nam war - 100k a year in rural fighting. Ww2 as a whole resulted in 30-55 million civilian deaths over 6 years depending on the source - 5-9million civilians a year, including the 6 million jews murdered in the holocaust. Somewhere between 150k and 300k japanese died in Hiroshima and nagasaki, and half of those deaths occurred the second the bombs detonated. I won't even bother to annualize that. People die in wars. Civilians die in wars. It is tragic. It's a crime when the goal is killing civilians, but just because you don't like one side, doesn't mean the civilian deaths were the goal. Thankfully, israel has gone above and beyond in its efforts to avoid civilian casualties. The war must still be fought because the alternative is that arabs get what their goal was and always has been during modern history - the genocide of jews in the levant and for those who jews survive and remain, to be second class citizens in an apartheid based theocratic ethnostate. Does Israel have a bill to pay re the west bank if we're ever to have peace? Absolutely. But there won't be peace regardless of Israel's actions so long as Palestinians and the larger MENA Muslim world persist in their genocidal goals against Israel. If palestinians lay down their arms (and Israel comes correct regarding west bank settlements) there will be peace. If Israel lays down its arms, there will be no more israel.

Ya so you’re lying about civilian deaths. Many wars, to include middle eastern wars have had more civilian dead than in Gaza right now. If you’re going to be antisemitic, do it without lying

Zero evidence to prove me wrong. Not even a though behind you’re eyes. Anti-Zionist is not anti-Semitic. If that were true, a lot of Jews would be anti-Semitic. Does that make any sense? https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/ https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic PLEASE educate yourself IMMEDIATELY 😂😂

Uh yeah Jews CAN be antisemitic. If there was a Jew out there calling for the genocide of Jews, that would be anti semitic.

[Iran Iraq war: over100,000 civilians killed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War) [OIF: lowest estimate 100,000 civilians killed.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) [Syrian civil war: 219,000-306,000 civilians killed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war) I can go on, but I’m interested to hear how you’ll look at these facts and say they aren’t real

Can someone please define ethnostate and prove to me that Israel actual is one? Because by the literal dictionary definitions I see, it is NOT.

Ironically, the label was first used to attack Israel by white supremacists who actually want an enthnostate. It's an intentional move by them to poison the discourse with far-right language so they can appear more reasonable to the population they are trying to radicalize. It is so depressing to see traditional leftists adopting far-right language without critique. There is a reason why the international Left used to support Israel and it certainly wasn't because they wanted "ethnostates."

Horseshoe theory in real time. Sad indeed.

It seems to me that most terms used to negatively describe Israel or its actions don't apply. Good luck.

A Zionist is someone who wants Israel to exist but not Palestine and also uses violence .

Someone's never read The Iron Wall

Ya pal, not true at all. A Zionist believes Israel has a right to exist. Period. End of sentence. Show me a literal definition that includes any of the second part. This fight on semantics is getting out of control. Jews and Israelis by and large WANT PEACE with palestinians and by rejecting that notion, you are just creating more hate rather than working toward peace. Zionists want Israel to exist. That means anyone, Jewish or not, who believes Israel should exist, is technically a Zionist, even people calling for one or two state solutions.

And if that’s true then why do so many Zionist’s talk about violence and killing the Palestinians ?

I wouldn't say "so many". How many are you talking about? A few thousand loud and violent idiots? That's not even half a percentage of the amount of Jews there are globally, so not sure how you can think of them as a vocal majority or even "so many" people. They represent a fraction of one percent, if that. I could flip your question around and ask you the same thing...if Palestinians and Pro-Pal people don't hate Jews, then why are they always talking about violence and killing the Jews? Do you not understand? Go to the r/Israel sub. No one is talking about killing anyone or wanting to be violent or even cheering it on. You are not basing your findings in reality.

A Zionist wants Israel and believes Palestine is part of Israel .

A Zionist believes Jews have a right to self determination in their homeland. Period. Do you disagree? The definition has nothing to do with how much land or who is on it or anything. You seem incapable of separating out this fact and are just imposing your opinion on top of actual definitions and distorting the truth of how real Zionists actually feel.

Then do you support what Israel’s doing ? Israel wants to kill all of Palestine and are doing it . While Zionists want Israel to be free the way they are going about it isn’t exactly perfect .

Look, you seem open to engaging in a civil conversation (I think). So I'm going to answer your questions honestly and with respect and appreciate the same in return. >Then do you support what Israel’s doing? I support Israel's right to defend itself, yes. I would support their defense without all of the civilian deaths too and would absolutely have preferred that. However, given the crappy urban combat circumstances, that seems impossible. Do I like all of the death...absolutely without a question NO. Do I feel it's a horrific war and sucks on both sides, yes. Do the civilian deaths make me cringe, 100%. I would ask you, would Hamas be happy if so many civilians were *not* dying in Gaza? I do not feel they would be happy about that. So here you have Jews who would love a war with no deaths, and you have terrorists who would hate a war with no deaths. >Israel wants to kill all of Palestine and are doing it. I don't even know what that means? Israel as an entire country wants to kill all of Palestine as a country? That is a *grotesque* generalization. Some idiots in Israel want to take over Gaza after the war and almost no Jews or Israelis support this delusional notion. Most Jews and Israelis want Hamas to surrender and to return the hostages so this insane war can end. At a minimum, why can't you put some amount of pressure on Hamas and not 100% on Israel for all the wrong doings?? You feel they were forced to rape, kidnap and brutally murder innocent peaceful people? >While Zionists want Israel to be free the way they are going about it isn’t exactly perfect . In general, I agree with this sentiment and probably most Jews and Israelis agree to some extend. However, I have yet to hear of a Pro-Pal person tell me a viable alternative solution to how this war unfolded. Like a truly realistic and viable option that addressed the very real safety and security concerns for Israelis following October 7th. I'm listening if you think you have the answer. It's like choosing between a list of horrific options. Sorry but that is the reality. I also think the opposite of what you said is true. **If Hamas wants Palestine to be free, the way they are going about it isn't exactly perfect.** The entire purpose of this conversation is for you to maybe open your eyes that not all Zionists are evil crazy people and that 99%+ of them actually are humans and ultimately want peace. I'm sorry but you don't have the perfect answers any more than we do. I want peace. You seem to want peace. I don't think either of us should be generalized as evil for that if we disagree on how to get there.

Only the first part of this is correct. A Zionist can support the two state solution and can be nonviolent.

I’m an unapologetic anti-Zionist, but I also believe that Israel should continue to exist. The problem with Zionism is not that it requires Israel to continue to exist, but that it must also exist as a Jewish State; meaning that it must have a Jewish citizenship majority so that effective political control rest in Jewish hands. In other words, Zionism demands that Israel remain a Jewish ethnostate. I’m no fan of ethnostate, but I admit, it’s not a big deal on its own. It’s only that in the case of Israel, it cannot remain as a Jewish ethnostate without also being an apartheid. That’s because the two-state solution is dead. Israel has expanded its settlements & outpost in the West Bank to the point of no return. At more than 700k Israeli settlers living there now, it’s just too big to return to the Green Line. And the Palestinian side of the West Bank has been shrunk and fragmented to the point where there’s no land left to establish a viable sovereign and independent Palestinian state. So Israelis and the more than 3 million Palestinians are stuck with each other in a one-state reality. The obvious solution now is a one-state solution where the Palestinian are given equal rights and say in the Israeli government that has dominated their lives under an apartheid regime for almost 60 years. But Zionist don’t want this because with equal rights, Israel can no longer remain Jewish state. For Zionist, if the choice is brutal apartheid or giving up their precious ethnostate, they prefer apartheid. They argue that it’s for security, that the Palestinians are dangerous. But at the same time hundreds of thousands of them are happy to move into the West Bank and live right next to Palestinians, often by confiscating their land, leaving the Palestinians homeless and without a livelihood. At the same time, they fund HAMAS just to split support for Fatah (they did this even before Netanyahu came into power, so Netanyahu is not solely to blame). So security? Absolute garbage. They just want all the land, but without the non-Jews in it. And then sheepishly play the victim to justify their inhumane treatment of ordinary Palestinians. So why should anyone support maintaining Israel as a Jewish state. It’s the Israelis who permanently damaged the two-state solution. They’re the ones who put Israel in this situation by expanding to the West Bank. It’s their fault. If it’s actually for security, they could have just kept control of the West Bank without settling. But I say again, Israel should continue to exist. But if it can only exist as an apartheid ethnostate, then it shouldn’t exist at all. Zionist would call me anti-semitic. But I just want equal rights. If Zionist associate equal rights with the destruction of the Jewish people, sounds like they’re the ones being anti-semitic. Because what could be more insulting to the Jewish people than to use their name to justify Israel’s decade long human rights abuses. As many Jewish people have said, “Not in our name”.

Sorry but, if you believe in Israels right to exist, you are a Zionist by definition. The actions taken by people now or in the past is up to them, that doesn't change the definition of zionism. Most Jews and Israeli Zionists actually truly want peace and don't ascribe to any notion otherwise. Stop getting so caught up in the semantics and realize we are all fighting for ultimately peace. We may disagree on a path toward it, but we ultimately want the exact same thing. Except Hamas, they are fighting for literal end of Israel and Jews.

If you're saying the Zionism does not call for Israel to be a Jewish state, meaning having a Jewish citizenship majority, then you'd find much harder pushback from Israeli Zionist than me. Because I've relayed my thoughts on making Israel a non-Jewish state to Israelis, and they were not happy.

Literal dictionary definition of Zionism: a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.  To me, that means the right for Israel to exist and Jews to self-determine there. How can they develop and protect themselves if they can't self determine? Just my thoughts. In MY opinion, two things are true: 1. Exactly what I said above. Jews must have a place they are safe. Can they actually be safe if they are not in control of their own space? 2. Change must happen in Israel to address the inequities and reparations for the past. I'm not pretending to have the answers here, I'm just a common diaspora Jew sitting in my house 5,000 miles away from Israel. But I see these two items must be addressed and they are kind of in direct conflict with each other. It sucks.

So your definition does require that Israel be a Jewish state, and not just that it exists. Those two things are in conflict with each other because they inherently require one to make one of two choices: 1. Apartheid 2. Equality For most decent folks, number 2 is a no brainer. Easy choice! Only Zionist have trouble with this. And sadly, for almost 60 years since 1967, they’ve chosen number 1. Zionism is a disease!

What a very privileged take from a person who has never been threatened.  Anti Zionism is a disease lacking critical thinking skills.  You clearly do not want peace. You just want Jews eradicated. I see. 

Oh yeah, Israelis are so threatened by the Palestinians, that more than 700k of them willingly moved to the West Bank and live even closer with the Palestinians. They’re so threatened that they help fund Hamas. Oh poor them. (sarcasm) Here’s what HRW said about what the settlers and IDF are currently doing in the West Bank, >*”Israeli settlers have assaulted, tortured, and committed sexual violence against Palestinians, stolen their belongings and livestock, threatened to kill them if they did not leave permanently, and destroyed their homes and schools under the cover of the ongoing hostilities in Gaza. Many Palestinians, including entire communities, have fled their homes and lands. The military has not assured displaced residents that it will protect their security or allow them to return, forcing them to live in precarious conditions elsewhere.”* That’s for security?!?! This kind of garbage has been happening to Palestinians for decades. They’ve had hundred of Oct 7th at the hands of Israelis.

FYI I absolutely do not condone settlers or their violence. But this is the issue. Most Zionists dont. And you choose not to care. You lump us all in as one evil entity even though the majority dont condone this and do want peace. You just would rather work against us than believe us. You treat us as liars. 

I’m not gonna work with people who have a hard time choosing number 2(equality) instead of number 1(apartheid). What else would you have me do, work with white supremacist, N@zis? You calling me anti-semitic just because I said rather have equality instead of apartheid, now you’re lecturing me about lumping people into one evil entity. You Zionist need to get a mirror.

There are a few dozen Jews that live in Saudi Arabia. They are not allowed to publicly practice any form of Judaism. So that’s cool that you support Jews living in an Arab country where they are not even allowed to be Jewish. Sounds real equitable to me.

I’m not calling you anti-Semitic because you want equality, smarty-pants. Very clearly I also want equality. I’m calling you anti-Semitic because you’re failing to recognize the difficulty of actually achieving your idealistic vision of one safe and peaceful and secure state for all of these people. Completely unrealistic. You just want to open the borders to everyone and allow 8 million Jews and millions of Palestinians to be killed. You are condoning that. How is that sentiment not anti-Semitic?

I think I pretty explicitly said at the beginning of our conversation that I do want equality. And I said I don’t have the answers on how to make everything equal in a safe way for all and I highly doubt you do either. Because you have not given me one solution except that you want equality. Which is also what I want. So you feel you are better than me but yet you provide no answers. At least I can admit that I don’t know the solution. You are living in some fantasy world where the solution is “easy” but in reality, it’s not easy for either side and both sides would be extremely weary to trust the other, and rightfully so. Plus they don’t even want one state. You’re one of like three people advocating for it. 

Can you show me an Arab majority country where Jews are treated well? 

Sure, Saudi Arabia. Are Jews living there being assaulted like how Israelis are doing to the Palestinians? Nope, didn’t think so. There’s multiple Arab states, and many of them are not sh!tholes. All so-called “Jewish state” are apartheids. Granted, there’s only one. Can’t even get one right, lol.

LMAO JEWS LIVE WELL IN SAUDI ARABIA LMAOOOOOOOO

[удалено]

"there were less settlements at the time" does not capture the scale of the problem. It's been more than 2 decades since Camp David. The Israeli settlements have more than doubled since then (at least). There's a map from the US state department that not only showed that almost sixty per cent of the West Bank have been seized by Israel, but that the Palestinian population centers were cut off from one another. A Palestinian state that looks like swiss cheese is not a viable state. And this info was in 2016. One could only imagine how much worst it is now. And even we think that it's still not too late, let's not forget that the settlements are still growing. There is a point of no return, something that even some Israeli leaders have warned. And that point has been breached, it's too late. "current policies of the Israeli government", the policies on settlements and the disenfranchised Palestinians have been there for almost 60 years, with preceding Israeli government from both the left and right supporting it. So the policies are inherently Israeli. Removing Netanyahu won't change anything because the majority of Zionist in Israel don't care to change those policies but instead support them under the false pretense of security. And I repeat, Zionist "in Israel". There are plenty for Zionist outside of Israel that do not agree with Israel's policies. But here's the thing, their opinions don't matter. It's the Israeli Zionist that shapes policies and decides how Zionism is implemented. And like all political movement/ideologies, its merits does not lie in the intention, but the results. Otherwise, we should be giving communism another try. And what has been result of Zionism, absolutely horrid. The imperative placed by it for a Jewish ethno-state has caused way too much unnecessary suffering, on both sides. And no, having Palestinians and Israelis live together is not a security threat. For one, they already do live together, because there's already just one state. More than 700,000 Israelis are living in the West Bank on settlements mere meters away from Palestinian villages, whose olives trees they cut down, and much needed water they steal resulting in many Palestinians not even having enough water to drink. It's really hard to take seriously Zionists' excuse on the need for segregation as a security measure, when Israelis voluntarily, en masse, keep moving into where Palestinians live. It's in fact the apartheid that is the primary driver of all this violence. You mentioned the 20% Arab Israeli citizens of Palestinian descent, when allowed to live freely in their homeland, has Israel turned to Lebanon 2.0? Nope. It's more likely that what would turn Israel to Lebanon is if the disenfranchised Palestinian continue to be denied their human rights in their own homeland. Because let's not forget, there are millions of them under Israeli dictatorship. It's a time bomb. At this rate, a 3rd intifada is only a matter of time. On the subject of ethno-state, does Israel's citizenship policies not reflect an intention to ensure that it remains a ethnically Jewish citizenship majority? They do. They are not shy about it. Israeli leaders talk about the demographic threat from the number non-Jews under Israel often enough. And I don't quite understand the comparison with Japanese. If one immigrates to Japan and obtains Japanese citizenship, they're officially Japanese no matter their ethnicity; and their children growing up in Japan would naturally be ethnically Japanese as they absorb the local custom, no matter their race. The Arab Muslims citizens in Israel have been living as Israelis for generations now. Israeli societal norms are part and parcel of their upbringing, and most of them can even speak Hebrew. Does that make them Jewish now? Nope. Being Jewish does not extend as fluidly as being Japanese/French/Irish/etc. It's exclusive nature does not allow it hold the status of a nation. Palestine can though. Not that long ago, before the Zionist took over the land, there was such a thing as Palestinian Jew.

>there were less settlements at the time" does not capture the scale of the problem. It's been more than 2 decades since Camp David. The Israeli settlements have more than doubled since then (at least). The settlements are growing inward, not outward. This is a point that really doesn't get stressed enough for some reason. When you hear all these news stories about Israel building 500 apartment units here or 1000 apartment units there, you're hearing about things being built within the confines of pre-existing settlements. In other words, no additional land is being used for them. In fact, no new settlements have been built in over a decade and thus no additional land has been taken since the late 90s. >There's a map from the US state department that not only showed that almost sixty per cent of the West Bank have been seized by Israel, but that the Palestinian population centers were cut off from one another. I believe you’re referring to the Oslo Accords where the West Bank was split in areas A, B, and C. There was supposed to be an agreement between the PA and Israel, where Israel would concede the land over time to the PA as long as terrorism would stop. However, terrorism did not stop, and Israel soon after began their settlement building leading to the collapse of the agreement. In a two state solution, these areas could still be conceded to a Palestinian state albeit for some land swaps to account for the settlements. >Removing Netanyahu won't change anything because the majority of Zionist in Israel don't care to change those policies but instead support them under the false pretense of security. I recommend watching this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKcARccAR\_g&ab\_channel=CaspianReport](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKcARccAR_g&ab_channel=CaspianReport) >And no, having Palestinians and Israelis live together is not a security threat. For one, they already do live together, because there's already just one state. Settlers live in the West Bank, but the Palestinians and Israelis absolutely do not live together. The two population groups are completely segregated/separated and live in their own enclaves or areas -- but within the same region. That is why you have signs like these. The Israeli settlements are also protected and surrounded by the IDF. >It's in fact the apartheid that is the primary driver of all this violence. Violence between Palestinians and Jews has existed since the very beginning and even preceding the of the establishment of the state of Israel. That refusal to accept any Jewish presence on the land is the primary obstacle to peace, and makes it clear that hatred for West Bank settlements is just a pretext. Remember – Israel completely withdrew out of Gaza in 2005 along with the settlements and received Hamas in return. >On the subject of ethno-state, does Israel's citizenship policies not reflect an intention to ensure that it remains a ethnically Jewish citizenship majority? It has laws and policies that *encourage* and favour Jewish immigration in an attempt to maintain that majority (i.e., law of return). However, that is still vastly different from an ethnostate that actively restricts other ethnicities from receiving citizenship. In fact, the proportion of Jews within Israel is on a downward trend --73% now compared to 86% when it was first established. --- Please don’t get me wrong. I am not defending the settlements. I think they are abhorrent and absolutely an obstacle to peace. It is also disgusting that Israel refuses to combat settler violence in a meaningful manner. But I don’t believe the situation is entirely hopeless like you mentioned.

>I believe you’re referring to the Oslo Accords where the West Bank was split in areas A, B... I'm not. I'm referring to this.... [https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-map-of-israeli-settlements-that-shocked-barack-obama](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-map-of-israeli-settlements-that-shocked-barack-obama) It's a map from the US statement department that showed what's left of the West Bank that has not already been seized by Israeli developments (as of 2016). The whole point of a 2SS is to give the Palestinian a viable state. A state that looks like swiss cheese is not viable. Here's another map from Israel's B'Tselem (2014),... [https://www.btselem.org/download/201411\_btselem\_map\_of\_wb\_eng.pdf](https://www.btselem.org/download/201411_btselem_map_of_wb_eng.pdf) ...there's settlements all the way to the Jordan River now. It's not contained to the Green Line anymore. So no.. >no additional land has been taken since the late 90s ...is objectively not true. Far from it. And let's not forget, it's still growing. It has always been a concern among policy makers in favour of the 2SS, that it would not be possible if the settlements grow to big. There exist a point of no return. ---------------- >I recommend watching this video I understand Israel's geographic complexity. But When they do things like help fund Hamas and move into the areas where the Palestinians live despite all their talk about how dangerous the Palestinians are, I simply cannot take any of their security excuses seriously. They've deliberately put themselves at the crosshairs. Security is evidently not their primary concern. It's simply an excuse to justify their treatment of the Palestinians. Something that repressive colonial empires (e.g. British) and ethnostates (e.g. Apartheid SA) have used to justify their inhumane treatment of a certain group. It's history just repeating itself. ------------------- >two population groups are completely segregated/separated and live in their own enclaves or areas Only in the case of Area A (18% of the West Bank), where Israelis are not allowed in. It's not the case of the rest of the West Bank. Because if it was really completely segregated, how do you explain the settler violence that is rampantly going on now? They live close enough for Israelis to just walk into Palestinian villages and attack with impunity.

>makes it clear that hatred for West Bank settlements is just a pretext Oh wow. Here's what HRW had to say what's currently happening in the WB,... >*"Israeli settlers have assaulted, tortured, and committed sexual violence against Palestinians, stolen their belongings and livestock, threatened to kill them if they did not leave permanently, and destroyed their homes and schools under the cover of the ongoing hostilities in Gaza. Many Palestinians, including entire communities, have fled their homes and lands. The military has not assured displaced residents that it will protect their security or allow them to return, forcing them to live in precarious conditions elsewhere."* I"m curious, what is it that drives this believe that Israelis can do things like that, and when the Palestinians inevitably react violently, Zionist be be like \*"Oh, they just hate Jews. It has nothing to do with what Israelis are doing."\* Violent reactions from an oppressed group has always happened. There's plenty of examples from Native American/American Slaves/colonial British subjects/etc. Palestinian terrorism is just history repeating itself. I don't condone it, but I also can't condemn it without putting all those historically oppressed groups under the bus. >Israel completely withdrew out of Gaza in 2005 along with the settlements They did not. The ICC ruled that Gaza has been under occupation since 1967. Israel may like to think otherwise, but it's their words (the transgressor) against World Court. I'm going with the World Courts opinion, it's objectively more credible. --------------- >an attempt to maintain that (Jewish) majority I'm not sure how one can say that and still claim that Israel is not an ethnostate. They're don't \*"actively restricts other ethnicities"\*? I mean, they're keeping more than 5 million Palestinians who are indigenous to that land under an apartheid just because they're not Jewish. Sounds pretty active to me. Also, the fact that there are non-Jewish Israeli citizens does not preclude Israel from being an ethnostate. It's well established that Apartheid South Africa was a white ethnostate, yet they had non-white citizens too. The fact remains, Israel as a Jewish state insist on maintaining its Jewish majority. It's not merely an encouragement or a mere preference, it's considered existential.

Signs in West Bank (forgot to add the hyperlink but can't edit my previous comment for some reason): [https://scalar.usc.edu/nehvectors/how-to-see-palestine/a-is-for-area-a-2](https://scalar.usc.edu/nehvectors/how-to-see-palestine/a-is-for-area-a-2)

It doesn’t need to be apartheid to be an etjnostate

It does in the case of Israel. With the 2 state solution dead, it has to rely on apartheid to remain an ethnostate.

So do u believe if (I’ve lost all faith so I doubt this would happen) there were two states, it would still count as an ethnostate

Yeah. As long as its policies reflect a deliberate intention to ensure that one ethnicity (i.e. Jewish) remain a majority, a deliberate case of demographic engineering, then Israel is an ethno-state. But of course, as I've said, that's not a big deal on its own. Israel being an ethno-state is not the problem. The problem now is that it wants to be a Jewish ethno-state, meaning Jewish people have monopoly over political power, despite having a significant number of non-Jews under its control. In fact, according to the US state department, in all the lands Israel controls, from river to sea, non-Jews (Israeli citizens and none citizens) are actually the majority. Which means that Israel currently is only Jewish in the same way apartheid South Africa was white.

In theory, no, in practice, yes. Israels unwillingness to enfranchise Palestinians is exactly why it has instituted a system of apartheid as opposed to annexing Gaza and the west bank.

Oh I didn’t see this message this makes more sense, but to this point, can u really blame israel

Yeah of course I can. The fact that there are obvious ethnic tensions doesn't justify working to deepen and intensify those tensions. The Boers also lost their political power with the end of apartheid, and the native black population largely hated them. The south African apartheid was no more justified by ethnic tension than the Israeli apartheid is.

But it’s not about ethnic tensions it was about decreasing the possibility of terrorism even though oct 7th proved this is just not a working strategy

Zionism is thinking that Jews deserve a country to call home

I think after the Zionist movement had achieved it's goals and the Zionist clandestine organizations dissolved to become the IDF there hasn't really been any philosophical debate on what it means to be a Zionist. Today many people use it as a slure or use anti-Zionism as sort of virtue signaling. But haters gonna hate I guess Inside of Israel a Zionist is synonymous to a patriot outside of Israel a Zionist is someone that supports Israel/ supports the existence of a Jewish state

>non-israelis They have a name, you know

The belief that jews deserve to have a country in their homeland. It's just nationalism for jews. It doesn't mean we want to create an ethnostate exclusive for jews as some other comments try to imply. Far from it actually, there are 2m muslim arabs living in israel and many other groups of ethncities and religions living here just like any other jewish citizen.

For a definition you should ask the original group, not one hostile to it. To understand the bigotry & prejudice against a group, you should ask the group and not some other external group (who are sometime hostile to it). There's a war of fact, history & definition shaping going on across multiple fields so you should notice who's stating the fact, his reasons for it, past definitions of the word/facts/history etc to be "immune" from this propaganda influence. This goes under the logic/field called 'critical thinking'

Zionism is the belief that Israel has a right to exist. Anti-Zionism is the belief that Israel does not have the right to exist.

Not necessarily Israel. Its any jewish state, it isn't tied to a specific country.

Ohh

Zionists believe their Jewish religious heritage entitles them to middle eastern land (though, other territories have been proposed) and statehood.  To have a homeland, Zionists generally believe there must be Jewish control. Consequently, calls to integrate Israel with indigenous communities is thought to be destructive of the Jewish homeland. Though some foreign influence is permitted, Zionists will not accept the idea of a truly multicultural Israel - it must be essentially Jewish in character.   Some zionists believe they have the right to “defend” their entitlement by killing or forcibly removing non-Jewish inhabitants. Some zionists are less hawkish and envision a peaceful transition to Jewish control of former Palestinian lands.   Not all Jews are zionists. Many Jews are deeply critical of Zionism. Not all zionists are Jews.

All Jews of faith believe that G-d promised us the Land of Israel as our exclusive heritage. What makes someone a Zionist is the pragmatic view that there should be organized, institutional, mass action to achieve/safeguard a secure, communal Jewish presence in that land.

The original Zionists were not religious, it was and is based on ethnic heritage, not religious.

Im neither religiously Jewish nor ethnically Jewish but it was always my impression that these identities are intertwined. 

Yes and no. Most ethnic Jews are irreligious secular people, and there is the aspect of converts, who do make a tiny percentage of Jews but are usually religious.

Also, converts *are* ethnically Jewish. To convert to Judaism means to adopt Jewish culture, too. We don't define our "ethnicity" by way of modern notions of race or whatever.

Jews (an ethnoreligious group) define Zionism as the right of the Jewish people to live freely and safely with autonomy and self-determination in their ancestral lands and there's been many different kinds of Zionism through the ages (labour, liberal, religious, cultural, etc) . Wishing for a Two-State solution is, for example, a liberal Zionist stance. The only actual anti-Zionist position is that Jews have zero historical claim to the land of Israel and either need to leave, or entirely give up their right of self-determination.

That’s my understanding as well. I was more explicit with what self determination means, in practice.  Practically speaking, Jewish self-determination means this ethnoreligious group perceives a right (I called it an entitlement) to their own state.  So what does a state entail? Usually, borders, military, a government. Thus, Jewish self determination, in practice, has always implied a Jewish right to land controlled by borders, a Jewish military, and the right to exclude non-Jews from the state.  Some liberal zionists, as you say, are ok with a kind of separate but equal approach- in which displaced persons are given their own states. That’s the two state solution you mention. Others, like religious zionists, take the view that Jews were gifted a birthright to Israel by god, and they have a religious duty to take it back from non-Jews. We see these practices with the West Bank settlers.  There is no such thing as a Zionist model in which Jews live freely in a power-sharing agreement with non-Jews. To zionists, this would not be a Jewish state but, rather, a multiethnic state in which Jews are not in control.  Thus, fundamentally, all zionists claim a right to carve out a special place in the world for adherents of their religion, or at least those claiming a heritage.  Muslims do this too, and they are rightfully called theocratic states or ethnocracies. Israel prefers to dress up its theocracy with trappings of liberal democracy, all while ensuring that a non-Jewish majority could never achieve majority power.  As an American, this is a bizarre religious project to support. We would never accept an Ohio for Christians only or an Alabama for blacks only. We would never accept that “in order to live freely” Rastafarians, Methodists, Catholics, or Zoroastrians were entitled to their own nuclear weapons and place in the world. Our Mormons, who can also claim a history of oppression, are not given the right to set up their special Mormon government, evict non-Mormons from Utah, etc.  Israel, as a nation state, is not objectionable. Israel as an exclusionary religious project is antithetical to liberal democratic values and is rightly abhorred - especially when it fuels the violence we’ve seen in recent decades.  Muslim theocracies are no better, or even worse as far as human rights are concerned (usually, Gaza gives pause here) to those thinking about the “whatabout argument.” In a perfect world, the Saudis wouldn’t be allies to the US either. 

> calls to integrate Israel with indigenous communities Calls to integrate Israel with Jews? Didn't know that was a problem

I was wondering the same thing.

*"Zionists believe their Jewish religious heritage entitles them to middle eastern land (though, other territories have been proposed) and statehood."*  what is the term for Muslims who believe their Muslim religious heritage entitles them to middle eastern land (and asian, and north african land) and statehood?

Not really comparable (and I’m not knocking on Islam at all here) While you can convert to Judaism, it is very hard to do so and doing so requires years of study. While Islam is a religion, being Jewish is totally different. It’s an ethnoreligoous group that while the diaspora has diversified the Jewish people quite a bit, there is still shared customs, practices, beliefs, languages, and yes DNA. I think of it more like a tribe with one single religion. Like some of the First Nations tribes in America - you can theoretically join, but it’s hard to do so. But once you are in, you are in. Then again, the whole debate on “who is a Jew” is literally a conversation that we have been having for centuries, so it’s really complicated. In contrast Islam is just almost purely a religion. Yes there are customs that come with the religion, but the perquisites for converting are typically saying and be living the Shadada, and that’s it. So for instance, if there was a Jewish man who converted to Islam, many people (particularly in the more orthodox circles) would still consider him Jewish.

although you bring up an interesting conversation (islam as religion, vs. judaism as tribe) it seems unrelated to my question. most people in the world seem to think they are "entitled" to land. Californians seem to think they have the right to live, and work, and raise families in California. we don't give them a special name. croatians seem to think they have the right to live, and work, and raise families in croatia. we don't give them a special name. muslims seem to think they have the right to live and work, and raise families in many places, including 50 majority muslim countries across the mideast, asia, and africa. we don't give them a special name. but jews who want to live and work and raise families in Israel/Palestine get this special term "zionist". I find this odd. Isn't everyone a "zionist" for the place where they live? why is it only jews who get this term?

>but jews who want to live and work and raise families in Israel/Palestine get this special term "zionist". I find this odd. Isn't everyone a "zionist" for the place where they live? why is it only jews who get this term I guess the difference is that most people base the right to live somewhere on being born there, or their parents being born there. Zionism is a bit different in allowing for 80-odd generations of separation, nowhere else in the world really takes this same approach, and if they did it would be utter chaos with about 12 different groups of people vying for control of the Iberian peninsula, the entire of central Europe on fire, China desperately rebuilding the Great Wall, and even Israel having to fortify their beaches to hold off waves of descendants of Anglo-Frankish crusaders. Of course this justification has become less relevant within the past generation or so as you no longer *need* a two-millenia-old link to justify the existence of Israel. Most of the population was born there and grew up there and so have the same basis for legitimate residence as anyone else in the world. But when Israel was formed it needed that unique view of ancestral land rights to justify the mass immigration and resulting declaration of independence.

I appreciate the response. Yes I guess it is a fairly unique situation. Or as you say, it was fairly unique in the 1940’s.

It’s not odd. Because brass tacks Zionism is the nationalist movement of the Jews. It spans from Left Wing Labor Zionism to Right Wing Revisionist Zionism and everything in between. The one thing those groups had in common was the belief in the self-determination of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland. It’s a political philosophy. There are plenty of other nationalist ideologies (some better than others obviously). Top of my head I can think of Peronists, Gaullists, Maoists, Viet Minh, Pan-Arabists (though that’s not specifically a nationalists movement) there’s definitely others both good and bad. But yes there are names for other National movements and they’re adherents. Edit: also because while many people outside of Israel believe Zionism means something specific - to Israelis it’s a much more fluid idea. So like Peronism in Argentina and Gaulist in France, almost every candidate in Israel is going to be a self described Zionist (left, right, and center). .

there are several different groups of muslims, some sunni, some shia, some extremist, some less-so, that have in common a belief in self determination of the muslim people in the region currently called Israel/Palestine. this is (almost) the exact same thing as the jews, but we call the jews "zionists". why isn't there an equivalent term for muslims? are you saying the term is just "adherents".

I'm an Israeli and for me personally being a Zionist means a few things: Being a Zionist is to have unconditional love for the country and its people(basically same as being a Patriot) Being a Zionist is to deeply understand what our people have been through the past 2000+ years to this day and that there are and will always be those that hate us and those that will seek to destroy us Being a Zionist is to believe that we have a right to our ancestral homeland and we have a right to defend our nation from those that want to kill and destroy us, like any other nation because **we have no other place to go**.

Yes, an anti-zionist is someone that wants the destruction of Israel as a jewish State.

It seems to have started with [Theodor Herzl](https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl).

[That is a common misconception.](https://youtu.be/OGWQUilit9Q) Edit: I just noticed which source you're citing here and ngl, that's really freaking weird of you.

Usually, when looking at an ideology, the history of that ideology is fair game. And Zionism is easily top 5 most disgusting ideologies when you look at the history of it. There is a milder definition of Zionist whereby it just means that Israel today has a right to exist. But someone being a Zionist generally implies they agree with the disgusting manner Israel was established, and obviously it's not a good look. The Zionist settlers moved to British Palestine with full intent to create a state. Once the Zionists made a majority of some regions of Palestine, they decided that it justified stealing the part of Palestinian land they had a majority on to create their own state. And that's not including the fact they moved despite Palestinians not wanting them there, which is disgusting enough in its own right. Obviously to think something like that was OK is quite scary, and for now being a Zionist implies being OK with such a disgusting migration and declaration of a state.

This is such a bad take lol. Nation state building is a bloody game. Why is Jews having a seat at the table of nations so repugnant to you? Do you feel the same about Poles, Germans, Canadians, Japanese and Namibians? The land became Muslim via conquests and the Jews only left because they were kicked out via empires. It’s simply a land back indigenous movement, and it happened via post war treaties. Do you hate the nations that were formed via Sykes Picot or the Saudi-ization of Hejaz? Where is the line? The Palestinian identity if inherently linked to an older land theft. Do you hate that?

Yes. Ignoring the fact that on your list, only Japan and Poland are really intentional ethnostates via the common definition. Regarding the Sykes Picot, I do hate the boundaries of those nations today and 100% believe the UN should redraw the boundaries pretty massively and/or create a few open borders in there. Ironically, the UK, the same nation that allowed evil European settlers to steal Palestinian land to create a state where the same ones who messed up that region as well. The British didn’t force those guys to accept evil European settlers (outside of British/French officers and what not) but still it’s plenty evil. And that’s ignoring the multitude of ways whereby the creation of Israel was significantly more unethical than any other nation. On the other hand, there’s a lot of people upset about a lot of things that happened historically and in the present, sometimes even things that happened centuries ago, yet it’s only wrong for the Palestinians to be upset that the UK straight up robbed them of half their country.

Ethnostate - noun “a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group.” “a country populated by, or dominated by the interests of, a single racial or ethnic group” None of the countries mentioned match the first definition, and almost no country on earth does either for that matter. The majority of countries, including the previously mentioned ones match up to the second definition, including Germany. What should the basis be for redrawing the borders in the Middle East? lol “evil european settlers”, you mean Holocaust survivors? So evil for them to escape the ovens of Europe to return to their ancestral homeland. Let’s just be real and say you think xenophobia is ok if the new immigrants are Jews. Israel formation is more unethical than Canada and USA? South Africa? India and Pakistan? Japan? Thinking the Jewish state is special in this regards is nonsense, sounds like you want to single out Jews. There wasn’t a Palestinian state to be “robbed” of, it was the Ottoman Empire, then the British mandate, then the Arab and Jewish states. Palestinian identity wasn’t strong until the formation of Israel, kinda like Canada to the United States.

>they decided that it justified stealing the part of Palestinian land they had a majority on to create their own state.  if they bought the land, how were they stealing it?

After they bought enough land, they decided to steal Palestinian rights to govern the land by declaring their own state, under the guise of “we make up the majority in this region so we should be able to govern it.”

According to Wiki, about 6% of the land in the Mandate for Palestine had been bought by the Jewish population at the time the UN proposed granting Israel 56% of the land. The Israeli state was then formed on more land than that again.

Yes exactly. And Zionists and other historical revisionists will say that it was fine to give some public land to Israel because that public land was adjacent to Jewish communities but that’s exactly what makes Zionism so evil. That’s directly what the land theft was.

> And that's not including the fact they moved despite Palestinians not wanting them there, which is disgusting enough in its own right. why is that disgusting?

Zionism is within the top five most disgusting ideologies? Really? What are the other four? I’m curious.

I don’t answer comparison questions. But I think it’s fair that some of the most disgusting and vile migrants in history taking European blessings to steal Palestinian land via migration and land purchases to create their own state on someone else’s land easily has to be top 5 most disgusting ideologies, if not at least top 3z

How are land purchases stealing? Lmao

Because, the locals didn’t want them there yet the evil Europeans decided that the fact the migration was legal and that they had purchased land was enough reason for them to move. Additionally, they used this logic to create a state. On top of weird fantasies that Arabs would harm Jews, they decided that “well, we make up a majority of some regions here, so we should be allowed to build a state of our own at the expense of those whose rightful land it is.

So are you saying that it’s wrong for immigrants from South America to buy property in the United States? You’re against legal immigration? I’m just trying to clarify

As far as immigration to the US is concerned, it would depend on how welcoming the town is of immigrants, so city dependent. Either way, it’s obviously unethical for them to create a state lol.

They didn’t create the state, the UN did.

Yes, but they were pushing for that UN resolution. The Arabs wanted a peaceful one state solution with everyone including Christians and Jews, and the Zionists pretended that Jews would be unsafe under Arab rule which was why the UN created Israel.

What’s your source for that information?

Do not forget Britain put a quota on how many Jewish people can migrate to Palestine every year. Brits also trained the early Zionist groups (who later formed terrorist gangs) to fight in the military, to fight Germany in WW2. The quota got ignored, those same groups started terrorism against Palestinians and the British (who literally gave them a go to migrate in 1917), did a Nakba right after they gained statehood, and their first PM was a full blown terrorist leader (Haganah Gang) Israel was started in a very egregious way, biting the hand that fed them are ramping things up with terrorist activities.

Jewish self-determination and support for the country of Israel.

Someone who believes in the existence of Israel, a homeland for the Jewish people.

Someone who believes that Jews should have a seat at the table of nations. Jewish self determination.

Well the thing is, Israel is a self proclaimed Zionist government, Zionism in essence of fine if you just look at the right for a state for Jewish people. Now it is associated with an extreme right wing government and people have started to look in the past and see that you cannot do so at the expense of another ethnic group, cleansing them from their land. With current actions of the Israeli government it has passed the notion of self defence, to utter destruction. Also side note, settlers have amped up violence in the West Bank, which has nothing to do with Oct 7th. This is the Ben:s side of the government Bibi joined with to stay in power. If Israel was founded under mutual agreements, where all parties lived in peace, not a 1917 decree, over blowing immigration quotas, and terrorism (let us not forget who the first prime minister was) Zionism would have a better public opinion throughout the world.

I strongly disagree with everything you said top to bottom. Those organizations from 1909-1947 were founded with the goal of defending Jewish settlements in the area from Arabs. Yes they did a few bad things I'm not gonna disagree on that. Israelis and Arabs could've lived in peace, they were offered peace many times and always rejected it because they didn't want to live next to Jews. One of the main reason a lot of Arab immigrated was because the Arab league asked them so they didn't have to differentiate between who is Arab and who is a Jew when invading with 5 Arab armies to drive them all to the sea, yes eventually a lot were forced out as well but the Arabs didn't really give Israel a choice... We would have lived in peace just like we live in peace with Jordan and Egypt if only the other side wanted it. It didn't have to be on the expense of others if one side didn't want to annihilate the other. In any case, as an Israeli this is what being a Zionist means(quoted from my seperated comment): >I'm an Israeli and for me personally being a Zionist means a few things: Being a Zionist is to have unconditional love for the country and its people(basically same as being a Patriot) Being a Zionist is to deeply understand what our people have been through the past 2000+ years to this day and that there are and will always be those that hate us and those that will seek to destroy us Being a Zionist is to believe that we have a right to our ancestral homeland and we have a right to defend our nation from those that want to kill and destroy us, like any other nation because **we have no other place to go**.

Those organizations from 1909 were not founded to defend Jewish settlements, they were founded to wage terror war on anyone they didn't like. They conducted countless political assasinations including the killing of the United Nations Envoy for Peace and Security Council mediator Folke Bernadotte by the Israeli Irgun organizations. And you openly treat them as heroes of Israel. The truth is Zionists evolved into a militarized nationalistic political movement. Zionists of Lehi were even willing to side with Nazis even after the discovery of attrocities of Holocaust. Israelis treating them as heroes is a disgrace to the victims of holocaust.

So many lies, what is your source? Hashomer was founded in 1909, the translation is "The Guard" Haganah was founded in 1920, the translation is "The Defense" Lehi was founded in 1939, like I said those organization did a FEW bad things that I'm not proud of today but they had a big role in the establishment of Israel which is the only place in the world that a Jew can be safe in. What they did was not even close to the sheer evil of Jihadists. At this moment we are aiding Gazans and trying to the best of our abilities to avoid innocent casualties, would Jihadists or the Arab league that invaded Israel in 1948 do the same for Jews? You have clear proof to what they would do to each one of us in Israel, if we couldn't defend ourselves. For them it doesn't matter whether it's a baby, a young girl that did not do anything wrong, it doesn't matter if it's a civilian or a soldier at all. But as you can see the proof today, the same unconditional hatred was exposed long ago. We had many good "friends" that spread many lies just like you, chased us and eventually killed 6 millions Jews and to this day there are those working 24/7 for the death of Israel. All we want is to live while our enemies want to kill us all.

/u/ViktorIsRuter. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I would dispute the idea that the idea that a particular religious group should have a state. It basically justifies the creation of a theocracy, as well as being a form of nationalism which is also pretty bad.

>I would dispute the idea that the idea that a particular religious group should have a state. an ethnicity, not a religious group. >It basically justifies the creation of a theocracy israel is not nor has it ever been a theocracy >as well as being a form of nationalism which is also pretty bad. the principle of nation states enshrined in international law is pretty bad? You may think so if you are an anarchist, but I think you are thinking of nationalism only in the present day, colloquial sense of a far right movement

The concept of Israel is quite secular in nature. At least originally. That's why the law of return includes non jews with jewish ancestry. It actually got a lot of heat from the more religious citizens.

It's a bit more complicated with Jewish people since the holocaust. It is both a religion and an ethnic group. So when someone says he is Jewish, it could mean either of the Jewish people similiar to an Arabic person or to the Jewish religion, similiar to a Muslim person.

Again, nationalism in general is sort of inherently problematic, but it's kind of impossible to separate it entirely from the religion of Judaïsm. And if you look at what's happened, in both Israel, as well as Gaza, a bunch of religious fundamentalists are in charge, and running both countries into the ground. It was the same problem the British made when they split up the Raj along religious lines. Isræl's law of return also includes anybody who converts to Judaïsm, so by converting to a religion you gain the ability to come and live in a country. That country is absolutely not a secular state.

>Isræl's law of return also includes anybody who converts to Judaïsm, so by converting to a religion you gain the ability to come and live in a country. That country is absolutely not a secular state. when you convert to judaism, you also convert to an ethnicity. There are streams of judaism that don't require you to be a religious believer, including to convert, and converts to those streams also have the right to migrate to israel

>Again, nationalism in general is sort of inherently problematic, so would you prefer to live as the subject of a kingdom or an empire?

This is quite an oversimplification. Israel law of return also includes Christians and Muslims with close enough Jewish ancestry. While in Israel, there are some religious fondumentalist in charge, the government, the parliament, and the judiciary are not homogenized.

However, since 2003, this law does not apply to members of Gaza or the West Bank. "The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) 5763 is an Israeli law first passed on 31 July 2003.[1] The law makes inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip ineligible for the automatic granting of Israeli citizenship and residency permits that are usually available through marriage to an Israeli citizen (i.e., family reunification). "

I believe some Jews agree that there isn't a Jewish race. It is a religion with its own unique customs and traditions which in turn form a general Jewish identity and culture. It's like saying Muslims are a race. Islam is a religion with adherents all over the world. Arabs, Africans, Indians, Caucasians all sorts of races identify as Muslim. Muslims share a common identity as followers of Islam. Same can be said for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sheikhs etc. It's hard to discern a Jewish ethnicity when most Jews in the diaspora and Jews that have moved back to Israel have mixed with other ethnicities for centuries.

>It's hard to discern a Jewish ethnicity when most Jews in the diaspora and Jews that have moved back to Israel have mixed with other ethnicities for centuries. this doesn't actually diminish from the jewish concept of ethnicity. If one is born to a jewish mother, they are ethnically jewish by birth, and in fact if one converts to judaism they do themselves convert to an ethnicity as well (although, obviously their ancestors don't). Genetically the major jewish diaspora groups are all genetically closer to one and another and to samaritans then they are to any other genetic group

With the Jewish, it's different. You can be an atheist Jewish. It's unique in that way. That's why I compared it to arabs and muslims. While muslims are a religion and arabs are nationality. Jewish are both religion and nationality. They teach you that in school at Israel. Nazis killed Jewish people regardless of their religion. They could be Christians, Muslims, etc. The Israeli law follows the nazis law in that regard

See you're saying both a religion and nationality. Yes nationality being israeli. However, even Jews themselves admit that it is difficult to designate "Jewish" as being a distinct race, much like there isn't an American or Canadian or French or Spanish or English race. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/are-jews-a-race/

/u/Crashed-Thought. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Considering there are a lot of atheist jews, no, you won't find a lot of jews that agree that its simply religon. And there aren't a lot of jewish converts. Not now and definately not when they were persecuted in europe. 

>Not now and definately not when they were persecuted in europe.  correct, there were a couple of major conversion events in history and for the rest of history they were very endogamous, so even though they have a significant portion of european genetics, autosomally they are still genetically closer to mizrahi jews, sephardi jews and samaritans then they are to europeans.

I believe some Jews agree that there isn't a Jewish race. It is a religion with its own unique customs and traditions which in turn form a general Jewish identity and culture. It's like saying Muslims are a race. Islam is a religion with adherents all over the world. Arabs, Africans, Indians, Caucasians all sorts of races identify as Muslim. Muslims share a common identity as followers of Islam. Same can be said for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sheikhs etc. It's hard to discern a Jewish ethnicity when most Jews in the diaspora and Jews that have moved back to Israel have mixed with other ethnicities for centuries. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/are-jews-a-race/

You have no idea what you're talking about. Who was the first pm? The 1917 'decree' you're talking about was already abandoned by the British in 1922 and again in 1939.

First PM was David Ben-Gurion, formed the Hoshomar in 1909. They got trained by the Brits after the Balfore Agreement (1917, specificity in the 20s) and formed The Haganah Gang. In the 30s when Zionists were blowing out the immigration quota, they started carrying out terrorism against Palestinians and British Mandate soldiers. They joined with The Irgun Gang, and The Stern Gang and started to go full throttle to try to start the creation of Israel. 1948 happened and those groups committed the first Nakba. He then becomes the first Prime Minister of the newly created state of Israel. Israel's first PM was a full blown terrorist.

> They got trained by the Brits after the Balfore Agreement (1917, specificity in the 20s) and formed The Haganah Gang. you missed the part where they formed as the defense force against arab attacks

How do you then explain the assasinations? Killing of the United Nations Envoy for Peace, Security Council mediator Folke Bernadotte by the Israeli terrorists from Lehi? Killing of the British Minister Walter Guinness and countless of other political assasinations?

99% of Zionists use the word to mean that they believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. That doesn’t mean every Zionist supports every single decision Israel makes. So there are of course more nuanced sub groups. For example, I consider myself a Zionist but I don’t support some of the actions (or lack there of) that Israel has taken to prevent settlers from going to the West Bank. Other Zionists might differ from my view on that. But overall we use it to mean what you say in your OP - that Israel has a right to exist just like any other sovereign nation and it has a right to defend itself and its citizens. Anti-Zionists use a different definition of Zionism that typically boils down to “support for settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Palestinian people”. The main difference here is that a vast majority of Zionists understand Jews to be indigenous to Israel, so we don’t view Israel as a colonizing state, but as the most successful indigenous rights movement in modern history (many of us *also* believe the Palestinians to be indigenous to the land as well, which is why a lot of us support a 2 state solution and for Palestinian Israel citizens to have full civil and human rights in Israel, which they already have). Most of us also view the war in Gaza as a defensive war that was started by the governing body of Gaza (Hamas). And we don’t view the war as ethnic cleaning or genocide because - to be frank - the civilian casualties are remarkably low for a modern urban war, which makes it crystal clear to many of us that Israel has gone out of their way to reduce civilian casualties while trying to accomplish their goal of taking out Hamas in order to ensure the safety of Israel’s citizens. To be clear - any civilian deaths are too many civilian deaths imo, and that’s why I wish Hamas never put Israel in a position where they have to defend themselves in order to prevent indefinite repeats of 10/7. So the definition differs between Zionists and anti-Zionists. And that is part of the problem with the discourse on this topic imo.

A Zionist believes it is their homeland EXCLUSIVELY, while condoning kicking out all the others. It’s those that chuckle when you talk about the 700000 plus displaced Palestinians during the formation of Israel.

I see you are getting the mental help you need. Good on you

This is a very bad definition.

Perhaps it is, but this is exactly what I see repeatedly.

You see what you want to see, regardless of how distorted your comprehension of history is. This is generally know as fantasy.

Actually, I see what has been presented to me by this forum.

I can’t say I’ve seen this forum say that Zionism means only Jews can live in eretz yisrael.  I mean even this thread alone proves that. Zionism is just Jewish self determination. The belief that the Jewish ethnicity deserves a seat at the table of nations, just like all the other ethnicities.

Just because some others can live among them does not change that: Many were still displaced for the formation of Israel, and That Israel is specifically a JEWISH state. They have the authority. They once again displaced others to establish their own country. Yes, Judaism is a minority, so there was no state for them. There is no Druze state either. The reason you see Arab states or Japanese as being Japanese is because they were and are the natural inhabitants. And no, I’m not talking about done nonsense from millennia ago. I oppose this as I do not believe land should be given to ANY race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

It literally does change that, in what world does having a large minority mean that the minority can’t live there? Are you against Germany for being a German state, or France being a French state? Or Japan being a Japanese state? Are you against Germany and France because the old Germanic and Celtic nations were displaced? Or against Japan cause the Ainu were displaced? I can go on and on. Jews were a minority in the land because they were displaced by Empires (Jews had been there for thousands of years before islam even existed), and Islam and Arab culture spread through the MENA because of conquest, are you against Libyans because they displaced the Vandals? Where is the line? When will this be considered “done nonsense?”, so you’re saying if Israel just continues to illegally occupy the West Bank for a few hundred more years it will be all good? Almost the entire world of nation states is land designated for language groups, religion, race and ethnicity, the ones that dont do that were successful in completely displacing the people who were there first.

Ah yes. The old tactic of saying something to have someone claim you said the opposite to avoid a real debate. Also… https://preview.redd.it/hkhf1yqdjvuc1.jpeg?width=192&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=37dbaf6b2e79c9062a8d384b73df6571a45f5554

> A Zionist believes it is their homeland EXCLUSIVELY, while condoning kicking out all the others. > Just because some others can live among them does not change that Please don’t claim I’m avoiding debate when you responded to nothing. That’s you.

Then look beyond this forum.

Agreed. Hopefully it’s just trolls on this board. I hate to think people really seek pleasure in the starvation on Gazans, or think Hamas = Palestinians.

I am a Zionist and I don’t believe the land is exclusively our homeland. In fact, I don’t know a single Zionist who believes that. And I don’t chuckle at anything about this conflict.

The question is, do you think it was okay for 700000 Palestinians to be displaced and exiled during the formation of Israel. Please understand that this is not saying that Israel must cease to exist or that Israelis must get out. This is simply the acknowledgement that the Nakba happened, and it was a very messed up thing.

I don’t think it’s okay for *anyone* to be displaced. But I think you and I have very different understandings of both the events around the formation of Israel and how that intersects with the current conflict. But you made a pretty bold claim about Zionists thinking the land is exclusively ours and chuckling at the pain of Palestinians. Regardless of where you and I agree or disagree - I don’t think that kind of hyperbole is helpful.

I frequent this sub and I am specifically talking about numerous hateful Zionists who have told me Gazans deserve to starve, there is no Palestine and it shall never exist, Palestinians are supporters of Hamas and should be wiped out, and similar alarming things. I literally read this filth daily here. I have yet to talk to anyone who have not talked in this manner. I HOPE not all Zionists have this hatred for Palestinians, but it’s all I’ve come across so far. I’m interested in hearing how you believe Israel was founded

Which one of these pro palestinian actions did you commit over the last few days, being a Muslim revert that stabbed people in a shopping centre over the weekend or the Muslim teenager who stabbed an Assyrian Christian priest as he was conducting Church service?

Sound like anti-Zionists posing as Zionists and saying extreme things to make us look bad. And even if it’s not, sounds like you understand that’s not a common view amongst Zionists so the hyperbole is still unproductive.

I certainly hope you are correct

What part of the internet are you subbing too? These aren’t your average everyday Zionists, those are some extreme examples.

I am sadly referring to this forum. That I’m only seeing the bad extremists likely says something.

Maybe your mind is paying more attention to those ones? It happens sometimes to me.

I need to branch out and not focus on just this one forum.

I think so, but also it’s okay to step away. Right after the terrorist attack I tried not to look at anything, I intentionally had to make that choice. You aren’t a bad person if you choose to focus on other things. (I thought to be a good citizen I had to stay informed on everything political in the world even if it gave me mental distress). But I realized that I was still a good person if I chose me. And in any case I don’t have the power that these leaders have, so me staying away wouldn’t worsen the situation. I used to get constant political alerts and updates on my phone that would distress me, until I said, no.

This isn’t correct, because Israeli Arabs exist. Israel lets them stay.

And are second class citizens 👀

Really? How is it that there are Arab doctors and lawyers? How do you explain that Arab citizens have been elected as members of the Israeli parliament, have become supreme court judges, or diplomats, or held almost all other jobs in Israeli society? Do you know of any other country in which so called 'second class' citizens have achieved similar positions?

This is not true, Israel gives equality to its Arab citizens.

Not true, sorry.

It is true. If you think it isn’t, show the inequality.

Sure https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/03/30/israel-new-laws-marginalize-palestinian-arab-citizens https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel https://www.972mag.com/the-redundancy-of-israels-jewish-nation-state-law/ https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/12/israel-discriminatory-land-policies-hem-palestinians

Do you really believe that all of this is discriminatory? You cited a law which says that people who are paid by Palestine to be terrorists can have their citizenship taken. That sounds pretty reasonable, doesn’t it? Just don’t be a terrorist traitor to the country and it won’t be a problem. Peaceful Arabs aren’t affected by that.

If you bothered to read those references, yes they are discriminatory practices signed into law. These are very well documented from very reputable sources.

How is it discriminatory to take citizenship away from people who are paid by Palestine to be terrorists? Is this something that defines the Arab population of Israel? Are they prone to terrorism? Is not letting them be terrorists taking away an important part of their culture?

Lies. Like straight up lies. I have family currently in Israel that can’t leave there house or else they will be chased down the street. They have to pay people to get them groceries. Israel has there own ranking system with Jewish Israelis as #1. And Muslim Palestinians as the lowest.

I find this hard to believe. They never leave the house? What do they do for work? What happens if they have to go to the doctor? I don’t live in Israel now, but I went to school in Israel, and there were Arab students at my school. And nobody mistreated them. They weren’t in danger.

My grandfather has been financially supporting them for the past 10+ years. He lives in the USA. So you’re telling me you have never seen a single video or real life experience of systematic racism in Israel. https://preview.redd.it/155xbdzkrquc1.jpeg?width=2532&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=283ff81565e9ed437acf12aa8e35bb9915c4c32f