then what would you call the majority of Jews as described in this article, who want Israel to exist and feel connected to it but are also highly critical of its actions and structure?

7

Anonymous OP 5w

zionists! we shouldn’t have to use different words just cause antisemites want to change the definitions!! personally, i am a zionist. i believe jews have a right to live in our ancestral homeland. but i also hate bibi and the actions of the israeli government. you can be both. zionism =/= kahanism

12

Anonymous #2 5w

but also worth nothing is that i do not tell many people i am a zionist due to the overwhelming implications placed on the word by litmus-testing non-jews

12

i’m a zionist thanks. i acknowledge that the israeli government is making terrible decisions, but i don’t think that takes away from the right for jews to live in our ancestral homeland. and it’s not what i want the word to mean it’s just literally what it means. by your logic, considering jews are a very small percent of the word, you could let culture/society redefine our entire religion just because they want to and there’s not many of us.

4

There are many different Zionist ideologies though, it’s not just one ideology, and I say this as wonder who is very much not Zionist

6

Anonymous #2 4w

zionism ≠ kahanism is just like how Democrats ≠ Republicans. liberals denounce the genocidal rhetoric, whilst overwhelmingly supporting the states and policies which necessitate genocide. settler colonies cannot exist without the genocide of indigenous peoples. this is a historical fact

0

Anonymous #4 4w

Republican or Democratic leadership, the “US” is still a genocidal settler colony whose only interest is maximizing profits for its owning class. zionist or kahanist, “israel” is still a genocidal settler colony whose only interest is maximizing profits for its owning class. both of them do so by proposing that a supremacist nation has the right to exist over several oppressed nations

2

ok i just want to say here “anti-Zionist” isn’t just a catch-all for criticism of Israel. it is its own ideology— specifically that Israel as a Jewish state should NOT exist.

7

Anonymous OP 4w

criticism of Israel doesn’t have a special name it’s just criticism everyone does it

8

Anonymous OP 4w

i know lots of people who identify as zionist and are critical of israel. also people who are critical of israel and don’t identify as zionist but also vehemently don’t identify as anti-zionist either

5

no zionism and anti-zionism definitely have established definitions. zionism = belief in israel’s right to exist as a jewish state. antizionism = belief that israel does not have a right to exist as a jewish state

6

Anonymous OP 4w

i think your argument that calling yourself a zionist implies support for everything bad that has happened due to zionism and israel is an interesting one. but it doesn’t change the fact that anti-zionism and zionism have specific definitions and don’t represent the only possible positions people can take on israel

7

also can you explain a bit about the “in its current form?” because i hear anti-zionists say that all the time and i genuinely don’t understand it. because i believe in a lot of things but i’m not happy with any of them in their current form. but i’m not opposed to them, i want them to improve.

7

Anonymous OP 4w

anti-zionism is against the state of “israel”. it is a form of anti colonialism. no state has the right to exist, people do. “israel’s” existence deprives Palestinians of the ability to exist on their lands. Jewish peoples have always found home in Palestine. it did not become an issue until anglo-imperialism entered the region

1

Anonymous OP 4w

zionism is the belief that a Jewish state has the right to exist over an occupied Palestinian nation. in practice, it resembles genocide and apartheid. a singular and secular Palestine is the only way a lasting peace will exist in the Levant

1

Anonymous #4 4w

i mean i dont agree with most of your description of what the state of israel is/means but yeah that’s my point. zionism = modern state of israel should keep existing. anti-zionism = modern state of israel should stop existing

4

Anonymous OP 4w

then you disagree with reality? is there no genocide? no apartheid?

1

Anonymous #4 4w

and history, for that matter

1

Anonymous #4 4w

i just don’t think israel’s existence is the sole cause or that israel’s non existence is the right or effective solution

1

Anonymous #4 4w

zionism is the belief that jews have a right to live in our ancestral homeland, israel. and to be completely honest there won’t be an ounce of peace in the region so long as “palestine” is governed by terrorists who wrote in their charter they plan to kill every single jew.

1

Anonymous OP 4w

were Palestinians facing genocide and apartheid before the establishment of “israel”

5

see you and #4 are using the term “anti zionism” totally differently. words do change over time but you’re just wrong about these particular ones

0

Anonymous #4 4w

im not debating geopolitics im just trying to clarify the definition of these 2 terms. you and me agree on those definitions

3

you seem to think that if you have any criticism of Israel as it currently is, you’re anti-Zionist. that isn’t true. you’re only anti-Zionist if you believe on principle that Israel should not exist. plenty of people have criticisms of Israel as it is now but they want Israel to improve

2

yes that’s the point. people can hate how Israel is acting or its current government but still support the country’s continued existence. like there is SO MUCH i hate about the US right now, but i don’t think the answer is to scrap my home country. we have ideals i believe in and people i care about and i want this country to do reparations and get better and become the place we always imagined it could be. i think that’s how a lot of people feel about Israel

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Anti-Zionism is the ideology that posits that the State of Israel should not have been established, there are conflicting positions on what to do about it. There are some that would accept one forms of two state situation as the best outcome that could be realistically achieved even if it’s not their ideal scenario Amongst anti-Zionists in the West, and in the Fatah movement, the primary position is that Israel and the Palestinian Territories should become a singular secular democratic state

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Yeah but Israel can still exist while also being secularized and no longer being an explicitly “Jewish State”

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Like, I believe on principle that Israel should be fully secularized state that equally prioritizes Palestinians with its Jewish inhabitants and has strong protections for all its religions and cultures I would generally consider myself anti-Zionist, although I don’t really use the term as much anymore since there’s so much misunderstanding around it

1

Anonymous #3 4w

That’s interesting because that definition of anti-Zionism explains a lot of the miscommunication between Zionism and anti-Zionism. Zionists today, for all their disagreements, pretty much universally treat Zionism as a forward-facing ideology— the belief that in the future, Israel should keep existing as a jewish state. So they assume anti-Zionism is also a forward-facing ideology. But you’re defining it primarily as a past-facing one

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Most Zionists would consider a two state solution to be Zionist, and would think that anyone who would accept a form of that cannot be anti-Zionist. Within the Jewish/Israeli community I think most would define the position of being open to two state and single state solutions as non-Zionist

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I mean would those Zionists consider Fatah and Marwen Barghouti to be non-zionist and not anti-Zionist then? Because Barghouti has said many times that while he would prefer a single secular democratic state that a two state solution is an acceptable outcome, and he’s the most popular leader amongst the Palstinian people, by far I’d also say a lot of Jewish-antizionists share this view on anti-Zionism, where its about the foundation of the State of Israel being illegitimate

1

Anonymous OP 3w

What I’d always heard is that the non-zionist position is not taking a position either way on the establishment of the State of Israel, whereas anti-Zionism is about viewing it as illegitimate and Zionism is about supporting it having been established But I grew up in largely non-Zionist Jewish circles, primarily, at least among those I had conversations with about Israel with, so I imagine the view of these things would be quite different than it is in a context where Zionism is the norm

1

Anonymous #3 3w

I think they would consider them non-Zionist or like some people will use the term “compatible with Zionism”— a left-leaning Zionist would probably say that Barghouti’s positions are compatible with Zionism so they might be able to work together. Right wing Zionists would just say he’s not being sincere

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Yeah I think a lot of Jewish anti-Zionists do share your perspective which is why it’s so interesting

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Yeah I grew up in pretty Zionist circles and they basically used the word Zionist the way some Americans would use the word patriotism. Like they had no problem calling themselves a Zionist and also saying that Israel committed atrocities when it was founded and since. Generally they consider the question of whether Israel is legitimate to be kind of irrelevant because in their minds it’s too late to debate that since it already exists

1

Anonymous OP 3w

So they’d say like the occupation of the West Bank is morally abhorrent and is poisoning Israeli society and then start debating the best and safest way to end it

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I mean Barghouti in the 90s even had a pretty friendly relationship with then-Likud MP Meir Sheetrit, who has spoken pretty pretty positively of him. He’s probably the only person who’s received praise from a then-Likkud member, Fatah, and Hamas

1

Anonymous OP 3w

From my experience among those I’ve known when I grew up, a lot of Palestinian anti-Zionists do too, although generally the position these days is that a two state solution is no longer feasible, which is something I’d agree with

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I’d argue the whether the foundation of legitimate was legitimate is still pretty relevant for what to do going forward, bc it has implications for what should happen Like, imo while Israeli people have a right to live in the land they grew up in with full rights and freedoms, I don’t think the State of Israel has any “right to exist.” I’m open to it existing if it’s alongside a Palestinian state but my preference would be a singular secular democratic state for all Israelis and Palestinians

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I think there are a sizable number of “non-Zionists” though who do have a strongly held stance stance on whether the founding was justified but think it’s politically more helpful in their social context to not speak on it

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Yeah, I know there are a lot of Zionists who oppose the occupation I would argue tho that said occupation is the logical extension of Zionism as an ideology and that a lot of the morally abhorrent actions by the settlers there aren’t that different than the ones that founded the State of Israel

1

Anonymous #3 3w

but this is also where anti-Zionists and Zionists miscommunicate because to me (non-Zionist who grew up Zionist), you’re going way into ideological things to the point that i’m super confused about what any of this means for concrete reality. the concrete reality is that there are two nations in one land and neither of them wants to not be a nation

1

Anonymous OP 3w

most Zionists are coming from the perspective of “i want my nation to stay a nation”, very much about their own lived realities rather than through political theory lenses. so when you’re like “yeah but the founding is illegitimate”, they’re like “okay but in your vision do i get to keep my country or not?”

1

Anonymous #3 3w

as for your point about the occupation, there are many forms of Zionism, a lot of which are fundamentally opposed to the occupation. and i think neither a two state or a single state solution is particularly feasible right now, which is why my political identity isn’t revolving around one or the other

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I mean is it any more ideological than patriotism or people asking whether Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state? We talking about ideology, like with any other ideology where people are gonna take that ideology varied Generally though whether a state is considered “legitimate” has diplomatic implications for things like whether other countries officially recognize that country I also I don’t really get what you mean about two nations that neither one want to not be a nation

1

Anonymous #3 3w

The vast majority of the world already treats Israel as legitimate though. And what that means is Israelis have a very strong Israeli identity and Palestinians have a very strong Palestinian identity and both want freedom, independence, security, and national self determination. Some would accept a single secular state but the majority on both sides would not because they don’t want to lose their national identity

1

Anonymous #3 3w

and what i’m trying to get across is that for a lot of Israelis and Palestinians, they couldn’t care less about ideology, they care about survival

1

Anonymous OP 3w

What does a nation stating a nation mean? Do you mean whether it should stay a nationstate? I can’t speak for other antizionists, but in my vision Israelis get to stay living in their homes regardless, but they “get to keep their country” if & only if a upon peace agreement is reached with the Palestinians What exact form that takes and whether it involves one states or two states is up to the people living there, as long as there’s equal rights and religious protections for all people there

1

Anonymous #3 3w

the last part is my stance too. but Zionists would take issue with how easily you jump from reality to your vision. how are you going to make sure that they get to stay if they sign a peace agreement? how do you protect them from the backstabbing hamas has done over and over again? it’s a nice thought, but to a lot of people it just feels naive

1

Anonymous OP 3w

There being a secular state doesn’t mean losing their national identity The majority of Palestinians support Marwen Barghouti to lead them, and he has support for both Hamas and Fatah his position is that a singular secular democratic state is preferable, with a two state agreement being an acceptable compromise position. If he was released and Israel were to be a willing and genuine partner in negotiations, he could negotiate an agreement that the Palestinian people would get behind

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I mean sure but we were having a conversation about ideology and what Zionism vs Anti-Zionism is so I was talking about ideology If we want to talk about our personal opinions on what should happen I can talk about that and have some, but there is no consensus amongst Zionists nor Anti-Zionists on that

1

Anonymous #3 3w

there’s no dividing line between ideology and reality for people whose reality would be changed by your ideology

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I mean there are a lot of different ways to make such a peace agreement work that’d be worked out in the peace agreement. Right now Israel isn’t even interested in negotiation, let alone an agreement And I don’t really get the relevance of Hamas backstabbing it’s not like Hamas would be the ones in charge here. At the moment I don’t think there is any viable path here that doesn’t involve the release of Barghouti & an election that would inevitably lead to him being elected

1

Anonymous OP 3w

What do you mean “would be changed by my ideology” would be changed by what about my ideology? Ideology on its own does nothing, its people and political movements with that ideology that change reality

1

Anonymous #3 3w

your ideology, anti-Zionism, if fulfilled, would drastically change the lives of all Israelis and Palestinians. if you can’t explain to those people exactly how their lives will change, they will assume you don’t care

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Also I should clarify that when I say “a two state solution isn’t feasible” I mean it’s not feasible to implement even if there was a peace agreement to establish one I don’t think we’re close to any peace agreement or solution here, but I think if there was one agreed to a single state is just like more possible to make happen logistically

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I don’t really understand what an ideology bent “fulfilled” even means. It seems like you’re treating ideology as if it’s a policy proposal that can be enacted or not rather than a system of ideas that people has to guide their position and decisions

1

Anonymous #3 3w

i’m trying to explain how zionists and anti-zionists talk past each other on this stuff. for zionists, an ideology that doesn’t come with a policy proposal makes no sense

1

Anonymous OP 3w

(in this situation)

1

Anonymous OP 3w

That’s just not how ideology works though? Like what does it mean for Zionism to be “fulfilled?” There’s no way to answer that bc Zionism is an ideology, not a policy proposal

1

Anonymous #3 3w

but every Zionist has their own policy proposal or set of proposals that include united solely by the fact that the state of Israel continues to exist. so to them anti-Zionism would mean a bunch of people with all their own policy proposals that are united by the state of Israel not existing

1

Anonymous OP 3w

lol i typed that so badly ignore the word include

1

Anonymous OP 3w

*proposals that are united solelt

1

Anonymous OP 3w

solely omg

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Even that isn’t really a uniting force for Zionism though, Cultural Zionism doesn’t rely on any kind of Jewish state And also no, not everyone of any ideology has a concrete set of policy proposals. Bc regular people while they may have preferences don’t need to make a policy platform bc they aren’t running for office or anything

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Like, anti-Zionism includes some Jewish religious anti-Zionists who don’t see the State of Israel as legitimate but still support it annexing the West Bank bc they want access to the Jewish holy sites there Just like there are a lot of different forms of Zionism there are a lot of different forms of anti-Zionism and they aren’t all aligned with each other. Anti-Zionists are ideologically opposed to Zionism, they are not a united political block with shared aims

1

Anonymous #3 3w

i assumed we were talking about modern political zionism and its various ideologies, but sure cultural Zionism would be an exception. and you’re right not everybody of any ideology has a concrete set of policy proposals, but when you call yourself an adherent to an ideology that opposes the existence of a state, people from or connected to that state will want specifics about what that means in practice

1

Anonymous OP 3w

and i get that you’re saying anti-Zionism is an ideology about Israel’s founding, but since it has defined itself in opposition to Zionism, which is about Israel’s future, there’s going to be misunderstandings

1

Anonymous OP 3w

But again, there is not one overarching thing of what that means in practice, just like there isn’t for Zionism. Like there are some Zionists who support Israel exiting as a theocratic state but do not support or are neutral on the continued existence of the State of Israel that exits now

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Zionism isn’t universally about Israel’s future though Antizionism is about ideologically opposition to Zionism, that’s it. That dos not mean opposition to specifically modern ideas of Zionism, it means broadly an opposition to Zionism Antizionism is an ideology much older than the establishment of the State of Israel, and antizionists generally do not frame these issues in the same way Zionists do

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Also thank you for putting up with all my typos, reading back my comments it’s kinda embarrassing

1

Anonymous #3 3w

which is exactly the problem i’m trying to get at, they frame the issues differently and so the “zionism” in anti-Zionism is not the Zionism that the vast majority of people who call themselves Zionists are talking about

1

Anonymous OP 3w

and we have to stop trying to force our own framings on each other and start actually listening because we’re just screaming past each other

5

Anonymous #3 3w

and same to you lmao thanks

4

Anonymous OP 3w

Speaking for myself, I do not support Israel continuing to exist as a “Jewish state.” If there’s gonna be a “Jewish state” alongside a Palestinian state with full equal rights and peace for all people across both, I would accept it as a good thing because I want all this suffering and death to end and for people to be able to live in peace That is a compromise position, however, and I would much prefer that the state that the Israeli Jews live in does not proclaim itself to be a Jewish state

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I definitely agree with that

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I guess I despite the notion that the vast majority of people who call themselves Zionists are talking about the same Zionism in the first place

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Honestly I haven’t even noticed your typos so either they didn’t obstruct meaning or I’ve been misunderstanding you on some of it

1

Anonymous #3 3w

i think the best way i can describe it is that Zionism (bit of a generalization but for the most part) radically changed after Israel was created. originally the movement was about whether, how, and why a hypothetical Jewish state should be formed. but once an actual Jewish state came into existence, nearly all Zionism became about that actual state instead of the hypothetical state and how it should grow and change or stay the same in the future

1

Anonymous OP 3w

to the best of my understanding, some varieties of anti-Zionism were similarly radically changed by Israel’s creation for the same reason: they weren’t debating a hypothetical anymore. but what you’re describing to me sounds more like continuing pre-48 anti-Zionism— an opinion you would hold whether or not Israel existed

1

Anonymous #3 3w

lol good im glad

1

Anonymous OP 3w

and the really funny thing is i think you and me are pretty much in agreement when it comes to the nuts and bolts, i don’t really care if it’s a one state or two state solution as long as it protects everyone’s human rights and freedoms. but i’d never call myself an anti-Zionist and you would never call yourself a Zionist

1

Anonymous OP 3w

While that is true, there are still some Zionists who oppose the existence of the actual state that exists but have a hypothetical “Jewish state” they would support

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I would say my position is firmly rooted in pre-48 anti-Zionism, yeah A lot of the details of it have changed from the anti-Zionism of that time as the material conditions have changed, particularly in response to the Nakba and the occupation since ‘67, but that is shift in what to do about it not a fundamental shift in ideology

1

Anonymous OP 3w

It sounds like we are in agreement on a lot of what we’d like to see happen as the end result, at least although, personally, I do care and am much more supportive of a single secular democratic state or a binational state or binational confederation or something like that, I think two states with a UN-controlled demilitarized zone between them is an acceptable compromise position

1