Anonymous OP 3w

I’m begging you guys to just read history so you aren’t opposing an incorrect definition and actually understand what your position is

1

Anonymous #2 3w

It’s a term that can accurately be used to compare to the West Bank. Under both systems, one group of people in an occupied territory (for South Africa this was Namibia) are considered citizens on an ethnic basis while another group are considered citizens of another country. The non-citizens are subject to discriminatory laws and restrictions on their freedom of movement.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

The Zionist movement did begin as a socialist movement, but as conflict with Arab populations in the Middle East developed the movement moved further and further to the right. One could even make the argument the original Zionist movement was “national socialism” but that is over a century old history now. Most people analyze Zionism in its modern context, that being a genocidal ethnostate that is actively partaking in an ethnic cleansing of the remaining Palestinian population in Israel

2

Anonymous OP 3w

It isn’t a West Bank term nor policy, which is what you said.

1

Israel is younger than Trump and is a terrorist state.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Israel’s socialist political parties also did expansion and did ethnic cleansing. Their socialism did not conflict with that. Labor Zionism is more open to a two state solution, but it was under labor Zionism that Israel gained the vast majority of its occupied and annexed territory. The right wing movement that took over is known as Revisionist Zionism. But labor Zionism still exists.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

I am saying that when experts use the word apartheid to refer to Israel, they are referring to West Bank policies, not to Israel proper where Arabs have citizenship rights.

1

I’m pretty sure the cardinal direction of west and the Jordan River have both existed for a long time

1