
I am not pro-Zionist, but if you look at the history of Zionism it really isn’t unusual. Early Zionism was dominated by utopian socialist projects, that’s where Israel’s communal kibbutzim come from. Socialist Zionism was perhaps the dominant form for most of Zionist history. I take issue with it, as I think socialism to the exclusion of specific ethnic groups is not a genuine pursuit of socialist ideals. But it’s not uncommon historically.
Hmmm, I think you may be confusing Zionism for revisionist Zionism specifically. That’s the more right-leaning form which currently dominates Israeli politics. Maybe that’s how the word Zionism is used these days, but labor Zionism is a very important part of Zionism, and it dominated Israel’s politics for decades.
Labor zionist governments led ethnic cleansing in decades past. The racial discrimination coexisted with the socialist aspect. Socialist labor parties in South Africa and Australia coexisted with apartheid and settler colonialism. It’s not unusual for socialism to only focus on one ethnic group, as much as I dislike that.
The actual definition of Zionism refers to the movement of Jews back to the land of historical israel to form their own state. People may use it today to refer to like the expansionism only, but that’s a misuse of the term rather than a proper definition. If we are using different definitions that will make the discussion not comprehensible
That’s not what modern Zionist means dude. Israel has labor Zionist parties that support a 2 state solution. Zionism generally does support a Jewish-majority state (and I would argue that makes marginalization of Arabs nearly inevitable) but it does not contradict a two state solution. You’re getting your definition of Zionism from social media, not from the actual political term
So like israel controls the land… and since it controls the land it has controls the state… and since it controls the state it is allowing Israeli citizens to occupy the West Bank and it’s allowing for the discrimination of Palestinian people… and that discrimination of people is considered apartheid under international law… sorry that you don’t know these words. Take international relations or sum
I would consider the West Bank specifically to be a form of apartheid, but not the territory within Israel proper. This is because Israeli law is imported into the West Bank, and is applied differently to people who do not have citizenship rights (Palestinians) while Israelis are citizens. West Bank Palestinians have much more restricted freedom of movement and are subject to discriminatory state violence. It’s very similar to the apartheid regime in Namibia, down to being an occupied territory
Ok so you should say that about Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran (ESPECIALLY IRAN), Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Or better yet you want to talk abt Christian states, let’s talk abt the one you currently live in. Our money says in god we trust. Our pledge of allegiance says “one nation under god”.
Or do you only speak out against the Jewish one. (Key word. Jewish ONE) I just listed 25 Islamic states (all of which Jews were exiled) and there is only one Jewish state. Jews then were given a tiny pocket of land (size of New Jersey) to which Muslim people live there and have not been exiled and you have a problem with it. So no Jews are allowed in the Middle East?
Israel is an apartheid state doing a genocide. Being against it isn’t antisemitic. Claiming that it’s antisemitic to be against Israel is actually what’s antisemitic because it ties all Jews to Israel despite Judaism ≠ Zionism and committing genocide & apartheid obviously not being inherent to Jews
A group being persecuted does not erase the harm committed by a colonial project. Persecuted groups have pursued colonialism to the detriment of indigenous people many times. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Huguenots, Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, Volga Germans, English dissenters, Quakers, doukobhors, Irish. Settlers tend to be people who are themselves desperate. Both their persecution and the harm the colonization causes are real.
We cannot pursue a solution to the persecution of every minority group by shipping them all off to a new state. I understand why Jews in the 1880s did not wait for an acceptance that was not coming, I do not blame them. I know why Zionism happened. But we can’t just go “well the Roma are persecuted, time to chop off a piece of Bosnia.” It’s not a solution to persecution.
The Lehi, Irgun, and Haganah had militant activities for years. The UN didn’t create Israel out of thin air. Without their pressure, it wouldn’t have happened. Those groups would have continued revolting against the British until Israel was created. And those were the groups who expelled and massacred Palestinians. The UN nor the British directed them to do that’s