The Pennsylvania governor called Benjamin Netanyahu “one of the worst leaders of all time.” But anti-Israel activists don’t want him on the Democratic ticket.
Unfortunately, the clear reality here is that the groups protesting Shapiro really are antisemitic. Just like any other bigots, they proactively assign negative qualities to anyone and everyone of a particular ethnic group solely based on the fact that they’re a part of that group.
The vast majority of Jews, clearly including Shapiro, are not zionists. If you treat them as if they are, then you’re part of the problem. And it’s not even just that you’re a bigoted piece of shit, but that you’re depriving yourself and everyone else of a potentially very valuable ally, so you’re a fucking dumbass as well.
We’d all save a lot of time and confusion if people used specific terms instead of “Zionist” and “Zionism.” The word “Zionism” means so many things that it’s basically useless as a descriptive term.
Like, if you want a 2 state solution based on 1967 borders, you could be considered a Zionist because you support the existence of a Jewish homeland on the former British Mandate for Palestine. But young people — especially the college student protesters — seem to mostly use it to mean modern, expansionist Israel annexing land for settlements, keeping Palestinians stateless, etc. Someone born in 2004 doesn’t remember a time when Israel was facing existential threats. It’s always been a regional hegemon.
It’s also unfortunate how the term has been co-opted by Israeli fascists in much the same way American fascists co-opt words like “liberty” or “patriot” or whatever. The meaning of a word or symbol can change real quick if an extremist/terrorist group uses it.
I didn’t realize that this was headed to a frustratingly pointless disagreement about a label until it was too late.
You’d think I’d learn. I try to explain myself - to provide enough context that people can grasp the point I’m trying to make - and over and over, it’s all for naught because someone just grabs onto a label, substitutes the strawman that label’s attached to inside their own brain , then responds to that instead of what I’ve actually said.
But young people — especially the college student protesters — seem to mostly use it to mean modern, expansionist Israel annexing land for settlements, keeping Palestinians stateless, etc.
Though anything but young, that’s the way that I use it. And it’s even the way I use it historically - not to refer to the broader set of people who favored the establishment of a Jewish homeland, but specifically to refer to, for example, Begin and those Irgun assholes, who paved the way for Netanyahu and Likud and all of the overt evil in which they engage.
And again, I should know better. Likely the best solution is to just stop using the term entirely - add it to the list of emotive terms that have been rendered useless, alongside “fascist” and “capitalist” and “socialist” and “libertarian” and, most recently, “liberal.”
“I am pro-the idea of a Jewish homeland, a Jewish state, and I will certainly do everything in my power to ensure that Israel is strong and Israel is fortified and will exist for generations,"
he says it but I dont think he is. same with his criticisms of Netanyahu while sounding just like him talking about not ending the war until all of Hamas is eradicated.
Like it or not, Israel exists. Much fault can be found with the way it came into existence, and much more with its conduct since, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it does exist, and its citizens are human beings, exactly as deserving of consideration as any other human beings.
As the hard right in Israel so clearly demonstrates repeatedly (and likely cynically deliberately), when one sets about punishing an entire people for the evil of a few among them, one actually empowers those evil few, since the people rightly feel oppressed and rightly condemn you for their oppression, and those evil few are ready and willing to stand forward and promose to lead the people in their just quest for retribution.
The surest way to hamstring those evil few - to eliminate the excuses by which they come to power - is to eliminate the oppression - to recognize and respect the humanity of the many. And that can never be accomplished by proactively declaring the many to be indistinguishable from the evil few.
I get seeing it as current circumstances separate from the past, but its an ongoing situation directly connected to that past. Zionism was started as a goal to retake a holy land and that effort is still underway. The same Jewish National Fund is still buying up land for the ethnostate, kibbutz are still encroaching onto palestinian land, gaza still has no sovereignty of its borders. Israel’s goal is elimination of Palestinians and total control of the land.
or…they’re Zionists in the sense that they think the state of Israel should exist on part of the land it occupied in antiquity, and believe that Jews should have political rights, rather than wanting territorial expansion of Israel above all else.
Using Zionist to refer only to the latter fundamentally alienates the very people who might be able to make peace.
No - quite the opposite. Using the term to refer to all supporters of a Jewish state without distinguishing between those who wish to cooperate and those who simply intend to forcibly impose their wills “alienates the very people who might be able to make peace.”
The simple and unavoidable fact of the matter is that the state of Israel existing on part of the land it occupied in antiquity is a fait accompli. It’s not a question of whether or not such a state should exist, because one already does. And that’s not a pholosophical point - it’s a practical one. It’s not that its existence somehow justifies everything about its past (it rather clearly does not) - it’s simply that its existence is a fact.
The only pertinent questions are how things should work going forward, and that’s exactly the context in which Jews who support its existence but call for cooperation with its neighbors and most notably with Palestinians are arguably the best possible allies we can have. No matter how determined and petulant they might be, those who call for Israel’s dissolution will never succeed, so the only question is whether those who oppose them will be rational actors who wish to settle the conflict through cooperation or vicious demagogues who intend to settle it through murder and pillage.
I disagree intensely. Using the language “anti-zionist” effectively tells those people that the end goal is to simply kill off the entire Jewish population of Israel, and is utterly alienating, and guarantees that you will never have significant support from them.
I don’t think we disagree fundamentally. Somehow, and I didn’t see it coming (but probably should have), this has devolved into what you interpret as a dispute about a label.
For the record, I think labels are impediments to clear thought, and that there are few things that humans do that are more irrational, destructive, asinine and plain old stupid than substituting labels for ideas.
And I should’ve caught that that was where this was headed, and clarified to prevent it.
My point was never about the label “zionist” specifically. It was a broader point about the perception of the proper grouping of people.
Proactively grouping those Jews who support the state of Israel and wish to cooperate with its neighbors to ensure its survival with those who support the state of Israel and intend to murder and pillage in order to forcibly impose its existence on everyone else with no regard for their own desires is rather obviously not only contrary to simple human decency, but to logic and reason as well. It’s wrong morally AND logically AND strategically.
I could not possibly care less what labels, if any, anyone might wish to use to distinguish between groupings. That doesn’t matter in the slightest, or more precisely shouldn’t matter in the slightest. The only thing that does matter is where the divisions are seen to lie. And that’s a very simple matter - are we going to divide between Jews and non-Jews? Or are we going to divide between reasonable people who seek peace and raging assholes who seek war?
Unfortunately, the clear reality here is that the groups protesting Shapiro really are antisemitic. Just like any other bigots, they proactively assign negative qualities to anyone and everyone of a particular ethnic group solely based on the fact that they’re a part of that group.
The vast majority of Jews, clearly including Shapiro, are not zionists. If you treat them as if they are, then you’re part of the problem. And it’s not even just that you’re a bigoted piece of shit, but that you’re depriving yourself and everyone else of a potentially very valuable ally, so you’re a fucking dumbass as well.
Removed by mod
Removed, unmarked NSFW.
We’d all save a lot of time and confusion if people used specific terms instead of “Zionist” and “Zionism.” The word “Zionism” means so many things that it’s basically useless as a descriptive term.
Like, if you want a 2 state solution based on 1967 borders, you could be considered a Zionist because you support the existence of a Jewish homeland on the former British Mandate for Palestine. But young people — especially the college student protesters — seem to mostly use it to mean modern, expansionist Israel annexing land for settlements, keeping Palestinians stateless, etc. Someone born in 2004 doesn’t remember a time when Israel was facing existential threats. It’s always been a regional hegemon.
It’s also unfortunate how the term has been co-opted by Israeli fascists in much the same way American fascists co-opt words like “liberty” or “patriot” or whatever. The meaning of a word or symbol can change real quick if an extremist/terrorist group uses it.
I didn’t realize that this was headed to a frustratingly pointless disagreement about a label until it was too late.
You’d think I’d learn. I try to explain myself - to provide enough context that people can grasp the point I’m trying to make - and over and over, it’s all for naught because someone just grabs onto a label, substitutes the strawman that label’s attached to inside their own brain , then responds to that instead of what I’ve actually said.
Though anything but young, that’s the way that I use it. And it’s even the way I use it historically - not to refer to the broader set of people who favored the establishment of a Jewish homeland, but specifically to refer to, for example, Begin and those Irgun assholes, who paved the way for Netanyahu and Likud and all of the overt evil in which they engage.
And again, I should know better. Likely the best solution is to just stop using the term entirely - add it to the list of emotive terms that have been rendered useless, alongside “fascist” and “capitalist” and “socialist” and “libertarian” and, most recently, “liberal.”
“I am pro-the idea of a Jewish homeland, a Jewish state, and I will certainly do everything in my power to ensure that Israel is strong and Israel is fortified and will exist for generations,"
He’s in favor of a two-state solution, as the article makes clear.
he says it but I dont think he is. same with his criticisms of Netanyahu while sounding just like him talking about not ending the war until all of Hamas is eradicated.
Like it or not, Israel exists. Much fault can be found with the way it came into existence, and much more with its conduct since, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it does exist, and its citizens are human beings, exactly as deserving of consideration as any other human beings.
As the hard right in Israel so clearly demonstrates repeatedly (and likely cynically deliberately), when one sets about punishing an entire people for the evil of a few among them, one actually empowers those evil few, since the people rightly feel oppressed and rightly condemn you for their oppression, and those evil few are ready and willing to stand forward and promose to lead the people in their just quest for retribution.
The surest way to hamstring those evil few - to eliminate the excuses by which they come to power - is to eliminate the oppression - to recognize and respect the humanity of the many. And that can never be accomplished by proactively declaring the many to be indistinguishable from the evil few.
Removed by mod
Removed, unmarked NSFW. Temp banned.
I get seeing it as current circumstances separate from the past, but its an ongoing situation directly connected to that past. Zionism was started as a goal to retake a holy land and that effort is still underway. The same Jewish National Fund is still buying up land for the ethnostate, kibbutz are still encroaching onto palestinian land, gaza still has no sovereignty of its borders. Israel’s goal is elimination of Palestinians and total control of the land.
or…they’re Zionists in the sense that they think the state of Israel should exist on part of the land it occupied in antiquity, and believe that Jews should have political rights, rather than wanting territorial expansion of Israel above all else.
Using Zionist to refer only to the latter fundamentally alienates the very people who might be able to make peace.
No - quite the opposite. Using the term to refer to all supporters of a Jewish state without distinguishing between those who wish to cooperate and those who simply intend to forcibly impose their wills “alienates the very people who might be able to make peace.”
The simple and unavoidable fact of the matter is that the state of Israel existing on part of the land it occupied in antiquity is a fait accompli. It’s not a question of whether or not such a state should exist, because one already does. And that’s not a pholosophical point - it’s a practical one. It’s not that its existence somehow justifies everything about its past (it rather clearly does not) - it’s simply that its existence is a fact.
The only pertinent questions are how things should work going forward, and that’s exactly the context in which Jews who support its existence but call for cooperation with its neighbors and most notably with Palestinians are arguably the best possible allies we can have. No matter how determined and petulant they might be, those who call for Israel’s dissolution will never succeed, so the only question is whether those who oppose them will be rational actors who wish to settle the conflict through cooperation or vicious demagogues who intend to settle it through murder and pillage.
I disagree intensely. Using the language “anti-zionist” effectively tells those people that the end goal is to simply kill off the entire Jewish population of Israel, and is utterly alienating, and guarantees that you will never have significant support from them.
Then… don’t use that language.
I don’t think we disagree fundamentally. Somehow, and I didn’t see it coming (but probably should have), this has devolved into what you interpret as a dispute about a label.
For the record, I think labels are impediments to clear thought, and that there are few things that humans do that are more irrational, destructive, asinine and plain old stupid than substituting labels for ideas.
And I should’ve caught that that was where this was headed, and clarified to prevent it.
My point was never about the label “zionist” specifically. It was a broader point about the perception of the proper grouping of people.
Proactively grouping those Jews who support the state of Israel and wish to cooperate with its neighbors to ensure its survival with those who support the state of Israel and intend to murder and pillage in order to forcibly impose its existence on everyone else with no regard for their own desires is rather obviously not only contrary to simple human decency, but to logic and reason as well. It’s wrong morally AND logically AND strategically.
I could not possibly care less what labels, if any, anyone might wish to use to distinguish between groupings. That doesn’t matter in the slightest, or more precisely shouldn’t matter in the slightest. The only thing that does matter is where the divisions are seen to lie. And that’s a very simple matter - are we going to divide between Jews and non-Jews? Or are we going to divide between reasonable people who seek peace and raging assholes who seek war?
I don’t use that language. Quite deliberately.
I’m making the point because I see others using it in a way that basically guarantees that the Palestinians will continue to suffer.