Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Comparing Likud to the perpetrators of 10/7 is completely false. It's 10/7 denial.

It's amazing how slaughtering 10s of thousands of civilians made people stop caring about 10/7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

It was answered here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1208658.page#27623410

I agree with that post. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks to freedom, not control. In contrast, the Likud charter says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Netanyahu recently reiterated this statement. Whereas Palestinians want "freedom", Netanyahu and his ruling party want "sovereignty". The Palestinian slogan doesn't describe the auspices under which they will have freedom, but just the desire for freedom.

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

It was answered here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1208658.page#27623410

I agree with that post. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks to freedom, not control. In contrast, the Likud charter says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Netanyahu recently reiterated this statement. Whereas Palestinians want "freedom", Netanyahu and his ruling party want "sovereignty". The Palestinian slogan doesn't describe the auspices under which they will have freedom, but just the desire for freedom.

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

DP. Are you literally putting on your "I'll tell you what you REALLY mean!" spectacles and telling all of us what that phrase means, despite being told over and over again by the individuals using it (and the individuals, like me, observing such people using it) that your view of what it means IS NOT correct?

If so, why on earth do you expect anyone to believe your quite self-serving interpretation (since it elicits opposition to the other side pretty easily, to your direct benefit)?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

OP did not say "Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security." And that is not required under Zionism. For example, 1948 lines shared land and even today Israel does not hold the full Levant. But even if that is what OP said, it is a common feature of nations that they seek the right to define those who can be citizens and residents of the land they occupy as a country--and the right to defend that land. Israel was granted statehood. So if you accept that act, why should the only Jewish country (among many nations where there is an official or de facto religion and/or cultural identity) in the world be different?

I only point this out because your first statement fits within a very antisemitic narrative that Jews view themselves as superior. As a jew, my experience is most jews are motivated by a fear of extinction.

Well, this is just confusing. Either Zionism doesn't bestow superiority to Jews and suggesting that it does is anti-Semitic. Or, Zionism does bestow superiority but pointing that out is anti-Semitic because every other country does the same thing. So, it appears either position is anti-Semitic.

But, what is your concept of Zionism? Does it, in your view, allow equal rights for non-Jews and equal security for non-Jews? Or is it your second version in which Jews call all the shots?

Zionism is a majority Jewish state with equal rights for everyone. Just like the Jewish state that currently exists where Arabs Christians and Jews live side by side peacefully and all have full voting rights, sit on supreme courts and elected government etc.

Saying that you support jewish right to self determination in a Jewish minority state is pretty much just saying f-you to Jews, who have faced persecution nearly everywhere where they are minority population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

OP did not say "Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security." And that is not required under Zionism. For example, 1948 lines shared land and even today Israel does not hold the full Levant. But even if that is what OP said, it is a common feature of nations that they seek the right to define those who can be citizens and residents of the land they occupy as a country--and the right to defend that land. Israel was granted statehood. So if you accept that act, why should the only Jewish country (among many nations where there is an official or de facto religion and/or cultural identity) in the world be different?

I only point this out because your first statement fits within a very antisemitic narrative that Jews view themselves as superior. As a jew, my experience is most jews are motivated by a fear of extinction.

Well, this is just confusing. Either Zionism doesn't bestow superiority to Jews and suggesting that it does is anti-Semitic. Or, Zionism does bestow superiority but pointing that out is anti-Semitic because every other country does the same thing. So, it appears either position is anti-Semitic.

But, what is your concept of Zionism? Does it, in your view, allow equal rights for non-Jews and equal security for non-Jews? Or is it your second version in which Jews call all the shots?

Zionism is a majority Jewish state with equal rights for everyone. Just like the Jewish state that currently exists where Arabs Christians and Jews live side by side peacefully and all have full voting rights, sit on supreme courts and elected government etc.

Saying that you support jewish right to self determination in a Jewish minority state is pretty much just saying f-you to Jews, who have faced persecution nearly everywhere where they are minority population.

What country is that? Palestinian Christians don't have equal rights either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

OP did not say "Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security." And that is not required under Zionism. For example, 1948 lines shared land and even today Israel does not hold the full Levant. But even if that is what OP said, it is a common feature of nations that they seek the right to define those who can be citizens and residents of the land they occupy as a country--and the right to defend that land. Israel was granted statehood. So if you accept that act, why should the only Jewish country (among many nations where there is an official or de facto religion and/or cultural identity) in the world be different?

I only point this out because your first statement fits within a very antisemitic narrative that Jews view themselves as superior. As a jew, my experience is most jews are motivated by a fear of extinction.

Well, this is just confusing. Either Zionism doesn't bestow superiority to Jews and suggesting that it does is anti-Semitic. Or, Zionism does bestow superiority but pointing that out is anti-Semitic because every other country does the same thing. So, it appears either position is anti-Semitic.

But, what is your concept of Zionism? Does it, in your view, allow equal rights for non-Jews and equal security for non-Jews? Or is it your second version in which Jews call all the shots?

Zionism is a majority Jewish state with equal rights for everyone. Just like the Jewish state that currently exists where Arabs Christians and Jews live side by side peacefully and all have full voting rights, sit on supreme courts and elected government etc.

Saying that you support jewish right to self determination in a Jewish minority state is pretty much just saying f-you to Jews, who have faced persecution nearly everywhere where they are minority population.

What country is that? Palestinian Christians don't have equal rights either.

All Israeli citizens can vote. Palestinians living outside of Israel proper are not Israeli citizens. There are over 2 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens and comprise over 20% of the country’s population.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

It was answered here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1208658.page#27623410

I agree with that post. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks to freedom, not control. In contrast, the Likud charter says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Netanyahu recently reiterated this statement. Whereas Palestinians want "freedom", Netanyahu and his ruling party want "sovereignty". The Palestinian slogan doesn't describe the auspices under which they will have freedom, but just the desire for freedom.

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

You are conflating a number of different things here. Almost none of those chanting "From the River to the Sea" are supporters of Hamas. As such, they don't care what position Hamas has towards the LGBTQ population. Those who particularly don't care are the LGBTQ protesters who don't find this sort of pink washing convincing.

Israeli sovereignty comes with Israeli laws including the Basic Law that says describes Israel "as the Nation-State of the Jewish People". As you say, protecting Israel's identity as a Jewish nation means making non-Jews second class citizens, at best. It is remarkable that you actually justify this discrimination because you don't believe that it is based on hate. Israelis are not a homogeneous group so some may actually be motivated by hate. But, more to the point, does the motivation matter?

Again, "From the River to the Sea" speaks only to freedom. I'm sure that individual protesters have a variety of ideas about the governing structure that would ensure this freedom. You are free to have your opinion, but that opinion is simply not authoritative. Palestinians speak about freedom and Israelis talk about sovereignty. This is not a question of tolerance, but rather of control. Israel clearly says who should be in control. The Palestinians do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

OP did not say "Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security." And that is not required under Zionism. For example, 1948 lines shared land and even today Israel does not hold the full Levant. But even if that is what OP said, it is a common feature of nations that they seek the right to define those who can be citizens and residents of the land they occupy as a country--and the right to defend that land. Israel was granted statehood. So if you accept that act, why should the only Jewish country (among many nations where there is an official or de facto religion and/or cultural identity) in the world be different?

I only point this out because your first statement fits within a very antisemitic narrative that Jews view themselves as superior. As a jew, my experience is most jews are motivated by a fear of extinction.

Well, this is just confusing. Either Zionism doesn't bestow superiority to Jews and suggesting that it does is anti-Semitic. Or, Zionism does bestow superiority but pointing that out is anti-Semitic because every other country does the same thing. So, it appears either position is anti-Semitic.

But, what is your concept of Zionism? Does it, in your view, allow equal rights for non-Jews and equal security for non-Jews? Or is it your second version in which Jews call all the shots?

Zionism is a majority Jewish state with equal rights for everyone. Just like the Jewish state that currently exists where Arabs Christians and Jews live side by side peacefully and all have full voting rights, sit on supreme courts and elected government etc.

Saying that you support jewish right to self determination in a Jewish minority state is pretty much just saying f-you to Jews, who have faced persecution nearly everywhere where they are minority population.

What country is that? Palestinian Christians don't have equal rights either.

All Israeli citizens can vote. Palestinians living outside of Israel proper are not Israeli citizens. There are over 2 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens and comprise over 20% of the country’s population.

They can vote, usually, but do not have full and equal rights.

If Judea and Samaria are not Israel proper then why is the Government building housing there? If it is not Israel then what is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is. All Zionism says is Jews have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It's a central tenet of Judaism.

Anti-Zionism says they have no right to self-defense and denies the historical connection to Israel.

So when people say I'm not against Judaism, just Zionism...they make no sense. Zionism and Judaism are inseparable.

I agree. And I will add that you can be a Zionist and against Netanyahu and settlements. That’s probably the most common position in the US, and many Israelis think the same.

But if Netanyahu is the current Prime Minister of Israel and you are against him and the settlements, how are you not against Israel? Because the current policies of the state of Israel are - unfortunately - that (a) settlements are okay and (b) continuing to kill (and harm and starve) women and children in Gaza is also okay.

BTW, I am Jewish and I am not a Zionist. I believe in theory in the right of a Jewish homeland...but in practice this displaced/displaces others and that is in contraction to my personal faith of being a decent person.

Same way I hated Trump but was not against the US existing.

DP. Why is this so difficult? When I say I’m against Israel’s policies and actions, I mean it. If/when those policies and actions change, my opposition is relieved of a basis for grievance.

I assume the PP feels the same way. Opposing Israel today isn’t an existential opposition until and unless Israel cultivates sufficient opposition that it’s toppled by the parts of that opposition that seek to achieve that separate goal. But for me and most people STRONGLY opposed to what Israel stands for today, I’m seeking serious reform only.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

OP did not say "Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security." And that is not required under Zionism. For example, 1948 lines shared land and even today Israel does not hold the full Levant. But even if that is what OP said, it is a common feature of nations that they seek the right to define those who can be citizens and residents of the land they occupy as a country--and the right to defend that land. Israel was granted statehood. So if you accept that act, why should the only Jewish country (among many nations where there is an official or de facto religion and/or cultural identity) in the world be different?

I only point this out because your first statement fits within a very antisemitic narrative that Jews view themselves as superior. As a jew, my experience is most jews are motivated by a fear of extinction.

Well, this is just confusing. Either Zionism doesn't bestow superiority to Jews and suggesting that it does is anti-Semitic. Or, Zionism does bestow superiority but pointing that out is anti-Semitic because every other country does the same thing. So, it appears either position is anti-Semitic.

But, what is your concept of Zionism? Does it, in your view, allow equal rights for non-Jews and equal security for non-Jews? Or is it your second version in which Jews call all the shots?

Zionism is a majority Jewish state with equal rights for everyone. Just like the Jewish state that currently exists where Arabs Christians and Jews live side by side peacefully and all have full voting rights, sit on supreme courts and elected government etc.

Saying that you support jewish right to self determination in a Jewish minority state is pretty much just saying f-you to Jews, who have faced persecution nearly everywhere where they are minority population.

What country is that? Palestinian Christians don't have equal rights either.

All Israeli citizens can vote. Palestinians living outside of Israel proper are not Israeli citizens. There are over 2 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens and comprise over 20% of the country’s population.

They can vote, usually, but do not have full and equal rights.

If Judea and Samaria are not Israel proper then why is the Government building housing there? If it is not Israel then what is it?

Because the government is right wing. I’m not pro settlement. I’m generally pro-israel, consider myself a Zionist (which I do not consider a “Jewish supremacy” philosophy), and believe in Israel’s right to safely exist and defend itself, but am not aligned on settlements in the West Bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

OP did not say "Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security." And that is not required under Zionism. For example, 1948 lines shared land and even today Israel does not hold the full Levant. But even if that is what OP said, it is a common feature of nations that they seek the right to define those who can be citizens and residents of the land they occupy as a country--and the right to defend that land. Israel was granted statehood. So if you accept that act, why should the only Jewish country (among many nations where there is an official or de facto religion and/or cultural identity) in the world be different?

I only point this out because your first statement fits within a very antisemitic narrative that Jews view themselves as superior. As a jew, my experience is most jews are motivated by a fear of extinction.

Well, this is just confusing. Either Zionism doesn't bestow superiority to Jews and suggesting that it does is anti-Semitic. Or, Zionism does bestow superiority but pointing that out is anti-Semitic because every other country does the same thing. So, it appears either position is anti-Semitic.

But, what is your concept of Zionism? Does it, in your view, allow equal rights for non-Jews and equal security for non-Jews? Or is it your second version in which Jews call all the shots?

Zionism is a majority Jewish state with equal rights for everyone. Just like the Jewish state that currently exists where Arabs Christians and Jews live side by side peacefully and all have full voting rights, sit on supreme courts and elected government etc.

Saying that you support jewish right to self determination in a Jewish minority state is pretty much just saying f-you to Jews, who have faced persecution nearly everywhere where they are minority population.

A person who wrote that has no self-reflection skills whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

It was answered here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1208658.page#27623410

I agree with that post. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks to freedom, not control. In contrast, the Likud charter says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Netanyahu recently reiterated this statement. Whereas Palestinians want "freedom", Netanyahu and his ruling party want "sovereignty". The Palestinian slogan doesn't describe the auspices under which they will have freedom, but just the desire for freedom.

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

I see. So you see nothing oppressive about a politician wanting to subsume additional territory into their state, a territory where millions of non-Jews currently live, without any plans to integrate them as citizens. Okay.

I'll say that for Putin. At least he is handing out Russian passports like candy in the newly occupied Ukrainian lands.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

OP did not say "Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security." And that is not required under Zionism. For example, 1948 lines shared land and even today Israel does not hold the full Levant. But even if that is what OP said, it is a common feature of nations that they seek the right to define those who can be citizens and residents of the land they occupy as a country--and the right to defend that land. Israel was granted statehood. So if you accept that act, why should the only Jewish country (among many nations where there is an official or de facto religion and/or cultural identity) in the world be different?

I only point this out because your first statement fits within a very antisemitic narrative that Jews view themselves as superior. As a jew, my experience is most jews are motivated by a fear of extinction.

Well, this is just confusing. Either Zionism doesn't bestow superiority to Jews and suggesting that it does is anti-Semitic. Or, Zionism does bestow superiority but pointing that out is anti-Semitic because every other country does the same thing. So, it appears either position is anti-Semitic.

But, what is your concept of Zionism? Does it, in your view, allow equal rights for non-Jews and equal security for non-Jews? Or is it your second version in which Jews call all the shots?

Zionism is a majority Jewish state with equal rights for everyone. Just like the Jewish state that currently exists where Arabs Christians and Jews live side by side peacefully and all have full voting rights, sit on supreme courts and elected government etc.

Saying that you support jewish right to self determination in a Jewish minority state is pretty much just saying f-you to Jews, who have faced persecution nearly everywhere where they are minority population.

What country is that? Palestinian Christians don't have equal rights either.

All Israeli citizens can vote. Palestinians living outside of Israel proper are not Israeli citizens. There are over 2 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens and comprise over 20% of the country’s population.

They can vote, usually, but do not have full and equal rights.

If Judea and Samaria are not Israel proper then why is the Government building housing there? If it is not Israel then what is it?

Because the government is right wing. I’m not pro settlement. I’m generally pro-israel, consider myself a Zionist (which I do not consider a “Jewish supremacy” philosophy), and believe in Israel’s right to safely exist and defend itself, but am not aligned on settlements in the West Bank.

What do you think should happen to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza? Israeli settlers have been attacking Palestinians in the West Bank. Do those Palestinians have the right to take up arms and defend themselves? Could the Palestinian Authority's police use armed force to protect Palestinians? What safety do the Palestinians deserve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

It was answered here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1208658.page#27623410

I agree with that post. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks to freedom, not control. In contrast, the Likud charter says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Netanyahu recently reiterated this statement. Whereas Palestinians want "freedom", Netanyahu and his ruling party want "sovereignty". The Palestinian slogan doesn't describe the auspices under which they will have freedom, but just the desire for freedom.

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

You have no idea how predictable you are. This conversation has happened like four thousand times.

"Of course we are all for human rights and freedoms! Well yes, we are subjugating Palestinians in the West Bank and keeping Palestinians in Gaza under siege. Yes we are putting them in prison indefinitely with no charge or trial. Yes we are denying them housing permits. Yes we are expropriating land and water, and adding checkpoints that make travel a nightmare. But we're doing this in the name of Jewish security so it doesn't really count!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

It was answered here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1208658.page#27623410

I agree with that post. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks to freedom, not control. In contrast, the Likud charter says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Netanyahu recently reiterated this statement. Whereas Palestinians want "freedom", Netanyahu and his ruling party want "sovereignty". The Palestinian slogan doesn't describe the auspices under which they will have freedom, but just the desire for freedom.

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

So if Putin were to say, Russian sovereignty would extend from Vladivostok to the Polish border, would you say there was nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about it? Okay.