The problem with this is that you're looking at actually existing Zionism and the history of Zionist leaders' actual statements and deeds. When approaching a nuanced topic like this, it's important to imagine a hypothetical ideal Zionism that hasn't spent the last 78 years engaging in ethnic cleansing.
Self-determination isn’t considered racism when it’s any other group.
Ukrainians wanting an independent homeland for Ukrainians isn’t racism. Or Greenlanders wanting Greenland to be for Greenlanders. Or when it’s the Irish, Scottish, or Canadians wanting their own country.
> Because it is part of a pact that seeks to deny the existence of Israel
The veracity of the claim that Zionism is racist is independent of any implication you’ve arbitrarily attached to it. I both believe that Zionism is fundamentally racist - like many of the other ethno-nationalist 19th century movements - and that Israel has a right to exist. There’s no reason that both can’t be true.
Silly question: so what if it’s racist? Huge swathes of the planet are racist.
“Zionism is racism” is also some kind of tautology masquerading as an argument. A very diverse selection of races can count themselves as Jewish if they have a Jewish mother. So racism isn’t even the right term to use but “Judaism is tribalism” doesn’t have the same kind of undergraduate-brained ring to it.
If you think Zionism is racism and racism isn't bad, then just say that. Don't try to claim that Zionism isn't racism if you sincerely believe that it is and that's good.
"so what if it’s racist?" - I'm not sure what sort of answer are you looking for here?
A list of examples from history of things going pear-shaped when large numbers of people embraced a form of ethno-nationalism where lineage and genetics is the primary factor in determining a persons worth as a human?
You seem to have difficulty separating genomics, religion, national identity and political philosophy or at least you seem to jump from one to another as if they were indistinguishable.
Zionism is a political philosophy - a racist and revanchist one - developed in 19th century Europe. Not all Jews are Zionist - many are anti-Zionist, not all Israelis are Jewish, not all Jews are Israeli, etc. DNA studies show that Palestinians are descendants of the Israelites and Canaanites of biblical times.
> You seem to have difficulty separating genomics, religion, national identity and political philosophy or at least you seem to jump from one to another as if they were indistinguishable.
You can be uncharitable and level all the category errors you like in my direction, but the tendentiousness and single-sidedness of positions such as yours, and the flagging that has gone on around debating them serves to show why its shark-jumping time for the greens as a serious political party in the UK (if they ever were one). That position should win them a couple of million votes from pro-Palis and islamists, which will nevertheless do diddly towards resolving the situation in the Middle East or restoring some historically-cherry-picked line on a map labelled Palestine ruled by Arabs.
It's uncharitable to remind you of the inarguable fact that Zionism does not equate with Jewishness?
I've said absolutely nothing about Palestinians or said anything about the current situation in Israel.
Nor have I said anything about the Green Party in the UK.
This is all straw-manning on your part.
I've critiqued Zionism for what it is: it was born of and is a product of mid/late 19th century European political ethno-nationalistic thinking and shares similar traits with other similar political philosophies of the time which were almost universally racist (equating belonging to a nation with genetic lineage) and embracing irredentism.
Your attempts to equate Zionism with Jewishness are disingenuous but also very silly.
The thread is about the Green Party in the uk, and its backing of the losing side in a fight between two sets of zealots overseas. And also its irrelevant attitude towards nuclear power.
Fun fact: the descendants of the Judeans and Canaanites are today's Palestinians. Today's Israelis are descendants of an ethnically unrelated group of Germans who immigrated from Germany after WW2.
Roughly speaking, of course. Everything about ethnicity is always roughly speaking.
No, they definitely do not. Palestinians were actually living on the land, and they were ethnically cleansed off of it by the Zionists. They're not using mythology to justify invading someone else's land.
The problem with this is that you're looking at actually existing Zionism and the history of Zionist leaders' actual statements and deeds. When approaching a nuanced topic like this, it's important to imagine a hypothetical ideal Zionism that hasn't spent the last 78 years engaging in ethnic cleansing.
But even hypothetical ideal Zionism is still a form of racism isn't it? It literally means a homeland for Jewish people.
Self-determination isn’t considered racism when it’s any other group.
Ukrainians wanting an independent homeland for Ukrainians isn’t racism. Or Greenlanders wanting Greenland to be for Greenlanders. Or when it’s the Irish, Scottish, or Canadians wanting their own country.
Aren't those things generally considered part of white supremacy?
A simple true statement? No.
[flagged]
> Because it is part of a pact that seeks to deny the existence of Israel
The veracity of the claim that Zionism is racist is independent of any implication you’ve arbitrarily attached to it. I both believe that Zionism is fundamentally racist - like many of the other ethno-nationalist 19th century movements - and that Israel has a right to exist. There’s no reason that both can’t be true.
Silly question: so what if it’s racist? Huge swathes of the planet are racist.
“Zionism is racism” is also some kind of tautology masquerading as an argument. A very diverse selection of races can count themselves as Jewish if they have a Jewish mother. So racism isn’t even the right term to use but “Judaism is tribalism” doesn’t have the same kind of undergraduate-brained ring to it.
If you think Zionism is racism and racism isn't bad, then just say that. Don't try to claim that Zionism isn't racism if you sincerely believe that it is and that's good.
It’s that racism is the wrong term to use. So Zionism isn’t racism, it’s Zionism.
You said it is a tautology that Zionism is racism.
Tautology being the evil twin of contradiction by being senseless.
"so what if it’s racist?" - I'm not sure what sort of answer are you looking for here?
A list of examples from history of things going pear-shaped when large numbers of people embraced a form of ethno-nationalism where lineage and genetics is the primary factor in determining a persons worth as a human?
The whole Palestinian cause is ethno-nationalist.
You seem to have difficulty separating genomics, religion, national identity and political philosophy or at least you seem to jump from one to another as if they were indistinguishable.
Zionism is a political philosophy - a racist and revanchist one - developed in 19th century Europe. Not all Jews are Zionist - many are anti-Zionist, not all Israelis are Jewish, not all Jews are Israeli, etc. DNA studies show that Palestinians are descendants of the Israelites and Canaanites of biblical times.
> You seem to have difficulty separating genomics, religion, national identity and political philosophy or at least you seem to jump from one to another as if they were indistinguishable.
Ditto the entire pro-Palestine movement.
I haven't heard the "entire pro-Palestine movement" commenting here so cannot respond.
I have read your comments and responded to them. Conflating Jewishness and Zionism and "race" is a categorical error on your part.
You can be uncharitable and level all the category errors you like in my direction, but the tendentiousness and single-sidedness of positions such as yours, and the flagging that has gone on around debating them serves to show why its shark-jumping time for the greens as a serious political party in the UK (if they ever were one). That position should win them a couple of million votes from pro-Palis and islamists, which will nevertheless do diddly towards resolving the situation in the Middle East or restoring some historically-cherry-picked line on a map labelled Palestine ruled by Arabs.
It's uncharitable to remind you of the inarguable fact that Zionism does not equate with Jewishness?
I've said absolutely nothing about Palestinians or said anything about the current situation in Israel.
Nor have I said anything about the Green Party in the UK.
This is all straw-manning on your part.
I've critiqued Zionism for what it is: it was born of and is a product of mid/late 19th century European political ethno-nationalistic thinking and shares similar traits with other similar political philosophies of the time which were almost universally racist (equating belonging to a nation with genetic lineage) and embracing irredentism.
Your attempts to equate Zionism with Jewishness are disingenuous but also very silly.
The thread is about the Green Party in the uk, and its backing of the losing side in a fight between two sets of zealots overseas. And also its irrelevant attitude towards nuclear power.
[flagged]
One could make the same argument you just made for “historical Judea” or “historical Canaan” and it would carry as much weight.
Nothing I said indicated I was pro or anti the proposition.
Fun fact: the descendants of the Judeans and Canaanites are today's Palestinians. Today's Israelis are descendants of an ethnically unrelated group of Germans who immigrated from Germany after WW2.
Roughly speaking, of course. Everything about ethnicity is always roughly speaking.
This is just a piece of propaganda dressed as a fact.
No, they definitely do not. Palestinians were actually living on the land, and they were ethnically cleansed off of it by the Zionists. They're not using mythology to justify invading someone else's land.
[dead]