[Adverblessly]

You appear to have fallen victim to a similar attempt at conflation, Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land of thousands of years. Being antizionism is antisemitism because it negates the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.

I realize though that what you actually means is anti-Israel, or if we are being more specific, I assume anti-Israeli-far-right or anti-Israeli-right. E.g. if you are for a two-state solution you are in agreement with the Israeli center and left (mostly, but that's just going into too many details).

[AlecSchueler]

> Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land

The thing is, though, it's not a right, it's their belief. They're very welcome to hold their beliefs and take democratic means to achieve their aims, but in a free and peace centred society they should not be allowed to take violent means to pursue their aims. Certainly if they want me to be happy taking financial and material support from a government that I'm supporting with my tax then they need to follow these basic ideals of respect for the other.

Long story short, we can accept their belief in their promised land without accepting it as their right to take it by whatever means necessary.

[Adverblessly]

> The thing is, though, it's not a right, it's their belief.

Would you also say you have no right to live in the United States, and it is only your personal belief? If you think it is equally fictional then at least I can't fault your views for their internal consistency.

> They're very welcome to hold their beliefs and take democratic means to achieve their aims, but in a free and peace centred society they should not be allowed to take violent means to pursue their aims.

Are Jews prohibited from taking violent means to pursue their aims while Arabs are permitted? If not, then how do you accept Arab use of violent means to conquer and settle Israel 1,400 years ago?

> Long story short, we can accept their belief in their promised land without accepting it as their right to take it by whatever means necessary.

First, we aren't talking about a promised land being taken, we are talking about at land that was taken away from them and is at best being taken back.

Second, you aren't required to support anyone in any endeavor. You can even be pro-Israel and pro-Zionism and still not think they deserve your financial support. But if you single out Jews as being the only people in the world that are not allowed to have a state and not allowed to live in their native land of thousands of years (especially for the reason "but the Arabs took it away from them, so it isn't theirs anymore"), then you are indeed being antisemitic.

[AlecSchueler]

> Would you also say you have no right to live in the United States, and it is only your personal belief?

I'm not American so I would of course agree. But I believe I have a right to live in my current state because those rights are granted to me by the law. The distinction with Zionism is that the right for "the Jews" (i use quotes because of course this is not an homogeneous group, just as ideal) to claim, inhabit and govern Israel as their own is ordained by God. I find this as contrary to the ideals of equality and akin to totalitarianism.

> But if you single out Jews as being the only people in the world that are not allowed to have a state...

Wow there, that's quite a leap. I'm not saying anyone should be made stateless, only that if they're claiming to do the whole democracy thing then they need to recognise the right of their neighbours not to live by the rules of their Gods.

> then you are indeed being antisemitic

I would appreciate if you asked me to clarify when I was saying instead of delivering uncharitable readings, presumed arguments, and conclusions like these.

[Adverblessly]

> I would appreciate if you asked me to clarify when I was saying instead of delivering uncharitable readings, presumed arguments, and conclusions like these.

Apologies if I have offended, but that's why that sentence begins with an "if", implying that statement is only correct conditional on some theoretical claim that might or might not be implicit from your statements. Since the discussion originates from the topic of antizionism and antisemitism, it is meant to refer back to the conclusion of my own parent comment clarifying where such a statement falls (as opposed to just being an ad-hominem). Maybe I'm not being entirely clear as English is not my native language and much of communication tends to be cultural rather than linguistic (for example, in the United States "That's a good start" is usually a scathing critique whereas in Israel it is usually a genuine compliment :))

> I'm not American so I would of course agree

I assumed by your reference to having your taxes go to Israel, a common American talking point. What taxes then are you referring to that are going towards Israel?

> But I believe I have a right to live in my current state because those rights are granted to me by the law.

Sure, and Israel also a rule of law country and acts within the boundaries of its laws, so you are going to have to go into more details into what you feel separates your rights from Jewish rights.

> The distinction with Zionism is that the right for "the Jews" (i use quotes because of course this is not an homogeneous group, just as ideal) to claim, inhabit and govern Israel as their own is ordained by God. I find this as contrary to the ideals of equality and akin to totalitarianism.

That is incorrect. In fact, the Zionism movement originated with secular Jews, seeing how they are persecuted around the world and desiring a return to their native land where they can band together and protect themselves under the mechanisms of state. Your conclusion about inequality and totalitarianism are therefore misguided. As a side-note I'll add that the more fundamental ultra-orthodox Jews that desire an Israel ruled by biblical law tend to be antizionist as well.

> if they're claiming to do the whole democracy thing then they need to recognise the right of their neighbours not to live by the rules of their Gods.

First, no such thing happens, Palestinians are not bound to the rules of a Judaism, neither those that are Israeli citizens, nor those that are not. Specifically for Muslims in Israel they have their own religious authorities with the ability to govern in matters of their religion. For example, Muslims can marry each other under Muslim law, in Muslim ceremonies etc. It is true though that Jewish courts currently have too much authority in governing Jewish customs like marriage, and that to my mind religion is too intertwined with state mechanisms, but not nearly so far as I'd say that it is ruled by religious law.

Second, I'm not actually sure what this has to do with the topic of the discussion, which is Zionism, which is not a religious movement (remembering that Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity).

[harimau777]

Don't the Palestinians also have the right to self determinization in their native land?

My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination. It is opposed to preventing Arabs living in Palestine from having self determination and/or oppossed to Israel existing as an ethnostate (since most people on the left are opposed to the concept of ethnostates).

[Adverblessly]

> Don't the Palestinians also have the right to self determinization in their native land?

Sure, in fact Israel's declaration of independence (which doesn't have an official legal status, but is considered to be the base of a future constitution for Israel) calls for peaceful co-existence with its neighbouring Arab states. It would be an interesting alternate history to observe where Israel was not attacked by all of its neighbouring Arab states, could we really have peaceful co-existence? (I'd like to think the answer is "yes").

Now if you define "Palestinian native land" as the Jewish native land that was colonized by Arabs around 1,400 years ago, then you'll have a problem since that will legitimize Jews to themselves recolonize (and regular colonize) whatever areas they please thus making it their own native land. Of course, reverting the borders to 3,000 years ago is also not practical (especially as that would revert the peace agreement with Jordan which would have to give up a substantial piece of land). That's why IMO something like a two state solution makes the most sense, maybe along the lines of the agreement that was almost signed in 2008?

> My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination.

No need to keep to the Roman convention of renaming Israel to Palestine.

> My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination. It is opposed to preventing Arabs living in Palestine from having self determination

That just sounds like you are redefining "Anti-Zionism" to mean "Pro-Palestine". Sure, under a different definition it means something else, but how is that useful? If I define "Jews" to mean "Bananas" can I say that I think Jews are disgusting because I actually mean bananas are disgusting?

Anti-Zionism means exactly that, against the right for Jews for self determination in their native land.

> Israel existing as an ethnostate

I think this term is a bit excessively vague. Naturally the Jewish people want to live in their land of the Jewish people in much the same way that the French or Palestinian people want to live in their land of the French or Palestinian people.

A right of return for the Jewish people to the land of self-determination for Jews is only natural, just as much as an emerging state of Palestine should want a right of return for Palestinians into it (it sounds like madness for Palestine to refuse Israeli Arabs from moving to it).

It would also be madness to deny Israel a right to control immigration to it, especially as it is already very densely populated.

That said, I agree that current policies are too extreme, and I'm generally for a much greater separation between state and religion in Israel.

[pasabagi]

Don't you think 1400 years is a bit long? If you considered 'native people' to go back that far, you could get all sorts of really strange 'native lands'.

Normally, right of return is for people who were living somewhere, or have parents or grandparents who live somewhere. So it's obviously very strange when that applies to jewish people, who potentially have some ancestors in biblical times that were living in Jordan, but doesn't apply to Palestinians, who had grandparents living there.

To be honest, I have more sympathy for the argument that, yes, Israel is a typical colonial enterprise, but it's also been a while (70+ years), and people have made their lives there, so 2SS makes sense. It seems more consistent with how words like 'native', 'colony', and 'original inhabitants' work everywhere else.

[Adverblessly]

> Don't you think 1400 years is a bit long?

Any threshold you set is arbitrary and then tends to be motivated by personal politics. I have some difficulty with setting any specific threshold since if you say the threshold is 1,000 years for example, then it follows that you have set a rule on how it is morally achievable to set or expand your territory; You take some place by force and then hold it for 1,000 years and then no one is allowed to contest it, which means that Israel should be allowed to take whatever land it wants as it is merely following the proper procedure you have set (and of course, Palestine and Iran are equally allowed to follow this procedure ;)).

> Normally, right of return is for people who were living somewhere, or have parents or grandparents who live somewhere. So it's obviously very strange when that applies to jewish people, who potentially have some ancestors in biblical times that were living in Jordan,

Much of the original push for the creation of Israel originates in world wide persecution of Jews, so it makes sense to me to allow all of them into Israel where they can band together. I also think that limitations on "parents or grandparents" are meant to imply some sort of test of "are they really still French if they left France two generations ago and haven't tried to come back since then?", whereas for Judaism many communities have been rather insular and managed to maintain their Jewish identity going back all the way to their original exile, so it is easier to see that they are still part of the same people. I do somewhat agree though in thinking that there eventually has to be some limit and the right to return should be drastically altered/reduce/abolished and replaced with more "normal" immigration controls. Maybe something like "You have a right to return by default if you are the grandson of a Jew who lived during the Holocaust. If you are the son or grandson of such a Jew (i.e. grandson of grandson) then follow this procedure, beyond that you are considered to have waived your right to return". Though this is off-the-cuff random internet talk and not a sound opinion :)

If talking specifically about Jordan, where Jews do not have a right to return, I'll add the other countries of the Middle East and North Africa where Jews who left (often but not only to go to Israel) are definitely not welcome back. It seems like morally you'd expect such a thing, though in practice I'd be surprised if there were any Jews willing to use such a right.

> but doesn't apply to Palestinians, who had grandparents living there.

Since you mentioned Jordan specifically, I'd just say that it is up to the Jordanians to provide that right to return (which I don't think they do).

For a Palestinian state (in a hypothetical 2ss) it will certainly make sense to have a right of return for Palestinian people, but I don't think it makes sense to have a right of return for Palestinians into Israel or Jews into Palestine, since the whole point of such an agreement would be to draw lines on what is Israel and what is Palestine, and drastically mixing the populations would just blur those lines and reignite conflict.

> To be honest, I have more sympathy for the argument that, yes, Israel is a typical colonial enterprise, but it's also been a while (70+ years), and people have made their lives there, so 2SS makes sense. It seems more consistent with how words like 'native', 'colony', and 'original inhabitants' work everywhere else.

Indeed I feel that is what follows from your initial statement, and I'll agree that your views are self-consistent and sound. Ideologically I don't fully agree with your thoughts, since I feel it incentivizes war-making as I mentioned.

Of course, as I said in my previous comment, in the real world I don't think it is practical or entirely fair to pursue something like a 3,000 year reversion, so a two state solution is a reasonable compromise, and it will require some strong guarantees to make sure such an agreement is kept and war-making is deterred.

[pasabagi]

I guess my intuition for how a 'right-to-return' should work would be, if you have your property stolen and you are driven out of the land, and it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is yours by inheritance, then you should be able to get it back.

It's to the eternal shame of Poland, Germany, and many other countries in Europe, that this is not what they did after the war. It's frankly shameful that this is rarely enforced anywhere.

If you do 'right of return' without the implicit return of property thing, it's pretty hollow if you've actually had your house/farm stolen, but it also becomes just a way of having an immigration policy that discriminates on an ethnic or religious basis.

I feel like people are generally pretty fine with accepting colonial borders: basically the whole world outside europe is divided by them. As long as they have a chance to live in peace, build businesses, live normal lives, I don't think people get that exercised about these things, on the whole. If you look at the lives of Palestinians, they look pretty humiliating. If I lived that life, had no chance to build anything or hold onto anything, I expect I would be pretty angry about it.

[racional]

No need to keep to the Roman convention of renaming Israel to Palestine.

It's the historically accepted term for the region. The Zionists themselves used it in their literature. Quibbles about it are disingenuous and absolutely irrelevant to the current situation on the ground.

Anti-Zionism means exactly that, against the right for Jews for self determination in their native land.

No, it means being against an ideology which fundamentally rejects the right of self-determination to the non-Jewish population living on their land.

Israel as an ethnostate is vague

It's now written into the Basic Laws of Israel, thanks to 2018 Nation-State bill.

If you define "Palestinian native land" as ...

We all know what it what is meant by "Palestine" and "Palestinians". And even Jabotinsky recognized the Palestinians as indigenous.

[ethbr1]

> Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land of thousands of years.

This is the definition that makes Zionism troubling.

Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-Jewish person within the borders of the Jewish people's native land?

[Adverblessly]

Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-French person within the borders of the French people's native land?

[ethbr1]

> Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-French person within the borders of the French people's native land?

Historically?

Because post-revolutionary France has been a militantly-secular state.

And a decent counter-example on why conflating a state with a specific ethno-religious identity is a terrible idea.

[Adverblessly]

I still don't follow your logic, I can't find a more charitable interpretation then you just saying that Jews are inherently murderous and the French are inherently not.

Somewhat ironic as currently the average French person is probably safer in Tel Aviv than the average Jew is in Paris.

[ethbr1]

You said "Being antizionism is antisemitism because it negates the right to self-determination of the Jewish people."

To which I pointed out that unlimited rights to self-determination include justifying genocide.

To which you rebutted that other countries have self-determination and avoid genocide.

To which I rebutted that those other states aren't founded on ethno-religious identities.

[Adverblessly]

So here is my understanding of your point, feel free to correct it in a clearer statement, since your point still seems incomprehensible to me.

You are saying that denying the rights of Jews to self determination in their native land is not antisemitic, because Jewish identity is tied into both an ethnicity and a religion, making Jews inherent murderers and thus undeserving of a state. This is as opposed to say the French or German people, whose identity is mostly ethnic, who have a long history of peace, devoid of genocide, murder and disenfranchisement.

[meiraleal]

What's meant is that nobody would be called antisemitic for being against them if not for the fairy tale definition of a promised land.

[Adverblessly]

Not sure what you mean by a fairy tale definition of a promised land, we are talking about actual land that they've actually lived in for thousands of years (though naturally not all of it continuously, after the Roman exile not that many Jews were left. Though if you accept that as removing their right to live there then surely you'll have no problem with Israel doing the same to the Palestinians).

[bakuninsbart]

> Not sure what you mean by a fairy tale definition of a promised land, we are talking about actual land that they've actually lived in for thousands of years (though naturally not all of it continuously, after the Roman exile not that many Jews were left.

This is false, there's a reason for modern Palestinians and modern Jews sharing around the same genetic material with ancient Israelites, and that is conversion. The conflation of the ethnic group and the religious group is where your entire argument falls apart. What you are arguing for is not just an ethni-nationalist state, it is one steeped in religion, which is as good as any definition for fascism.

[meiraleal]

You're using imaginary references, there's nothing to discuss here.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> You appear to have fallen victim to a similar attempt at conflation, Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land of thousands of years.

That doesn't make sense. I am Greek and we lost our ancestral lands in Asia Minor when we were slaughtered and expelled from them by the modern Turkish nation [1]. The same thing happened to the Armenians, Cappadocian Christians and Assyrian Christians, also.

And yet it is not anti-hellenic, or anti-christian, or anti-anything to deny that all those people and the Greeks have a right to return to their ancestral lands, where Turkish people now live. Resisting irredentist nationalism is not racist.

__________________________

[1] The Jewish are not the only people who were kicked out of the land they lived in for thousands of years, lost their greatest city and had their greatest temple turned into a mosque: this also happened to the Greeks: Asia Minor, Constantinoupolis and Agia Sophia, were Greek for thousands of years and now they belong to the Turkish nation. If the Greeks and every other ethnic and religious group claimed their "right to self-determination in their native land of thousand years", there would be bloodshed and war without end.

Greek genocide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide

Armenian genocide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide

Assyrian genocide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayfo

Pontic Greek genocide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek_genocide

About the Cappadocian Greeks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Greeks