[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.

[ethbr1]

Maybe you're not saying what you mean.

What limits do you place on "self determination", as you define it?

And I'd point out that modern France and Germany are much less religious and more religiously diverse than Israel. (Even including Israeli Muslims)

But yes, historically states with high religiosity and state-entwined religions tend to be murderous: it's always a good reason for a just war.

[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.