[ebbi]

Where's the straw man?

I wonder what the underlying ideology of Zionism is that makes these Zionist organisations all act in the same way, for the same cause.

It seems you don't know what Zionism is, or just purposely deflecting because you do know what it is, but carrying out Hasbara here.

[spwa4]

Oh, are we allowed to call beliefs bad and lump everyone with that belief under the same umbrella now?

Say, in a totally random question: what does islam say muslims should do to the world? And should we, yes or no, hold anyone holding that opinion responsible?

[ebbi]

> * what does islam say muslims should do to the world?*

What does it say? And provide sources.

I know there are various sects of Islam, and some extremist groups that claim to align to Islam, but their actions go against the teachings of Islam. Just like there are extremist groups within Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. I don't claim that those minorities represent the whole.

Zionism, on the other hand, I have not seen any founding documents that go against my assertions that it is a violent ideology simply because achieving the aims of Zionism requires there to be ethnic cleansing and/or genocide to carry out its goals. The founding fathers also knew this to be the case (refer another comment of mine below).

I mean, here's a piece from Bari Weiss, a modern day Jewish journalist, justifying why killing children is a necessary 'burden' for Zionists to achieve its goal:

"The results of this mess, as always, are especially bad for the Palestinians who live under Hamas rule. Casualty reports are hard to verify because Hamas controls the media (even the international press) inside the Gaza Strip, but it appears that more than 50 Palestinians have been killed. Some of these people are entirely innocent non-combatants, including children. This is an unspeakable tragedy. It is also one of the unavoidable burdens of political power, of Zionism's dream turned into the reality of self-determination."

I have never seen (or heard of) a Zionist that doesn't think Jews should live on a piece of land in the Middle East.

[JumpCrisscross]

> never seen (or heard of) a Zionist that doesn't think Jews should live on a piece of land in the Middle East

This just sounds like whether one believes, today, in the destruction of Israel as a state. In my view, I don’t; two Nakbas don’t make a right in the same way shipping America’s Black population back to Africa is a nonsense solution to slavery.

[ebbi]

I'm specifically talking about Zionism's origins. It's founding principle is a Jewish State for Jews in the Promised Lands.

How they did that was violent: fact.

How they maintain this is violent and illegal: fact.

Therefore to be a Zionist today, means that you agree with the apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and the Jewish ethno-supremacist state to stay the course for Zionists to continue to have their own land. Therefore, you support war crimes and mass killings of Palestinians.

Now do let me know if there are Zionists that have a different view on things. But from my research and discussions with Zionists, I've never met a Zionist that does not believe that Jews should not have, and should not continue to, have their own state in the Middle East where Palestinians previously lived.

[spwa4]

> I know there are various sects of Islam, and some extremist groups that claim to align to Islam, but their actions go against the teachings of Islam.

Then say that the prophet was a horrible, disgusting, immoral bastard. Because everyone, especially muslims, know that is the case. Go ahead.

In case there is still anyone at all that doesn't know: the central figure in islam is the prophet. Right up to the point that when asking an imam about particular rules, you won't hear "Allah says ...", you'll hear references to what the prophet did and said. Nothing else. There won't be many references to allah in their explanation at all.

And the problem is the prophet was a warlord. He started war after war after war after war. Almost 100 wars in all. He regularly massacred groups he defeated. He used hostage taking, including of course massacring hostages as part of negotiations. He used peace treaties as weapons of deception. He massacred people because they were Jews. The list goes on and on.

He massacred his own people (e.g. the incident where he executed a group of muslims for not following his orders by burying them with their heads exposed and had horses run over them until they were dead). You are right that this is a part of islam that even the Taliban deny. Now go read the source material ...

He advocates for a Roman-style society, where there are clear classes in society that are not equal before the law, and there are clear classes. The government is above everyone, then muslim males, then dhimmi males, then slaves, then non-muslims.

For example, another part of islam that everyone denies is that "murdering down" (for example the Caliph having a muslim executed just for fun) is a civil case. Maybe money needs to be paid for consequences (e.g. because a murdered slave can no longer work, or a woman no longer has a breadwinner in the family). But courts are limited to demanding minimal restitution, and only for cause. Oh and the state can never be convicted, and is just allowed to kill anyone, no restitution. Just so we're clear: the murder itself, as long as you murder someone of lower class, is legal. It's effectively treated as property destruction. Murdering up is criminal, and punished by death (and yes, blood money exists).

This, by the way, is the argument Iranian mullahs are making for executing protestors. They can simply murder muslims, without giving reasons

Same with the famous sharia law for stealing. What is not well understood is that if a muslim steals from a slave, MAYBE he'll be asked (not forced) to pay something. Only if a slave steals "up" does cutting off the hand applies.

The prophet was a paedophile rapist (that's what we call a person who has sex with a minor against the will of said minor). And yes, the Eastern Roman Empire, the state in which he lived, had the concept of a minor and a prohibition on sex with minors, so no, this was not part of the times.

He was a thief. For example, he raided trade caravans, sometimes murdering or enslaving everyone.

He was a slave trader, what we call today a sex trafficker. He bought and sold human beings, including young girls with the express purpose to rent them out to be prostitutes (ie. get raped for money)

Note: islam's holy texts contain advice on how to rape small girls. Advice on how not to damage them. Advice on what to do with them for maximum pleasure.

He was a slaver. Which means he captured people, killed them, tortured them, and starved them until they accepted to be slaves. A practice that was widespread in muslim countries even in the 1960s.

So I ask you: Is there anything wrong with the prophet? Is what the prophet did not part of islam? Shall I go on listing his crimes according to muslim beliefs? Do you want sources?

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/all/cr_list.html

Note the MANY exhortations to harm others in the primary source of islam. But the hadith are way worse.

[ebbi]

Not a single direct source, well done.

You may have issues with Prophet Muhammad marrying someone at the age of 9. I think the historical context and reasoning has been covered multiple times in other platforms so I won't repeat myself here.

In the same breath, will you acknowledge the rape of children that occurs by Israelis to Palestinian children? Israel is now known as a pedo haven.

Israeli prison guards rape Palestinian hostages, sometimes even getting dogs to rape them.

Will you denounce these?

[Gud]

I don’t know if any of the above is true, but Mohammed married a young girl, which is totally fucked up and not at all what I expect from my spiritual leader.

Mohammed sucked.

[spwa4]

It's much worse. He raped her her before they were married (fingered her in bath) "but allah said it's ok" according to the prophet. He did not marry her (there was no ceremony because she was so young, the prophet simply claimed allah said they were married). He bought her (he offered her father islam, as in the empire as payment. islam, for the prophet, was a country, his personal possession, not a religion). It was against the girls' will (she reguarly ran back to her mother, for years)

Oh, and if you believe in Shi'a islam, the prophet stole Aisha. That's the word we use for buying something and not paying up. You see, the prophet bought this bride at the price of the leadership of islam when he died ... and then he sold that leadership of islam to his cousin and son in law, Ali, for other stuff.

The texts say he denied ever having promised it to Abu Bakr, which is the source of the schism with Shi'a islam.

[ebbi]

Sources?

[ebbi]

What sucks even more is in this day and age, we have Israeli's that rape Palestinian kids, then kill them.

They get dogs to rape palestinian hostages.

Then Israeli citizens PROTEST because they want the soldiers to have the right to rape.

A sick society.

[JumpCrisscross]

> there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist >> Where's the straw man?

Nobody argued "there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist." That's literally how straw men work.

> makes these Zionist organisations all act in the same way

I haven't seen this level of coherence. But I also haven't seen anyone argue this properly. Instead it's always this "I have secret knowledge" nonsense.

> seems you don't know what Zionism is

Quite possibly. I've read the Wikipedia and have discussed it with Egyptian, Jordanian and Israeli acquaintances in America and Europe. I haven't seen anything to suggest it can be considered a philosophically, methodologically or politically unified movement in anything but its aim of establishing a Jewish nation-state, a goal which isn't inherently fascist or religious supremacist (but which is, again, inherently segregationist, though so is arguably an nation-building exercise).

Again, I think the analogy to folks who rail against Antifa as if it's a coherent ideology and organisation is apt. If you press any of those people for an explanation, you get similar 'you don't know what Antifa is' and 'you're probably Antifa' deflections. (Note: I'm not attacking you per se. I'm attacking the rhetoric. I'm engaging because I have a hint of a sense that you know something interesting that I'd like to learn.)

[ebbi]

> Nobody argued "there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist."

You literally said "These aren't coherent organisations, just loose collections of aligned folks."

The Israeli government isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'

AIPAC isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'

Jewish National Fund isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'

> I haven't seen this. But I also haven't seen anyone argue this properly. Instead it's always this "I have secret knowledge" nonsense.

You might be out of your depth here, then. I'd suggest you do some reading before trying to argue your points here, because you're not doing a good job of it.

> in anything but its aim of establishing a Jewish nation-state

And what does it take for a peoples to establish their own 'Jewish nation-state' on a bit of land that had people living there already? Hint: you could quote David Ben-Gurion's own words. I'll start it off for you:

"The Arabs will need to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war" - David Ben-Gurion, writing to his son, 1937

"In internal discussions, in instructions to his people, the 'Old Man' demonstrated a clear stand: it was better that the smallest possible number of Arabs remain within the area of the state" - Michael Bar-Zohar, biographer of David Ben-Gurion

"I am for compulsory transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it." - David Ben-Gurion to the Jewish Agency Executive, June 1938.

"Every attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion." - David Ben-Gurion.

- -

"I don't understand your optimism," Ben-Gurion declared. "Why should the Arabs make peace? if I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out."

- The Jewish Paradox by Nahum Goldmann

[JumpCrisscross]

> The Israeli government isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks' AIPAC isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks' Jewish National Fund isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'

Sure. These are coherent organisations. Talking about them is meaningful. Talking about "Zionists" is nonsense.

> what does it take for a peoples to establish their own 'Jewish nation-state' on a bit of land that had people living there already?

Lots of options! Ben-Gurion's was a supremacist one. (I wouldn't argue it was fascist.)

Look, you're making a good argument the people and groups you're citing have elements of these traits. Again, that's meaningful. Being trope-y and going off about Zionists will appeal to people who already agree with you, and that's fine, ra ra-ing is fun, but it isn't intellectually honest or particulalry productive other than for stroking the egos of folks who turned this into their pet discussion topic.

[ebbi]

You're living up to your handle quite well, 'JumpCrisscross'ing from the point here - Zionism is an ideology, and it drives the actions of those individuals and groups that align to that ideology.

You can try and intellectually criss cross all you want, but the reality is always there: Zionism is a supremacist ideology that used violence to achieve its aims.

> Lots of options!

See, you couldn't even be intellectually honest and state the option Zionists did use!

It's not me being trope-y, it's just you trying to deflect and defend this horrid ideology.

> stroking the egos of folks who turned this into their pet discussion topic

I'm sorry that talking about, and advocating for, people that are being massacred today is a 'pet discussion topic'.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you couldn't even be intellectually honest and state the option Zionists did use!

Again, we can meaningfully talk about the choices Ben-Gurion, Israel and Netanyahu make. Broadening that to “Zionists” is sloganeering, not advocacy or discussion.

> talking about, and advocating for

Going off on a rant isn’t advocating for anything. It isn’t useless. But rallying a base needs an end to be productive. Otherwise it’s self serving.

My pet war is Ukraine. The folks who go off on rants about all Russians being monsters through and through absolutely undermine the cause of the people they purport to help. (I’ve done it. It’s emotionally satisfying when you’re angry and it feels like nobody cares.)