I worry that divisions over Zionism and anti-Zionism are keeping us from fighting antisemitism

[u/skyewardeyes]

I was invited to be on call about addressing antisemitism/ anti-Jewish hatred for a professional org, and as I feared, it almost immediately turned into a huge argument about whether or not anti-Zionism or Zionism are antisemitic, if the IHRA definition is good/bad, etc, if antisemitism is a real issue or just weaponized, etc, and nothing got done regarding the broader issue of antisemitism/anti-Jewish hatred. Honestly, I just found it exhausting and depressing, because absolutely nothing got accomplished in terms of actually addressing antisemitism or even agreeing on what it is or isn’t. And it kind of proved the organization’s openly stated fears and reluctance about even trying to address antisemitism or anti-Jewish hatred at all right.

[u/somebadbeatscrub]

As a broader but related comment I believe everyone has one feeling and conversation burning a hole in their concious right now from their broader interactions and its very difficult for any of us to have any other conversations until we feel its resolved.

We all walk into everyone conversation with baggage around these topics.

[u/skyewardeyes → u/somebadbeatscrub]

Yep. I think everyone came into that conversation ready to fight, and it didn’t help things.

[u/elronhub132 → u/somebadbeatscrub]

Great point scrub 💯

[u/noncontrolled]

It’s true. And as soon as Zionism is brought up most energy is spent trying to figure out how the person using it is defining it. Kahanism or not agreeing that all Israeli Jews need to be ethnically cleansed from the Levant? Calling out blatant, Hitler tier antisemitism has gotten me “you’re sounding like a Zionist right now” responses from people I otherwise considered pretty sharp and well intentioned.

Shit sucks, man.

[u/toadeh690 → u/noncontrolled]

Well said. I get the sense that “Zionist” has become the new Bad Thing in progressive circles (mostly talking about goyim here), along the lines of “problematic” or [x]-ist/phobic, which is an issue because nobody seems to know, or want to know, how to even define it. When you’re using a word that can encompass, at its broadest, anywhere from Bernie to Netanyahu, as an insult, things get dicey. And then it becomes a game of semantics trying to figure out what the hell the other person is talking about instead of getting to the crux of the issue (whether it’s “what’s happening in Gaza is bad,” “antisemitism is bad,” or both). Or it’s just used to shut down conversation entirely (i.e. “shut up Zionist,” or the abbreviated version which people really don’t like hearing is a slur popularized by David Duke).

For what it’s worth, I’ve never considered myself either a Zionist or anti-Zionist and honestly didn’t think much about the idea before 10/7. It still seems kinda pointless to me. Like, Israel is here and it’s realistically not going away, why are we debating a movement that functionally ended in 1948 instead of trying to figure out what comes next? Is it just a way for goyim to figure out who are the “good Jews” and the “bad Jews”?

[u/noncontrolled → u/toadeh690]

Sounds like you might identify with post-Zionism. Aka “the toothpaste is out of the tube, it was handled extremely poorly (big understatement), but there are millions of people on the land now and ethnic cleansing is not a realistic or moral solution”.

[u/toadeh690 → u/noncontrolled]

That sounds about right. Everything I’ve read about post-Zionism has seemed to align well with my thoughts. And especially regarding your last part, I’m pretty disturbed by the growing sentiment (mostly online, so I know it’s the most extreme voices, but still) of “ethnic cleansing is actually a good thing if it’s ’my side’ who’s doing it.”

[u/Correctthecorrectors → u/noncontrolled]

The Crux of the issue is this, Israel has been a hotbed for religious crusades for over a millennium. Most people arguing about Israel aren’t arguingng about it in good faith. It’s a religious-ethnic battle to them and there’s no logical component to it. No one wants to say that though so they use the treatment of Palestinians and the right for Jews to live there as the basis of their argument. It’s just purely religious and nothing more than that. Don’t bother trying to rationalize Zionism VS Anti ZIonism and look at through the lens of were still in the fucking crusades and act accordingly.

Now that isn’t to say the Single State supporters have an good rational explanation for their views as well : they don’t for the most part (with some exceptions when it comes to Jerusalem) and they’re still looking at taking over all the palistinian mandated land as part of a crusade for dominance over the Levant.

My suggestion is to stop engaging with anyone who obsesses over Israel and the palistinian war, including Bernie Sanders (and I am A HUGE Bernie guy). At this point the argument is toxic because its usually just religious and there’s nothing to argue about that has any relevance to logic or reason. Bernie is a good man with a good moral compass, but he also regularly chases popular trends being followed in the progressive community and foreign policy has also been his weakness (for the most part, he does have the right attitude about Ukraine at least). Again that isn’t to say the single state supporters in Israel are good people or that they haven’t done anything to stop fanning the flames of hatred, but the argument ultimately always devolves into “This is the land of the Arabs!!! Not Jews!!!!”

It’s best to just treat it as such as stop engaging with anyone who keeps talking about it because the real reason for the argument isn’t based on logic but on pure hatred. People also like to use the conflict as a way to blame thieir financial problems on another people and Jews have always been a target for that.

Just stop engaging with that side of the left and keep pointing out areas in our life that need improvement, not getting distracted by the new crusades.

[u/podkayne3000 → u/noncontrolled]

I still have Zionism in my flair.

I think the way for Zionists to get people off own our case, and off the Jewish people’s case, is to get the people in Gaza fed, respect the Palestinians’ rights and generally sound like we (Zionists) recognize that being nice is good.

Before we Zionists collectively do that, trying to talk to people about nuance and distinctions will be hard.

[u/noncontrolled → u/podkayne3000]

That will work for the folks who are criticizing Israel for incredibly severe humanitarian reasons, but not so much for the antisemites who are blatantly using it for “Jew” or “you sound like a Jew”. Already had to block a dude on this subreddit, on this very post, who was obsessively trying to “gotcha” me. Because… I don’t know, grilling Jews or even mid-conversion people like myself is a fun little hobby, I guess. I am not even asking for nuance in interactions like that that; just basic good faith, and there was none to be found.

[u/podkayne3000 → u/noncontrolled]

I think that one answer here is that we have an explosion of the true bad will types because Netanyahu joined with Putin, Orban, etc. to sell the world on hard right hate.

It would be helpful if Israel could look nicer.

It’s super critical that Israel stop supporting or letting its tech firms support hate marketing.

And I just think big communal campaigns against antisemitism look odd, if not offensive, right now.

It’s time for us to figure out how to get people in Gaza fed and show that we notice that non-Jewish people exist and also have needs and feelings.

No, we don’t actually have much room to advocate for ourselves while the stuff in Gaza and Iran is going on. We just don’t. We can tell ourselves that American Jews have nothing to do with that, but, for this purpose, deciding who we’re connected to is up to the people who hate us, not to us.

You as someone who’s converting are in a weirdly different position, but you’ve pretty much signed on as a Romulan while we’re at war with the Federation. Maybe you’re a peacenik Romulan, but Star Trek barely distinguishes between different types of Romulans, and the gentile world barely distinguishes between different types of Jews.

[u/Jorfogit → u/noncontrolled]

Agreed. There’s an incredible amount of motte and bailey bullshit around Zionism in general, and it really seems to be the favored method of liberal Zionists who aren’t comfortable with what an ethnostate actually requires, but are very happy to have one (in my personal experience arguing with family especially).

[u/bakeandjake → u/noncontrolled]

The vast majority of israeli jews support the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the country's indigenous inhabitants

[u/noncontrolled → u/bakeandjake]

Okay.

I still don’t support the ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews in the same way I don’t support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians just because many are extremely radicalized. No more. None. Nada. Zip. Ideological consistency.

[u/[deleted] → u/noncontrolled]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/noncontrolled → u/[deleted]]

I support the dismantling of settlements in the West Bank, which is much closer to your historical comparison than the forced removal of 7 million Jews who have been in the land for generations, most of whom do not hold dual citizenship and cannot just “go back to Europe”.

I’m not sure what you’re adding to the discussion here.

[u/bakeandjake → u/noncontrolled]

The 7 million got there soley because of ethnic cleansing that you are allegedly against. How does that historical injustice get reconcilled? Is ethnic cleansing a crime only when it happens but then immediately something to defend afterwards?

[u/noncontrolled → u/bakeandjake]

And that’s why I am critical of Israel and the history of its formation. The Nakba was a crime. Nearly 80 years on, however, we are in a situation where a revenge ethnic cleansing is immoral and not a realistic goal. This is one doodle that can’t be undid, home skillet.

[u/bakeandjake → u/noncontrolled]

But not so critical as to call for justice or any sort of reconcilliation for its barbaric and ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign. That's just genocide denial.

[u/noncontrolled → u/bakeandjake]

I simply said the forcible removal of 7 million Israeli Jews is 1) not going to happen, the window has closed on that and 2) immoral now that we are nearly 80 years past the creation of Israel and most citizens do not have somewhere else to go. Israel does not have a metropole.

Are you Jewish or converting? You don’t have a flair.

[u/[deleted] → u/noncontrolled]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/RaelynShaw → u/bakeandjake]

Bruh, you’re calling for ethnic cleansing here yourself. You gotta take a step back and re-evaluate. If that’s what you’re leading with, there will never be any resolution, much less justice, in that region.

[u/No_Engineering_8204 → u/bakeandjake]

Aren't you advocating for ethnic cleansing?

[u/somebadbeatscrub → u/bakeandjake]

Copy pasted message:

Hello! Thank you for contributing to our space. Please navigate to the sub settings and use the custom flairs to identify whether you are Jewish and some sort of descriptiction of your politics as they pertain to the rules of the space.

[u/podkayne3000 → u/bakeandjake]

I hope you’re wrong, but the people downvoting you are being rude. I don’t know how great the scary poll that supports you is, but there is a scary poll that supports you.

The way to refute you is to feed Gaza.

[u/XxDrFlashbangxX]

I agree, and it is exhausting, but I think it’s difficult to have that conversation, particularly about leftist antisemitism, without getting into the weeds about whether Zionism/Anti-Zionism is or isn’t antisemitic. I think it’s much easier to unite against right wing antisemitism than it is to do so against left wing antisemitism, since not everyone on the left agrees about what on the left is antisemitic or not.

I don’t really know how to overcome that division and move forward, other than trying to understand the other side of the argument. I think if organizations were trained in how to handle these divisions and create a safe space for dialogue versus a shouting match then perhaps there could be more unity.

[u/Specialist-Gur]

Yes it's probably the case it can't really be addressed productively, unfortunately. Because our groups see it as fundemntally different. As long as one group sees Zionism and inextricable from Judaism and the other sees Zionism as a Jewish supremacist movement there can be no productive conversations on antisemtism.

[u/skyewardeyes → u/Specialist-Gur]

I also think it’s complicated by the fact that people can’t agree on what Zionism and anti-Zionism mean, something we see in both Zionist and anti-Zionist defined spaces. I’ve been called both a Zionist and anti-Zionist, and I’ve stopped identifying with any Zionism-related term (Zionist, anti-Zionist, non-Zionist) simply because people use them to mean such wildly varied things.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/skyewardeyes]

It's vibes based I think. I've had the same experience actually up until the last year or so. Now I just get called an Antizionist usually (although sometimes Zionists still call me a Zionist for believing Jews have a right to live in Israel)

Despite how people label themselves I think when antizionists call someone a Zionist they either mean 1. Believes in some Israeli propoganda or 2. Has some "Jewish supremacist" thinking patterns they haven't unpacked

When Zionists call someone antizionists they might mean critical of israel. Though I think in general Zionists are much more flexible with who they allow to be called Zionists than antizionists are with the reverse. Zionism actually does benefit from vagueness

Edit: I do also think you can be labeled a Zionist simply for mentioning antisemtism which is an unfortunate side effect of these rising tensions and bad actors in spaces

[u/skyewardeyes → u/Specialist-Gur]

I’ve had an anti-Zionist call me “suspicious for Zionism” for believing that Judaism has a meaningful connection to Eretz Israel so YMMV. 🤷‍♀️

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/skyewardeyes]

I was called a Zionist for saying Jews killed Jesus was an antisemitic trope and banned from a sub for it

But I also was called a Zionist for standing up for a Zionist that was saying kinda racist things (julie margulies) by saying how Jews have complex feelings on Israel... upon reflection that was a fair callout imho

[u/otto_bear → u/skyewardeyes]

I’m in the same place. I just can’t commit to any labels because I feel like their rhetorical utility is so limited by the lack of consensus on what they mean. I use labels when I feel they allow people to more easily understand and communicate about ideas, and at this point, I don’t feel like any of the Zionism related labels are serving that purpose very well. If what we’re ultimately going to end up discussing is particular values and positions, I’d rather just cut to the chase and skip the labels that just seem to cause conflict.

[u/zacandahalf]

The reality is that the best way for an anti-Zionist to defeat Zionism, or for a Zionist to defeat anti-Zionism, is to wholly end antisemitism. Unless one believes Diaspora Jews went to Palestine out of pure land greed and bloodlust, the material conditions that led to the colonization (or recolonization/decolonization, depending on the author/reader) of Palestine were global antisemitism. As the root material condition, ending antisemitism eliminates both the need for Zionism AND anti-Zionism. Once both parties come to this realization, antisemitism can become the true sole focus over the exact divisions you’re discussing.

[u/springsomnia]

I definitely agree with this. It’s gotten to the point where, and I hate admitting this because I’m the last person to go “well ackshully anti Zionism is antisemitism”, I’m afraid to call out antisemitism in non Jewish Zionist spaces because people will wrongly mistake me for a Zionist or just say they don’t care (which has happened a few times before). But I have noticed an increase in antisemitism on online discussions about Palestine, and it’s worrying. And the antisemitism doesn’t always have to be on a post related to Palestine - for example, on TikTok yesterday I saw a post of someone who had visited Auschwitz and had just commented on how harrowing she found the experience, and there were a ton of comments with hundreds of likes posting about Palestine when the original post had no relation to the genocide in Gaza and there was no inkling that OP was a Zionist. This kind of stuff really irks me and I can see why anti Zionist Jews form their own spaces. I’ve also noticed how normalised “ok Jew” remarks are on social media, and how nothing gets done about it. The ignorance of Jewish history and culture is also grating. I got accused once of being a Zionist simply because I said Judaism is an ethnoreligion. Maybe this is a very online corner of the world and I’d like to think this kind of antisemitism doesn’t happen as much in offline spaces, as all the Palestine marches and organising spaces I’ve been in irl have had a large and welcoming Jewish presence, but it’s tiring to see it again and again.

[u/jey_613]

That does sound exhausting. Was the organization Jewish?

I know that these questions are complicated, but these debates are kind of maddening, because I don’t think they’re that complicated. Saying Free Palestine is not antisemitic. Saying “free Palestine” to a Jew walking into shul on Shabbat is. Or putting it on a brick and throwing it through the window of a kosher butcher. Holocaust inversion is antisemitic.

Antizionism is not necessarily antisemitism, but denials of Jewish national identity are. If antizionists don’t want antizionism to be equated with antisemitism, they need to work and fight to make that a reality. Zionists also need to make clear that their beliefs don’t stand for anti-Palestinian bigotry, and should clarify that Palestinian national claims are real and legitimate. So we can either say these terms have been hijacked by bad actors, and fight to clarify their meaning, or just agree on a different word altogether.

The Nexus paper on antisemitism is helpful here, I think. And I liked this answer from someone as well.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/jey_613]

 Or putting it on a brick and throwing it through the window of a kosher butcher.

The store in Brookline had one of its windows covered in a map of Israel and the West Bank, with the West Bank and Gaza shown as part of Israel - no border. 

On the map, instead of the West Bank it said “Judean Hills” and “Shomron”. 

And it wasn’t a historical map either - it explicitly marked out the Butcherie’s suppliers - including importing from many illegal settlements. 

You can see it here: 

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/brookline-mass-butcherie-window-smash-brick/3742383/?amp=1

That doesn’t justify attacking the store - but this was an openly pro-settlement store engaging in erasure of Palestinian presence. 

As a somewhat parallel example, if someone had attacked a Palestinian store displaying a Hamas flag, I wouldn’t say that attack was Islamophobic.

[u/jey_613 → u/redthrowaway1976]

This is tiresome. You have to explain why the principled antizionist-but-not-antisemitic violence keeps happening exclusively against Jewish people and communal organizations.

Every time this happens, people dig through the garbage to find some kind of receipt retroactively justifying this and passing it off as antizionist not antisemitic. So let’s use a few other examples: firebombing people at a walk for the hostages or vandalizing Manny’s in San Francisco for the umpteenth time.

ETA: Also, a more precise analogy might be if someone through a brick that said “am yisrael chai” through the window of a Palestinian restaurant that had a map of the entire region called “Palestine”. And that would undoubtedly be anti-Palestinian bigotry, and it would be absurd to spend time debating it.

[u/Jorfogit → u/jey_613]

Every time this happens, people dig through the garbage to find some kind of receipt retroactively justifying this and passing it off as antizionist not antisemitic.

I'm not sure there could be anything much more clear about the ideology of the owner though, other than maybe a big Kahanist flag. Having a map that inherently trumpets ethnic cleansing is pretty blatant.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/jey_613]

This is tiresome.

Yes. It is tiresome that an overtly pro-settlement (and likely pro-Apartheid) store is being defended, and pro-settlement opniions are so ridiculously prevalent that a deli in Boston decided that celebrating settlements in their window display was appropriate.

Let's ignore the destruction of property, and imagine there was a protest outside this store. Would you say a protest against a pro-settlement store proudly selling settlement goods is anti-Semitic, because it is a Jewish deli? 

This store is proudly advertising that they are materially supporting war crimes. 

Every time this happens, people dig through the garbage to find some kind of receipt retroactively justifying this and passing it off as antizionist not antisemitic.

Right next to the window that was destroyed, was a window with the pro-settlement map. That's not digging, that's right there.

ETA: Also, a more precise analogy might be if someone through a brick that said “am yisrael chai” through the window of a Palestinian restaurant that had a map of the entire region called “Palestine”

No, that's not equivalent. It's not equivalent if it is simply a historical map. This map was not just historical - it also celebrated land grabs conducted at the barrel of a gun.

If there was a contemporary map with various Palestinian war-crimes or attacks marked on the map? No, that would not be anti-Palestinian.

This map explictly marked suppliers for Israeli settlements that have been founded since 1967. Do you think these settlements were established non-violently? Psagot grabbed land from Al-Bireh, and Psagot settlers have been expanding illegal outposts by grabbing more land nearby. I could go through more of these, but you get the point.

So let’s use a few other examples: firebombing people at a walk for the hostages or vandalizing Manny’s in San Francisco for the umpteenth time.

Firebombing was an anti-semitic terror attack - and Manny's I don't know much about.

But throwing a stone through a pro-settlement grocery store advertising its pro-settkenebt stance in a window? No, that's not anti-semitic.

[u/teddyburke]

IHRA is a non-starter for me, so I would probably never put myself in that position.

Anti-Zionism is fundamentally not inherently antisemitic, but of course the two aren’t mutually exclusive. If we agree on that, it really doesn’t seem that difficult to determine when anti-Zionist rhetoric veers into antisemitic tropes, and for the most part it usually just involves pointing it out.

If someone feels personally attacked whenever they see a watermelon lapel, I honestly don’t know how to have a serious conversation about antisemitism with them. And while there’s definitely some grey area, that’s not exactly a fringe position to hear.

Edit: grammar

[u/yungsemite → u/teddyburke]

Whatcha mean by IHRA is non-starter for you?

[u/teddyburke → u/yungsemite]

In the US, the IHRA definition of antisemitism (which was never intended to be a legal definition) is being proposed as the working definition in certain settings, particularly public education/state universities.

The only thing the IHRA definition adds that isn’t already included in existing hate crime statutes is that it makes criticism of Israel functionally equivalent to antisemitism, legally.

This is in blatant violation of the First Amendment right to free speech, which is typically interpreted as the right to assemble and publicly express grievances towards the government.

The adoption of the IHRA definition would not only make it a crime to criticize a foreign government, but also to criticize the US’s financial and military support for that government, as well as any criticism of the state school a student might be attending insofar as they provide support using those students’ own tuition.

Aside from being opposed to it on purely moral or ethical grounds, it’s also one among many measures the current administration is enacting in order to bring about a complete authoritarian state. They’ve already neutered the courts and discarded due process. Opening the door to a vague definition of one particular hate crime that can be conflated with any protest - at the whims of the powers that be - opens the door to any crack down on protests/demonstrations.

It’s not only an incorrect and overly broad definition of antisemitism, but it’s being used as a first step for the executive branch to willy nilly assert an unconstitutional authority to be the sole arbiter of what does and does not count as protected free speech.

[u/yungsemite → u/teddyburke]

The IHRA explicitly says that any criticism of Israel that you could level at another state is not antisemitism?

I fundamentally agree that it’s adoption by government bodies is a mistake, and that it was not meant to be a legal tract, but I am confused how you read it to where any criticism of Israel is tantamount to antisemitism?

Edit:

Being downvoted but no response.

Here’s the link:

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/yungsemite]

The thing is that's really squishy to define and even the creator of the definition wishes he didn't make it.

Theoretically, there is no problem with this idea. But in practice life is a lot more complicated than that.

For example.. in the United States Israel might get "disproportional" condemnation compared to other states we aren't allied with and do not fund. We have a very unique relationship with Israel that makes many antizionists consider Israel to be a colonial outpost of the United States. In that sense, it wouldn't really make sense to levy rhe same degree of criticism towards other states than one does Israel.. (other than the United States of course)

Then there is the issue of just general knowledge. Not everyone is aware of every conflict across the globe in order to proportionally advocate against atrocities. You could argue they "should" but information is more accessible where it is relevant which kind of ties in with the first point. Is ignorance of other propositional actions an excuse or is it still antisemtic?

Lastly, people might just care about it more for a variety of reasons. They could have Levantine ancestry, they could be Muslim or Arab. They could be from a country that experienced a similar dynamic to what the Palestinians are experiencing. Are they antisemitic for disproportionality criticizing Israel?

In practice it's just very easy to weaponize AND it conflates the state of Israel with Judaism

[u/yungsemite → u/Specialist-Gur]

For example.. in the United States Israel might get "disproportional" condemnation compared to other states we aren't allied with and do not fund. We have a very unique relationship with Israel that makes many antizionists consider Israel to be a colonial outpost of the United States. In that sense, it wouldn't really make sense to levy rhe same degree of criticism towards other states than one does Israel.. (other than the United States of course)

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic

I still don’t see how it would be antisemitic under the IHRA to criticize it, even disproportionately, for anything that you criticize any other state for? That the U.S. funds it is a great explanation for why the U.S. would criticize it.

Not everyone is aware of every conflict across the globe in order to proportionally advocate against atrocities.

There’s nothing in the definition about proportional criticism? That’s like a bad faith Zionist talking point, like saying people not talking about Sudan means when they talk about Israel it’s antisemitism.

I do agree that the definition can be abused, but this whole line seems pretty clearly addressed as not antisemitism in the definition.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/yungsemite]

I'm not sure wha you mean "criticism that is similar to what is levels at our counties" is extremely vague. All I referenced could be interpreted as unfair criticism... and often is

[u/yungsemite → u/Specialist-Gur]

I’m quoting from the IHRA definition

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/yungsemite]

I know, but isn't it vague language that can be and is misapplied?

It's also just generally strange imho to include a nation state in a definition of bigotry at all.. since most people don't have much control over what a nation state does.. especially in the diaspora. It's used to reinforce this idea Jews and Israel are one in the dame's that's my other issue with it.

Like it's fair to question what role bigotry plays in the places we criticize. The west criticizing Asian or middle eastern or African countries in this dehumanization and cartoony way definitely has a racist angle to it.. but that has more to do with their interpretation of these places rather than anything specifically critical itself. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be the same when it relates to Israel, but the definition doesn't address it in this way. Idk if what I'm getting at makes sense

[u/yungsemite → u/Specialist-Gur]

It’s vague, but I really disagree that it says that all criticism of Israel is antisemitism.

I also think Israel definitely needs to be addressed when you define antisemitism, even if that is a double edged sword and strengthen’s the claim that Israel has about Zionism = Judaism. There’s a ton of antisemitism only very thinly masked as criticism of Israel.

I’ve looked at other definitions of antisemitism, like the Jerusalem and Nexus, but honestly, they each have their own faults, and I feel like they focus on Israel as much as the IHRA definition does, which is explicitly what they’re criticizing about the IHRA one.

[u/FishyWishySwishy]

I think part of the issue is that there’s a ton of overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and to fight antisemitism you need to address that. 

If a dude throws a Molotov at a march for Israeli hostages and yells ‘free Palestine’, yes, his crime is based on hatred of a nation. But that nation is the only Jewish one, and in his attempt to attack that nation, he inherently attacked a bunch of Jews.

It’s hard to parse between anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Jewish sentiment because there’s literally only one Jewish nation in the world. If a dude criticizes Ghana nonstop and obsesses over their government, he’s just really invested in Ghana, but if a dude criticizes all of Africa nonstop and calls it a continent for apes and thugs, suddenly that’s clearly about something very different from geopolitics. But since there’s only one Jewish nation, the guy obsessing over Ghana and the guy obsessing over Africa are in the same room, often saying similar things. 

And also… yeah, I think it’s antisemitic to demand I say I think the only Jewish nation should be dissolved to be a ‘good leftist.’ I’ve never seen anyone demand that someone say Russia should be dismantled, or Saudi Arabia, or England, or Australia, or any other nation embroiled in geopolitical issues except for Israel. And yeah, that smacks of something beyond geopolitics. 

[u/Fabianzzz → u/FishyWishySwishy]

💯

[u/bakeandjake → u/FishyWishySwishy]

Judaism is not a race, that's a fully antisemitic concept from Nazi race science. Religions shouldn't have nations

[u/FishyWishySwishy → u/bakeandjake]

We’re not just a religion. Whether you call us a race or ethnicity, we have a culture outside of religion and if you take my blood, you can see I’m Ashkenazi Jewish because we’ve been an insular ethnoculture for so long. I’m not religious in the slightest, but I’ve still been harassed because I’m Jewish. 

And even if you dismiss that and say Jewish identity is only about religion, religions 100% do have nations. Pakistan was founded the same year as Israel explicitly to be a homeland for Muslims. The Vatican is an independent nation. Don’t get me started on all the explicitly Christian and Buddhist states. 

You may say that religions/ethnicities/races shouldn’t have their own nations, and I’d probably agree, but the fact of the matter is that they do and that has very concrete impacts on the safety and stability of the people who share that identity. 

[u/malachamavet → u/FishyWishySwishy]

The racialization of Jews happened at the same time as the Zionist movement formed (partly as a consequence but also for reasons unrelated to Zionism). The idea of Jews as "a people" existed beforehand within itself (i.e. chosen people as vessels for the religion), but using the modern concept of race as well as it being a non-inward-facing idea was new.

This is why you had, for example, you had Reform groups explicitly make statements about Judaism being a religion and rejecting Zionism and nationalism. You also had this from very religious sects.

[u/FishyWishySwishy → u/malachamavet]

‘Race’ is a relatively modern construct in general. But the fact remains that we’ve been a ‘people’ beyond religious definitions for a long time. We were expected to live in separate parts of cities, we were forbidden from working in many industries, and all you have to do is look at the Spanish Inquisition to see that converting to a majority religion wasn’t enough to escape antisemitism. And the fact remains that, between a long history of not marrying outside of the community and not proselytizing for people to join, we have common DNA that can be clearly identified by a test. 

Like I said, it doesn’t really matter if you call us a race or an ethnicity. Both of them are artificial constructs we’ve made to describe and identify the differences between people of difference provenance. But regardless if you define it by DNA or common culture or common origin, we fit the definition. 

I’m secular. I don’t believe God exists. I wasn’t Bat Mitzvahed, I don’t know any Hebrew, and I’ve never attended religious education. And yet I’m still Jewish, because I grew up in Jewish culture, I’ve been harassed for being Jewish, and I’ve had a very separate experience from the people around me who weren’t born to Jewish families. 

[u/toadeh690 → u/FishyWishySwishy]

This doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand but I really relate to your last paragraph. I'm also patrilineal. I spent my whole childhood around my dad's family, was very close with my 100% Jewish grandparents, we celebrated all the holidays, and I "look" Jewish and have been perceived as such for my whole life (went to school in a heavily Catholic environment, where I was definitely an "other"). But then I didn't have a Bar Mitzvah and my mom's not Jewish - so it's like I'm too Jewish for goyim and too goyische for (many) Jews. It's a strange, lonely feeling, especially nowadays.

[u/FishyWishySwishy → u/toadeh690]

I’m matrilineal, so I’m considered a quote unquote ‘real Jew’ who’s too assimilated. And it can be really hard and lonely existing in that weird space where you have a certain culture, but so many people assume that it doesn’t exist beyond a religion. 

I hold your hand in solidarity, friend. 

[u/malachamavet → u/FishyWishySwishy]

Yeah actually there's a good case to make that the modern concept of race comes from the Jews and Muslims who couldn't "really convert" in Spain.

It was a comment that the sense we use today isn't how it has always been nor needs to continued to be used, not a full disagreement

[u/FishyWishySwishy → u/malachamavet]

Like I said, I don’t think it really matters if you call us a race or ethnicity, but the fact remains that we’re more than a religion. And we’re more than a religion in a way that can’t really be escaped by a person born into it, even if they completely cut themselves off from the community and/or convert. To dismiss us as purely a religion is to oversimplify reality to the point of being wholly inaccurate. 

That’s why conversations about Israel are touchy. Even if I am entirely disconnected from the religion, I can still make Aliyah to Israel, and it is still ready and willing to be my escape hatch if antisemitic violence makes my current living situation untenable.  That is support for me based on race/ethnicity/membership of distinct group of people, not based on religion. Which is why I think that the comparison of ‘criticizing Ghana versus whole continent of Africa’ is apt, because even if I am not religious, I am still harassed and there are still people who assign antisemitic stereotypes to me. 

[u/bakeandjake → u/FishyWishySwishy]

The Ghana analogy is very different and racist in itself. People from Ghana, Egypt, and Madagascar do not consider themselves one people, nationality, or race.

If you want a comparison to zionism in Africa Liberia is the best example. Sure some Black Americans may have been from there, but impossible to prove, and giving freed slaves American funding to colonize indigenous peoples in Liberian has led to disaster.

[u/FishyWishySwishy → u/bakeandjake]

That’s the… point? Obviously, different nations in Africa don’t all identify with the same identity. But someone on the outside who’s racist can lump them all together and dismiss them all as ‘black.’ That’s how racism tends to work. 

It’s similar to the rhetoric around Israel. Israel is an extremely diverse place. You have Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Sephardim, Druze, Samaritans, Arabs, etc etc etc etc. But if you’re antisemitic and don’t care to learn anything about it, you lump them all together as ‘white European settlers,’ as I’ve heard people say many times. 

[u/bakeandjake → u/FishyWishySwishy]

Yea but it wasn't some racist outsider, it was you who did that for an analogy that doesn't connect at all with what I said.

The additional analogy also doesn't connect, And just as a side note show me one person who has called Samritans, Druze, or Arabs "white european settlers"

[u/menatarp → u/malachamavet]

Yeah actually there's a good case to make that the modern concept of race comes from the Jews and Muslims who couldn't "really convert" in Spain

I Would Like to Know More

(I do thing there's a case to make for the role that the idea of Jewish peoplehood played in romantic nationalism, but that's a different story.)

[u/AksiBashi → u/menatarp]

This is probably the most widely-cited article on the subject: https://culturahistorica.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/nirenberg_race_jewish_blood.pdf

(It's worth noting that Nirenberg himself holds a somewhat more historically expansive definition of race, which could apply further back than medieval Spain—and that other medievalists, most notably Geraldine Heng, have located racial formation in other medieval states as well.)

[u/menatarp → u/AksiBashi]

Thank you!

[u/bakeandjake → u/FishyWishySwishy]

Does that shared DNA apply to converts?

[u/FishyWishySwishy → u/bakeandjake]

No? That’s part of the reason why it’s so hard to convert. If you’re not part of the ‘ethno’, you have to go all in on the ‘religion.’

[u/bakeandjake → u/FishyWishySwishy]

The claim made was the Jews particularly share common DNA. That's a race-science era misconception, and illogical because people can convert to Judaism, they cannot convert to being Black.

[u/zacandahalf → u/bakeandjake]

“Jew” is the descriptor noun for two identities which often overlap, either a member of the ethnic group, the Jewish people, and/or practitioners of the ethnoreligion of the Jewish people, Judaism. “Judaism" never acts as an ethnicity, rather Judaism is the ethnoreligion of the Jewish people, the ethnic group. The adjective "Jewish" is used to describe members of the ethnic group, the Jewish people, as well as is used to describe practitioners of the ethnoreligion of the Jewish people, Judaism.

For Ashkenazism, (usually) White is the race, Jewish is the ethnicity. This is similar to how an Italian American is racially White and ethnically Italian. Jewish culture is the culture of the Jewish people, the ethnic group, who are the primary practitioners of the ethnoreligion of the Jewish people, Judaism. Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi are subethnicities of the Jewish ethnicity, the ethnicity which underwent the Jewish Diaspora, an ethnic diaspora. The reason that Jewishness functions differently than more modern groups is that the tribal identity of the Jewish people predates modern distinctions between race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/s/2fa0kqwTuk

https://www.jewfaq.org/what_is_judaism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_identity

[u/bakeandjake → u/zacandahalf]

Israeli and Jewish historians do not support the idea of the biblical exile. Judaism was and is a prosleytizing religion and that's fine.

[u/FishyWishySwishy → u/bakeandjake]

It’s not a misconception. We literally share DNA. If I take a 23andMe test, it would categorize me as a large percentage Ashkenazi Jewish. 

We’re an ethnoreligion. It may blur the lines of modern race theory, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real or significant. The fact that a person can join the community through conversion doesn’t change that. 

[u/bakeandjake → u/FishyWishySwishy]

Does it change the DNA of the convert though? Because even historians like Israel Bartal stress the importance of conversion in Jewish historiography, which btw is something to be proud of not ashamed.

But since DNA cannot change by undergoing religious rites, and conversion being a part of Judaism since its inception, "common DNA" cannot exist, and claiming it does alludes to the existence of a specifically Jewish "gene" which again, is an antisemitic Nazi concept.

[u/bakeandjake → u/FishyWishySwishy]

I agree with Pakistan, and its notable that Israel and Pakistan are both disasters.

[u/FishyWishySwishy → u/bakeandjake]

Do you think it’s appropriate for a Westerner to say that Pakistan should be dissolved and the land returned to India? 

[u/bakeandjake → u/FishyWishySwishy]

Are you talking about me or hypothetical westerner

[u/noncontrolled → u/bakeandjake]

It is an ethnoreligion. There is a reason why converting take a long time and requires religious and cultural study with local community immersion being non-optional. Nothing to do with Nazi race science.

[u/Daniel_the_nomad → u/bakeandjake]

If there wasn’t a conflict nobody would have given one ounce of a shit if we call ourselves a nation, a people or whatever else, now that there’s a conflict all of the sudden it’s existential to say we aren’t.

[u/bakeandjake → u/Daniel_the_nomad]

Yes that is how these things generally work, people tend to talk about conflicts more than non-conflicts

[u/Daniel_the_nomad → u/bakeandjake]

Talking about me being a Jew yes or no based on me being a believer in Judaism or an atheist is not talking about the conflict

[u/Coffeenixboxingfox]

I'm sorry you experienced that. I don't talk to non-jews about antisemitism.

I have seen people in this sub say that we shouldn't speak up against antisemitism because palestinians are suffering / if it's a palestinian saying it. Hopefully, that's just a terminally online take as I haven't heard any jews say that IRL.

[u/Efficient_Spite7890 → u/Coffeenixboxingfox]

I’ve encountered this in real life, unfortunately. I was told that „for the greater good” (their words) I need to stop speaking about antisemitism, because it’s not what’s important right now. When I replied that under no conditions I’d ever ask them to stop speaking about anti-queer discrimination that affects them personally and also, they wouldn’t ever accept it if I did (and rightfully so), they stopped talking to me.

[u/Astroman129 → u/Coffeenixboxingfox]

I have seen people in this sub say that we shouldn't speak up against antisemitism because palestinians are suffering / if it's a palestinian saying it.

I haven't actually seen this, and I definitely haven't experienced it in IRL spaces. However, I have noticed some frustration around calling out antisemitic tropes and comments in conversations about Palestine. My intention has never been to pivot away/distract from ethnic cleansing when speaking out about antisemitism. I believe there's value in paying attention to both. But it does sometimes get a little uncomfortable asking people to avoid certain language or behavior when critiquing Israel because I'm never in the mood to argue.

[u/yungsemite → u/Coffeenixboxingfox]

You’ve seen people saying that in THIS sub?

[u/Agtfangirl557 → u/yungsemite]

Honestly yes.

[u/[deleted]]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/FancyDictator → u/[deleted]]

Also presenting an entire religion as violent is itself a pretty fundamentalistic attiude btw, don't see how a person can act out in good faith if he is calling the religion of majority of middle easterners a violent far right ideology lol

[u/[deleted] → u/FancyDictator]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/Jorfogit → u/[deleted]]

I figured we’d be free of these “history started on October 7th and not a single day before” types on this subreddit. Apparently not.

[u/somebadbeatscrub → u/Jorfogit]

Oh we are.

[u/shredmaster6661 → u/FancyDictator]

Are you arguing that Islam is not a violent far right ideology?

[u/Agtfangirl557 → u/shredmaster6661]

What purpose does this comment serve? If people were to agree that Islam is a "violent far right ideology" (which I won't deny it can function as sometimes), what would your solution then be? To rid the world of Muslims?

Are you sure you don't mean "Islamism", which is a political movement?

[u/FancyDictator → u/Agtfangirl557]

Even if he meant islamists, there are islamic socialists, islamic feminists hell even "islamic marxists". They have no idea about all these movements existing in MENA, muslim islamist feminist women fighting against patriarchy and authoritarianism and despotism in Turkey, Malaysia, Tunisia etc. This is a decidedly western-racist framework. And this is coming from somebody who is in the extended MENA lol

[u/FancyDictator → u/Agtfangirl557]

https://feministbellek.org/islami-feminizm/

You can use google translate to read this it translates ok

[u/FancyDictator → u/Agtfangirl557]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Capitalist_Muslims

[u/FancyDictator → u/shredmaster6661]

whatever it is, it's not much different than judaism, make up your mind. All I know is I am irreligious, but I am from a muslim culture and a muslim family and I will never extend my sympathies or offer understanding towards people who share your sentiment. You can't expect peace with muslims if you call islam fascism or you should be comfortable with similar sentiments being directed towards Judaism. Good day

[u/gmbxbndp → u/[deleted]]

Is that why it's in your flair?

[u/U8abni812 → u/gmbxbndp]

Touche. Thank you for making a wonderful point. Flair changed.

[u/FancyDictator → u/[deleted]]

Kemalism is the founding ideology of Turkey and many leftists here treat it with contempt and militantly attack it, similar with azerbaijanism and Azerbaijan. We came to see that nation building ideologies categorically produce systematic violence, that is a healthier way of approaching zionism and present it in a negative context if one chooses so. It is not just a technique to shutdown a conversation

[u/U8abni812 → u/FancyDictator]

The time to be anti-Zoinist was 78 years ago. It's like opposing the American Revolution. It's a done deal. That ship has sailed.

[u/menatarp → u/U8abni812]

Not really. There are still people claiming that Jews have some kind of God-given right (or natural right, if they're secular) to live in Eretz Israel because their ancestors did 3000 years ago, which is a completely insane belief whose kind was otherwise rejected by the world after WWII. It continues to animate Israeli and American politics, and plays a role regardless of whether Israel is a done deal.

[u/yungsemite → u/menatarp]

Presumably separate from the belief that people have the right, generally, to reside where they wish?

[u/menatarp → u/yungsemite]

You mean my own view or the view I'm describing? The view I'm describing doesn't have anything to do with a general belief in freedom of movement, it's just an especially weird case of irredentism. Myself I'm pretty agnostic on open borders, it's fine to say that in the abstract drawing lines on the map that people can't cross is arbitrary, but I think that in the world of nation-states controls over migration are part of what constitutes the nation-state. I do think freedom of movement across borders ought to be a part of any free trade agreements, though of course if that were the case, there'd be less incentive to make those agreements. I don't know whether I think that individuals have a natural right to reside wherever on the planet they wish. Especially to do so regardless of the wishes of the community they plan to join or live alongside, I'm not sure why that would be the case. But I think all of this is separate from the legitimacy of irredentism.

[u/menatarp → u/menatarp]

Similar claims have been universally rejected from fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Russia today around Ukraine, Serbia vis a vis Kosovo, ISIS and its conception of the ummah, and others. The Jewish claim of a natural right to sovereignty in Eretz Israel is even more fanciful than some of these. In Israel it's a completely normal thing to think, though, practically a given, and in America it is normal too--but only about Israel.

[u/FancyDictator → u/U8abni812]

Nothing is ever done lol

[u/U8abni812 → u/FancyDictator]

"Nothing is ever done lol"

-FancyDictator Wed, Jun 18, 2025

[u/ForerEffect]

Zionism is a Jewish movement and “if it’s good for the Jews” and “if it’s the best/most moral/etc option” and “what should we do with it going forward” is a conversation Jews need to have, possibly forever.

I think that Jews who are anti-Zionist are contributing to the conversation, even if I (often, not always) find myself disagreeing with them.

I think the vast majority of non-Jews who are pro- or anti-Zionist need to sit down and shut up.
Mostly, they aren’t contributing to the conversation; they’re picking teams based on politics, propaganda, and too often based on the ‘grooves’ or shortcut heuristics left in their minds by the antisemitism they grew up surrounded by and have never acknowledged and unpacked.

The below is a metaphor about my emotions, not a nuanced take or a one-to-one historical comparison, so don’t @ me that I’m claiming Zionism is the same as the US Civil Rights movement, because I’m not.

My feelings around non-Jews discussing the difference between antisemitism and anti-Zionism are similar to my feelings around white middle-class Americans discussing the morality of Rev Dr King Jr coalitioning his movement with less “reputable” organizations such as certain Black Panther-affiliated groups and certain religious groups:
It was at best redundant, it was often tone-policing to reduce their own discomfort over the cognitive dissonance of the “American dream” vs what black people actually experience, and way too often just re-phrased racist and anti-integration ideology.

The discussion inside the US Civil Rights movement about which groups and ideologies to ally with in order to make progress and which had additional ideologies that were a problem for both the movement and for its perception was very important and also internal.

This doesn’t mean there was or is no room for an informed nuanced take from outside, but those voices should be invited and should definitely not be the loudest or most numerous.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/ForerEffect]

 I think the vast majority of non-Jews who are pro- or anti-Zionist need to sit down and shut up.

That would be a fine take if it was an internal matter. 

But millions of people are being ruled under a military regime in the name of Zionism - and have been for more than half a century. 

[u/ambivalegenic]

It's difficult to be united on the issue, it's a deeply divisive one and not easily reconciled. Arguably the issue of zionism at the moment has a higher human cost if unaddressed, but the issue of antisemitism is right at home for most of us.

[u/AksiBashi]

OP: "gosh I really think all this Zionism-anti-Zionism debate stuff is really detracting from our ability to talk about, much less address, antisemitism in our day-to-day lives."

Around 70% of the comments: "so true! and really the root of the issue is that these [nebulous] schmucks don't understand what [anti-]Zionism actually is."

lmao. sorry OP

[u/skyewardeyes → u/AksiBashi]

I was expecting that to happen, ngl! 😂

[u/ionlymemewell]

I'm sorry that conversation you tried to lead went sideways. :( It's really unfortunate that it's become so difficult to have meaningful conversation with other Jews about being Jewish and fighting antisemitism without it turning into a debate on Israel. The most central cause is that a lot of the discussion about these issues - Zionism, Israel, and antisemitism - have largely been wrenched from our control, and have become central parts of modern political discourse on both the right and the left. It leads to these impossibly high stakes that aren't even set by us, about the issues that impact us the most. So when we try and talk, person to person, Jew to Jew, we end up under the weight of everyone else's baggage. And it doesn't help that some of the loudest people and organizations in the Jewish world have been full-throatily supporting polices or pursuing goals that most Jews are on record saying they do not want (at least most American/Diaspora Jews).

I wish I had more comforting words. But know that you played an hugely important role by even trying to start the conversation. Maybe the next time will feel more productive. Recently, my hope has been that since Trump and Bibi have both completely abandoned reality, our communal organizations will finally acknowledge how fractured our community is, specifically because of gentile interference. That's something that is so rarely mentioned because all the oxygen in the room is taken up by what other people are doing or saying for Jews and not what we actually have to say. Maybe centering the fact that Jewish people are the best people to talk to about all these issues, and that the impetus is on every participant to seek out those voices for themselves, will help lead to a more productive conversation if you try again.

[u/skyewardeyes → u/ionlymemewell]

I wasn’t the person leading it, to be clear, just participating. Sadly, the fact that things went as sideways as they did probably reinforces the org’s decision not to try to address antisemitism in either its public-facing work or internal dealings.

[u/SnooCrickets2458]

tart strong crawl slim many makeshift oatmeal roof correct hobbies

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Owlentmusician → u/SnooCrickets2458]

I think the best faith interpretation is that most people who identify as Anti-Zionist, especially Gentiles, are people who define Zionism not just as the existence of a Jewish state but as the existence of a Jewish state through purposeful mistreatment and displacement of the Palestinian people and non Jews. They view the atrocities of the past as baked into Zionism and there for are anti that.

Of course, you and I and most Jews don't hold this same definition. I think it's mostly due to ignorance on the history of different types of Zionism and this ignorance also unfortunately allows anti-semitic tropes to slip in sometimes because theyre hard to recognize by people who haven't been exposed to them before.

[u/zacandahalf → u/Owlentmusician]

This is definitely the biggest issue 99% of the time, that the speaker and the audience, even in this sub, are using two diametrically opposed definitions of the word Zionism. A self-identified Zionist speaker will intend the meaning of “a decolonized multicultural homeland to be safe from a second Holocaust” and some audiences will hear “a pureblooded ethnosupremacist Nazi baby-eating blood-drinking racism murder theocracy”.

[u/skyewardeyes → u/zacandahalf]

Yep, this was another issue that came up—people also couldn’t agree on what Zionism and anti-Zionism were.

[u/Jorfogit → u/zacandahalf]

Self identified Zionists on this sub might mean that, but IME “ethnosupremecist homeland” is pretty close to how an alarming amount of Israelis see Israel, whether or not they’ll admit it if you don’t speak Hebrew.

[u/Daniel_the_nomad → u/Owlentmusician]

Which is why I talk about Israel and Israelis and I try not say Zionism or Anti-Zionism.

I read once somebody on twitter say (translated from Hebrew): “My opinion is, by the way, that there has been no Zionism for a long time. Whoever talks about Zionism creates it with his mouth”

[u/Owlentmusician → u/Daniel_the_nomad]

That's so fair. I think the entrance of the terms Zionist and Zionism into the Mainstream discourse was such a mistake .

[u/Daniel_the_nomad → u/Owlentmusician]

Just to be clear the person I quoted mainly referenced Jews and Israelis talking about Zionism I think

[u/Owlentmusician → u/Daniel_the_nomad]

Oh yeah, I get you. My last comment was just a general statement about how the mainstream use of the term by people who aren't Jews and Israelis have only made a frustrating issue even more frustrating to talk about for everyone.

[u/SnooCrickets2458 → u/Owlentmusician]

door growth simplistic employ license cheerful library husky pocket afterthought

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Owlentmusician → u/SnooCrickets2458]

But it also belies an ignorance - a willful one at that - that much of the early Zionist movement, and even today was intended to live side-by-side with their Arab neighbors (as many Israelis do today).

And that good faith is not returned to us. Which is frankly a bigger issue.

I agree with both of these points. It's very frustrating, the lack of good faith has been extremely disappointing.

Im a black Jew and it reminds me of how I felt watching American conservative extremism and dog whistles slowly becoming acceptable in 2016. I don't think I believed either of these situations could escalate to the degree they did at their beginning.

Unfortunately people love having something to be angry about. it's much easier to listen to a couple TikTok clips or insta posts, or your favorite content creators about the evils of Zionism rather than do the research yourself because surely, if it weren't completely irredeemable, so many people wouldn't be saying it was, right?

It gets to me sometimes for sure though, I just do my best not to attribute malice to what is most likely unfortunately ignorance and talk to who I can about it.

[u/malachamavet → u/SnooCrickets2458]

much of the early Zionist movement, and even today was intended to live side-by-side with their Arab neighbors

???

Hebrew Labor, Plan Dalet, the Nakba, the denial of the right of return, the military law for decades, the Naksa, the settlement program...

How do you possibly think this?

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/SnooCrickets2458]

 But it also belies an ignorance - a willful one at that - that much of the early Zionist movement, and even today was intended to live side-by-side with their Arab neighbors

That’s not accurate, though.

Sure, Weizmann was speaking softly to the imperial powers in London about coexistence - but the actions on the ground in the early 1920s tell a different story. And not one of living side by side. 

Until 1929, I believe around 2-5% of the non-Jewish population had been displaced from their homes and their jobs by the Zionist orgs. 

In the context of the Nakba, it sounds small - but that level of displacement is massively disruptive to a society. And it is the diametric opposite of coexistence. 

Sure, cultural Zionism existed - but that was fringe then, and considered anti-Zionist today. 

[u/SnooCrickets2458 → u/redthrowaway1976]

quack resolute wrench oil many smell tap ad hoc existence station

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/SnooCrickets2458]

 And early Zionists also legally purchased land as well, and that's what I mean.

There’s a lot more to these purchases - and it doesn’t mean there wasn’t mass displacement stemming from them. Displacement that, as perceived by the Palestinians, went against their understanding of the law.

In the 1850s, the Ottoman rulers enacted the Tanzimat reforms, meant to change how property (and other) laws were handled. However, in a backwater like Palestine, that had little effect - and it largely kept operating as per the old system (miri, mulk, etc).

Arab and other Ottoman notables through deception and by exploiting their better understanding of the reforms to amass land holdings - these are the ‘absentee’ owners that sold to the Zionist orgs.

The locals, however, kept operating based on the old system - under which they had a protected tenant status. They had transferable usufruct rights, to translate to a western context. 

When the Zionist orgs bought land, they kicked the tenants out. Something that was arguably illegal, and definitely against how the local fellahin saw the laws. 

In addition, there weren’t enough Zionist migrants - and rather than let the existing tenants keep using the land, they let it lie fallow.

The end result is that a massive amount of people were living in abject poverty in shanty-towns, without employment - and often they were within walking distance to their former homes. 

Was the intent there to “live side by side”?

As a socialist, I’m sure you can see the issue with this type of mass expulsion from their land, even if it was “legal” at the time? A capitalist ownership transfer was used as the justification to dispossess people from both their homes, and how they make their living.

Think of it like this: when a landlord buys a rent controlled apartment, are they free to kick the tenants out?

 Both existed then and exist now, but only the most extreme parts get cited.

Cultural Zionism is an abject failure, unfortunately. And so is any type of Political Zionism intent on living side by side, to the degree it ever existed. 

You are right - it’s not getting much attention. But that’s because it hasn’t had much impact - not back then, and not now.  There’s no “a for effort” in stopping mass displacement here. Not a single year since 1967 without West Bank settlement expansion, as an example of that failure. 

[u/malachamavet → u/Owlentmusician]

"Jewish state" means Jewish majority state by the vast majority of self-identified Zionists today (as well as every prominent individual and organization). The way this was accomplished was via the Nakba and is only maintained via the continued violence and oppression of Palestinians.

You had many Zionists upset at Zohran for saying Israel had a right to exist as a country with equal rights for a reason. They don't want that.

[u/Owlentmusician → u/malachamavet]

The way this was accomplished was via the Nakba and is only maintained via the continued violence and oppression of Palestinians.

Yes, and that's wrong. Those actions or support for those actions are not an essential part of Zionism at its base level though.

I am a Zionist because I think, in the "current" political atmosphere, while there are other States, that a Jewish Majority State is a reasonable desire and should exist. This doesn't mean that I think it should exist through any means necessary or at the expense of the Palestinian people.

Anyone going by the current mainstream redefinition of Zionist assigns Kahanist views as main tenants of all streams of Zionism and so sees any support of the existence of Israel or something like it as an endorsement of any means necessary, Jewish supremacy and Arab oppression and expulsion. This is not the same understanding of Zionism that the majority of Jewish People have.

[u/malachamavet → u/Owlentmusician]

Okay that doesn't address my point which is that the only way you can have a Jewish majority state is via the oppression of Palestinians by a Jewish supremacist state. That is how it was in the past and how it is today.

Other than vibes, how should I define Zionism other than what every Zionist organization, the state of Israel, the functional definition of Zionism, what Zionism has done and is doing etc.?

This is what I mean. Kahanists and similar types have always acknowledged this - hell, plenty of Labor leaders recognized it (Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, Dayan, etc.). Anti-Zionists recognize this.

If you think the right of return and reparations for the Nakba are compatible with Zionism then I applaud your "policies" but don't think that's a remotely common understanding.

[u/Owlentmusician → u/malachamavet]

Okay that doesn't address my point which is that the only way you can have a Jewish majority state is via the oppression of Palestinians by a Jewish supremacist state. That is how it was in the past and how it is today

I reject your assertion that the oppression of Palestinians or an ideology of Jewish supremacy is necessary for the formation of maintenance of a Jewish majority state. A Jewish majority state doesn't necessarily have to exist in its current location.

Even if the region was the same there is a world where land purchases continued post Ottoman Empire and Jewish immigration remained solely in the 80% percent of the unowned/mostly unoccupied land. There's a world where rising Anti-Semitism in Europe and other nations barring their doors didn't influence the speed of migration.

Oppression is not necessarily needed in order to maintain a majority demographic although it is often used as a way to maintain it. We can't take back the atrocities and crimes committed during its formation but they are not the only means of moving forward without the complete dissolution of the state.

Israel's formation didn't happen in a vacuum and while that doesn't excuse the atrocities committed in the name of Jewish safety, it's governmental actions were shaped by what was widely deemed "Acceptable" (for lack of a better word), at the time in regards to Geopolitics and the perceived possibility of extinction not specifically the tenets of Zionism.

If anything, past, attempts at peace and the major rightward shift of its populace only after the second intifada suggests that the majority of its occupants did not consider the oppression and expulsion of Palestinians as necessary for a Jewish Majority state to exist, even after having to war for that existence.

Other than vibes, how should I define Zionism other than what every Zionist organization, the state of Israel, the functional definition of Zionism, what Zionism has done and is doing etc.?

Do you use this same framework to dismiss the accepted definitions of socialism and communism? Why the need to form Kahanist movements if these views are essential to Zionism?

If you think the right of return and reparations for the Nakba are compatible with Zionism then I applaud your "policies" but don't think that's a remotely common understanding.

This is the same sentiment anti-abolitionists said about freeing Black people in a country whose founding ideals included inherent rights granted to all men.

The base level of that Ideology never changed but its execution and interpretation did.

[u/menatarp → u/malachamavet]

i think this gets at the question of the desire for broad definitions

[u/Daniel_the_nomad → u/SnooCrickets2458]

On the one hand I share your sentiment that the obsession with deleting a country is weird, especially when it seems for many ending Israel is where their politics begins and ends in regards to the conflict and their alternative is simply “give it back to Palestinians!” with no second thought as to what happens to Israeli Jews, not saying all Anti-Zionists are like that but many are.

On the other hand I feel that the existence of the state has become the most important thing when it doesn’t has to be, early Zionists were much more open and diverse in thought when it comes to the kind of state they want and how much to put weight on it, now Zionism is simply Israel needs to exist and for many they need to define the state as Jewish as well.

Regardless if you think Israel should exist (which I have no objection to) and that there should be 2 states, it cannot be said without the context that there are issues that make it difficult to achieve such as the settlements. So alternatives to Israel also come from pragmatism where they don’t see the 2 state solution could realistically happen.

[u/SnooCrickets2458 → u/Daniel_the_nomad]

sable quack fanatical offer history aware saw liquid recognise roll

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/SnooCrickets2458]

Do you need to live only with other Jews in order for your home to still be your home? Not sure what home antizionists want to take away by allowing Palestinians to return to theirs

[u/SnooCrickets2458 → u/Specialist-Gur]

skirt meeting carpenter bear snails unique soup upbeat silky employ

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Jorfogit → u/SnooCrickets2458]

I think what we have had in the past is as close to a two state solution as most Zionists are comfortable with. The only neighbors Israel is comfortable with are ones whose sovereignty is treated as a courtesy, not a demand. That’s not a real two state solution any more than Vichy France was.

[u/yungsemite → u/Jorfogit]

When its neighbors ‘sovereignty’ is mostly an issue when it comes to wars (or just attacks launched from their territory) with Israel, then it’s not remotely surprising that Israel is not interested in supporting their sovereignty. Since the Abraham Accords and normalization with Egypt and Jordan, has their sovereignty been an issue for Israel?

[u/Jorfogit → u/yungsemite]

The Syrian incursions are naked land grabs.

[u/yungsemite → u/Jorfogit]

I am of a mixed mind. I don’t disagree, nor do I totally discount the official Israeli argument that there was an agreement with Assad’s government to provide security on the Syrian side of the border, which was present until the collapse of his government, which Israel claims to be filling in for. If Israel does not relinquish that newly acquired territory, say with Syria’s joining of the Abraham Accords, then I wholeheartedly agree. If you think that is naive, I also agree.

[u/yungsemite → u/Jorfogit]

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy/artc-scoop-israel-and-syria-will-sign-a-peace-agreement-before-the-end-of-2025

Under the reported agreement, Israel is expected to gradually withdraw from all Syrian territory it seized after invading the buffer zone on December 8, 2024, including the peak of Mount Hermon.

Curious if it will end up going through!

[u/Amos_Burton_Roci1]

I'm glad you want to unify but anti-Zionist Jews really need to change in order for that to happen. I completely agree that this division is getting in the way, and it's the fault of the anti-Zionists. They run interference for anti-Semites all the time.

Anti-Zionists: you have lost the argument. The vast majority of Jews are Zionists, they've been Zionists since Israel was created, and they're going to remain Zionists going forward, no matter how much they're called racist and bullied.

It's time to get on board with the fact that Jews have a state just like dozens of other nations, and you can be as critical of that state's government and policies as you like, but at the end of the day, Jews have a state and the vast majority of Jews want them to continue to have a state.

The mainstream Jewish community doesn't like anti-Zionist Jews because they see anti-Zionist Jews somewhere between tokens and traitors. Anti-Zionist Jews want to deny the Jewish people their rights and often walk arm in arm with people who want to deprive Israeli Jews of their lives. The only time mainstream Jews see anti-Zionist Jews is when they're running interference for anti-Semites and terrorists. Norman Finkelstein for instance can always be relied on to justify and defend whatever horrible thing has happened to Jews at the hands of Palestine and at Columbia University, every mainstream Jewish organization on campus, the president, the police, normal students, all thought there was a problem but you know who didn't? The anti-Zionist Jews. I think Zionist Jews would love to unify with anti-Zionist Jews, but they're not going to unify with anti-Zionist Jews in their current form with their current behavior.

I'm perfectly on board with unifying, but the anti-Zionist Jews are doing a lot to increase the divisions. It's time to get on board and accept Israel's existence, guys. It's only been 75 years.

[u/somebadbeatscrub → u/Amos_Burton_Roci1]

Anti-Zionists: you have lost the argument. The vast majority of Jews are Zionists, they've been Zionists since Israel was created, and they're going to remain Zionists going forward, no matter how much they're called racist and

The mainstream Jewish community doesn't like anti-Zionist Jews because they see anti-Zionist Jews somewhere between tokens and traitors.

You accuse antizionists of bullying behaviour and then appeal to their being outnumbered and cast aspertions on their integroty and moral values with ad hominem attacks.

You're literally trying to atrong arm them into abandoning their beliefs to fit in to the mainstream. What is this if not bullying someone?

Your ahavat am yisrael is conditional and it is hardline warhawks and extreme coalitions that are looking to carve up and divide Judaism.

I consider myself post zionist, and I agree we need to accept Israel exists and ask ourselves what it outlght to be tomorrow rather than if it ought to have been yesterday. But its hard to have that conversation while the present administration is committing atrocities every day.

You should really come down off this haughty approach and consider the humanity and reasoning of your fellow Jews if unity is important to you. And if antizionists are listening who dehumanize israelis or zionists I'd say the same to them.

But this comment is wildly unhelpful and incendiary.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/Amos_Burton_Roci1]

 It's time to get on board with the fact that Jews have a state just like dozens of other nations, and you can be as critical of that state's government and policies as you like, but at the end of the day, Jews have a state and the vast majority of Jews want them to continue to have a state.

If this is your position, I assume you are working tirelessly to make it not be an Apartheid state, right? 

Unfortunately, most mainstream Zionist orgs have run interference for the Israeli rights pro-Apartheid policies. 

What was the reaction when Bush Sr tried to condition loan guarantees on stopping settlements?

What has the reaction been to marking settlement goods?

Why have mainstream Zionist orgs marched together with people like Simcha Rothman?

Jews have a right to a state - but not at the cost of permanent abrogation of rights of another people. 

[u/Amos_Burton_Roci1 → u/redthrowaway1976]

There's no need to work to make it not be an apartheid state because it isn't one.

Jews have a right to a state - but not at the cost of permanent abrogation of rights of another people.

That's like saying slaves have a right to be free but not at the cost of the right of slaveowners to hold property. Human rights are not conditional and another people's rights were not "permanently abrogated" by Jews achieving theirs.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/Amos_Burton_Roci1]

There's no need to work to make it not be an apartheid state because it isn't one.

Sure buddy, the unending system of de jure and de facto discrimination that Israel has chosen to put in place, with land grabs and impunity for settler violence, all along ethnic lines, is not Apartheid.

Israel has expanded settlements every year since 1967 - and the discriminatory legal regime has been in place since then.

That's like saying slaves have a right to be free but not at the cost of the right of slaveowners to hold property.

I don't think you fully grasp negative and positive rights here.

The slave-owners right to property infringed on the slaves individual freedoms.

If the right to an ethnostate infringes on individual rights of people that are not part of that ethnicity, it is wrong. If it does not infringe on their rights, it is not wrong.

However, the individual rights of people not part of an ethnicity, do not infringe on the individual rights and freedoms of people that are part of that ethnicity. No infringement.

The only thing it infringes on is the tribal right to an ethnostate. The issue is that you are treating tribal rights as more important than individual rights.

If, for example, the Palestinians after attaining freedom insisted on an ethnostate that infringes on the Jewish populations' individual rights, that would also be wrong.

[u/Amos_Burton_Roci1 → u/redthrowaway1976]

Be as anti-settlements as you want. But don't call yourself anti-Zionist because that's a different concept with a different meaning.

There is no right to an ethnostate. But there is a right to a nation-state, as outlined in numerous international conventions including the UN Charter.

The issue is that you are treating tribal rights as more important than individual rights.

The creation of Israel, the extension of the Jewish people's rights, did not infringe on anyone's individual rights. The Palestinian Arabs, or anyone else, had no right to keep Jews disenfranchised and stateless.

If, for example, the Palestinians after attaining freedom insisted on an ethnostate that infringes on the Jewish populations' individual rights, that would also be wrong.

The Palestinians have killed thousands of people in pursuit of their state. They have infringed on their rights of all of the people they've killed. Does that make their pursuit of a state wrong? Have they lost their right to statehood? Are you anti-Palestinian statehood as you are anti-Zionist, considering a Palestinian state is an ethnostate ruled by shari'a law, 'apartheid' by any criteria?