That’s like saying “I know the term ‘patriot’ as referring to the republican party in the US”.
Like, yes, the right tries to take over the term, thus making all other parties “anti-Zionists”/“anti-patriotic”. But in reality the term crosses political boundaries.
If anything, the far-religious-right parties are the only (non-Arab) parties that don’t refer to themselves as Zionists (they have some issues with Zionism being a secular movent)
The Wikipedia article isn’t really something I, as someone who’d describe himself as a Zionist, would agree too.
I’m not going to go through every point, but talking about Zionism in terms of ethnicity is… weird. Like, that’s technically right, in the scene that the Jewish people are “A group of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups.” (link), but you’re trying to use it in the context of race, and that’s factually wrong. Israel are probably is one of the most racially diverse countries in the world.
The translated Hebrew Wikipedia article hits closer to home IMO:
Zionism is a national movement and ideology that aims to establish a national home state for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The Zionist movement, as a Jewish national movement, arose in the last third of the 19th century, mainly in Central and Eastern Europe.
Shortly after the establishment of the Zionist movement, most of the movement’s leaders linked its main goal with the renewal of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel - the establishment of a Jewish state. With the establishment of the State of Israel, Zionism continues to work to support Israel, ensure its existence and strengthen it.
The roots of Zionism lie in age-old motives and values inherent in religious tradition on the one hand, and in the national ideologies that flourished in Europe in the 19th century on the other. Zionism as a popular political movement that developed among the Jews in Eastern Europe was spurred by outbreaks of anti-Semitism and was fueled by a process of secularization that intensified among the Jewish population from the mid-19th century, which also gave its signs in the secularization of the two-thousand-year-old religious longing for Zion. The modern world has led to the fact that on the one hand, religion has ceased to be a sufficient identity definer for them. This conflict has led to the creation of a new national self-definition[1].
From its beginning, the goals of Zionism were the return to Zion, the gathering of the exiles, the revival of Hebrew culture and language, the creation of a new Jew – muscular Judaism according to Max Nordau, and the establishment of independent Jewish sovereignty. According to Benjamin Zeev Theodor Herzl, who is considered the thinker of modern Zionism, Zionism is a broad tract of ideas, which includes not only the aspiration for a legally guaranteed political territory for the Jewish people, but also the aspiration for moral and spiritual perfection. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Zionist movement has continued to mainly support Israel and address threats to its existence and security.
From its beginning, Zionism was not homogeneous. Its ideology, leaders, and parties were different from each other and even contradictory. The need of the hour, along with the longing to return to the homeland of the ancestors, led to compromises and concessions for the sake of a common cultural and political goal.
Edit: The English Wikipedia article from mid 2023 is also good:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230312004301/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
My guess is that it’s been revised in the last year-and-a-half to retroactively make what’s happening in Gaza a natural extension of Zionism.
It’s not just the third one. A non-marginal minority of people will be hurt by valid criticism even if it meant to to help them (I’m saying this as a third party observer. This isn’t me telling someone “Hey, you’re an idiot. Whoa, why are you acting offended? I’m just trying to help you be less of an idiot! Wow, some people can’t take constructive criticism”).
I know I’m at the low end of caring what people think about me, and that other people will get offended by some things. That’s fine, not saying they’re wrong to feel one way or another. I just can’t empathize or model the mechanism that makes them feel that way.
Not technically a behavior, but - having hurt feelings over other people expressing their negative opinion about myself.
Like, say someone tells me I look bad of that I acted badly or whatever. I see three options:
I guess it’s some defense mechanism? I can see how that would work with people prone to narcissism, but having ones feeling hurt over things like that seems normalized in (most?) societies.
Oh, also religion. People believe in an all powerful being that personally cares about every person in the world, but is unwilling to reveal itself? Despite having zero corroborating evidence? And he’s responsible for every good thing that happens to me therefore I should see that as proof it exists and believe more, but if something bad happens that’s because I didn’t believe hard enough and should therefore believe more? And you’re sure about that and don’t see how that might be purely because this answers a psychological and social need? I understand I’m exaggerating a bit, and no offense to religious people, but… I don’t get it.
Usually, if someone requests something that annoys me and I’m in a position to refuse, I just go ahead and refuse or outright disregard the request.
Huh?
The smartphone improvements hit a rubber wall a few years ago (disregarding folding screens, that compose a small market share, improvement rate slowed down drastically), and the industry is doing fine. It’s not growing like it use to, but that just means people are keeping their smartphones for longer periods of time, not that people stopped using them.
Even if AI were to completely freeze right now, people will continue using it.
Why are people reacting like AI is going to get dropped?
Your post right there? That’s one of the reasons Harris lost.
Of course people (not just Americans) are selfish. Doesn’t matter if it’s good or not, that’s just the factual truth. The Republicans knew how to work with that, by selling the voters a solution to the things that actually interested them. That’s also what helped Obama (“Hope”, though a bit vague) and Bill Clinton (“It’s the economy, stupid”) get elected (Yes, it also didn’t hurt that they were rock stars). Now the Democrats are perceived not only as a party that’s not willing to work on issues that concern them, but as actually criticizing them for wanting what they want.
Dude, you brought up the comparison between Hamas and Israel and you brought up the IDF investigation. Now you’re acting condescending while trying to straw man the things I said (hint: I never said the IDF is just, nor is it relevant to my argument).
Don’t really see a point continuing the discussion any further, but thanks for answering some of my questions. I do have one more question though - would you say your opinions are representative of the “Pro-Palestinian” crowd in your country?
Counteroffer - try to read what I said with the understanding there might be a difference between what you think “Zionism” is and what Zionism actually is. Not all Zionists would agree with what I said, but then again that’s also one of the thing you probably don’t understand.
First of all, you didn’t address the main point I was making, or answered my question (just wanted to point that out).
The way that Hamas treats Palestinians is partially the responsibility of Netanyahu and the Likud given that they provided Hamas with material support to take power in the first place.
Not really. Netanyahu didn’t provide material support for Hamas, rather allowed Qatar to materially support them (Yet somehow I don’t see anyone condemning Qatar…). Also, this began about a decade after Hamas took over Gaza. And, really, it’s an extremely weak argument even if what you said were true. Saying Israel is partially responsible for the way Hamas treated the people in Gaza doesn’t mean it treated Palestinians worse than Hamas.
Also, the fact that Israelis stormed an IDF base in protest of the punishment of IDF thugs that anally raped innocent Palestinians to death with rifles
That’s not what happened. The IDF detained some soldiers who allegedly anally raped and perhaps killed Palestinian detainees as part of an investigation. After hearing that, some extreme right wingers stormed the base in something raging from protest against the way soldiers were detained to the mere fact they were detained (depending on who you ask). The act was condemned by a huge majority of the Israeli public. Judging Israel by that is like judging the US by the proud boys of the Jan 6th Capitol riots. But let’s go back to your point of Israel treating Palestinians worse than Hamas - could you point out an example of Hamas investigating it’s operatives for mistreating detainees? If not, is it because you think Hamas doesn’t mistreat its detainees?
What “should”? The context of the discussion is the screenshot, and it said "if “Zionism is defeated like the south was defeated in the civil war”. The comparison to the US civil war might be a bit weird, but it’s pretty obvious he means “If Hamas were to win the conflict and treat Israel as it saw fit” (like what happened in the civil war).
Also, it’s a bit weird for me you’re phrasing your scenario as a “Zionist defeat”, as I know many Zionists (myself included) who would view that as a “Zionist win”, at least in the long run (as long as you’re for equal treatment of Hamas and Palestinians).
Secondly, I belive Hamas would treat Israeli the same way Israel treats Palestinians.
That’s a bit funny to me, as I think Hamas treats Palestinians wore than Israel treats Palestinians, but there’s probably no point going into that. Regardless, do you think this would be worse, the same or better than the current situation?
You think Hamas would treat Israelis the same as the allied forces treated Germans? Based on what?
To answer your question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#Reported_atrocities (as well as the mass murder of civilians that for some reason aren’t mentioned in the section)
That’s like saying German citizens during WW2 should be killed, raped and tortured. Black and white is usually the wrong way to go about thinking.
Without commenting on whether I agree with the screenshot, I’d like to ask a question - what do you (as in, the people who would like to see “Zionism” defeated) think will happen if “Zionism” will be defeated?
And those Hezbollah operatives can lose their pagers
And you can lose your car keys. But if someone asked you where they were, you wouldn’t say “Oh, they’re in a random place”.
or they themselves can move randomly through populated areas with the hidden bomb strapped to their hip
The explosive charge was small enough to seriously harm only those who are in direct contact with it. There’s a video of one charge going off in the middle of grocery shopping (speaking of your next point) with a person standing maybe 20 cm next to the explosion. That person was able to run away without apparent harm.
They never go to buy groceries, or stop at a hospital or school, or have their devices stolen or lost in some random location
There’s no method of warfare that would never harm civilians.
a manner that has absolutely no mechanism by which to control where they actually are and who else is in proximity to them when detonated.
The pagers being bought by Hezbollah is the mechanism. Did you mean a real-time mechanism? Is this what it boils down to? Edit: Sorry, I misread what you said. Changing my reply to: As you can see from the video, where they are and who is next to them isn’t really a factor. I would agree that if they are in very close proximity to another person (hugging them of maybe riding in a crowded public transport), the explosion will probably harm the other person. Once again, relative to other methods aimed against targets operating among civilian population, this seems more selective, not less.
No one is forcing to to reply. I’m continuing it because to me the operation was extremely selective in which people it targets relative to modern warfare among civilian infrastructure, and I’m trying to understand the counter argument.
I did
OK, it took me a while to understand this, and I’m assuming you meant “I do have some criteria”. If you meant something else, I can’t even guess what it was.
after the bit you cherrypicked.
Ah, my bad. I mistook the “pagers that will randomly move around a populated area” part as a purely rhetorical statement and my brain kinda swept it aside. Sorry. The explosives weren’t planted in a random batch of pagers. It was in a batch specifically meant for Hezbollah operatives. You could make the argument that some of the pagers got into non-Hezbollah hands (and obviously they did), but what you said is a gross and unfair exaggeration. Your criteria doesn’t apply here.
I don’t care in the least if anyone thinks I’m in cahoots with anyone; it won’t change that I’m in cahoots with no one.
Sorry, I was trying to say - Please don’t imply I might be willingly misunderstanding you when you’re not communicating clearly. Even your edit is somewhat unclear, as it isn’t evident if the part before the edit is still relevant.
how absolutely heartless and tragic […]
Wait, what? The prevalent criticism against the exploding pagers (both on Lemmy and other places) is that they’re akin to mines and are essentially terrorist attacks. Both of these thing are (at least somewhat) specific and objective, and that’s where we started the conversation. Going from that to “It’s heartless”, which is a very subjective description, seems to me like moving the goalpost.
Yes, of course it’s heartless and tragic. War is heartless and tragic. How else would you describe taking a kid who was in high school a few months ago, putting a rifle in his hand and telling him “See that other kid who’s just like you? go shoot him because he happen to be living on the other side of an imaginary line”?
Saying “Well, this heartless and tragic thing is acceptable but I don’t like that heartless and tragic thing” is arbitrary unless there’s an actual criteria. Either way you’re entitled to your own opinion, it’s just that earlier I thought you have some criteria or test.
You: So the pagers were ordered by Hezbollah…
Me: “The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas.”
You: “I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances.”
Me: asking for clarification.
You: “you seem not to (or have chosen not to) understand [the parallel?] the first two times […] Edite: I see I typed Hamas when I meant to type Hezbollah in one place”
It seems you’ve mistyped, then misunderstood me when I fixed it (though I attributed it to a lack of knowledge) and now you’re insinuating I might be misunderstanding you willfully? If that’s the case, you’re making it so easy for me other people might think we’re in cahoots[1].
Anyway, Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I didn’t understand the argument. And I’m pretty sure I did understand at least one of your points. I’ve explained why the pagers aren’t like landmines and why the rational behind the treaty to ban landmines seems to agree with me. If that’s the only argument you made (“It’s been one argument the entire time”), you can simply reply to what I said instead of reframing anything.
[1] Speaking of other people, are people downvoting me as a dislike button, or is there a specific reason? I don’t mind the downvotes, just wondering if they’re because people don’t agree with me or because they think there’s something wrong/harmful with my messages.
I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances.
Err… what circumstances? What was the purpose of drawing a parallel between Hamas and Hezbollah? What insight was I to gain by it? Asking seriously.
And again - when you drop a bomb, you can credibly have made an attempt to ensure no one is in the vicinity who you don’t intend to bomb. (Not that israel seems to do this) - this is especially true with modern technology.
Sorry, were you making two arguments or one? You asked about the difference between landmines and what Israel did. I thought the rest of what you said was to show how planting bombs in pagers is like landmines, not a new argument. If there were two arguments, you didn’t respond to my answer regarding landmines.
I can talk about the difference, and you’ll respond with a counter argument etc. Ultimately, it’ll come down to me saying Israel is able to reasonably predict who’ll carry the explosive and you saying they can’t. The bottom line for me is this:
Some weapons have been banned from warfare while others haven’t. The banned weapons follow certain criteria for being banned. exploda-pagers don’t follow the criteria under which landmines have been banned. If you know of other weapons or tactics that are banned and are akin to exploda-pagers, we can discuss that. Otherwise, I’m left with the conclusion what Israel did falls within the bounds of a legitimate military operation. You can, of course, think differently.
The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas. They are two different entities, and while it doesn’t make any difference in the narrow context I’m replying to, it’s really a basic detail that anyone voicing an opinion on the matter should know.
How is this argument different than defending the use of landmines?
From the Wikipedia entry about landmines: “The use of land mines is controversial because they are indiscriminate weapons, harming soldier and civilian alike. They remain dangerous after the conflict in which they were deployed has ended, killing and injuring civilians and rendering land impassable and unusable for decades. To make matters worse, many factions have not kept accurate records (or any at all) of the exact locations of their minefields, making removal efforts painstakingly slow.”
Planting bombs inside pagers specifically used by Hezbollah isn’t indiscriminate (unless by “indiscriminate” you mean “when they go off, they harm anyone in the proximity”, but going by that definition everything with an exploding charge is “indiscriminate”, yet only mines are banned). And obviously exploded bombs don’t remain dangerous and aren’t difficult to remove.
Yeah, that’s what I meant by “My guess is that it’s been revised in the last year-and-a-half to retroactively make what’s happening in Gaza a natural extension of Zionism”.
You’re talking about the Israeli reaction to the Oct. 7th attack, not Zionism. Some people are trying to link these things together, making the very concept of a Jewish state in the area of Israel “genocidal” (while also tying it to white supremacy, as a bonus). That’s not the case.
Yes, some Zionists would like to kill as many Palestinians (a disproportional part of them are a part of the Israeli government). Then again, some people who like to put ketchup on their steaks would also like to kill as many Palestinians. That doesn’t mean liking ketchup on your steak makes you genocidal.