What exactly do you mean by “you and yours” there buddy? Your view is simply ahistorical. Zionism differs from other forms of European nationalism in that it was not primarily motivated by supremacist rationalizations, but by the desire for safety. Intent is important. Today, I agree; Israeli treatment of Palestinians is clearly apartheid, and many Israeli actions are clearly genocidal under the UN definition. The further back into history you go, the less clear the situation gets, though, and is more accurately seen as a conflict between two nationalist movements in the wake of the Ottoman Empire’s collapse wherein hard-line elements on both sides stoked conflict. There was a great amount of mutual respect and acceptance of Zionism among Arab leaders prior to the 1920s. I’d suggest you look up the Faisal-Weizmann agreement. The current conflict is a product of British mismanagement of Mandatory Palestine, and the initial failure of diplomacy in the face of racist, nationalist sentiments of BOTH Arabs and Zionist Jews.
Oh, sorry… did I not make myself clear? You and yours refers to apologists for white supremacist settler-colonialism. Did that clear it up?
but by the desire for safety.
Bullcrap… I guess you didn’t know that Christian Zionism predates Jewish Zionism, did you? Do tell, genius - was the original Zionists motivated by some (alleged) “desire for safety” or were they motivated by bog-standard western antisemitism?
Spoiler alert - it’s not the former.
Today, I agree; Israeli treatment of Palestinians is clearly apartheid,
No - it isn’t. Comparing Israel to Apartheid-South Africa is actually softballing it. The Apartheid-regime could only dream of doing the stuff Israel does on a regular basis and getting away with it. If the Apartheid-regime had treated Soweto the way Israel treats Gaza the Apartheid-regime’s end would have come a whole lot sooner. It would have been a whole lot bloodier, too.
The current conflict is a product of British mismanagement of Mandatory Palestine
Again… bullcrap. I can literally google Ben-Gurion and produce a laundry list of his quotes that demolishes your argument - the white supremacist settler-colonialist state the Zionists wanted (both Christian and Jewish) was planned as a white supremacist settler-colonialist state right from the start. Birtish colonial mismanagement was only a temporary obstacle for them… that is it.
Bullcrap… I guess you didn’t know that Christian Zionism predates Jewish Zionism, did you?
It doesn’t. The religious-academic roots of Zionism in both religions go way back. Jews were resettling from Europe to Ottoman Palestine in proto-Zionist migration as early as the 1500s.
No - it isn’t. Comparing Israel to Apartheid-South Africa is actually softballing it.
Well, then you should try reading the second part of that sentence before you have a heart attack from being so triggered.
I can literally google Ben-Gurion and produce a laundry list of his quotes that demolishes your argument
Yes, Ben Gurion is one of those hard-liners who is responsible for the deterioration of Arab-Jewish relations in the 1920s. I wouldn’t go so far as to say his views represented the whole of Zionism prior to or during WWI. The situation was salvageable until Britain gave up.
Even Israeli historians will happily blow your garbage alt-history out of the water for you.
“The idea of the Jews returning to their ancient homeland as the first step to world redemption seems to have originated among a specific group of evangelical English Protestants that flourished in England in the 1840s; they passed this notion on to Jewish circles.” - Anita Shapira
Even right-wing Israeli historians doesn’t claim anything that can be called “proto-zionism” with a straight-face that existed before 1860, genius.
Well, then you should try reading the second part of that sentence
So which part of…
No - it isn’t. Comparing Israel to Apartheid-South Africa is actually softballing it.
…are you having a hard time comprehending?
Ben Gurion is one of those hard-liners
In other words… just a Zionist that was schooled in the white supremacism, antisemitism and colonialism of “western civilization” - just another bog-standard colonizer who happened to be Jewish.
What exactly do you mean by “you and yours” there buddy? Your view is simply ahistorical. Zionism differs from other forms of European nationalism in that it was not primarily motivated by supremacist rationalizations, but by the desire for safety. Intent is important. Today, I agree; Israeli treatment of Palestinians is clearly apartheid, and many Israeli actions are clearly genocidal under the UN definition. The further back into history you go, the less clear the situation gets, though, and is more accurately seen as a conflict between two nationalist movements in the wake of the Ottoman Empire’s collapse wherein hard-line elements on both sides stoked conflict. There was a great amount of mutual respect and acceptance of Zionism among Arab leaders prior to the 1920s. I’d suggest you look up the Faisal-Weizmann agreement. The current conflict is a product of British mismanagement of Mandatory Palestine, and the initial failure of diplomacy in the face of racist, nationalist sentiments of BOTH Arabs and Zionist Jews.
Oh, sorry… did I not make myself clear? You and yours refers to apologists for white supremacist settler-colonialism. Did that clear it up?
Bullcrap… I guess you didn’t know that Christian Zionism predates Jewish Zionism, did you? Do tell, genius - was the original Zionists motivated by some (alleged) “desire for safety” or were they motivated by bog-standard western antisemitism?
Spoiler alert - it’s not the former.
No - it isn’t. Comparing Israel to Apartheid-South Africa is actually softballing it. The Apartheid-regime could only dream of doing the stuff Israel does on a regular basis and getting away with it. If the Apartheid-regime had treated Soweto the way Israel treats Gaza the Apartheid-regime’s end would have come a whole lot sooner. It would have been a whole lot bloodier, too.
Again… bullcrap. I can literally google Ben-Gurion and produce a laundry list of his quotes that demolishes your argument - the white supremacist settler-colonialist state the Zionists wanted (both Christian and Jewish) was planned as a white supremacist settler-colonialist state right from the start. Birtish colonial mismanagement was only a temporary obstacle for them… that is it.
It doesn’t. The religious-academic roots of Zionism in both religions go way back. Jews were resettling from Europe to Ottoman Palestine in proto-Zionist migration as early as the 1500s.
Well, then you should try reading the second part of that sentence before you have a heart attack from being so triggered.
Yes, Ben Gurion is one of those hard-liners who is responsible for the deterioration of Arab-Jewish relations in the 1920s. I wouldn’t go so far as to say his views represented the whole of Zionism prior to or during WWI. The situation was salvageable until Britain gave up.
Even Israeli historians will happily blow your garbage alt-history out of the water for you.
“The idea of the Jews returning to their ancient homeland as the first step to world redemption seems to have originated among a specific group of evangelical English Protestants that flourished in England in the 1840s; they passed this notion on to Jewish circles.” - Anita Shapira
Even right-wing Israeli historians doesn’t claim anything that can be called “proto-zionism” with a straight-face that existed before 1860, genius.
So which part of…
…are you having a hard time comprehending?
In other words… just a Zionist that was schooled in the white supremacism, antisemitism and colonialism of “western civilization” - just another bog-standard colonizer who happened to be Jewish.