You realize that still supports my definition and not yours, right? Where in that definition does it say anything about killing Palestinians, as you assert is part of what Zionism is defined by?
What’s the point of telling you to investigate if when you investigate and find proof that you’re wrong, you simply keep asserting that the evidence proves you right? Maybe you should just stop speaking entirely, at that point.
Im just demonstrating “zionism” didnt become “zionism” until the jews acted on their belief that they had a claim to some land. Just as the Palestinians believe they have a claim to some land, religious or otherwise. Some guy deemed the Jewish zionism “zionism” from some other meaning just as a Palestinian “zionism” could be claimed.
What does it even matter, youre now arguing that zionism could exist with out the displacement or death of the Palestinian people. How is that wrong in a region strictly inhabited by other ethnostates? Hell, you even argue Iran, an ethnostate, is justified in attacking isreal!
Im just demonstrating “zionism” didnt become “zionism” until the jews acted on their belief that they had a claim to some land. Just as the Palestinians believe they have a claim to some land, religious or otherwise. Some guy deemed the Jewish zionism “zionism” from some other meaning just as a Palestinian “zionism” could be claimed.
This is utterly insane. That’s not what the word means, at all. Zionism isn’t “anytime someone has a claim to some land,” JFC.
What does it even matter, youre now arguing that zionism could exist with out the displacement or death of the Palestinian people.
Wrong. I’m arguing that the death of displacement of Palestinians is not part of the definition of Zionism. In practice, that is what it entails. Learn to read.
How is that wrong in a region strictly inhabited by other ethnostates? Hell, you even argue Iran, an ethnostate, is justified in attacking isreal.
Iran is not an ethnostate, nor is it committing genocide, and it’s “attacks” are retaliation for Israel’s unprovoked aggression.
I’m not interested in discussing this further with you until you either educate yourself and can actually defend your views from an informed position, or until you stop trying to attack my views from a position of complete and utter ignorance, where you say such nonsense as “Zionism is whenever anyone claims any land.”
When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense.
Your homework assignment is to find someone, literally any one person, from anywhere, of any political persuasion, who agrees with the statement “Iran is just as Zionist as Israel.” Literally anyone. I don’t care if it’s your mom.
When you fail to do so, come back and say, “I’m sorry, @[email protected], you were right and I was wrong, I clearly don’t understand this situation, but I would like to learn more about it from you.”
If you reply to this comment with anything other than, “I did find someone who agrees with that statement” or the thing I just said, I will block you.
You’re right, there are differences between Iran and Isreal and im not versed enough to know them. So, yeah, and if you think that is what I was trying to communicate then we lost track somewhere.
Our contention seems to be:
You - isreal should be taken down militarily because they are a danger to the people around them
Me - there is no good way to end isreals occupation that wont result in more human suffering
I will concede that if isreal were to be brought down by some act of god youre not going to see me shedding many tears.
I will concede that if your assumption that the military defeat of Israel would necessarily mean the deaths of millions of Jewish civilians, then you might have a point. Although, it isn’t true, and you don’t.
I’ll also concede not blocking you, at least for now. But I have no interest in continuing this conversation, regardless.
You realize that still supports my definition and not yours, right? Where in that definition does it say anything about killing Palestinians, as you assert is part of what Zionism is defined by?
What’s the point of telling you to investigate if when you investigate and find proof that you’re wrong, you simply keep asserting that the evidence proves you right? Maybe you should just stop speaking entirely, at that point.
Im just demonstrating “zionism” didnt become “zionism” until the jews acted on their belief that they had a claim to some land. Just as the Palestinians believe they have a claim to some land, religious or otherwise. Some guy deemed the Jewish zionism “zionism” from some other meaning just as a Palestinian “zionism” could be claimed.
What does it even matter, youre now arguing that zionism could exist with out the displacement or death of the Palestinian people. How is that wrong in a region strictly inhabited by other ethnostates? Hell, you even argue Iran, an ethnostate, is justified in attacking isreal!
This is utterly insane. That’s not what the word means, at all. Zionism isn’t “anytime someone has a claim to some land,” JFC.
Wrong. I’m arguing that the death of displacement of Palestinians is not part of the definition of Zionism. In practice, that is what it entails. Learn to read.
Iran is not an ethnostate, nor is it committing genocide, and it’s “attacks” are retaliation for Israel’s unprovoked aggression.
I’m not interested in discussing this further with you until you either educate yourself and can actually defend your views from an informed position, or until you stop trying to attack my views from a position of complete and utter ignorance, where you say such nonsense as “Zionism is whenever anyone claims any land.”
What is a “state religion”
What is zion?
Good topics for you to look into, I’m done doing your homework.
Oh I know. A state religion is exactly what isreal has and what you are claiming is an ethnostate.
Zion means jerusalem, the holy land of the jews, which they claim is ordained to them by god.
Your homework assignment is to find someone, literally any one person, from anywhere, of any political persuasion, who agrees with the statement “Iran is just as Zionist as Israel.” Literally anyone. I don’t care if it’s your mom.
When you fail to do so, come back and say, “I’m sorry, @[email protected], you were right and I was wrong, I clearly don’t understand this situation, but I would like to learn more about it from you.”
If you reply to this comment with anything other than, “I did find someone who agrees with that statement” or the thing I just said, I will block you.
Bye
Edit:
Sorry, I will respond, honestly.
You’re right, there are differences between Iran and Isreal and im not versed enough to know them. So, yeah, and if you think that is what I was trying to communicate then we lost track somewhere.
Our contention seems to be:
You - isreal should be taken down militarily because they are a danger to the people around them
Me - there is no good way to end isreals occupation that wont result in more human suffering
I will concede that if isreal were to be brought down by some act of god youre not going to see me shedding many tears.
Is there anything you will concede?
I will concede that if your assumption that the military defeat of Israel would necessarily mean the deaths of millions of Jewish civilians, then you might have a point. Although, it isn’t true, and you don’t.
I’ll also concede not blocking you, at least for now. But I have no interest in continuing this conversation, regardless.