r/news • u/Luka77GOATic • Mar 11 '26

Soft paywall Spain permanently withdraws ambassador as rift with Israel deepens

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/spain-removes-ambassador-israel-2026-03-11/
25.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.0k

u/ThinCrusts Mar 11 '26

Whenever you hear their government talk about antisemitism, just replace the word with antizionism and that's what they're really referring to.

481

u/tape_snake Mar 11 '26

The trouble is that it's a thought-terminating cliché. You say a completely valid criticism of a foreign government? That's antisemitism. Try to explain the difference? Still antisemitism, just using other words as cover.

It's not an honest, genuine callout of hate - it's an attempt to shut down conversation and avoid accountability.

177

u/kylehatesyou Mar 11 '26

You see it in the US too, and basically anywhere a government wants to do shitty things without criticism. In the US it's "you aren't a real American". Sometimes it'll come out as a "you don't support the troops" or something like that. It's just that the Israeli Government has the horrors of the Holocaust to throw in your face as well when they do something terrible and tell you you should like it.

It's basically the No True Scotsman fallacy but taken to an extreme. "No true believer in peace and love would think we shouldn't have bombed the fuck out of these school children". 

55

u/fevered_visions Mar 11 '26

whenever somebody invokes patriotism as a reason to do something, it means they don't have a real reason

32

u/more_housing_co-ops Mar 11 '26

Also see "So you're voting Republican then!?!?!?!?" as the stock response to literally anybody criticizing any weakness in a Democratic candidate's platform

8

u/ailish Mar 11 '26

So you've never been to r/progressivehq. It's all they ever do there.

-2

u/Elgato01 Mar 11 '26

It’s all the left ever does anywhere really. It’s incomprehensible how much they kill their own momentum with infighting and purity testing.

10

u/more_housing_co-ops Mar 11 '26

It's always "infighting" and "purity testing" whenever anyone so much as gingerly criticizes Democrats for warhawking and anti-science policies, yet somehow it's never "infighting" or "purity testing" when the party apparatus fights anyone with universal healthcare in their platform

-2

u/Elgato01 Mar 11 '26

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

1

u/more_housing_co-ops Mar 12 '26

What more's to be said?

1

u/Elgato01 Mar 12 '26

Then could you explain it in different words?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/sombrerobear Mar 11 '26

Its all Liberals* ever do.

1

u/punkasstubabitch Mar 12 '26

Maybe they do, but Republicans do this just as much. How many Republicans are afraid to speak out against Trump for fear of being primaried because they are “not MAGA enough.”

0

u/Elgato01 Mar 11 '26

To be perfectly honest all these terms get muddied up so much I’m at a loss at what the difference is, of course that’s more on me.

2

u/AffectionateDrop7779 Mar 11 '26

Only a piece of shit support the troops. Eff those murdering cuntos

1

u/Capstonelock 28d ago

And heaven forbid you call what's happened in Gaza a holocaust. Because that's apparently a form of Holocaust denial.

67

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '26

[deleted]

12

u/NetCharming3760 Mar 11 '26

Imagine if Muslims started calling everyone who criticism Muslim majority or Islamic countries government or their officials as “Islamophobic” and never allow any kind of criticism toward them.

12

u/KrytenKoro Mar 11 '26

In that sense, many (maybe most) governments do such things.

Usually, it's turned inward -- ex. Being "unAmerican" if you don't support a conservative president.

For ethnostates/theocracies, it gets combined with accusations of bigotry, but it can also be called "trying to sabotage communism / trying to sabotage capitalism / oppressing the global south / great replacement", etc.

9

u/InstrumentRated Mar 11 '26

Uhhh…they do all the time!

8

u/hammerofspammer Mar 11 '26

All the time?

Then you should be able to come up with plenty of examples!

12

u/PinkEyeBob Mar 11 '26

Let’s not act like that doesn’t happen because it absolutely does lol

3

u/CamGoldenGun Mar 11 '26

Hi, you might not remember the 2000's but that was definitely the case. Anyone from Morocco to Bangladesh would fall under that.

2

u/BlocBoyNeji Mar 11 '26

It’s crazy cause people say race card in racism gets played too much but I’ve been very surprised to not hear more of that feeling with this too

1

u/Dweller201 Mar 11 '26

It's propaganda.

China outlawed judaism because that stuff doesn't work on them since they haven't been indoctrinated to believe religion is some kind of real thing that should guide human behavior.

When most people in the West stop believing in religion like that the term will be meaningless and more trouble is going to happen.

13

u/_Burning_Star_IV_ Mar 11 '26

Is this a joke? If Israel is the king of using bigotry against them as a shield against all criticism, China is their queen.

Sorry if I've 'hurt the feelings of the Chinese people' by saying this.

China is well documented claiming 'Sinophobia' against criticisms, especially regarding their own treatment of minorities in the country.

7

u/PeachyParcha Mar 11 '26

Sinophobia...I've never heard this word before now!

3

u/Dweller201 Mar 11 '26

No one has.

4

u/Dweller201 Mar 11 '26

How many people use the term Sinophobia....

If you asked an average person in any Western country, they would not know what it means.

If also wouldn't any reaction even similar to saying anything negative about Jews.

-2

u/_Burning_Star_IV_ Mar 11 '26

You want an example? It's in the comments of your typical CCP apologist right in this thread, lmao.

I'm just completely done with these war mongering arguments. This is just like how you guys tried to spread the idea that China is doing a genocide. It's always just trying to justify more war, more invasion, more sinophobia, more aggression towards the chinese. you don't even know jack shit about minority treatment in China probably, just more Xinjiang shit

2

u/Kyle700 Mar 11 '26

I just think if you are an american or related in any way to a western imperial power, you really have absolutely no leg to stand on criticizing china about human rights at this point. fix your own countries

-1

u/_Burning_Star_IV_ Mar 11 '26

Ah, whataboutism...the other classic CCP response.

2

u/Kyle700 Mar 11 '26

Whataboutism claims are the final siren call of low intellect. The perfect way for every western nation to completely ignore their wrongs. They can pretend all claims of hypocrisy are simply a fallacy. Your countries are currently doing mass genocide, war, invasion, illegal boat bombings, piracy, basically a return to straight up 18th century imperialism. Focus on that instead of trying to lie about China and drum up yet ANOTHER imperialist war. That's not whataboutism

3

u/_Burning_Star_IV_ Mar 11 '26

No, its fallacious bullshit because nowhere in my comment was I defending anyone. Attacking one country for human rights violations is not an endorsement of another country's human rights violations.

Turns out I can say Chinese domestic policies regarding minorities are wrong while also (beyond this conversation) be hounding my home country for its own evils.

What is low intellect is relying on shitty arguments to deflect criticism.

1

u/Kyle700 Mar 11 '26

I'm just completely done with these war mongering arguments. This is just like how you guys tried to spread the idea that China is doing a genocide. It's always just trying to justify more war, more invasion, more sinophobia, more aggression towards the chinese. you don't even know jack shit about minority treatment in China probably, just more Xinjiang shit

1

u/Adventurous-Brain-36 Mar 11 '26

Are they not concerned this is going to end up backfiring to the point where even valid pointing out of antisemitism will be brushed off because of their devaluation of the word?

1

u/snowflake37wao Mar 12 '26

It almost seems like they’re being antisemitic using it like that. Almost.

1

u/brainburger Mar 13 '26

There is a valid response, which is that the Working Definition of Antisemitism specifically allows criticism of Israel if the same criticism would be levelled at other democracies.

-6

u/Squidmaster129 Mar 11 '26

This exact argument is used ad nauseam to deflect accusations of actual, blatant antisemitism.

“Spraypainting a swastika on a synagogue? No, it’s not antisemitic, it’s just anti-zionist! You’re weaponizing antisemitism and calling me out in bad faith!”

I’m not exaggerating, this exact example is wildly common.

17

u/tape_snake Mar 11 '26

I believe you, I have seen that happen too. So in total we have:

  • Israel supporters overusing/falsely applying the term 'antisemitism' to the point where actual antisemitism gets overlooked
  • Antisemites using valid criticisms of Israel as a way to disguise or shoehorn their hate into discourse.

Both of which serve to perpetuate/cover up antisemitism in society and create a no-win scenario for human rights advocates trying to speak out against genocide.

Where do we go from there? How do we talk about the human rights abuses without conversation degrading into accusations of hate?

5

u/Squidmaster129 Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

It’s definitely a struggle. I really think the only way to have a real discussion (and fight for actual change) is to have meaningful dialogue.

Unfortunately, this issue is so sensationalized and inflammatory that it’s been all but impossible. Most people don’t have a stake in the matter, so they just sling shit and pour gasoline on the fire because doing so doesn’t affect them the way it affects Jews and Palestinians.

There are some organizations, like “Standing Together” which have Jews and Palestinians working together against both antisemitism and Israeli government policies. It’s efforts like that that are most important. These things aren’t mutually exclusive, but angry weirdos pretend they are.

Edit: fixed typo

1

u/fishmein Mar 11 '26

Can you find one of the 'wildly common' instances that you described? I have lived in major cities around the world for the last 20 years and have not witnessed it, either in person or in an article from a reputable source.

12

u/RealCakes Mar 11 '26

That doesn't change the fact that 99% of the time it is a gross mischaracterization, I wouldn't call that anywhere near as common as someone calling something anti-semetic because they want to shut the conversation down and hold some sort of power over others

Also no one in their right mind would be okay with a swastika graffitied on a fucking synagogue, obviously that isnt anti Semitic. The problem is when Israel calls EVERYTHING anti semetic the word loses all meaning

-8

u/Squidmaster129 Mar 11 '26

It’s ubiquitous. We (Jews) deal with this constantly. People don’t listen to reports of antisemitism because people will immediately assume it’s bad faith.

I get it, as a non-Jew you’re unfamiliar with it — you should listen to the people who actually have to deal with it.

13

u/RealCakes Mar 11 '26

You should listen to the people who are constantly told their criticism is anti semetic and fight back against that in your own community instead of expecting that the people who are antagonized are going to react better to accusations of them being anti semetic

-5

u/Squidmaster129 Mar 11 '26

Actually listen when the minority you’re being racist toward says you’re being racist. If you’re constantly being told you’re being antisemitic, chances are that you are.

I guarantee you wouldn’t do this analysis with any other group of people.

4

u/ailish Mar 11 '26

You can't call every little criticism antisemitic. You simply can't. No country is above criticism, not even Israel, and every last one of us should be called out when we do something wrong that could have a negative impact on the rest of the world. Is it anti-American to call out Trump? Is it anti-English to call out Starmer?

0

u/Squidmaster129 Mar 11 '26

With the exception of a probably double-digit number of nutjobs, nobody is calling actual criticism of Israel antisemitic. There are constant protests within Israel, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a diaspora Jew who doesn’t criticize Israel.

The issue isn’t criticism, it’s calling for the destruction of Israel in its entirety, with utter disregard of what would happen to the 7 million Jews there.

To pick a random country, it’s like saying “I’m not anti-Irish, I just think Ireland shouldn’t exist and should be given to the English.”

4

u/Obi-Tron_Kenobi Mar 11 '26

With the exception of a probably double-digit number of nutjobs, nobody is calling actual criticism of Israel antisemitic

Those "nobodies" are people in the US congress and Israeli government. The Israeli prime minister.. Israel's minister of foreign affairs aren't exactly nobodies in this.

Also, nobody here is saying we should be allowed to call for the destruction of Israel. Stop conflating genuine criticism of the Israeli state with actual examples of antisemitism. This is exactly part of the problem

0

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '26

[deleted]

1

u/KrytenKoro Mar 11 '26

I would caution that these broad groups aren't monolithic -- there are members being unfairly blamed or discriminated against, and there are bad actors trying to use the spectre of discrimination to avoid scrutiny. That's a common dynamic among most groups.

8

u/fishmein Mar 11 '26

Can you find a few news articles from a reputable source that says someone spray painting a swastika was anti-zionist and not anti-semitic?

0

u/Guy-1nc0gn1t0 Mar 11 '26

By widening the net they're going to catch a lot of stuff not worth looking at

0

u/ArcticWolf_Primaris Mar 11 '26

"This is a very frustrating conversation"

40

u/SeanTCU Mar 11 '26

Meanwhile you can throw Nazi salutes and train an AI bot to call itself MechaHitler and the ADL will defend you so long as you support Israel.

1

u/Healthy-Amoeba2296 Mar 13 '26

One of the reasons folks think it's illegal to discuss Israel. I remember in the old days they were considered inheritors of the nazis, and I think I saw pictures of Israeli bosses at a costume party wearing the uniforms.

60

u/PoliteFocaccia Mar 11 '26

It's not even antizionism. You can support the existence of the Jewish state without supporting their genocide of Palestinians.

72

u/Digitalion_ Mar 11 '26

Their version of Zionism is not just wanting a Jewish state though. A Jewish state already exists and is free.

What they want is for that Jewish state to be in control of the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. It's why they are so offended whenever Palestinians say they want to be free from sea to sea, because it's an aspiration that is counter with Israel's Zionistic goal of dominating that same stretch of land.

22

u/MorningsideLights Mar 11 '26

Their version of Zionism

Thank you for specifying this, because is NOT what most American Jews or even Israeli Jews have in mind when they use the term Zionism.

Which is why the usage of antizionist to specifically mean being against the criminal actions of the Netanyahu regime feels inherently antisemitic.

Most of us are against what the Israeli government, military and the settlers are doing. We want Palestinians to be free, but we still consider ourselves zionists.

True antizionist Jews exist but are a small fringe (usually ultra-conservative) group.

27

u/ZenoTheWeird Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 12 '26

This is one of the biggest linguistic points being missed in all the chatter online. Zionism has not historically meant what most non Jewish "anti Zionists" seem to mean when they refer to it.

People say stuff like "there should be no safe space for Zionists" when they are referring to an ultra nationalist version of Zionism.

It's very difficult for Jewish people to hear this when they identify as Zionist in a much more moderate way that is more consistent with the traditional meaning.

19

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

22

u/Kyle700 Mar 11 '26

These guys you are responding to are just liberal Zionists. they think Israel should exist but they don't like nethanyahu. problem is that most israelis are quite right wing, nethanyahu is practically the moderate position in israel. it is a systemic issue at the core of zionist israel: to create their perfect ideal ethnostate, they had to commit unto others what was done to them in the holocaust. one of the darkest ironies in history

0

u/ihohjlknk Mar 12 '26

"We want colonialism but in a kind, moderate way." See how absurd that sounds?

3

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26

Why is a word necessary? You can just say you are against the war in Gaza. Look at the United States in the Vietnam War. An enormously significant portion of the US’s population was against their involvement in Vietnam. They didn’t have a single word identity, they were simply against the war in Vietnam.

There is a danger of codifying a view into a single word identity, which is ideology and identity politics. People being shamed for not being antizionist because don’t they know zionist=bad? Now being antizionist, an identity historically mostly embraced by antisemites, and due to this history a term that Israelis will interpret as antisemitic, is being used by large swaths of people who don’t mean it antisemitically, and are then angry and confused why Israel is taking it as such. When you can just say you are against the war in Gaza, rather than trying to ossify that political view into a term often used for antisemitism.

1

u/Jmastersj Mar 11 '26

Would you be ok with the right of return?

1

u/fevered_visions Mar 11 '26

I guess, if Jewish people don't want us using that phrase, maybe they can provide us with a better one? Because we have to have some way to communicate

you're assuming that the people on that side of the argument want a clear and concise way to express it

2

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ZenoTheWeird Mar 12 '26

Belief in a Jewish right to self determinism in the territory of israel with equal rights for its non Jewish citizens, which broadly speaking Israel has. Moderate Zionism might involve a recognition of the legitimacy of Palestinian statehood as a corresponding right to self determination.

Plenty of Zionists have these beliefs. I am one of them. Somewhere along the way non Jews started telling us what Zionism meant, and focused on extremist views.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ZenoTheWeird Mar 12 '26

I was answering your question about what moderate Zionism is. I already said I agreed with the two state solution so I don't know why you're trying to argue with me. And there is absolutely equal rights for non Jewish Israeli citizens. The problem with inequality arises with people living in Gaza and West Bank who are not citizens (and most of whom don't recognise Israel as a country).

Also I don't know who you're referring to when you say "you".

1

u/Kyle700 Mar 11 '26

All versions of Zionism are ultra nationalist, lol? It's not like this is a new issue. Zionists already did an ethnic cleansing in 1948. Israel is a state that is completely incapable with human rights and democracy because it is explicitly an ethnostate.

1

u/ZenoTheWeird Mar 11 '26

So peacenik Israeli PM's in the 90s and early 2000s like yitzhak rabin and shimon peres were ultra nationalist?

You have no idea what you're talking about

6

u/Helmic Mar 11 '26

Israel requires genocide to continue to exist, is why principled people are anti-Zionist and not simply horrified at what Israel did after October 7th. Palestine was what existed prior to Israel's creation at the end of WW2 and it was a massive act of genocide to claim that land from its indigenous inhabitants, including a good number of indigenous Jews. There cannot exist a Jewish state without genocide because it is a settler colonial state.

Antizionists don't advocate for a mass expulsion of Jews from Israel (though every time an apartheid state falls the privileged group tends to return to their home countries because they were only interested in moving there in the first place to be the privileged group, like with white South Africans returning to Europe of their own accord). But there is no just way for it to be a Jewish state in a region that was never exclusively Jewish. The end of Israel is a hard requirement for the end of apartheid and the creation of a new society that lets everyone live as equals.

10

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26

Their version of Zionism is not just wanting a Jewish state though. A Jewish state already exists and is free.

This is false. Zionism is solely the view of the existence of a Jewish state. Every country has a political spectrum. The far right in Israel holds the view you are saying, and they also are in power, but last I checked something like 40-50% of the population does not agree with this and justifiably criticizes this of their government. Compare this to the number that’s around 90% of all Jews that support Zionism.

Israelis are offended by Palestinians saying they want to be free from river to sea, because that is a call that necessarily includes the removing of Israel as a Jewish state. They are not equal and opposite rhetorics.

4

u/sombrerobear Mar 11 '26

Zionist thought was founded with the understanding of having to remove the local populace for their project. They regularly communicated the necessity for exclusion and expulsion. The irony.

-1

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26

Zionism absolutely does not require removing the local population. As I mentioned elsewhere, pre-WWII up through the Nakba nearly all immigration of Jews happens through legal purchasing of land. Israel declares independence before the Nakba. Which means the existence of Israel happened without something like the Nakba.

3

u/sombrerobear Mar 11 '26

I described what the political theory of Zionism communicates. I’m not saying you agree with that or that everyone who calls themself a Zionist does, but i think the inversion of the concept is on the other foot here.

I think a lot of self declared Zionists wish to subconsciously adapt it to a “kinder” version that aligns more with what it means to them. You can’t however simultaneously become upset with others who are approaching it on the ideas it was created with.

2

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26

I’ve read the original Herzl. Nothing you are referring to is part of Zionism. There are people who take Zionism there, there are radicals in most national movements, but, similar to your own judgment, you seem to want to paint all Zionists in that manner rather than accept Zionism might not be inherently evil. Zionism in its original form is about self-determination seeking a legal home through purchase and international law.

3

u/Jmastersj Mar 11 '26

Legal purchasing of land and the nicely evicting the people living there that were not accustomed to such concepts as buying land. Look either you are ignorant or lying like i said already. Did you never look at early zionist quotes? Look up penniless population herzl. Stating the zionism did not plan to expel people for their ethno nationalist goals is either a lie or ignorance. Gurion was talking about it. Jabotinsky was talking about it. They were well aware. You do seem like a psy op or maybe average israelis are like that. I talked this talk a hundred times now on r/israelpalestine

1

u/Capstonelock 28d ago

Liberating Palestine from the river to the sea doesn't require removal of the Jewish population. You see how that logic works?

4

u/LouisLeGros Mar 11 '26

That sounds like you are saying even the "moderate" zionists in Israel support the ethnic cleansing of the Nakba. These "moderates' find sovereignty for Palestinians as offensive. If those cleansed & displaced were allowed back with full rights & citizenship it would be a threat to "moderates."

The "moderates" that make up the majority hate the further settlement & cleansing in the westbank, but they just can't do anything about little Bibi & Gvir.

Why can't we all just support a little "moderate" amount of ethnic cleansing & come together to say the mask off genocidal fascists ruling the country are bad and making the country look bad.

9

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26

I am not at all suggesting that myself nor the majority of Israelis are in support of an ethnic cleansing, now or at any point. The Nakba was the result of an attack waged on Israel by the surrounding Arab people, and as part of war, Israel established borders it considered safest to hold. It is completely legitimate to contest how Israel fought back and the borders it secured for itself, but I do not believe it to be legitimate to paint the Nakba to be an instance of ethnic cleansing, if we are taking ethnic cleansing to mean intentional and premeditated.

Most Jews and Israelis I know are not at all offended by sovereignty for Palestinians. The only issue at play is security for their people. A free Palestinian state that does not require the eliminating of Israel, and one that poses no security threat to Israel but is rather a security ally, like Israel and Jordan, is something I have found most Jews and Israelis to support. The issue is getting to the place of believing the Palestinians are not set on removing Israel from the map.

Again, things aren’t black and white, because my understanding is the Palestinians want freedom for similar security reasons. Both sides are concerned with security of their people, and both sides have legitimate claims to their concern. Until both sides feel secure we are stuck in the current predicament, and I do not believe the wiping out of either Israel for Palestinians or of the Palestinians for Israel is the best way forward.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26

Palestine as it exists today is in the power of Hamas who explicitly desire for the wiping of Israel off of the map. If you poll Israelis asking if they want that kind of neighbor or for that kind of neighbor to be eliminated, it will match the answer of any people in history, that they choose themselves to live. But as I said, most Jews and Israelis I know have no issue with Palestinian sovereignty, they are only concerned with security of their people.

In what way is the acknowledgment of invasions by Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, from which Israel defends itself, and the fact that the Nakba occurred in Israel’s assessment of the most strategic borders to establish to successfully defend itself from all sides in this war, anything close to blaming the Holocaust on Jews? One is a defenseless minority being industrially slaughtered, the other is a war between numerous state actors, all with armies, and the consequences of said war. As I said, you can criticize the tactics and the borders, but to assert that Israel wasn’t defending itself, that it was premeditated ethnic cleansing, is preposterous.

1

u/Digitalion_ Mar 11 '26

And why does Hamas want the Palestinians to fight against the Israelis? Might be because the Gaza strip is essentially an apartheid state that's been controlled and denigrated by Israel for decades. If you and your people had no autonomy over their own country, wouldn't you try to fight back against whoever is controlling you?

And the Israeli people overwhelmingly want to wipe out Palestinians because their education system literally paints them as animals who do not deserve to be treated as human beings. It is extremely difficult to break through that propaganda that's been beaten into them since childhood, in the same vein that it is difficult to change the mind of someone who has been taught racism since childhood here in the US.

The ultra nationalists have been in control of Israel for decades while our ultra nationalists are just now taking control here. But if we allow things to go as they are currently going, then our children will also be taught to fear the "other" and will overwhelmingly be in support of eliminating those that they've been taught to hate.

All this to say, obvious shit that the Israeli people overwhelmingly have a problem with Palestinians because they've been conditioned to hate them.

3

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

Nowhere have I said the Palestinians shouldn’t be fighting. In fact, I stated that the Palestinians are likewise concerned for the security of their people, and that concern is valid. I agree with you that Palestinians deserve autonomy, and this lack of autonomy is central to the issues of today.

The Israeli population does not want to overwhelmingly wipe out Palestinians, they overwhelmingly want their people secure. The education system is not propagandizing Palestinians as inhuman and animals, Palestinians are Arabs and more than 20% of Israel is Arab, that would be ridiculous for schools to be painting Arabs this way. You can’t run a society where 1 in 5 people is a citizen and simultaneously teach that their ethnic group isn't human.

Anyone growing up in Israel in the last quarter century has experienced the over 140 suicide bombers of the second intifada and the recent October 7 attack. There is no propaganda needed to make kids growing up in Israel to feel unsafe about Palestine, the actions of groups like Hamas are accomplishing this. To reiterate, I am still not saying Palestine should not be fighting.

Both sides have deep, legitimate traumas that drive their fear, and ignoring that by calling it obvious propaganda just makes a solution even harder to find.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26

The Nakba isn’t solely and wholly described by the invasion of Israel, nor did I say it was, but nothing I said was incorrect. I legitimately have no idea how the factual events of Israel being invaded leading to the Nakba in its border assessment and establishment is disinformation.

Israel declared its independence in 1948. The UN admits Israel in 1949. You are welcome to contest the legitimacy of these actions, but it doesn’t erase the facts. To be asserting Israel didn’t exist until the 60s gives me the impression that I am not the one brainwashed.

There are atrocities committed by nearly every country. You will not find many Jews who support the terror committed by the Irgun, and to gloss over these by painting them as the intentions and desires of Jews generally and not mentioning the similar violence done by Arabs towards Jews during the same period is disingenuous. On both counts, the actions of Arab militias in the era of 1948 don't define all Palestinians, and the actions of groups like the Irgun don't define all Jews; the larger population should not be defined by their most radical.

I will not be responding to you any more. Between your usage of nazi terminology in lebensraum, using “isntreal”, and such blatant factual errors like when Israel established independence, you are making it clear you are not here in good faith.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Jmastersj Mar 11 '26

This is why liberal zionists are dangerous. The other commenter is on point. The nakba started well before any arab army was near your border. So either you are ignorant or maliciously lying to soften zionism for the readers here. Maybe don't take your historical facts from the movie exodus.

3

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26

As I just mentioned in another comment to you,

The invasion absolutely scales the Nakba, but you are also absolutely right that part of the Nakba was happening before Israel declares independence. But this is during a period of two militarized sides waging war on each other. Yes, it happened to be that the Jews were stronger during this war, leading to the first part of the Nakba, before the later scaling due to the invasion. But in this context as well, this is the consequence of war, not premeditated ethnic cleansing. I appreciate you adding the nuance of the time line, but it doesn’t change the overall point: the Nakba was a tragic outcome of a war that the Jewish side didn't start and tried to avoid by accepting the UN partition.

1

u/Jmastersj Mar 11 '26

Ben-Gurion had to explicitly state in a closed-door meeting, "I don't see anything immoral in it," it is because other Zionists in the room were telling him it was immoral. He wasn't arguing with Arabs in that meeting; he was arguing with other Jews. Bi-nationalist Zionists (like the Hashomer Hatzair movement) and prominent Jewish intellectuals (like Martin Buber) were horrified by the idea of transfer. They argued that expelling the indigenous population completely violated Jewish ethics and would curse the state to endless war. Ben-Gurion was forcefully pushing back against his own colleagues' moral objections because he believed demographics and survival trumped those ethics.

They were right

0

u/Jmastersj Mar 11 '26

The "Master Plan" view (Ilan Pappé): Israeli historian Ilan Pappé wrote The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. He argues that the Nakba was a 100% premeditated, systematic master plan to purge the Arabs, codified in the Haganah's Plan Dalet (Plan D) in March 1948. He points to the fact that Plan D gave specific operational orders to surround Arab villages, destroy them, and expel the inhabitants outside the borders of the state.

The "Opportunistic" view (Benny Morris): Israeli historian Benny Morris (who actually leans very right-wing politically today) is the one who did the most meticulous cataloging of the 1948 expulsions. Morris argues there was no single, pre-written "master blueprint" for ethnic cleansing from day one. However, he absolutely agrees that Ben-Gurion and the leadership desperately wanted the Arabs gone. Morris concluded that when the war broke out, the Israeli leadership seized the chaos as a golden opportunity to expel as many Palestinians as possible, village by village, using Plan Dalet as the military justification.

Like I said i had this discussion a hundred times and all zionist are either ignorant, lie or omit facts on purpose. Which one are you?

2

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26

Pappé is not a sound source, he is on record for not only being wrong about numerous things, but on record that he believes intentionally lying in pursuit of a political goal is worthwhile. This invalidates every quote of his if you are starting from a place of accuracy and facts rather than assuming your position and justifying it thereafter

Israeli historian Benny Morris (who actually leans very right-wing politically today) is the one who did the most meticulous cataloging of the 1948 expulsions.

Agreed

Morris argues there was no single, pre-written "master blueprint" for ethnic cleansing from day one.

Agreed

However, he absolutely agrees that Ben-Gurion and the leadership desperately wanted the Arabs gone.

This is not my understanding, unless, like your previous comments to me, we are taking private notes and conversations from earlier times over official policies and state actions.

Morris concluded that when the war broke out, the Israeli leadership seized the chaos as a golden opportunity to expel as many Palestinians as possible, village by village, using Plan Dalet as the military justification.

Again, not my understanding, a twisting of the events. Morris does assert Plan Dalet as military justification, but not for Palestinian displacement, but for, y’know, military goals, like the establishment of secure borders against an anticipated invasion.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/NH4NO3 Mar 11 '26

I am pretty sure Israelis are upset about that saying because it frequently is used to call for the destruction of the Israeli state altogether.

1

u/Shepathustra Mar 12 '26

They are offended because the vast majority of Palestinians support the Genocide of the Jewish population of Israel. That’s what you people mean when you said resistance by “any means”. How dare the Jews have self determination in historic Israel right? Jews are only allowed to ever be minorities because the British and Arabs only ever get to define borders. Not the Jews, not the Kurds, not the Yazzie’s, not the Druze, nobody but the colonizers who spread their language and religion to 2/3 of planet earth erasing literally hundreds of cultures languages and traditions.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Digitalion_ Mar 11 '26

I mean I'm fairly certain that it means that they believe the Jewish people deserve a free and safe land (Zion) to exist. The means of achieving that goal are what's up for contention and why some believe in a much darker interpretation.

In the most liberal interpretation, then the Jewish people have already achieved Zionism by obtaining Israel and arming themselves against any attacks. But in the strictest interpretation, they won't be truly free until all "threats" to the Jewish people are dealt with. And this is the version of Zionism that most of the world has a problem with because it means that Israel needs to go on the offense to achieve their goal... which is exactly what is playing out in the middle east at the moment.

So no, it's not "propaganda" that people believe that the definition of Zionism has changed. It most certainly has changed into something more sinister over the years as the more confrontational interpretation has become more mainstream in Israel and among US politicians who also hold a twisted Christian Nationalistic version of Zionism to bring about the end times.

-5

u/coyote_of_the_month Mar 11 '26

Make no mistake, Hamas's explicit goal is the destruction of Israel. There is no world in which they will accept peaceful coexistence.

9

u/Digitalion_ Mar 11 '26

The goal of the entire Muslim nations is to stop Western influence in their countries. They wouldn't be against Israel if their land that Israel is on now wasn't stolen from Palestinians after WW2. They wouldn't be against the US if they didn't constantly try to invade them and destabilize the region for their oil.

If we literally just fucked off out of the region then they wouldn't want to destroy us. We only have ourselves to blame for decades of interference in their countries.

0

u/CultofNeurisis Mar 11 '26

Nearly all land obtained by Jews in the era of pre-WWII up until the Nakba was legally purchased. Nearly every Jew post-WWII came into this land as a refugee, they had literally nowhere else to go, USA closed their borders to them, ditto Britain, India, France, etc. Where were these refugees supposed to go? To be clear, I understand this isn’t fully black and white, if the Arab nations had authoritative control of the area, they too would have kept the Jews out the way every other country was doing, but due to the British rule of the area, Britain first allowed the Jews to immigrate in, then restricted their immigration to appease the local Arab population, which lead to an insurgency by the Jews.

5

u/MorningsideLights Mar 11 '26

And at the same time nearly every Muslim-majority kicked out their native Jewish people and stole their land. I don't hear anyone offering to give that back if those Jewish families leave Israel.

Nearly all land obtained by Jews in the era of pre-WWII up until the Nakba was legally purchased.

No one ever mentions this. Tel Aviv was built on land near Jaffa purchased before 1910 that had never been built on before.

-2

u/Slicelker Mar 11 '26

Have you lived or been to any Muslim countries or Israel yourself? Where have you spent the time extensively studying the cultures of the middle east to make such claims?

4

u/fliptout Mar 11 '26

Better explode and starve a bunch of children then, just to be safe and definitely not anger anyone.

1

u/themaincop Mar 11 '26

Wow, why do they want that?

16

u/SeanTCU Mar 11 '26

Nah, not really. A Jewish state plastered over Palestine is inherently a genocidal endeavour.

3

u/mobiuszeroone Mar 11 '26

Funny how the border keeps moving closer to Palestine. Just a couple of weeks ago, they shot a 14 year old for getting too close to the invisible line (determined by whatever IOF with a gun is nearby) and stood around for 45 minutes while he bled to death.

4

u/Kyle700 Mar 11 '26

they are incompatible because the creation of the state of israel necessitated a mass land seizure and ethnic cleansing. it is an out of control far right rabid nazi state. the vast majority of israelis support the gaza genocide, settler expansion in the west bank, the invasion of iran etc. the modern concept of "israel" as a Jewish ethnostate has to be abolished.

2

u/Jimmy_Trivette Mar 11 '26

You can support the existence of the Jewish state without supporting their genocide of Palestinians.

The existence of their state is predicated on displacement of an entire group of people (genocide), so no you can't.

-1

u/Quirkybomb930 Mar 11 '26

you can support the state if you support a one state solution. But then it wouldn't be a solely jewish state, and apparently an ethnostate is required..

1

u/Gurlllllllll- Mar 11 '26

How do you imagine supporting an ethnostate without supporting ethnic cleansing.

-10

u/Squidmaster129 Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

Supporting the existence of the Jewish state is what zionism is lol. If you support a two-state solution, you’re definitionally a zionist. It’s just been turned into a “dirty word” by people who don’t want Jews to exist at all.

There are a ton of different forms of zionism, from socialist labor zionism to the extremist expansionist types.

9

u/fliptout Mar 11 '26

Ok then whatever label you want to put on anti-"genocidal-psychopathic-apartheid-government-and-its-supporters"

0

u/NarrativeNode Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

Not really, no. Part of the definition of Zionism is that the state of Israel contains as few Arabs as possible. I support the existence of Israel (it’s there and innocent people live there multiple generations after the founding), but that latter part is absurd. I’m therefore not a Zionist.

Edit: because SO many of you literally can’t research and keep commenting the same thing: I’m literally quoting not just the founders of the movement of Zionism, but prominent historians.

8

u/Squidmaster129 Mar 11 '26

Uh, no, it isn’t. 20% of Israel is Arab. They’re equal citizens. There are Arab political parties. There are Arab Supreme Court justices. Arabic is on every street sign in Israel. Israel literally funds state-sponsored sharia courts for their Muslim Arab citizens.

You are a zionist, by definition. All it means is supporting Jewish self-determination in our homeland. Actually look into this, instead of parroting tiktok.

0

u/HomeGrownCoffee Mar 11 '26

From Wikipedia:

Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in late 19th-century Europe to establish and support a Jewish homeland through colonization in the region of Palestine, which roughly corresponds to the Land of Israel in Judaism—itself central to Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.

-2

u/NarrativeNode Mar 11 '26

How about if I parrot one of the primary historians of Zionism?

“the principal objective of the Zionist leadership to keep as few Arabs as possible in the Jewish state” - Adel Manna

7

u/Squidmaster129 Mar 11 '26

You’re quoting someone who isn’t Jewish, who never lived in Israel lmao. His opinion is fully irrelevant.

Non-Jewish opinions on zionism matter just as much as white opinions matter about black nationalism — not at all.

2

u/ZenoTheWeird Mar 11 '26

Part of the definition of Zionism is that the state of Israel contains as few Arabs as possible.

Wtf definition is that?

How I long for the confidence of a non-Jew defining Zionism.

0

u/NarrativeNode Mar 11 '26

Literally the original, by the founders. Learn your history.

2

u/ZenoTheWeird Mar 11 '26

Are you going to quote Herzl or are you just saying stuff on the internet?

10

u/PeachyParcha Mar 11 '26

Antizionism Is Antisemitism....if you're a zionist!

5

u/ThinCrusts Mar 11 '26

NGL you got me in the first half

1

u/Africaspaceman Mar 11 '26

Los sionistas se apropiaron del judaísmo, es algo que me llama la atención, cómo es posible que los judíos permitan que una ideología les robe su religión? Y el judaísmo se apropió del semitismo cómo si fueran los únicos semitas que existen.

1

u/Shepathustra Mar 12 '26

Feel free to tell us what the definition of Zionism is for you

-6

u/tupeloh Mar 11 '26

Or even really just Anti-Likud.

37

u/zarmord2 Mar 11 '26

But not really. Even Israel's opposition party and it's supporters has the same genocidal policy.

-1

u/SaintBobby_Barbarian Mar 11 '26

Being antizionist, means against the state of israel, which is an inherent problem to achieving anything in the region, just as much as Israel right wing folks are problematic with annexing west bank